[LM24 Race] Hall's exclusion. Safe, fair, what do you think?

[Le Vieux]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

A relevant figure would be the apex speed at the Porsche curves. Doing 372 in a straight line is certainly not easy, but it's not the thing that causes problems for the drivers.

Anyone who thinks I called the old cars slow didn't read my posts properly. I said they're slower than the modern ones, and that is a fact. The chicanes on the Mulsanne straight are worth more than the 5 seconds the Peugeot's record is slower than the 917's. And if, as we see above, the straight line speed of the Peugeot is so much lower, it's all in the corners - and in the g-forces the driver has to cope with.

"Different era Slower cars"
372kph is faster than 319kph - or at least it was when I was at school!
If ever I'm unfortunate/stupid enough to get caught for seeding on my way back from LM, I'll inform the gendarme that I was travelling slowly and that he shouldn't regard my 175kph in a straight line as quick, but should check my speed round the nearest roundabout, where he'd realise that my speed is slow.

In anyone's book the 372kph recorded maximum of the old cars is NOT slower than the maximum recorded by the current cars.

As has been rightly pointed out, they were probably more difficult to drive as well, although I'm aware that this is a relative term. I'm sure I couldn't drive either quickly!

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

"Different era Slower cars"
372kph is faster than 319kph - or at least it was when I was at school!
If ever I'm unfortunate/stupid enough to get caught for seeding on my way back from LM, I'll inform the gendarme that I was travelling slowly and that he shouldn't regard my 175kph in a straight line as quick, but should check my speed round the nearest roundabout, where he'd realise that my speed is slow.

In anyone's book the 372kph recorded maximum of the old cars is NOT slower than the maximum recorded by the current cars.

As has been rightly pointed out, they were probably more difficult to drive as well, although I'm aware that this is a relative term. I'm sure I couldn't drive either quickly!

Yes, but maximum speeds are beside the point here. I suggest reading the post you quoted again.

If I must, I'll rephrase my original statement just for you: Different era, slower cars, except in a straight line which doesn't matter as much as cornering speeds when driver fatigue is concerned.

[cmk]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Ahem ..... and power steering ..... which makes a hell of a differance . They complain today when they dont have it or a car retires when the powersteering fails .

Since the cars are designed around having functional power steering, however, it is rather moot to suggest that they're not 'real men' enough or something. While PS added to a car designed to run without it can definitely help (see original MG Lola), the lack of it in car built around it is rather more difficult to deal with (see Audi R15). It's rather like chastising someone for not being able to handle a WRC car with a duff differential back in the heyday of their crazy diffs.

Regarding the difference between 2-driver and 3-driver eras, I always thought it was the addition of the chicanes and the increase in gear shifts and accelerations/decelerations that caused the change, though as has been alluded to here, both power steering and sequential boxes have greatly reduced the strain. Corner speeds also make a big difference compared to the 1970 numbers, and a lesser but notable one compared to the 1980s data.

[Tim the Grey]

Quick would be WR Peugeots 400kph, of course!

[Le Vieux]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Yes, but maximum speeds are beside the point here. I suggest reading the post you quoted again.

If I must, I'll rephrase my original statement just for you: Different era, slower cars, except in a straight line which doesn't matter as much as cornering speeds when driver fatigue is concerned.

Fair enough. No-one can deny that cornering speeds are important, but don't dismiss the straight line speed. IIRC, in the video of the 69 race, when the 917s first appeared, there's a section devoted to Rico Steinmann (then running the works 917s) threatening to withdraw the team unless he was allowed to modify the aerodynamics, because the 917s were so unstable in a straight line.

Getting back to the point of this thread, we should consider the overall driving experience, not just cornering speeds, not just straight line stability.

I remain unconvinced that cars from thirty of forty years ago were necessarily easier to drive. Having three drivers is perceived as being safer, but it's illogical, because if three are safer than two, then surely four will be safer than three , five than four...... and so on.

The ACO has to be seen to be making efforts which everyone thinks increases safety: higher fencing, the run-off area which ate into Indianapolis, various chicanes - and three drivers.

Emperor's new clothes?

[Dunlop Corner]

There is a difference between a car being difficult and physically hard to drive. Remember it is forces (and thus acceleration), not the difficulty that wears you out. Going 370km/h in a straight is not physically demanding, since there is only a slight forward acceleration. Going 200km/h in a high speed corner is what wears you out, because of the very high sideways acceleration.
There is not doubt that the modern cars, even though they are surely better handling than a Ford GT40 or Porsche 917, is much more punishing to drive. Also these days, you spend much more of the laptime cornering than in the old days. Which is why after chicane was inserted and thus robbing the drivers of there 1 minute rest each lap (as i said even though it is not easy to go 350, it is not punishing), teams began using 3 drivers. Which seems to be the ideal number.

[Le Vieux]

Originally Posted by Dunlop Corner

There is a difference between a car being difficult and physically hard to drive. Remember it is forces (and thus acceleration), not the difficulty that wears you out. Going 370km/h in a straight is not physically demanding, since there is only a slight forward acceleration. Going 200km/h in a high speed corner is what wears you out, because of the very high sideways acceleration.
There is not doubt that the modern cars, even though they are surely better handling than a Ford GT40 or Porsche 917, is much more punishing to drive. Also these days, you spend much more of the laptime cornering than in the old days. Which is why after chicane was inserted and thus robbing the drivers of there 1 minute rest each lap (as i said even though it is not easy to go 350, it is not punishing), teams began using 3 drivers. Which seems to be the ideal number.

My understanding of the 917/Steinemann problem I referred to is that it was that they weren't going in a straight line when they should have been, which was probably very demanding! Your point is valid though, since Derek Bell, in his autobiography, refers to looking at the stars whilst driving down the Mulsanne Straight. Not something I'd want to be doing at 225mph or so!

[Tim the Grey]

Silly question? Did anybody triple or quadruple stint drivers in 917s or 956s? Yet that seems routine today...

I suspect we're all barking up the wrong tree!

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Silly question? Did anybody triple or quadruple stint drivers in 917s or 956s? Yet that seems routine today...

Pretty sure that the Ickx /Bell partnership did triple stint in the 956, and dont forget the nutter who tried to do it solo but for a few laps in the 50's

The ACO has to be seen to be making efforts which everyone thinks increases safety: higher fencing, the run-off area which ate into Indianapolis, various chicanes - and three drivers.

Emperor's new clothes?

thought I read that the ACO dont stipulate that each car must have 3 drivers, its up to the teams?

The other factor to consider is driver fitness, nowadays unless a team has its own doctor and Physio with trainning camps your nobody!, these did not exist until the mid 80's I would guess so the drivers where not quite at their peak!

I'm with Le Vieux, I think the race was as demanding back in the day as it is now, but for different reasons and to try and compare different eras is largely pointless

[Tim the Grey]

I thought Ickx/Bell doubled, but not tripled? Certainly in the 50s the likes of Levegh would try to solo the whole thing but that was declared a tad dangerous...

Yes, you have higher 'G' these days, but I suspect the track is a little flatter, and the cars less subject to variation during a stint?

Anyone know anyone that has real experience of both eras?

[Le Vieux]

The other factor to consider is driver fitness, nowadays unless a team has its own doctor and Physio with trainning camps your nobody!, these did not exist until the mid 80's I would guess so the drivers where not quite at their peak!

Rob Walker admitted stopping at the pits in the late thirties - only to drink some champagne before his team finished it all off.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Nordic

Pretty sure that the Ickx /Bell partnership did triple stint in the 956, and dont forget the nutter who tried to do it solo but for a few laps in the 50's

Not in a 956. That was Pierre Levegh in a Talbot-Lago and he didn't intend to solo, but with a breaking car he was concerned the co-driver could not handle it.

Eddie Hall DID drive solo in 1950, the year Rosier won driving ALMOST solo. Chinetti drove for at least 22 hours in 1949 to win, Lord Selsdon didn't get in the Ferrari (his own) till four in the morning. Not forgetting the Bol d'Or which was designed to be 24 hours solo.

[maisonblanche]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Yes, and never been forgiven in my book. That was a far more dangerous move right in the middle of the Porsche Curves and, unlike Stuart Hall, Bourdais never even had the grace to admit his "mistake" - that's assuming it even was one.

I also heard Stuart being interviewed on RLM, and there's no denying that the guy was genuinely remorseful and contrite, and not just because he'd been excluded from the race. It was bad judgement, yes, but it was in no way deliberate. Stuart's record speaks for itself. He doesn't do things like that, and to exclude him from the race (and any further repercussions that arise from that) was excessive and unnecessary.

Totally agree - I feel the same way about Bourdais after that too. Arrogant individual and never liked him since. Used to be a big fan when he was in F3000 but that one incident did it for me. It would be easy to use the old "Frenchness" factor here but just depends on the stewards at the time. There is a danger of a precedent for future years here too. The ACO would never apologise in retrospect.

Totally unjustified penalty for Hall as clearly not intentional whereas Bourdais pretty much admitted his was!

[The Badger]

Ok ..... then why wasnt Salo in more crap for admiting live on RLM , while the race was still on , that he had deliberatly taken out Enge ?

If these rules apply , or course .

[AndrewF31]

A Ferrari took out an Aston Martin during the race? Must have missed it. What happened?

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by gert

I think the exclusion was exaggerated.
I can't remember a precedent from the past.
Didn't Bourdais once put out martin Short's car? I don't think he was even punished?

As for the safety issue: the Kolles guys were driving an open prototype were the Lola-Aston is a closed car. Would that make a difference physically?

It probably would have before , but the cars are now supposed to run with AC , so I dont think it would matter that much . Still hotter than an open topper though .

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I was amazed that nothing was done when it occured and said as much!

I thought that must be you when I heard the name mentioned!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Yes, but maximum speeds are beside the point here. I suggest reading the post you quoted again.

If I must, I'll rephrase my original statement just for you: Different era, slower cars, except in a straight line which doesn't matter as much as cornering speeds when driver fatigue is concerned.

I think you're fighting a losing battle here, and while I respect your opinion, I don't think too many agree with you.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think you're fighting a losing battle here, and while I respect your opinion, I don't think too many agree with you.

I think I stopped fighting any battles about this about two months ago. Also, who's right in a discussion (and I'd be perfectly willing to accept it's not me if someone can provide proof) luckily isn't decided by majority vote.

[Aysedasi]

Well in this case, those who disagree with each other will just have to accept each other's right to their opinion, I guess......