[chernaudi]

And we have to remember that Spa isn't a good indicator for LM performance. It's a high downforce track, and Peugeot ran a high downforce setup. Audi ran a LM-spec areo setup, as they have a fixation right now on beating Peugeot at Le Mans, where the old R15 struggled mightily with their high downforce(and high drag) channel bodywork.

Audi has higher downforce bodywork, but oddly they used it in practice for the Paul Ricard LMS race, and chose not to use it at Spa. That may've been the big difference maker today, and Audi, true to their word, used Spa as an LM test, while Peugeot went for the win. It was almost as if Audi wasn't really trying all that hard to win today, as they didn't even run a setup that they knew was optimal for Spa, while Peugeot did.

But to quote the words of Dr. Ullirch, how can Audi "see where they stand" against Peugeot if their cars were in different worlds as far as their areo package? Audi probably would've been quite a bit faster if they ran the high downforce bodywork they normally would've used. Conversely, if the Pugs ran their LM areo package, they would've been quite a bit slower.

If Audi and Peugeot were in similar areo specs, we'd have a clearer picture, but if you ask me, Spa leaves more questions than answers, and even the Paul Ricard round leaves more questions answered, and the factory Pugs weren't there.