A yellow Lamborghini Murcielago with the vanity plate, “ITSYELLO” crashed in Greensboro, NC on Friday, attracting a crowd of locals who apparently scavenged the site for parts.

"If I furrow around enough, I'll get a full one," local Chuck Maner told the News-Record. He then quoted from the Johnny Cash song, “One Piece at a Time” which is about stealing a car one piece at a time over a period running from 1949 to 1973.

The owner of the Lamborghini, whose identity has not been disclosed by police, claimed he lost control of the $313,000 car due to a “mechanical failure.”

Maner managed to collect two handfuls of debris from the crash, we figure that’s a good start if he hopes to collect enough to build a complete Murcielago in 24 years time. [via the News-Record]

http://jalopnik.com/5139195/yokels-molest-crashed-lamborghini




Ok guys, which one of you took the parts to complete your shrine of parts from every car maker?

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM. Reason : :]

1/26/2009 12:41:15 PM

that sucks

1/26/2009 12:49:59 PM

"mechanical failure" otherwise known and driver stupidity. In an airplane, the pilot in command is responsible for the maintenance of the airplane, therefore mechanical failures are pilot failures. It should be the same way with cars. Seriously, there is no such thing as an accident. There are wrecks and crashes, but no accidents.

1/26/2009 1:46:12 PM

Quote :

"In an airplane, the pilot in command is responsible for the maintenance of the airplane, therefore mechanical failures are pilot failures. It should be the same way with cars. Seriously, there is no such thing as an accident. There are wrecks and crashes, but no accidents."

wtf, that's one of the silliest things i've ever read. i hope you don't really believe any of that.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 2:53 PM. Reason : i do agree "mechanical failure" is a joke, more like "excessive speeding failure", lol]

1/26/2009 2:51:52 PM

Quote :

"wtf, that's one of the silliest things i've ever read. i hope you don't really believe any of that."

It makes perfect sense. A properly maintained airplane that is never put in a position that is shouldn't be will never have a problem. The same thing with a car. Properly maintain a car, don't drive like a dumbass, don't drive in conditions that are above your head, and pay full attention when you are driving and you should never have a wreck. Give me an instance that a wreck happens and show me that driver error was not at fault (within reason, concrete blocks falling out of the sky is never going to happen).

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM. Reason : :]

1/26/2009 6:59:49 PM

Quote :

""In an airplane, the pilot in command is responsible for the maintenance of the airplane, therefore mechanical failures are pilot failures."

you sure about that? I think that's what BBR's saying

1/26/2009 7:01:51 PM

Quote :

"Give me an instance that a wreck happens and show me that driver error was not at fault"

How about when your firestone tire shreds on you at 70mph and sends your Explorer careening off a cliff.

or you hit a banana peel (Odoyle rules, Odoyle rules)


I usually haul ass through Greensboro on 40 but probably not as fast as this guy

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 7:16 PM. Reason : Its hilarious they call them yokels ]

1/26/2009 7:15:52 PM

Yes, I am sure. Just because all the avionics fail, doesn't mean a plane should crash. Avionics don't fail anyways, but if they do you can you can figure out the problem and calculate your position. Even if the engine fails, you don't fall out of the sky. If the engine fails, most people are able to glide to a safe spot to land that will cause little damage to the plane. Nothing in a plane should fail, everything has a lifespan on it and is supposed to be replaced before the time passes. Lack of maintenance causes mechanical failures.

Quote :

" How about when your firestone tire shreds on you at 70mph and sends your Explorer careening off a cliff."

That falls in the .1% of manufacturer defects, but the seatbelt usage percentage multiplied by the number of firestone tire accidents gives you the number of nondeadly wrecks. Just an assumption.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 7:31 PM. Reason : :]

1/26/2009 7:16:20 PM

^yes yes and in every perfect case the mechanical workings of an automobile should be maintained as well, and if so it will perform flawlessly

1/26/2009 7:20:01 PM

Quote :

"yes yes and in every perfect case the mechanical workings of an automobile should be maintained as well, and if so it will perform flawlessly"

No, but you should not have a wreck because of the failure of anything on a vehicle. Even if the cause of the wreck is mechanical failure, 99.9% of the time the owner could have used preventive maintenance to avoid it.

1/26/2009 7:44:46 PM

i'm gonna go with a hell of a lot more than .1% scrotard

i can think of at least 3 instances to myself

diff grenaded, locking up rear end at 70 mph

hub broke off rear axle, lost rear wheel at around 60 (manufacturer defect, threatened to sue Strange and got a nice settlement btw)

dump truck blew a tire in front of me, ripped off the hood and took out the windshield at 80mph+

so how many of those were my fault, or another drivers?

oh yeah, i forgot about the fiddyleven deer i've murdered


oh, and pilots are responsible for inspections, not maintenance, and really not even that detailed of inspections really

it's be like if you rented a car checked the oil and tire pressures, etc., drove it for 10 miles, the engine dropped a valve, and they said you were responsible, doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?


don't even get me started on this, i argue with idiots all day at work about what is actually preventative maintenance (scheduled), and predictive maintenance (break-in), just because you don't run it till it breaks and repair it at 2am doesn't make it scheduled

gonna keep going anyway

If you change your tires every 6 months no matter what, that is preventative maintenance, like some of our critical equipment the is swapped for a rebuilt unit every annual outage because a failure can't be tolerated. If you check your tires that are getting worn and then replace them, that is predictive maintenance.

I can pull up daily oil analysis, bearing temps, and vibration data from any of our critical equipment on demand. Is that practical for all 3000+ motors and pumps in the mill? no, we can run without them, so we have threshold levels of vibration that require action. We do change the oil and pm the couplings on a schedule, so it is a mix. The last study i did, the 500+hp equipment was about 13% of the mill, and was about $22/hp/yr to maintain, and the rest<500hp was about $48/hp/yr. The key is to balance it, just because it is not critical does it mean you run it to catastrophic failure? no, it means you do preventative maintenance and repair it as needed. you cannot predict all failures, operation upsets that cause pumps to cavitate or burn up are not predictable, they can't always be prevented but no matter how good your maintenance program is, it cannot be prevented. you can however reduce assembly errors, soft foot, balance, alignment, pipe strain, clearances, coupling types, seal types, and lubrication, and reduce the maintenance related failures, but you cannot prevent or predict all failures, the cost would be astronomical to even come close.

if you have 100 pieces of equipment that have to run in a process, and each one is 99% reliable, you would think that you have a pretty reliable process. well, you don't your entire process is 99%^100 or 37% reliable. Therefore, we run in the 99.98% threshold for world class reliability, but even pushing an extra .10% can be millions of dollars and you eventually surpass the breakeven point, where more reliability costs you more than downtime. it's not exactly a crap-shoot, but there is no perfect real world condition

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2009 7:47:43 PM

Quote :

"dump truck blew a tire in front of me, ripped off the hood and took out the windshield at 80mph+"

Yea, i believe that one is.

Quote :

" diff grenaded, locking up rear end at 70 mph hub broke off rear axle, lost rear wheel at around 60 (manufacturer defect, threatened to sue Strange and got a nice settlement btw)"

Cars and mods?

Quote :

"oh, and pilots are responsible for inspections, not maintenance, and really not even that detailed of inspections really"

Nope, they are still responsible under law that if something fails they can be sued for improper maintenance. "The Pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the safe operation of that aircraft" AIM 5-5-1.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM. Reason : :]

1/26/2009 7:59:16 PM

explain how i could avoid a tire even with a reasonable following distance considering i swerved immediately as i saw it and hadn't even made it halfway out of the lane before it hit me?

both of the others were on the same vehicle, the first was off racing, where there was a large rock under the sand which was not visible, one tire suddenly caught traction on it and grenaded the diff, sending me off the trail

the second was a fatigue failure due to improper heat treatment confirmed by a metallurgist at ncsu, whose report was included in my lawyer's letter to Strange

1/26/2009 8:11:34 PM

Quote :

"explain how i could avoid a tire even with a reasonable following distance considering i swerved immediately as i saw it and hadn't even made it halfway out of the lane before it hit me?"

Quote :

"so how many of those were my fault, or another drivers?"

Quote :

"the first was off racing"

Quote :

"the second was a fatigue failure due to improper heat treatment confirmed by a metallurgist at ncsu, whose report was included in my lawyer's letter to Strange"

.1% I think that when you challenge something, you should look at what you say completely.

1/26/2009 8:20:50 PM

you still have not said how i or any other driver could have prevented that, other than not driving, there are inherent risks in everything, which is the point that you so widely missed and n00bed all over yourself its not even funny

1/26/2009 8:23:46 PM

It might be rare, and in this instance the Lambo driver probably was speeding, but to claim that mechanical failures never lead to crashes is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

1/26/2009 8:25:10 PM

ok, i'm out for dinner, i'm gonna let the n00bs slug it out for a while

1/26/2009 8:29:03 PM

Quote :

"mechanical failures never lead to crashes is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of."

That is not really what I am trying to say. I am trying to say that the driver's decisions before and after that mechanical failure are generally bad and that the driver's decisions almost always cause the crash to be worse. Many mechanical failures do not involve crashes other than the instance that the driver gains control of the car and causes no more damage to the car than the failure.

Not replying to thread anymore, because its pointless.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 10:06 PM. Reason : :]

1/26/2009 10:05:43 PM

Quote :

""mechanical failure" otherwise known and driver stupidity. In an airplane, the pilot in command is responsible for the maintenance of the airplane, therefore mechanical failures are pilot failures. It should be the same way with cars. Seriously, there is no such thing as an accident. There are wrecks and crashes, but no accidents."

whoa


1. what planet do you live on

2. where the fuck do you get your drugs?

1/26/2009 10:07:54 PM

Quote :

"A properly maintained airplane that is never put in a position that is shouldn't be will never have a problem. The same thing with a car. Properly maintain a car, don't drive like a dumbass, don't drive in conditions that are above your head, and pay full attention when you are driving and you should never have a wreck."

cars aren't planes
there's no FAA regulating the quality of every part that goes into your car
when your shit fucks up in a plane, you have a good minute or 2 to get things right since you're in the air, while often a few seconds or less on a busy road
casting flaws, poor engineering, design flaws, unforeseen conditions all arise unexpectedly on items that make it into cars
etc
etc
etc

1/27/2009 12:42:38 AM

sweet the garage has a new idiot

1/27/2009 9:24:04 AM

Quote :

"A properly maintained airplane that is never put in a position that is shouldn't be will never have a problem."

I would disagree. My father was at one time responsible for getting maintenance on three different corporate airplanes. One of them had a mechanical failure that caused a crash landing. The fucking left landing gear would not come down. The pilot (not dad that day, but the owner of the company) flew around for a while to burn off fuel, tried to shake the gear down, and tried multiple times to raise and lower the gear hoping to get it to come down fully and lock into position. It didn't, so they had to belly up the plane. How is that the owners fault, my dads fault, or anybody elses when all regular maintenance and inspections were carried out? Shit happens on both planes and cars. They are both very intricate pieces of equipment that can be fucked all to hell by the tiniest of problems mechanically.

Now do I believe the Lambo was a mechanical failure? No. But even the best maintained aircraft get problems. I've been with dad when we had a window seal go bad and cause the pressurized King Air to scream like a madman, and we had one engine lose oil pressure and had to land the Baron with oil streaming down the sides. Hell we even landed and hit a deer square in the front landing gear before. I doubt any of them were "crashes" but mechanics can fail and shit can happen.

1/27/2009 9:40:19 AM

jcfox2

please stop posting. I'm having difficulties reading your poor english, mixed with your silly thoughts.

Quote :

""mechanical failure" otherwise known and as driver stupidity"

Quote :

"A properly maintained airplane that is never put in a position, that is shouldn't be, will never have a problem"

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM. Reason : to name a few]

1/27/2009 10:44:12 AM

Quote :

"sweet the garage has a new idiot"

1/27/2009 10:47:53 AM

That guy was probably crusing about over 100 like everyone else on I40, with a sport car, outside of greensboro when the "mechanical failure" happened

1/27/2009 12:17:49 PM

jcfox2, do you not remember the the plane that crashed into the Hudson a while back? that was a mechanical failure. the engines quit working. pilots fault? no. the plane was in perfect shape. things happen all day everyday that is out of your hands yet causes problems.

1/27/2009 4:53:52 PM

^ actually a double bird strike

1/27/2009 6:07:47 PM

whatever, i always make sure to top off my gaggle of geese and ensure the gander is working properly before each trip. new goslings are installed regularly.

1/27/2009 7:35:27 PM

well yea, the birds caused the engines to fail. the plane was probably in perfect shape and the pilot skilled, yet he couldn't control what happened. my point.

1/27/2009 7:40:33 PM

haah


unless the car is dissolved in acid, I'd say any failure/accident would be mechanical

1/27/2009 7:41:34 PM

^^pssshh, that pilot sucked ass. probably on his cell phone or something. jcfox2 would have just flown that shit like maverick and missed the birds. even IF he hit them (he wouldn't though), he sure as hell wouldn't have done any gay emergency landing. the only thing going in the hudson would be the bodies of the radar/air traffic control people.

^dude, do you still not get it?? there is NO SUCH THING as an accident, man! only wrecks and crashes! come on, get with it and be enlightened.

1/27/2009 9:43:13 PM

you're not wrong walter, you're jsut an asshole

1/27/2009 10:18:25 PM