When racing groups use an airport runway, most will do a professional job by scrutinizing the runway in great detail and also using proper markers to denote where the end of the runway is located. IMO this runway/drag strip scenerio might not have had traffic cones on each side marking of distances as the end of the runway was approaching.

Strictly driver error from two old thrill seekers who ended up meeting up with the laws of physics, not to mention Darwin. At 100 mph that's already 150 feet per second. By the time a driver at such speeds even realizes it's time to start braking, he's already covered the equivalent of two NFL football field lengths. If these two had realized they needed to stop, they would have had to known it 1000 feet before the end of the runway.

The Hellcat actually has great braking distances (60-0 in about 110 feet). But nothing is going to change the fact that hurling a two ton car down a runway to 100+ mph and then expecting it to stop instantly, is not going to work. Strictly a case of extreme negligence on the part of the driver and possibly his passenger who might have egged him on.

 

My guess in this unfortunate situation is the driver did not know where/when to start braking.

I haven't seen a lot on 100 to 0 mph braking data on many cars but 300 feet is a starting point.

In this case, I imagine they were going faster than that.

For reference 70 to 0 mph

911 Turbo 143 ft
Hellcat 159 ft

I imagine that as the speed at which braking is initiated increases, the braking distance between the 2 cars mentioned above widens (i.e. the 911 turbo provides the driver a better chance to save him or her self).

I feel extra bad for the passenger's family as their loved one was lost in something he participated in, but his loss was not of his own doing.

 

But those kids are going to do stupid crap is the point whatever you do.

Sucks but it's part of life. My kids won't be driving cars like that so long as I have any say.

 

Which is it?

Imagine a scenario where both 911 Turbo and Hellcat are driving along at 70mph and all of the sudden there is a dead-end cliff 130 feet ahead. Based on the stats you provided, neither car will stop before tumbling downhill. Doesn't matter how much better the Porsche stops, the drivers misjudge the road and the end result is the same. It would be insane to point fingers at Porsche (and Dodge).

The answer isn't bigger brakes and stickier tires. It's better driver awareness.

 

My point on the brakes is simple, better brakes can help in an emergency

It seems like in this case, the guy driving didn't know the car or the site

The Hellcat passenger lost his life as did Paul Walker, when out for a ride with someone else

 

Even under those conditions, a 911 might (?) actually stop in time, if the driver's reflexes are good enough. That's because, unlike front-engined cars, with rear-engined cars, under heavy braking, the car's center of gravity moves forward to a point roughly in the center of the vehicle, where an equal amount of weight is put on all four tires, and each tire does its share of the braking load. This, of course, in addition to the 911's wide, high-performance tires and grip. With front-engined vehicles, particularly with large, heavy engines like on the Hellcat, on the forward weight-transfer, the vehicle becomes extremely nose-heavy during hard braking, and the rear tires do very little of the braking load. The same physics, of course, also affect the handling.

 

How much better do the brakes need to be? The Hellcat comes with Brembo 390-mm two-piece rotors (15.4") with six-piston calipers front and 4-piston rear

 

As good as a 75-year-old driver's reflexes LOL.

 

I am not saying better brakes would have saved these folks

From the data I saw, the 60 to 0 for the car is good

I am also saying that I don't know what the 150 to 0 is for the Hellcat and it is likely to be longer than for a 911 turbo

I also mentioned ergonomics earlier. I had a rental Mustang a few years ago and couldn't see squat out the front. For folks who have been in a Challenger and a 911, how does the forward visibility compare?

 

This is essentially the same argument as saying gun manufacturers are responsible for people killed with guns.

 

The Camaro is probably worst of all. Trying to see out in any direction is like being in a bunker LOL.

 

tex, guns are designed for killing

Watch few ads for Hellcats, one includes the phrase, may impair your ability to obey the rules

 

Its going to be way better in a 911 because theres no engine in the front. The hoodline is very low.

These pony/musclecars are about style first, nightlines and ergonomics second. Its similar to driving an old classic Mustang or Challenger.

 

Rear-engined Porsches have some of the shortest stopping distances the industry. That rear engine, which used to be the bane of one's existence in oversteer/handling-mishaps on hard cornering before the days of improved tires/suspensions and computer-controlled stability systems, was also your best friend in a panic stop, where, unlike with a front engine, it made all four of the tires do their share of the braking-load.

 

We're talking about forward visibility now.