|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
6 Jul 2011, 23:17 (Ref:2923094) | #1 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,980
|
Anomalous Le Mans results
AGD makes a good comment in the "what to talk about thread" about whether 1991's results should really be taken all that seriously.
Quote:
So, leaving my thoughts on 1991 aside - what other cases of a race like this where people genuinely feel we ended up with 'the wrong result' have there been? 1984/85 when Lancia led well into the night and then invariably holed their turbochargers? 1995 when the rain and a couple of iffy calls from Courage denied Andretti and Wollek their win but got the popular McLaren result? 2005 when Pescarolo chucked it (through Ayari in particular) quite literally away? |
|||
|
7 Jul 2011, 00:06 (Ref:2923108) | #2 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
I think the results speak for themselves in most cases. I know some people think that 1994 was a bit of a farce. 1991 is the race that has the results that I question the most though. There was the whole nonsense about the 3.5Ls, but even if we forget about that, I believe the Mazdas were running quite a bit lighter than the Jaguars and the Saubers and I'm not really sure if that was justified. Certainly extra weight hurts performance and economy, but in those years, it also had a pretty significant impact on reliability. What would the Jags have done had they been running at Mazda's weight? What would the Mazdas do if they were running at Jag's weight?
Anyway, Mazda did win and I don't want to say they were unworthy winners because they did get to the 24 hour mark before anyone else, but there is always a bit of doubt and skepticism in my mind about that year. We've seen odd results in other years, but in those cases I don't really question whether those results were decided on the paper of a rulebook. It does seem that the Mazda is the most famed Le Mans winner amongst people who don't follow this form of racing all that closely. The 787B seems to garner more awe than even the 956s, 962s, R8s, and other modern time Le Mans legends. I think reality is overshadowed by myth in the case of the 787B, but it was a glorious looking and sounding car. No doubt about that! Anyway, as far as other years go, you mention some good years. In the end of the day, though, I think the right cars and teams won those races. 1999 is also a year where the box score does not tell the real story. What if the two faster Toyotas did not drop out? What if the Mercedes never took off? What if the #17 BMW did not have it's problem? Ultimately the right guys won it, but it took a lot to happen in order for them to get there. |
|
|
7 Jul 2011, 06:22 (Ref:2923146) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,677
|
History is written by the victor.... Simples..... those are the law of the jungle.
|
||
__________________
The race track and the human body, both born of the earth, drive to be one with the earth, and through the earth one with the car, drive to the undiminished dream, single moments of pleasure, an eternity of memories. |
7 Jul 2011, 19:24 (Ref:2923417) | #4 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,934
|
Whilst agreeing 100% with Mike, I have no qualms at all about the 1991 result. But don't talk to me about 1994. Total travesty.
|
||
__________________
280 days...... |
7 Jul 2011, 20:25 (Ref:2923448) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
The winner deserves to win ..... at the end of the day , the Benz had issues , and the Mazda didnt , call it what you will . Mazda lobbyed the ACO for a fuel break , which they got . God knows we have seen enough cribbers at Le Mans over the years .
Mazda deserved it cuz they had the best prepared machine , and it didnt break . The other (56) Mazda could also have won it , but for a wet gearbox setup and an issue with the drive shaft ..... so 2 Mazdas were runnin better than the Benz too . The alternator bracket broke on the Benz , maybe something they modified between tests and the race , much like AMR this year . 1994 ..... Porsche constructed a car within the rules ,they didnt make the rules , so you cant blame Porsche for that , if anyone blame the ACO . People crib about the 911 GT1 being outside the spirit of the rules ..... shove your spirit , either the car was legal , or it wasnt . Again an ACO issue , but rules are rules and were written in stone . It was racing against a carbon fibre McLaren sportscar , and the Porsche had a steel chassis from the production line ..... yeah , spirit my ass . The Porsche didnt win , but I would have been happy to see it do so . 1989 ..... I would have prefered to see the Joest 9 Stuck-Wollek take the win ..... better drive but for 2 issues . Before the race Stuck said , with no problems we will win , with 1 problem we will come second and with 2 problems we will come 3rd . They had 2 problems and came 3rd ..... mirror ball or what . You can also talk about Bsher taking out the Toyota , and the BMW took the win ..... but thats life . Last edited by The Badger; 7 Jul 2011 at 20:31. |
||
|
7 Jul 2011, 21:44 (Ref:2923474) | #6 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Quote:
As far as 1991 goes, I think Jaguar probably has a better case of being "cheated" out of a win than Mercedes, but whatever I guess. The Mazda was within the rules for sure, although it is the rules that year I question. Maybe it would not be as much of a sticking point if the 787B wasn't made out to be the greatest racing car of all-time as it sometimes is, but whatever I guess. Even with the rules, what it did was pretty remarkable. There was a lot going on politically at Le Mans in 1991 that was just deplorable. As far as years where maybe the right winner wasn't the real winner, I think one has to look at 1966. It probably does not stick out as much as some others though because the same car/team would have won either way. Some think 2000 was kind of similar, but I don't know. |
|||
|
8 Jul 2011, 20:43 (Ref:2923927) | #7 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,555
|
Quote:
If it were a 10-lap sprint race then its definitely unfair, but over 24 hours is a completely different story. |
|||
|
8 Jul 2011, 20:45 (Ref:2923930) | #8 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
Quote:
'07 - Pug #7 had engine issues, two Audis crashed '09 - Audi #2 stuffed at the Porsche Curves, Pescarolo Peugeot demolished in the Esses '10 - Peugeot meltdown this year - the two Audi "aircraft crashes" |
|||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
8 Jul 2011, 21:38 (Ref:2923959) | #9 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
At the time I was annoyed about the Mazda win (not in a big way). I would have prefer Jaguar win. However they were using too much fuel and both Jaguar and Mercedes OKed the Mazda IIRC. I never really like the sound BTW, it was just loud and a shrill.
1994. No problem at all with that. Wasn't the Dauer concept before the 1994 rules came out? It was more a case of, "hey, that fits". I stand to be corrected here, it is some time ago. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
8 Jul 2011, 21:57 (Ref:2923962) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
LM '91 was an odd race to be sure with all the rule shuffling to favor the 3.5 Group C cars which couldn't finish that year if their lives depended on it and were still slower in race trim than the actual Group C cars, and all the concessions that Mazda got.
However, the rules were the rules and Jacky Ickx and Hughes de Chaunac and Oreca played the rule book for what it was to perfection. They simply took advantage of the confusion and were able to help Mazdaspeed develop a car to take advantage of the rules and be able to more or less be driven flat out in the end. Was '91 a rules oddity? You bet, but we'll have to lay the blame at the ACO and the FIA for that one. You can't blame Mazda for taking advantage of a condulted rule book. |
||
|
9 Jul 2011, 00:10 (Ref:2923991) | #11 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,630
|
Quote:
DK |
|||
|
9 Jul 2011, 08:02 (Ref:2924041) | #12 | |||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,934
|
Quote:
I accept that's true, and Badger is right as well in that the ACO allowed it to happen. |
|||
__________________
280 days...... |
9 Jul 2011, 09:38 (Ref:2924069) | #13 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Again thinking back so I may have this a little wrong, but in retrospect it gave us an insight into performance balancing. Although I don't think that it was intended as this at the time. There were advantages and disadvantages of the GT and P categories. Different tyre sizes, wings and fuel tank (?). Overall the Toyota and the Porsche was well matched, but with different rules.
Since then the ACO has had many examples of that. Open/Closed, GT/P, Diesel/Petrol. All to get more cars, and this has its consequence. See here. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
14 Jul 2011, 09:54 (Ref:2926432) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,884
|
If you can't build a car that can last 24 hours or you don't have a team that can with a 24 hour race with a significant car, you don't deserve to win a 24 hour race.
Every single Le Mans win since 1923 has something that the other entries did not - luck. And actually, in sportscar racing, you really can make your own luck..... .....or, if you're not German, you can have a word with the ACO to make you go a little bit faster For the record, I see far less wrong with 1994 than I do 1991. |
||
|
14 Jul 2011, 10:05 (Ref:2926439) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
He pulled a manouvre that caused the Toyota to take to the gravel and as a result a puncture . The Toyota was catching up on the BMW , massivily , and if that pace hadda kept up ..... it was Toyotas day .
|
||
|
14 Jul 2011, 10:08 (Ref:2926442) | #16 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
Wasnt that the year , when the pole sitter had to start from 10th ? Cuz the first 10 places were reserved for 3.5L Group C machinery ..... that was a bum call imo . When is pole not pole ..... only at Le Mans !!! |
|||
|
14 Jul 2011, 10:09 (Ref:2926445) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,677
|
Jackie was helping Mazda that year, I cant remember his exactly role in the team but he did play a part.
|
||
__________________
The race track and the human body, both born of the earth, drive to be one with the earth, and through the earth one with the car, drive to the undiminished dream, single moments of pleasure, an eternity of memories. |
14 Jul 2011, 10:13 (Ref:2926450) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,884
|
|||
|
14 Jul 2011, 10:56 (Ref:2926468) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,187
|
I have Ickx on photo at the podium ceremony just after the race, wearing the same clothing as other Mazda personel.
|
||
__________________
Let's make better mistakes tomorrow! |
14 Jul 2011, 19:14 (Ref:2926735) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
Ickx was team manager and de Chaunac was/is founder and owner of Oreca, who ran the Mazda program in 1991.
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[LM24] Le Mans Past Results | whitec21 | 24 Heures du Mans | 9 | 9 Mar 2009 15:31 |
DTM Predictions - Le Mans results | JMeissner | Touring Car Racing | 4 | 6 Oct 2008 09:35 |
[LM24] Le Mans Legends results? | TimD | 24 Heures du Mans | 51 | 26 Jun 2003 12:24 |
[LM24] Le Mans results, facts, etc | 917Addicted | 24 Heures du Mans | 12 | 23 Jun 2003 06:09 |
Results from Le Mans Classic | Heebeegeetee | Historic Racing Today | 6 | 26 Sep 2002 10:42 |