Warning for borrowers and lenders of race cars

[Keith]

Get it in writing!

(At least in the UK)

Shame - seems harsh.

Motoring journalist forced to pay £110k to Porsche owner... after test drive BLEW UP the engine

 

[Tim Kay]

If you can't afford to fix it don't ask to drive it. On the other hand, if the owner insist on others driving his car or a verbal agreement truly took place then owner is responsible. Hard to say in this case from the basic report but I'll lean in favor of the owner here. What about the mags stepping in honorably and share the bill, they were the ones standing to profit.

I've never heard "mechanical failure- owner pays, crash - driver pays". Then the argument becomes whether mechanical failure caused the crash or not. Here again, the lawyers make out and both parties loose.

 

[Malcolm]

In all race contracts I have signed over the years, if there is an engine blow up and the driver had over revved it then driver pays. If the engine blows and the rpm limit was not exceeded then owner pays. That is what tell tales/telemetry is for. I got caught in the Porsche I raced some years back but only went 50 rpm over limit so bent just the one valve! Phew!

 

[Larry L.]

I've never understood why high end car owners (or ANY car owner for that matter) would allow someone else to get behind the wheel of his car in a situation like the above - or in almost any other circumstance either for that matter.

With the exception of rentals, it's an iron clad rule of mine that I never drive someone else's car unless circumstances make doing so pretty much unavoidable.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

"You bend it you mend it" has been an unwritten law for as long as I have been involved in the sport.
If the journo didn't over rev it the magazine should pic up the tab though.

 

[John S]

In all race contracts I have signed over the years, if there is an engine blow up and the driver had over revved it then driver pays. If the engine blows and the rpm limit was not exceeded then owner pays. That is what tell tales/telemetry is for.

That's why we always fit a camera on board. Driver error means the driver pays, racing accident the owner pays.

I drive many racing cars and quick road cars on different circuits in Europe training the owners and they always have to sign a contract in which they can't put any claims on me. On the other hand, while instructing you don't take the car to the absolute limit.

As for Mark Hales, I believe he has a very good reputation as a sensible, sensitive and respectful driver. Shame this happened.

John

 

[Cliff Beer]

In the absence of a written contract, if you let someone else behind the wheel of your (race) car you assume the results of that choice, including mechanical damage or destruction of the car. Even worse, this could include liability to other drivers on the track. If you're not willing to accept that risk, then don't lend out your car, or get a contract done which clearly sets forth the understanding (ie. liability....) between the parties. It's just that simple.

 

[Jon Briggs]

More on this here: PH Blog: you bend you mend - PistonHeads

If its allowed to stand, then say good bye to decent driving articles.

 

[Alex]

In the absence of a written contract, if you let someone else behind the wheel of your (race) car you assume the results of that choice, including mechanical damage or destruction of the car. Even worse, this could include liability to other drivers on the track. If you're not willing to accept that risk, then don't lend out your car, or get a contract done which clearly sets forth the understanding (ie. liability....) between the parties. It's just that simple.

This. Plus it's a god-damn race car - do you think it's going to puttered around the track at 1,200rpm? I think the ruling is nonsense.

 

[Keith]

Would a standard "Hold Harmless" Contract do the job?

Also, of course Mark is a freelance and probably generates his own stories, so perhaps not "retained" as such. In which case, he has a commercial interest in an article fee, perhaps only £1,000 or thereabouts max, and so, it has to be said does the owner who stands to gain notoriety, provenance, value for his product if published in a good light. He sold the darn thing for £1.4 million and it was a replica.. so... I don't know really. I believe the owner had much more to gain than Mark did, and perhaps should have honourably shared the damage. David has always been a bit of a hero to me - very old school - this doesn't seem like him at all.

Bit unfair on Mark and it will doubtless impact on these kind of articles in the future. Shame, because I really like the classics revisited especially by someone as experienced as Mark.

 

[EGLITOM]

Next time my engine is ready for an overhaul, i should invite a journalist to drive my car.

Its an old car with high likely beaten engine parts. RIsk of failure is just there.

THe thing is , that it is just so tempting as well. If i would be offered to drive this legend ( would not pay 3200 USD for it) , i would not hesitate at all, because my brain would be smashed by the chance to experience that car and not able to do any decent evaluation of that situation.

TOM

 

[Ron Earp]

Tough titty. I'm with Pete, you bend it you mend it.

Now, having rented and let race cars I have a contract that holds the driver non-liable for things outside of his control. Over-revs are in the driver's control and therefore s/he is liable. Stuffing the car in the wall is in the driver's control. Having the transmission give up because it is old and a race transmission is not in the driver's control.

Still sort of stinks, it isn't as if Mr. Racing Legend there can't afford to cover the engine rebuild.

 

[Mark Charlton]

An unfortunate circumstance, to be sure. If it was ME writing the article, I'm not sure I would feel comfortable pushing the limits of something so valuable for a story I was writing.

When I (very rarely) lend one of my cars, I do so carefully and with the expectation that sometimes things go wrong. It's my decision and I expect to be holding the bag if things go sideways. If the stakes were THAT high, there would be no lending – I'm with Larry on that.

I don't think a Canadian court would make the same judgement but I hope I never find out.

 

[Ian Anderson]

How difficult would it have been to add a rev limiter to the ignition system on the car?

Ian

 

[Randy V]

In that I have had many opportunities over the years to test drive cars on the track as well as to take the helm of a student's car while in an instructional session, I will be taking this into consideration along with getting an appropriate release signed up front.

There are two sides to the story here and possible three - but we may never know what truly happened out there. Meanwhile - those of us who drive others cars in competition or on race tracks while testing need to be aware of this article...

I will be forwarding on...

 

[colin artus]

Read the court judgement;
http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/piperhales.pdf

An unfortunate and salutory lesson all round; the lawyers won.

 

[Tim Kay]

As Randy says, there's at least two sides to every story. Very interesting to read the judgment which shines a clear light on the decision. The way I read it the judgment is for 48K not 110k. A substantial difference (and reasonable I might add) if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Wally]

How difficult would it have been to add a rev limiter to the ignition system on the car?

Ian

My sentiments exactly, I protect every engine with one as I have had to many mechanical failures , U joints, ring and Pinions Axles Ect that would have cost an engine if not for the rev limiter.. Cheap insurance in My book. Wally

Especially if lending it to someone and telling them to drive it like you stole it.

 

[Mike Pass]

The 110K is for the repair PLUS the legal costs which are more than the repair cost. Even with a rev limiter if you put it in too low a gear and then let out the clutch then the engine will over rev and the ignition cut will have no effect. I believe this may have been the case here.
Cheers
Mike

 

[Tim Kay]

The 110K is for the repair PLUS the legal costs which are more than the repair cost......

I stand corrected, thanks Mike.

Funny thing as I revisit this story, I truly have empathy for both sides. With some foresight all parties involved could've kicked down funds for the repairs and had a positive story, as opposed to a negative one, to tell future generations which would've made them all part of the 917 legacy.

Another thought, seems to me this "replica" served it's true purpose which is to preserve the original from such demise. That, to me, was Sir Piper's choice of insurance on the original. There's cost to owning such art/investments/vintage race cars.