Hacker News Reader

Comment by diggan | Hacker News Reader

I was gonna say that I'm happy that insurance companies are not making arbitrary exceptions just because someone is famous, but then the article finishes with:

> While the original decision was a blanket choice that would have seemingly been made for any driver under 30, the brand has already apologized to Verstappen and added that the special circumstances of his racing resume would get him in any rental car he wanted in the future. In a statement shared with the Sun, a Sixt representative says that Verstappen "can rent the car he wants from us at any time."

I wonder where the limit goes for how many races one must win before you count as an exception? If I've won ~5 local races (first position), can I also get an exception?

View on HN

Their reasons are financial. They have risk profiles set up for cars and age brackets, and that's fine for the overwhelming majority of use cases. If they and the insurance company get it right, they make money, they get it wrong, they lose money. I'm not sitting around caring particularly much if a car rental company makes money or goes under.

Celebrities, high net worth individuals, etc., make sense to get exceptions from a business perspective. Verstappen or Taylor Swift or whoever isn't going to skip out on paying for it if they crash one of these cars. There's just not a reason not to rent to them even if they are outside of your usual risk profiles, because their net worth makes the rest of the profiles irrelevant.

They made an exception because he was famous. Imagining they'd do the same thing for Taylor Swift if she was still under thirty.

Also he made it clear that he was taking the car to the track which also violates the company's rules. I know that at the famous German Nurburgring race track you cannot take normal rented cars out there. If you want to do so they charge a premium of (if I remember) of 50% more. They trace their cars and if you do take a normal rental out on the track you will be charged quite a penalty.

I don't think they made an exception because he is famous, they made an exception because he is an extremely successful professional driver and I doubt they would make the same exception for Taylor Swift.

Where do you get that it violates the company rules? The Nurburgring is a public road that doesn't have rules against rental cars and it's pretty common for people to take rental cars on it.

There are two kinds of rentals, normal rental cars and rental cars at a premium price that are equipped for track use and carry extra insurance. People do it but normal rental cars aren't allowed on the track per the contract.

https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Car-Hire-Blog/September-2019/Ca...

You can take a rental car there, the track itself has no rules against it. Several companies in the area have specific cars for rent to use on the ring.

But for a normal Hertz/Sixt etc rental car you can run into insurance issues if you crash. Because circuit / race / timed use is excluded and damage to the track is as well (which is common on the ring and expensive).

Cars specific for ring use have insurance that includes it, but usually with a relatively high excess. Expect to pay the first few thousand yourself if you crash.

> Because circuit / race / timed use is excluded

You‘re talking about Terroristenfahrten? During Terroristenfahrten, Nordschleife is a public one way, two lane highway (a toll road) and no time tracking is allowed.

There are public roads in Hawaii that rental companies won't let you take their cars on as well like the Road to Hana on Maui. Too dangerous - ocean waves eating away at the road, falling rocks and boulder risks, etc. It's only 64 miles but over 600 curves, 59 bridges many of which are single-lane, sweeping elevation changes - it takes a few hours.

I see no reason why a private company can't forbid you from using their property on certain public roads.

He may just pay the premium. Why do you think he may be unwilling to pay the 50% extra?

I would assume they made this statement because they want to protect their brand and not because they think he is or isn't less likely to cause an accident.

I'm pretty sure they know he is a much better driver than anybody else renting the car and is less likely to be in an accident.

He has been in a lot more prangs in the last few years than I have in 20+ years of driving.

This site counts 29 to March ‘22.

But rent a car to him and you might gain something as a business. Rent it to me and you won’t.

https://firstsportz.com/formula-one-how-many-car-crashes-has...

Ok, let's throw you on the formula 1 grid and see how well you do. I bet you couldn't even get through a single lap.

I agree with you, I couldn’t, but you’ve entirely missed the point.

His winning F1 races doesn’t mean much in terms of renting a car, and if it is to count for something, noting his crash rate would seem wise?

If he was in an accident the news articles mentioning the car rental brand would probably be worth enough to pay for the car.

I’m fairly certain the skill level issue is overshadowed by the ‘going to race on a track’ issue.

He's also much more likely to drive it at 3x the speed limit. Also, the fact that he's Formula 1 driver actually works against him here: F1 cars that he is used to are far more sophisticated technology, and F1 tracks are not your regular highway, making it easy for Verstappen to end up at the side of the road, after overestimating his Mercedes' capabilities.

Verstappen has more than $6m in street legal high-end cars. He has spent a significant amount of time driving cars with performance quite similar to that Mercedes.

Even if this wasn't publicly available information, isn't it quite bizarre to act as if you have some better understanding of the difference between F1 cars and sports cars than one of the best F1 drivers in the world? I would bet you quite significant sums of money that he has spent more time driving cars with performance similar to that Mercedes than you have spent driving an F1 car.

We also know that Verstappen races street-legal private cars on tracks during at least some F1 offseasons, something his Red Bull Racing team advisor has shared in interviews with the media.

The idea that some internet posters have a better understanding of the risk profile of taking this car onto a track than one of the best racecar drives in the world is some special HN hubris.

You don't think a professional driver at the absolute pinnacle of his profession knows the difference between different types of cars...?

I bet he knows fuck all about drum brakes lol. That has zero relevance to his profession. Boomers who have never been within half a mile of a race car know all about drum brakes.

The man is one of the most obsessed car guys on the planet. Dude tunes his own iRacing setups between race weekends. He knew more about cars at 16 than everyone you and I will know in our lifetimes combined.

iRacing has you disassemble, modify, and reassemble Pakistani-made truck brakes in VR? Nice!

Normally, I browse HN with uBlock rule that removes the comments section, because I don't have to see terrible takes like this.

This may be the most absurd statement I've ever seen on this site.

Worth noting that being a great driver does not necessarily make one a safe driver. A grandmother who drives 10mph under the speed limit back and forth from church could very easily be less likely to get into a wreck than a professional driver.

I think people who drive 10 below increase the risk, as everyone has to weave around them

It's probably more a financial exception. If some other celebrity shows up with enough money and no driving experience they would also rent it. Sixt would just not cover it under their insurance.

I don't think having an exception for any high-level professional driver, regardless of their win count, is an arbitrary exception when it comes to renting sports cars.

They do crash much more often than the average driver, though.

You think professional drivers crash much more often than the average driver? That is a ridiculous assertion, especially with no evidence to back it up.

There might be also some net wealth exception. That is do you have enough money even if the insurance does not pay...

Why would you be happy that insurance applies blank, generic statements?

Insurance are aggregate pools. Typically, they operate at such a scale that they cannot make exceptions.

What would you say the answer to your question is? Do you think such exceptions should simply not be made?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com