As reported on TMZ: [VIDEO] http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/02/paul-walker-crash-security-video-impact-po...
I didn't know that Porsche GT has the has the gas tank behind the seats.
"The [Porsche GT] fuel tank was centrally located, in a special aluminum drawer in the chassis located between the passenger compartment and the rear engine bay. This central location is used in many racecars, since it helps shield the tank from severe frontal or rear impacts."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/paul-walker-dead-40-2005-porsche-carrer...
@defmonk: Strange that the article completely ignores the car's reputation as being very difficult to handle. Even the Viper it's compared to in the article is regarded as being easier to drive at the limit, likely due to the weight distribution (the GT is 60% rear, whereas the Viper is near-perfect 50/50). Snap oversteer is a huge concern.
I've never driven one, but was taken in a ride in one at a track event with a professional driver friend of mine. It was exhilarating with the rear end loose the entire time, and after the drive I told him it felt like the car was actively trying to kill us the whole time we were out there. His response was, "It was. You're welcome."
It was funny at the time, but make no mistake, this car has a reputation for being a handful, safety features or no.
For one, Walker wasn't driving, for another, it's far too soon to incorporate this unfortunate incident into the whole debate EV vs. ICE fire debate.
Damn, people, have some compassion...Sheesh!
@just an allusion: To be fair, you're the first person in this thread to bring up anything about who was driving, or to make any association whatsoever with the recent fires.
Where is NHTSA?
New study links Paul Walker crash to Tesla fires
Is that supposed to be a "funny" spoof story?
The stupid ... It burns!
Forgive me, OP, but isn't it time to stop connecting car fires to Tesla? So much damage was done with the hysteria over those three incidents, and posting about a burning Porsche on the Tesla forum just serves to perpetuate a contrived connection that should never have been made in the first place.
Just my humble opinion. Others' may vary.
Tesla owners barely escaped !!! This is the most ridiculous article ever.
With only 5 minutes to spare ... :p
research.osurv article is deliberately misleading. It has one good point: Some ICE accidents and fires could be caused by road debris.
My answer to this nonsense is:
3 Tesla model S have burned. Same number of average ICE cars (NFPA, 2006-2010) in same time would have had 9 fires. Gasoline fire releases 10 times more energy than battery fire. Gasoline fire spreads much faster.
If asked I would continue:
3 is too small number to make any statistical conclusions. But I'm not making any conclusions above. 'ICE car is 3 times more likely to catch fire' would be uncertain conclusion. We simply do not know yet. 9 ICE fires above does include only fires fireman responded to. I don't know total number of fires. I also don't know how many ICE cars were on US roads 2006-2010. 200 M should be close enough.
"U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 152,300
automobile fires per year in 2006-2010. These fires caused an average
of 209 civilian deaths, 764 civilian injuries, and $536 million in
direct property damage."
quarter deliveries, earlier deliveries
9/30/2012 250 0
12/31/2012 2400 250
3/31/2013 4900 2650
6/30/2013 5150 7550
9/30/2013 5500 12700
sum 18200 23150
12/31/2013 6000 18200 *(31+30+10)/92
car*years = 18200/8 + 23150/4 + (6000/8 + 18200/4)*71/92 = 12153
12153 * 152300/200000000 = 9.25
Quarter delivery numbers are from 'luvb2b' message in teslamotorsclub.
Math is my own.