https://www.instagram.com/p/C0jpeh6K526/?igsh=djNsMjg0d2xham9x
Another Ford GT running afoul. Not good.
Ford's warning to all GT owners: This car is not approved to exit driveways from Cars & Coffee events with the throttle pinned!
I always wonder how you can crash such a car in a city. They are really easy to drive also with going sideways etc. I drove nearly all Ford´s everything from the 60s to old and new GT´s to Raptor, Focus RS models and I never met one that was a "problem" or scary to drive and I always drove them at the edge . Yes the Shelby/ Kirkham etc. Cobras are really special but if you know how to handle them it also not a big deal. It makes me scared that there are so many idiots out there and Tesla and co are pushing the limits to 1000 hp+ who will handle that? I drove some of the Hellcat engine cars and some electric ones and it's crazy how they go fast forward with such a big weight and that's the problem for a lot of drivers I think.
ouch !
Quote from: Kent on December 28, 2023, 03:10:05 AM
I always wonder how you can crash such a car in a city. They are really easy to drive also with going sideways etc. I drove nearly all Ford´s everything from the 60s to old and new GT´s to Raptor, Focus RS models and I never met one that was a "problem" or scary to drive and I always drove them at the edge . Yes the Shelby/ Kirkham etc. Cobras are really special but if you know how to handle them it also not a big deal. It makes me scared that there are so many idiots out there and Tesla and co are pushing the limits to 1000 hp+ who will handle that? I drove some of the Hellcat engine cars and some electric ones and it's crazy how they go fast forward with such a big weight and that's the problem for a lot of drivers I think.
BUT, I bet you gave the Tires time to warm up before you gave it any real Throttle.................am I right?
Quote from: tesgt350 on December 28, 2023, 08:10:06 AM
Quote from: Kent on December 28, 2023, 03:10:05 AM
I always wonder how you can crash such a car in a city. They are really easy to drive also with going sideways etc. I drove nearly all Ford´s everything from the 60s to old and new GT´s to Raptor, Focus RS models and I never met one that was a "problem" or scary to drive and I always drove them at the edge . Yes the Shelby/ Kirkham etc. Cobras are really special but if you know how to handle them it also not a big deal. It makes me scared that there are so many idiots out there and Tesla and co are pushing the limits to 1000 hp+ who will handle that? I drove some of the Hellcat engine cars and some electric ones and it's crazy how they go fast forward with such a big weight and that's the problem for a lot of drivers I think.
BUT, I bet you gave the Tires time to warm up before you gave it any real Throttle.................am I right?
When I was a teenager in the '60s and everyone, and I do mean everyone was yelling at us because ...well just because, there were many discussions about banning cars with too much horsepower.
It never really came to that BUT there were segments of the population that took action. For example, Allstate Insurance would not insure, amongst other cars, 427 Cobras because of what they described, a dangerous "horsepower to weight ratio".
I don't specifically remember the "chart" exactly but it was something of the order of if a car had a hp/w ratio of less then 10 pounds to one horsepower, "foregetaboutit".
As it was presented, the 427 Cobra was something like 5 to 1.
Now I will agree that there has been much improvement in drive-ability of high performance cars from then to now, much of which is in tire development, but one thing still remains the same, there are still "ya' who's" with enough money available to buy whatever they want and not know a thing about what makes them work and exactly what the critical factors are in "operating" them safely.
In the case of one car accidents, who cares, that was the operators problem. In the case of getting hit by something on the order of a meteorite while minding your own business, that's quite another thing altogether.
Personally I envision the buyers targeted by Chrysler in the "Dodge Boys" Doughnut Derelicts offerings as fugitives from a prefrontal lobotomy. ALL the manufactures have found enough of them to completely sell out their own HP products so maybe that explains today's society more accurately then anticipated. Market studies are important!
Doughnuts in the parking lot is one thing but I draw the line there and it should not be in the four way intersection, but that's just me.
Car manufacturers these days essentially are just a bunch of whores. You can see any of them bent over along the roadside taking it in the posterior because their monetary threshold has been achieved. Just signs of the times.
It is a free enterprise system and apparently everyone and everything has it's price?
It would be called RESPECT, if you do not respect it, sell it! That goes for any car.
Most of the wrecks are due to the production Good Year tires. A lot of these cars still have them, like hitting black ice.
Quote from: Shawn on December 28, 2023, 09:16:36 AM
Most of the wrecks are due to the production Good Year tires.
No this type accident is 100% caused by low talent and a switch on the traction control. The ONLY way 90-95% of the population can drive a 500+ hp performance car is that the computer makes up for their lack of skills. Yes hard old tires aren't as grippy but the decent driver will adapt to the tire and not expect road race slick performance out of street tires.
The Goodyears did cause many of these to be wrecked. The pictures of this car seems to show Potenzas. Lack of talent, common sense or respect on this one most likely.
Quote from: KR Convertible on December 28, 2023, 04:39:14 PM
The Goodyears did cause many of these to be wrecked.
Only if they failed ala the Firestone 500. The Ford GT Goodyear was a "summer" tire so if the driver chose to use it in other conditions - again his fault.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on December 28, 2023, 04:31:40 PM
No this type accident is 100% caused by low talent and a switch on the traction control. The ONLY way 90-95% of the population can drive a 500+ hp performance car is that the computer makes up for their lack of skills. Yes hard old tires aren't as grippy but the decent driver will adapt to the tire and not expect road race slick performance out of street tires.
'05-'06 Ford GT's didn't have traction control. They didn't have cruise control either.
I have about 1,000 miles of seat time in an '05 GT. My only issue with them is it's hard to see out the back and what's behind you. Some may not consider that an issue, but driving the car on public roads/traffic, it's a bit of a nuisance.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on December 28, 2023, 08:03:21 PM
Quote from: KR Convertible on December 28, 2023, 04:39:14 PM
The Goodyears did cause many of these to be wrecked.
Only if they failed ala the Firestone 500. The Ford GT Goodyear was a "summer" tire so if the driver chose to use it in other conditions - again his fault.
Tire compounds seemed to always be an issue. The Goodyear Polyglass was slick in the hot, in the cold, in the wet AND was like concrete AND would catch every seem in the road.
My Pirelli P7's are total dog do-do in temps under about 40°F.
GT500 convertibles should be parked after Thanksgiving until about May 1 because of the risk of them sliding off the road when it's cloudy.
Yada, yada, yada. This is all part of the education needed in operating a real high performance vehicle. No one is going to school you on it. It is knowledge learned of hard knocks, and bent fenders.
Don't laugh but seemingly the best overall combination tire is the BFG T/A. I actually remember in the '70s when some were using them for racing wets.
I get the fascination of the availability of driving a 1,000hp "street car" but I'm not convinced of the practical safety factor in selling them to the general public without at least a qualified drivers license? They are not some kind of a video game.
Quote from: CharlesTurner on December 29, 2023, 01:02:02 AM
I have about 1,000 miles of seat time in an '05 GT. ..... but driving the car on public roads/traffic, it's a bit of a nuisance.
A friend sold his for exactly that same reason. People trying to take photos and nearly hitting you - everyone in a POS anything trying to race you. It was just too much to make the drive enjoyable. One time we were out and some guy in an 80s Caddie tried to get a race at 3 lights. I did keep his car cover - it fits the wife's Tbird pretty well except the mirror pockets are in the wrong spot.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on December 29, 2023, 01:20:08 PM
Quote from: CharlesTurner on December 29, 2023, 01:02:02 AM
I have about 1,000 miles of seat time in an '05 GT. ..... but driving the car on public roads/traffic, it's a bit of a nuisance.
A friend sold his for exactly that same reason. People trying to take photos and nearly hitting you - everyone in a POS anything trying to race you. It was just too much to make the drive enjoyable. One time we were out and some guy in an 80s Caddie tried to get a race at 3 lights. I did keep his car cover - it fits the wife's Tbird pretty well except the mirror pockets are in the wrong spot.
I tend to drive on weekends getting an early morning start like 5:30 am and by return at say 8 or 9 am it is only then that the traffic is beginning to pick up. Also planned routes where there are fewer cars in addition to one's launch times makes driving any such car a joy again.
Quote from: deathsled on December 29, 2023, 01:31:42 PM
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on December 29, 2023, 01:20:08 PM
Quote from: CharlesTurner on December 29, 2023, 01:02:02 AM
I have about 1,000 miles of seat time in an '05 GT. ..... but driving the car on public roads/traffic, it's a bit of a nuisance.
A friend sold his for exactly that same reason. People trying to take photos and nearly hitting you - everyone in a POS anything trying to race you. It was just too much to make the drive enjoyable. One time we were out and some guy in an 80s Caddie tried to get a race at 3 lights. I did keep his car cover - it fits the wife's Tbird pretty well except the mirror pockets are in the wrong spot.
I tend to drive on weekends getting an early morning start like 5:30 am and by return at say 8 or 9 am it is only then that the traffic is beginning to pick up. Also planned routes where there are fewer cars in addition to one's launch times makes driving any such car a joy again.
It's getting more and more difficult to drive them without attracting a crowd? I had one person pull me over like a cop would, roll down his window and yell, "do you know what that is?"
Another yelled, "is that real?"
Another pulled his car over outside a toll booth, stood on the center divider and waved at me to get my attention.
A freakin' marching band with the 'Playmate of the Year' nude would get less attention.
Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?
attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.
According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:
The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
Quote from: deathsled on December 30, 2023, 01:45:54 PM
Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?
attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.
According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:
The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
These were all adults. Kids don't know what the cars are?
Well a lot of original Cobra's were wrecked back in the good ol days. . Good thing they didn't have Carfax back then. ::)
Quote from: Shawn on December 28, 2023, 09:16:36 AM
Most of the wrecks are due to the production Good Year tires. A lot of these cars still have them, like hitting black ice.
Correct
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on December 28, 2023, 04:31:40 PM
Quote from: Shawn on December 28, 2023, 09:16:36 AM
Most of the wrecks are due to the production Good Year tires.
No this type accident is 100% caused by low talent and a switch on the traction control. The ONLY way 90-95% of the population can drive a 500+ hp performance car is that the computer makes up for their lack of skills. Yes hard old tires aren't as grippy but the decent driver will adapt to the tire and not expect road race slick performance out of street tires.
Actually, tires are a major factor, and this happened to many cars that were not even two years old on the original sketchy Goodyears, which are plenty wide.
Not old tires
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 30, 2023, 02:12:49 PM
Quote from: deathsled on December 30, 2023, 01:45:54 PM
Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?
attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.
According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:
The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
These were all adults. Kids don't know what the cars are?
But acting like kids. Kids can be charged as adults. Adults not charged as kids so they don't have much of a defense.
Quote from: deathsled on December 30, 2023, 06:53:35 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 30, 2023, 02:12:49 PM
Quote from: deathsled on December 30, 2023, 01:45:54 PM
Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?
attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.
According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:
The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
These were all adults. Kids don't know what the cars are?
But acting like kids. Kids can be charged as adults. Adults not charged as kids so they don't have much of a defense.
Technically correct I suppose but in situations like this my Dad's advice to me when I was 17 or so is the most illustrative.
He said, "when you get into a fight, the cops don't care who started it. They hit you over the had with the club, throw you in jail overnight, and let the Judge work it out in the morning."
Do you know that in NY, you can't even open your jacket and flash your piece at someone? That is considered "threat with a deadly weapon". So basically you just need to be nasty to the aggressively curious.
For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new as spares. I don't have the car anymore. They are NOS sealed up in trash bags stored in climate controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.
Quote from: Grumpy on December 30, 2023, 02:35:15 PM
Well a lot of original Cobra's were wrecked back in the good ol days. . Good thing they didn't have Carfax back then. ::)
I've seen some pretty shabby repairs on cars with a clean Carfax. Cobras have the Nedfax and I doubt anything has escaped his little notebooks.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 31, 2023, 07:13:12 PM
For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new. I don't have the car anymore. They are sealed up in trash bags stored in climate controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.
What happened to your GT? Do you miss it?
Quote from: deathsled on December 31, 2023, 09:40:25 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 31, 2023, 07:13:12 PM
For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new. I don't have the car anymore. They are sealed up in trash bags stored in climate controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.
What happened to your GT? Do you miss it?
Sold it a few years back . Yes sometimes I miss it.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 31, 2023, 09:57:15 PM
Quote from: deathsled on December 31, 2023, 09:40:25 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 31, 2023, 07:13:12 PM
For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new. I don't have the car anymore. They are sealed up in trash bags stored in climate controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.
What happened to your GT? Do you miss it?
Sold it a few years back . Yes sometimes I miss it.
I understand. It is difficult to hang on to everything as we pass through life. In the end we lose it all.
sure do miss it....
I just had a fresh set of the recommended Bridgestone's put on my (new to me) Gt ,the car came with the original Goodyears on it still ,which i kept for historical purposes .I figure i see people selling the original Goodyear speedways for our 67 Gt500's for show purposes ,so i might as well save these .
here is a few.......
2005
Quote from: 68krrrr on January 01, 2024, 05:05:14 PM
I just had a fresh set of the recommended Bridgestone's put on my (new to me) Gt ,the car came with the original Goodyears on it still ,which i kept for historical purposes .I figure i see people selling the original Goodyear speedways for our 67 Gt500's for show purposes ,so i might as well save these .
I did the same thing and purchased a new set of wheels from Ford. This way the original tires were not removed from the assembly line wheels. I can say never really bought into the hype about how bad the Good Years were (age also a factor). Sent my car to Rich Brooks back in October as a 500 mile carefully garaged 06 GT. My new purpose was to have the car gone thru add PPF, new Bridgestones, X pipe etc. The tires transformed the car and feels much better grabbing the road. While the car was there Rich used it as a backdrop for a motor he was selling. Big difference and certainly recommended.
rear view Camera is the best upgrade I did to my 05 GT
What unit did you use? I would like to combine it with some sort of a "smart" rear view mirror that records front and back views as well but it is all confusing to me so far.
I used the Type S 100% wireless one & made a little video i posted on the Gt forum
https://youtu.be/DGSu-Nf4TY8?si=OvdKxUf9HOY1Fyu_
Quote from: 68krrrr on May 11, 2024, 12:17:35 AMI used the Type S 100% wireless one & made a little video i posted on the Gt forum
https://youtu.be/DGSu-Nf4TY8?si=OvdKxUf9HOY1Fyu_
Thanks for the information.
Finding space for the "viewing monitor" in small cars is always going to be the issue?
I'm trying to find the combination for my Pantera where the monitor is the rear view mirror and the screen is 100% of the mirror, not a 2" x 3" miniaturization? At this moment, that screen size is the limiting factor for me.
Technology marches on and probably it is just a matter of time before the right combination appears?
As far as the GT's being wrecked, I'd take an educated guess and say that the percentage of total wrecks is similar to the '60s wrecked Cobras, Corvettes and all other "performance" cars, not to mention motorcycles?
With vehicles of this performance magnitude it is just going to happen probably even to some "qualified drivers" but there are no drivers ratings like for aircraft. The qualification is just that you can afford to buy the car. The percentage of unqualified's now is probably comparable to the 1960's, just a larger base population to draw from?
A fair comparison might be the discussion about private persons being able to afford paying the $12-20 million to take a ride into space? The thought is that there are enough people that can afford that to create a waiting line?
When Ford decided to cross over into manufacturing "super cars" they understood that it was a different market and the customer's a different customer. It wasn't a '65 Mustang "Secretaries car" market. While there is certainly "old money" in the world, a term that I remember was "nouveau riche" and the "spending orgy" that entails with it's onslaught initially?
"Captains of Industry" fit in there somewhere as well but it looks like they are more responsible? Maybe?
Quote from: 68krrrr on May 11, 2024, 12:17:35 AMI used the Type S 100% wireless one & made a little video i posted on the Gt forum
https://youtu.be/DGSu-Nf4TY8?si=OvdKxUf9HOY1Fyu_
Great video. Just subscribed. Very clever to use your phone as the screen. Actually ingenious. Your GT looks hot in blue and white stripes.
Quote from: shelbydoug on May 11, 2024, 08:48:23 AMQuote from: 68krrrr on May 11, 2024, 12:17:35 AMI used the Type S 100% wireless one & made a little video i posted on the Gt forum
https://youtu.be/DGSu-Nf4TY8?si=OvdKxUf9HOY1Fyu_
Thanks for the information.
Finding space for the "viewing monitor" in small cars is always going to be the issue?
I'm trying to find the combination for my Pantera where the monitor is the rear view mirror and the screen is 100% of the mirror, not a 2" x 3" miniaturization? At this moment, that screen size is the limiting factor for me.
Technology marches on and probably it is just a matter of time before the right combination appears?
As far as the GT's being wrecked, I'd take an educated guess and say that the percentage of total wrecks is similar to the '60s wrecked Cobras, Corvettes and all other "performance" cars, not to mention motorcycles?
With vehicles of this performance magnitude it is just going to happen probably even to some "qualified drivers" but there are no drivers ratings like for aircraft. The qualification is just that you can afford to buy the car. The percentage of unqualified's now is probably comparable to the 1960's, just a larger base population to draw from?
A fair comparison might be the discussion about private persons being able to afford paying the $12-20 million to take a ride into space? The thought is that there are enough people that can afford that to create a waiting line?
When Ford decided to cross over into manufacturing "super cars" they understood that it was a different market and the customer's a different customer. It wasn't a '65 Mustang "Secretaries car" market. While there is certainly "old money" in the world, a term that I remember was "nouveau riche" and the "spending orgy" that entails with it's onslaught initially?
"Captains of Industry" fit in there somewhere as well but it looks like they are more responsible? Maybe?
3
Doug, I believe there are mirrors out there that come on for the rear camera when backing then revert to a normal mirror while driving forward.
Quote from: deathsled on May 11, 2024, 04:48:07 PMQuote from: shelbydoug on May 11, 2024, 08:48:23 AMQuote from: 68krrrr on May 11, 2024, 12:17:35 AMI used the Type S 100% wireless one & made a little video i posted on the Gt forum
https://youtu.be/DGSu-Nf4TY8?si=OvdKxUf9HOY1Fyu_
Thanks for the information.
Finding space for the "viewing monitor" in small cars is always going to be the issue?
I'm trying to find the combination for my Pantera where the monitor is the rear view mirror and the screen is 100% of the mirror, not a 2" x 3" miniaturization? At this moment, that screen size is the limiting factor for me.
Technology marches on and probably it is just a matter of time before the right combination appears?
As far as the GT's being wrecked, I'd take an educated guess and say that the percentage of total wrecks is similar to the '60s wrecked Cobras, Corvettes and all other "performance" cars, not to mention motorcycles?
With vehicles of this performance magnitude it is just going to happen probably even to some "qualified drivers" but there are no drivers ratings like for aircraft. The qualification is just that you can afford to buy the car. The percentage of unqualified's now is probably comparable to the 1960's, just a larger base population to draw from?
A fair comparison might be the discussion about private persons being able to afford paying the $12-20 million to take a ride into space? The thought is that there are enough people that can afford that to create a waiting line?
When Ford decided to cross over into manufacturing "super cars" they understood that it was a different market and the customer's a different customer. It wasn't a '65 Mustang "Secretaries car" market. While there is certainly "old money" in the world, a term that I remember was "nouveau riche" and the "spending orgy" that entails with it's onslaught initially?
"Captains of Industry" fit in there somewhere as well but it looks like they are more responsible? Maybe?
3
Doug, I believe there are mirrors out there that come on for the rear camera when backing then revert to a normal mirror while driving forward.
Yes but the size of the image is generally 2" x 3" whereas the mirror is 2-1/2" x 8". That small image makes it difficult to see the detail needed.
Considering the cost of the system, it's best not to have to compromise on something like that?
There are systems like that shown in the video, that use a good size non-permanently mounted monitor and whereas that would work great in your new pickup truck, back fitting the system into these small cabin GT's, the monitor will just take up the entire console if you want to permanently mount it and forget about anything else in the console.
I'm still looking. Likely it is just a matter of time? I try to pick everyone else's brain. I'm not proud.
I'd be tempted to add one of those motorhome systems that have a camera at each corner.