GTS crash vid
- Thread starter Neil - UK
- Start date
1KoolAsp 14TA
Enthusiast
NASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
quickysrt
Enthusiast
he needed abs brakes i bet.
Vic
VCA Venom Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Posts
- 6,765
- Reaction score
- 1
That video has been posted a few times here....
That was pure driver error.
That was pure driver error.
VIPER BAZ UK
Enthusiast
I thought it was fake...
The viper racing had stripes and a window decal but the crashed one didnt..
Baz
The viper racing had stripes and a window decal but the crashed one didnt..
Baz
Vic
VCA Venom Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Posts
- 6,765
- Reaction score
- 1
Well, if it was fake, it was pretty well done. I had initially wondered why the car went off conveniently RIGHT BY THE CAMERA!!! What are the odds of that? After driving miles and miles through the hills above LA, the Viper just manages to coincidently go off right where the camera man is stationed by the side of the road. This makes the incident look "staged". But the only reason I could see for the accident, if it is real, is that the Viper driver may have been too intently focused on the camera man's position, and the shot being taken, and so misjudged his own position and or speed.
Secondly, why would the skid marks end so far from the end of the pavement? The lock up stops before it goes into the dirt on the side of the road. If you were in danger of going off the edge of the road, would you let off the brake while you were still fully on the road? Looks completely bogus... The only reason I can see for letting off the brakes would be if you couldn't steer, so you let off to regain steering effect? I dunno, gotta think about that some more.
I may have spoke too soon when I said driver error, I mean, it could be driver error, but it also looks staged. I said driver error because I know the Viper is not that bad in turns. There was no reason for it to go off there other than driver error, if indeed the video is real.
And why would someone stage that? To show the Ferrari is a better handling car, by making the Viper look incompetent in a turn? Or maybe the intent was not to cast the Viper in a negative light, but either car going off just makes for a good, dramatic video?
Looking at the dusty Viper, shown after it left the road, I can't tell if it has stripes or not. And I think I see some letters on the windshield.
If its a fake video, then its very convincing, especially where the Viper slides off the road, kicking up dirt on the way. I don't know how you could stage that!!
edit- More questions...Look at the part where the Viper is going right by the camera. How come the Viper's wheels appear to be turning while on the pavement, but the video later shows skid marks? And why is there only one skid mark as from one side of the car locking up, but not both sides of the car locking up? Shouldn't there be two skid marks, if its locking up in a straight line skid, or four skid marks, if the car is rotating? Also, in the begining of the clip, there is a perspective shot, from outside the cars, showing the front view up above the driver's shoulders. This view looks like it was taken from an outside mount, that would be visible in the other shots. But in all the other shots, you never once see a camera mount on the driver's side. A small "lipsitck" camera could have been used, but it wouldn't give the same perspective, as it would be much closer to the car's body. It seems that there was a camera mount for the outside shots, that should be visible in the other shot angles. Which is ok and understandable, if they are making a nice video, you would want to take it off for the other shots. It still goes to show that the whole video is pieced together to give the appearance that the action happened in sequence. Again, this gives the video an edited, staged look.
Sorry, lots of observations here, but I can't stop today for some reason...
How come when the Viper goes off the road, just after it goes off, the camera man zooms in? If you were operating a camera, shooting a driving video, and there was a catastrophic accident during the taping, would you just keep shooting as if nothing was wrong? Would you have the desire or presence of mind to zoom in on the dust and the sky, after a life threatening accident had just taken place? I think I would just stop taping at that point, maybe leave the camera running while I ran to help, but really, zooming in? For what? To get a better shot of the dust? It almost seems like the camera man is unfazed by the accident that just occured. Like he knew it was coming, or it was part of the shot.
Then, right after that "zoom", that camera clip ends, and from the same perspective, the clip gets blended in by editing to the shot of the lady running after the Viper. You can see that the flying dust cloud pattern doesn't match from where the roadside clip ends (which is right after the zoom in), and the lady running clip starts. (The end of the roadside shot is also the place where they later splice the skid close-up to, right down to the last frame! Further showing that the roadside clip and the lady running clip are not the same camera clip, although the director tries to pass it off as such) If for some reason the camera had paused, then the dust should have died down somewhat. But they try to make it look like the dust is still billowing, but they don't match it up very well from one clip to teh next. Why is it neccessary to blend the stationary roadside clip to the lady running clip? Because again, the video director was trying give the appearance of uninterrupted action sequence. They needed a shot of a concerned bystander running after the accident, showing real concern, and giving the appearance of a genuine accident. The video is too contrived and over-produced to be completely genuine. I call bs.
Secondly, why would the skid marks end so far from the end of the pavement? The lock up stops before it goes into the dirt on the side of the road. If you were in danger of going off the edge of the road, would you let off the brake while you were still fully on the road? Looks completely bogus... The only reason I can see for letting off the brakes would be if you couldn't steer, so you let off to regain steering effect? I dunno, gotta think about that some more.
I may have spoke too soon when I said driver error, I mean, it could be driver error, but it also looks staged. I said driver error because I know the Viper is not that bad in turns. There was no reason for it to go off there other than driver error, if indeed the video is real.
And why would someone stage that? To show the Ferrari is a better handling car, by making the Viper look incompetent in a turn? Or maybe the intent was not to cast the Viper in a negative light, but either car going off just makes for a good, dramatic video?
Looking at the dusty Viper, shown after it left the road, I can't tell if it has stripes or not. And I think I see some letters on the windshield.
If its a fake video, then its very convincing, especially where the Viper slides off the road, kicking up dirt on the way. I don't know how you could stage that!!
edit- More questions...Look at the part where the Viper is going right by the camera. How come the Viper's wheels appear to be turning while on the pavement, but the video later shows skid marks? And why is there only one skid mark as from one side of the car locking up, but not both sides of the car locking up? Shouldn't there be two skid marks, if its locking up in a straight line skid, or four skid marks, if the car is rotating? Also, in the begining of the clip, there is a perspective shot, from outside the cars, showing the front view up above the driver's shoulders. This view looks like it was taken from an outside mount, that would be visible in the other shots. But in all the other shots, you never once see a camera mount on the driver's side. A small "lipsitck" camera could have been used, but it wouldn't give the same perspective, as it would be much closer to the car's body. It seems that there was a camera mount for the outside shots, that should be visible in the other shot angles. Which is ok and understandable, if they are making a nice video, you would want to take it off for the other shots. It still goes to show that the whole video is pieced together to give the appearance that the action happened in sequence. Again, this gives the video an edited, staged look.
Sorry, lots of observations here, but I can't stop today for some reason...
How come when the Viper goes off the road, just after it goes off, the camera man zooms in? If you were operating a camera, shooting a driving video, and there was a catastrophic accident during the taping, would you just keep shooting as if nothing was wrong? Would you have the desire or presence of mind to zoom in on the dust and the sky, after a life threatening accident had just taken place? I think I would just stop taping at that point, maybe leave the camera running while I ran to help, but really, zooming in? For what? To get a better shot of the dust? It almost seems like the camera man is unfazed by the accident that just occured. Like he knew it was coming, or it was part of the shot.
Then, right after that "zoom", that camera clip ends, and from the same perspective, the clip gets blended in by editing to the shot of the lady running after the Viper. You can see that the flying dust cloud pattern doesn't match from where the roadside clip ends (which is right after the zoom in), and the lady running clip starts. (The end of the roadside shot is also the place where they later splice the skid close-up to, right down to the last frame! Further showing that the roadside clip and the lady running clip are not the same camera clip, although the director tries to pass it off as such) If for some reason the camera had paused, then the dust should have died down somewhat. But they try to make it look like the dust is still billowing, but they don't match it up very well from one clip to teh next. Why is it neccessary to blend the stationary roadside clip to the lady running clip? Because again, the video director was trying give the appearance of uninterrupted action sequence. They needed a shot of a concerned bystander running after the accident, showing real concern, and giving the appearance of a genuine accident. The video is too contrived and over-produced to be completely genuine. I call bs.
I have a copy of the orginal with sound - to me it appears to be some upshots trying to create an american version of TopGear. Sad to say because this videa keeps getting posted over and over again the team is getting huge publicity for their show for a measly $70k sacrificial car.
Pure PR bullsmit....
Vic
VCA Venom Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Posts
- 6,765
- Reaction score
- 1
Makes sense to me.....
Hirohawa
Enthusiast
No way is that fake. The animation skills that would be required to get the weight shift as it falls over the cliff is not something any joe schmo could do on their desktop.
Creating a convincing car transferring it's weight in a crash like that is very difficult to do in CG. I doubt someone at a top FX houses did this as to help with a publicity stunt.
Creating a convincing car transferring it's weight in a crash like that is very difficult to do in CG. I doubt someone at a top FX houses did this as to help with a publicity stunt.
Vic
VCA Venom Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Posts
- 6,765
- Reaction score
- 1
Hiro- I don't think the actual shot of the Viper going over the edge is fake. That part looks very real, and doesn't seem to be fabricated at all. Its everything else about the video that seems fake, for the extensive reasons I went into at length above.
Why? I like Bonkers explantion...
Why? I like Bonkers explantion...
Snakester
Enthusiast
This video is several years old (as witnessed by them running against a Ferrari 355), and I have no doubt that the accident was real. 
You can see the they had cameras inside both cars, and the first shot where they set up an external camera on the road the Viper driver was showing off and hit the corner too hot (and at the wrong angle), locking up his brakes and sliding off the edge.
It was an Aussie car show, and the drivers were probably new to both the road and the cars. Oops!
You can see the they had cameras inside both cars, and the first shot where they set up an external camera on the road the Viper driver was showing off and hit the corner too hot (and at the wrong angle), locking up his brakes and sliding off the edge.
It was an Aussie car show, and the drivers were probably new to both the road and the cars. Oops!
the way it left the road it would of had to have rolled, yet there doesnt seem any visual damage to the car, just a folded in mirror and some dirt on it. I'd expect to see a lot of damage the speed it disappeared.
Eric H
Viper Owner
is it me or does it no have any sound?
chickenwarrior
Viper Owner
Did I miss it discussed or can I ask. Why is there no Guardrail there, but there is 30 ft. on down past the curve?? Look like someone is just lying in wait waiting for the inevitable....
Now that you mention it I'd like to see that inside shot of the car going over... I wonder where it is?
DodgeViper01
Enthusiast
Have that one on my computer too. I remember first seeing that and how shocked I was to see that he was okay and the car was pretty much okay.
Andrew2KRT10
Enthusiast
might be fake, but brings to mind the point of never braking in a turn
There is a shot from the Ferrari out there. It was the first time I saw this video. It seems every time the video appears it has changed. After seeing this one I would say it was staged.
radta7
Viper Owner
I think it's fake. It did look very convincing on how it went over though. I would think there would be much more damage to the viper from the fall. No question it would have rolled.
