As reported by Sports Car Market, the lawsuit stemming from a fatal Porsche Carrera GT crash last year has been settled for a reported $4.5 million dollars. This lawsuit sets a terrible precedent in motorsports because it takes most of the blame away from the driver and puts it on the track and, even more disturbingly, on Porsche.

The Facts
The Porsche GT was on the main straight, doing about 130 mph, when a Ferrari entered the track at a slow speed from pit out. This forced the Porsche to evade it, the driver lost control, and the Porsche crashed almost head-on into a retaining wall. Both driver and passenger were killed. The wife of the passenger brought suit against the estate of the driver, the track, Porsche, and the event organizers.

Motorsports are Risky
My initial reaction to this is “motorsports are risky, and shit happens in risky endeavors.” While I am not all that concerned about death when I get onto a racetrack, or even bodily injury, they are both VERY REAL concerns that are constantly weighing in on the back of my mind. They are the reason I work up my braking point SLOWLY in The Bowl at NHIS, or at the end of the front straight at Watkins Glen.

If nothing else, I am constantly and actively aware of the risk of damage to my car. This is a lesser degree of risk than if I myself were injured, but it is indicative of the risks we all take every time we go out on a race track.

Track Design
As I read the facts a little more, my initial reaction from just above shifted somewhat as I read about the track design. It appears that the design is terrible along the front straight. Cars enter from the pits precisely where cars on the track are doing 130 mph. To compound this problem, this was a guardrail blocking the view of the track of the car exiting the pits. This is a recipe for disaster, as evidence by the Porsche crash.

There is also a defect regarding the design of the retaining wall. Specifically, the wall juts out at almost a 90 degree angle, precisely where the GT hit. This turns what should have been a 130 mph ricochet down the main straight into a 130 mph head on collision.

I must say, I am very torn regarding how much liability the track should have for its track design. On one hand, all tracks are dangerous, and you should drive accordingly. Most of the tracks in the Northeast were made well before modern track designs were in vogue. At Watkins Glen, the wall is only 10 feet off of the course in most places; there is no run off and no margin for error. If you leave the track and hit the wall, is this your fault for overdriving the track, or the track’s fault for not having adequate runoff?

With this California track, I think that design, as described in the article I link to, might be poor enough that the track should have some liability. Spitting cars out blindly right in the middle of a ridiculously fast straight with head-on retaining walls strikes me as excessively risky. This is not to say that every track should be 100% risk-proof, but rather that reasonable care should be used when designing these parts of tracks. My definition of reasonable is VERY lenient here, but these 2 aspects seem excessively negligent and risky.

Tendency to Oversteer is not a design flaw
The other aspects of the lawsuit terrify and enrage me. A tendency to oversteer is not a design flaw! It is no more a design flaw than a car that tends to understeer, or 4 wheel drift. This is a characteristic of the car. Some might say it is a dangerous, ungiving, or experience-ruining characteristic of the car, but it is a characteristic of the car nonetheless. Designating it is a “design flaw” imposes an external view of what a car “should be.”

By this lawsuit, cars should not have the tendency to oversteer. Why? Why can’t I have a car that oversteers if I push it? Just because someone else doesn’t like cars that do this doesn’t mean there view should be imposed on me. I actually take the exact opposite view. I hate cars that understeer. It angers me. But I’m angered even more by the idea that I should be imposing this view on anyone else.

Moreover, that the GT oversteers may be independent or at least secondary in this accident. The driver had to make and evasive maneuver at 130 mph. That is REALLY fast, and most cars do not like to do anything evasive at that speed. The real issue here is how the car handled the evasive maneuver at 130 mph, which is a very hard bar to enforce on car manufacturers. That’s kind of like saying a 747 should be able to pull an inverted loop at full cruising speed, and that it is a design flaw if it cannot. Rubbish.

The Myth of Electronic Stability Control and other Modern “Safety” Features
This aspect is by far the most terrifying part of the lawsuit. The suit alleges that the lack of Electronic Stability Control played a major role in the accident. More rubbish.
All of the modern stability control and safety systems will only do so much. They are not magic, and will not work around the laws of physics and car control. You still need to brake going into corners. You still need to be aware of the traction available on the track. You cannot just flick the wheel at any point and expect the car will automatically do what you want it to do, stability control or not.

This lawsuit serves to reinforce the common misconception that modern engineering wizardry will keep us all safe. It will not. These are tools, and like all tools, there are specific jobs and circumstances that they are for, and others for which they are not. They will NEVER replace driver skill, training, and, most importantly, actions.

Blame the driver of the GT
Which brings me to my final point: even in light of everything mentioned above, the actions of the DRIVER of the Porsche GT are what caused the accident. Yes he had to avoid the Ferrari. Yes the design of the track was terrible. But it was the DRIVER who overreacted, and put the car into the wall. All the other factors are secondary to this. Had the driver acted appropriately, the accident likely could have been avoided or at least the damage mitigated (admittedly, I did not see the accident, and am making this reference based on the facts and inferences presented in the article I link to).

Yes, reactions under such intense, critical situations are difficult. Yes, it is easy to be an armchair quarterback and blame the driver after the fact. But, ultimately, that is precisely what must be analyzed and done. There is a responsibility on the track to drive within your limits and the limits of your vehicle. It seems that the driver of the Porsche exceeded these, and death resulted.