Suzuki 2 Strokes

This is an interesting read, perhaps with worrying implications for the future of classic car / bike race events.

In a nutshell, a well-known journalist and experienced historic racer was doing some track laps in a borrowed Porsche 917 replica, for a magazine article. While on track, he missed a gear and momentarily over-revved the engine. Bang, £40,000+ repair bill at a Porsche specialists. Racing flat-12s ain't cheap to fix

Although there was a "if you bend it, you mend it" agreement, the journalist says he complained to the mechanic during the session (before the engine blew) about a dodgy gear linkage. The mechanic said not to worry, and sent him out again.

The argument went to court, the journalist lost and now has to pay for the repair, plus costs, plus legal fees: over £110,000 UK ($175,000 US). Ouch.

Although the session was insured against a crash, like a conventional motor policy, the cover doesn't extend to mechanical damage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/mot ... rvive.html

Ooooh thats got to hurt financially, I know there will be plenty of arguing on both sides as people discuss this, but sometimes you need to be realistic.
Simply put, I think its best you don't use an item you cannot afford to repair if something goes wrong, even if the owner says "please do"
At that point if you wish to pursue use, to keep things 100% clear, request a legal binding document and witnesses signatures to waive yourself fully clear of repercussions should anything go wrong.
Better yet, just watch the owner drive the vehicle so you don't have the responsibility hanging over your head.
The article says "Replica" so its good thing it was not an original 917.

I agree 100%, and as you say, good job it was the 'replica' that had the problems ...

There's always a gray area when something blows up, but that case is totally bogus IMHO. The owner who appears can afford the repairs has decided to get his best attorney to screw the journo, just because he can. Unless of course it was obvious that the journo was a complete dipstick and that was well known about him. If he was known to be hard on carsm, then it was up to the owner to safeguard his investment which he failed to do.

Another question is why did the owner allow the car to be driven and the answer was to increase the value of the impending sale and to garner good publicity. None of us were there, so it's all speculation, but that has set a dangerous precedent that just guaranteed an increase in the cost of testing old vehicles.

Even if the driver was a dipstick, it's race car and stuff happens. The owner just made life a lot harder for everyone that owns, races, and enjoys old cars and bikes. Thanks mate.