Porsche Dealership Takes Out A Lamp Post With Customers Lamborghini!
10-22-2010, 01:52 PM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think, since it was a Porsche delaership employee, that you should get the right to kick to shi+ out of whoever did it....
and get a GT2 RS as a loaner
and get a GT2 RS as a loaner
10-22-2010, 02:00 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 UFO
10-22-2010, 02:08 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Holy Crap *****!!!!!
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
10-22-2010, 02:22 PM
#32
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 C63 with Eurocharged tune and charcoal delete
[quote=callmiro;4314201]Holy Crap *****!!!!!
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
Yes, but it was a very lightweight and beautifully finished wheel, probably a little bit expensive too. Guess they aren't designed to hit curbs sideways. I hope the owner of this car is very rich and simply doesn't really care about stuff like this, cause if it was my car I would be going completely nuts. You just know that car will never be the same again after they "fix" it.
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
Yes, but it was a very lightweight and beautifully finished wheel, probably a little bit expensive too. Guess they aren't designed to hit curbs sideways. I hope the owner of this car is very rich and simply doesn't really care about stuff like this, cause if it was my car I would be going completely nuts. You just know that car will never be the same again after they "fix" it.
10-22-2010, 03:23 PM
#33
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pontiac firefly
10-22-2010, 03:25 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 UFO
[QUOTE=Palladin;4314232]
I would go insane. A car will never drive the same even with a bump at 5mph when your car is still.
Holy Crap *****!!!!!
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
Yes, but it was a very lightweight and beautifully finished wheel, probably a little bit expensive too. Guess they aren't designed to hit curbs sideways. I hope the owner of this car is very rich and simply doesn't really care about stuff like this, cause if it was my car I would be going completely nuts. You just know that car will never be the same again after they "fix" it.
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
Yes, but it was a very lightweight and beautifully finished wheel, probably a little bit expensive too. Guess they aren't designed to hit curbs sideways. I hope the owner of this car is very rich and simply doesn't really care about stuff like this, cause if it was my car I would be going completely nuts. You just know that car will never be the same again after they "fix" it.
10-22-2010, 03:27 PM
#35
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pontiac firefly
[quote=Palladin;4314232]
Think it may have been carbon fiber
Holy Crap *****!!!!!
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
Yes, but it was a very lightweight and beautifully finished wheel, probably a little bit expensive too. Guess they aren't designed to hit curbs sideways. I hope the owner of this car is very rich and simply doesn't really care about stuff like this, cause if it was my car I would be going completely nuts. You just know that car will never be the same again after they "fix" it.
I just noticed that this is a pic of the wheel...snapped off....and pushed behind the rotor...with the center section still bolted to the rotor
Yes, but it was a very lightweight and beautifully finished wheel, probably a little bit expensive too. Guess they aren't designed to hit curbs sideways. I hope the owner of this car is very rich and simply doesn't really care about stuff like this, cause if it was my car I would be going completely nuts. You just know that car will never be the same again after they "fix" it.
Think it may have been carbon fiber
10-23-2010, 07:11 AM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
I hope your're kidding all of us about your work -
Section 3: Breakaway Light Poles
Anchor: #CHDDCGCC
Frangibility Requirement
The FHWA adopted Section 7 of the 1985 AASHTO publication entitled “Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals” for implementation beginning in July 1990. This section requires more stringent breakaway characteristics. TxDOT’s previous design of roadway illumination assemblies (based on a 1975 AASHTO specification) does not meet these requirements.
Breakaway light poles rely on frangible transformer bases to provide the breakaway feature. The 1985 AASHTO specification provides for a maximum change in momentum of a 1800 pound car to break the pole away. The 1975 AASHTO specification provided for a similar change in momentum except that the test vehicle weighed 2,250 pounds.
Anchor: #i1000249
Structural Requirement
While providing the necessary frangibility, the base must also be structurally adequate to support the illumination pole for design wind speeds. Transformer bases meeting the ’85 AASHTO specification may not adequately support some 50 foot steel poles, notably those designed to meet the ’75 AASHTO specification.
Anchor: #i1000259
Replacement Guidelines
Lighting systems built under the previous requirements should be maintained with ’75 AASHTO standard poles and transformer bases currently in stock.
Replacement transformer bases for lighting systems built under the ’85 AASHTO requirements should be specified to be the same model number as the bases being replaced. This model number is required to be incised on the base.
Two variables of pole construction affect structural compatibility with the ’85 AASHTO transformer bases top: bolt circle and base plate thickness. No tolerances for these variables have been established. For this reason, TxDOT does not recommend the direct replacement of ’75 AASHTO standard transformer bases with ’85 AASHTO standard transformer bases for 50 foot steel poles.
Anchor: #i1000279
New Installation Guidelines
Current breakaway requirements can be met on new installations by using the new transformer base and pole designed for that base, both approved by the FHWA to meet ’85 AASHTO standards.
TxDOT typically uses breakaway poles wherever possible, even when not required. For these types of new installations, where breakaway poles are used but not required (outside the clear zone or behind barriers), transformer base poles meeting the ’75 AASHTO guidelines may be used when currently in stock but should not be considered breakaway.
Do not use shims or washers to level the ’85 AASHTO breakaway base, because this may change the breakaway characteristics of the base. Ensure that the top of the concrete foundation is level.
Section 3: Breakaway Light Poles
Anchor: #CHDDCGCC
Frangibility Requirement
The FHWA adopted Section 7 of the 1985 AASHTO publication entitled “Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals” for implementation beginning in July 1990. This section requires more stringent breakaway characteristics. TxDOT’s previous design of roadway illumination assemblies (based on a 1975 AASHTO specification) does not meet these requirements.
Breakaway light poles rely on frangible transformer bases to provide the breakaway feature. The 1985 AASHTO specification provides for a maximum change in momentum of a 1800 pound car to break the pole away. The 1975 AASHTO specification provided for a similar change in momentum except that the test vehicle weighed 2,250 pounds.
Anchor: #i1000249
Structural Requirement
While providing the necessary frangibility, the base must also be structurally adequate to support the illumination pole for design wind speeds. Transformer bases meeting the ’85 AASHTO specification may not adequately support some 50 foot steel poles, notably those designed to meet the ’75 AASHTO specification.
Anchor: #i1000259
Replacement Guidelines
Lighting systems built under the previous requirements should be maintained with ’75 AASHTO standard poles and transformer bases currently in stock.
Replacement transformer bases for lighting systems built under the ’85 AASHTO requirements should be specified to be the same model number as the bases being replaced. This model number is required to be incised on the base.
Two variables of pole construction affect structural compatibility with the ’85 AASHTO transformer bases top: bolt circle and base plate thickness. No tolerances for these variables have been established. For this reason, TxDOT does not recommend the direct replacement of ’75 AASHTO standard transformer bases with ’85 AASHTO standard transformer bases for 50 foot steel poles.
Anchor: #i1000279
New Installation Guidelines
Current breakaway requirements can be met on new installations by using the new transformer base and pole designed for that base, both approved by the FHWA to meet ’85 AASHTO standards.
TxDOT typically uses breakaway poles wherever possible, even when not required. For these types of new installations, where breakaway poles are used but not required (outside the clear zone or behind barriers), transformer base poles meeting the ’75 AASHTO guidelines may be used when currently in stock but should not be considered breakaway.
Do not use shims or washers to level the ’85 AASHTO breakaway base, because this may change the breakaway characteristics of the base. Ensure that the top of the concrete foundation is level.
I was talking about wooden service poles which we place in the ground at 3' plus 10% of the total length of the pole.
I jumped the gun a little bit and was NOT refering to metal lighting structures, sorry guys.
10-23-2010, 07:34 AM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
I beg to differ. Working in the utility business for almost 20 years, I can assure you that our Service poles, correct lingo, are NOT designed to shear off. AKA, we do NOTHING to them that would allow them to shear, no stress reliefs, weak spots, etc, etc.
The pole had either rusting hardware, corroded anchor bolts, or was hit hard.
The pole had either rusting hardware, corroded anchor bolts, or was hit hard.
Newer metal poles \ fiber glass poles and composite poles are all designed to shear at the base with the breakaway base, this has been used for 10years approx or more. Not sure what aspect of the Utility business you work in as it is a vast field and pole design is constantly evolving and there are vast new industry trends and also field testing safety work that is done in collaboration with utility companies, pole manufacturers and the DOT departments.
You do realize.. that if an electrical pole, or any pole carrying significant amounts of current (I believe street lights and signal lights run off 220V, with who knows how much current), or electrical poles pulling 400A or higher (which is what feeds most modern houses now, 1 200A or 2 200A service lines), was to shear off, and the cable snaps and hits the ground, the injuries involved would be far greater then the car that just slammed into it. Especially if its raining, or any large standing bodies of water, or the cable falls onto the pole that is now on the ground, energizing... See where I am going with this.
No, poles are design to take the impact and remain in place to minimize further damage to the surrounding areas.
No, poles are design to take the impact and remain in place to minimize further damage to the surrounding areas.
Transformers that are pad mounted are also designed with breakaway bases now...
Last edited by slownrusty; 10-23-2010 at 07:51 AM.
10-23-2010, 07:48 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
C43AMG has already clarified this point very clearly, the pole in question is not cedar \ wood or pre-stressed concrete which are buried typically 3ft+(XX% of their total length).
Newer metal poles \ fiber glass poles and composite poles are all designed to shear at the base with the breakaway base, this has been used for 10years approx or more. Not sure what aspect of the Utility business you work in as it is a vast field and pole design is constantly evolving and there are vast new industry trends and also field testing safety work that is done in collaboration the DOT departments...so I beg to differ.
Clarified already and a circuit will detect a break and trip the breaker at the transformer shutting down the voltage in that line, obviously built in protection for these types of events...see where I am going with this?
Transformers that pad mounted are also designed with breakaway bases now...
Newer metal poles \ fiber glass poles and composite poles are all designed to shear at the base with the breakaway base, this has been used for 10years approx or more. Not sure what aspect of the Utility business you work in as it is a vast field and pole design is constantly evolving and there are vast new industry trends and also field testing safety work that is done in collaboration the DOT departments...so I beg to differ.
Clarified already and a circuit will detect a break and trip the breaker at the transformer shutting down the voltage in that line, obviously built in protection for these types of events...see where I am going with this?
Transformers that pad mounted are also designed with breakaway bases now...
I jumped the gun and was ONLY refering to wooden service poles.
11-12-2010, 08:51 PM
#40
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK 63 Black Series, 2009 S550, 2011 Range Rover Supercharged, BMW F800 GS Anniv Edition
Thought I'd post this here since it's about another wrecked Lambo. This one appears to be totaled.
Last edited by IB Dave; 12-30-2010 at 04:10 PM. Reason: Libelous, defamatory or otherwise tortious language
11-12-2010, 09:30 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Maybe off topic or maybe not but I had a similar incident minus the crash. 2 years ago I took my car to a exhaust shop to get a set of LG Motorsports long tube headers on my brand new 2008 Z06 which had 465 miles at the time.
Originally the owner of the shop told me to bring the car on a Wednesday so that they could start with the car and had it done the same day. I actually delivered the car on a Tuesday afternoon/night so that the headers will be cold for the next day work.
Before I gave them the car I told them specifically/strictly to not drive the car at all, absolutely no joy rides because my car was on break-in period.
The shop didn't finished the car until Friday afternoon (2 days after what they promised). They put about 15 miles on the car and when I went to confront them they told me that they had to drive the car because there was smoking coming out of the exhaust from their grease hands and that they need to burn it off. To make matters worst, they charged me exactly the same price as what the dealer quoted me.
My car had a grinding 3rd gear issue ever since which was the number one issue why I ended up trading the car for the C63 AMG.
Sometimes is way cheaper to hire a hit-man and take care of business physically and property damage wise...
That was my true .2c history.
Originally the owner of the shop told me to bring the car on a Wednesday so that they could start with the car and had it done the same day. I actually delivered the car on a Tuesday afternoon/night so that the headers will be cold for the next day work.
Before I gave them the car I told them specifically/strictly to not drive the car at all, absolutely no joy rides because my car was on break-in period.
The shop didn't finished the car until Friday afternoon (2 days after what they promised). They put about 15 miles on the car and when I went to confront them they told me that they had to drive the car because there was smoking coming out of the exhaust from their grease hands and that they need to burn it off. To make matters worst, they charged me exactly the same price as what the dealer quoted me.
My car had a grinding 3rd gear issue ever since which was the number one issue why I ended up trading the car for the C63 AMG.
Sometimes is way cheaper to hire a hit-man and take care of business physically and property damage wise...
That was my true .2c history.
Last edited by C63newdude; 11-12-2010 at 09:32 PM.
