Most underrated Le Mans car.

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

next year with those michelins the dome may become the fastest car in not just the LMS, but at lemans!

Against Audi and Peugeot? I really doubt it!

But I do agree about Pescarolo - they've been something of a fancied underdog the last two years, like "the challenger" to the all-conquering Audi. I think that alone probably gives them popularity!

One beautiful car which never won LM was the Ferrari 333SP - it was of course very successful elsewhere, though:

[Nordic]

Porsche 908/
Played 'the other car' in the real closest finish at Le mans in 69 when it trailed home the winning GT40 whisker.
A version of the 908 was entered every year between 68 and 76 but never won, dispite being the car to beat just about everywhere else from the Targa to the 'ring

Its close cousin, the 936 took all the laurels at le Mans and the 908 is often overlooked.

[Lusitano]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

AOne beautiful car which never won LM was the Ferrari 333SP - it was of course very successful elsewhere, though:

Indeed! Probably, only the F40 was the only Ferrari more beautiful than the 333.

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

Against Audi and Peugeot? I really doubt it!

But I do agree about Pescarolo - they've been something of a fancied underdog the last two years, like "the challenger" to the all-conquering Audi. I think that alone probably gives them popularity!

One beautiful car which never won LM was the Ferrari 333SP - it was of course very successful elsewhere, though:

you are right i never thought of the ferrari 333SP, so that shows its an underdog already!

very true about the 333sp it won the sebring 12 hours in 1998 and was one of the favorites to win lemans in 98 but it didnt come through unfortunately.

i could go on forever about which cars i feel are underdogs but the zytek 04S, pescarolo and dome's stick out as underdogs for me.

an underdog for 2005 that should have won was the courage C60 hybrid judd it was fastest at the pre-season test, but it was never on the pace during the 2005 LMS season.

i guess for me the ultimate underdog was the zytek 06S and creation CA06H at petit, they were 99% developed on less money than the pescarolo's especially the CA06H creation.

and yet the zytek and creation were clearly quicker than the audi R10's with the IMSA's performance balancing, which in my opinion the ACO should use in the LMS and lemans 24 hours.

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

well for me i think the car that should have won lemans in 2005 and 2006 were the pescarolo's, they were as fast as the audi's and built to about a tenth of the budget audi had for the diesel rocket's, the R10's.


also i feel the dome HS101 judd as well deserves a mention not a very talked about car and it was hugely quick at lemans.
next year with those michelins the dome may become the fastest car in not just the LMS, but at lemans!

The Dome was only ever hugely quick in a straight line.

As for Pescarolo, they were not as fast as the R10s in 2006. But you're right, they were quickest in 2005 and completely dropped the ball.

[John Turner]

The stunning 1938 Alfa, discussed in the thread below, which also has pictures of the car and please see my post#8, on there (just to save repeating myself, here!):-

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...ight=Alfa+2900

Also, I give you the gorgeous and great handling but underfunded and underpowered (compared to the Jaguars and Ferraris of the time) Aston Martin DB3S which came 2nd at Le Mans in 1955, 1956 & 1958 (when it was well passed its sell buy date).

[chernaudi]

I'd agree with that for pre World War II cars. It used an aluminum supercharged 2.9 liter straight 8 with the cylinder heads and engine block made as one casting. It overcame problems with blown head gaskets(which were unreliable at the time), but were a pain when valves broke(which lead to this car's retirement at LM in '38). Phenominal car, especially for its time-it had a topspeed of over 150mph, a speed that cars wouldn't match until the late 50's.

[krt917]

I have to agree with the Rondeau, Aston Martin DB3S and Porsche 908 suggestions. The 908 in particular, I think, is one of the great inderrated sportscar of all time. It's Le Mans history is pretty good, but outside that it proved itself capable (albeit in various forms) of winning at all sorts of circuits, including Spa, Nurburgring and Monza.

More recently, I think the 1999 BMW V12 deserves to be in the list:

Originally Posted by rcarr

The BMW inherited the lead when Mercedes withdrew and Toyota had massive problems, hardly a great car and not that quick!

I don't think that this is quite correct. The Toyotas and Mercs made the headlines, but the BMWs quietly got on with the job and were quicker than people expected: almost as quick as the Toyota GT-One but, if memory serves, with better fuel consumption.

After Brundle's problems the JJ Lehto/Jorg Muller/Tom Kristensen car swapped the lead with the Thierry Boutsen/Allan McNish/Ralf Kelleners Toyota until Boutsen had his crash. That obviously helped BMW but the point is that they were competitive. And it's hardly BMW's fault that the Mercs took off!

Yannick Dalmas, Pierluigi Martini and Jo Winkelhock were fortunate that Karayama's Toyota had that puncture, but remember that the other car was several laps down the road before Lehto's accident, caused by the throttle sticking open.

And then the car was pretty handy in the States in 2000, despite the fact that the Audi R8 (the successful one, as opposed to the R8R and R8C, which the Bimmer beat at Le Mans in 1999) was a more modern design.

So yes, I'd say it's underrated!

I'm not so sure about the WM.

Originally Posted by littleman

The WM-Peugeot's from the early/mid 80's.They qualified well, went like a scud missle down Mulsanne and were driven by an assortment of rally drivers and other looney Frenchmen.The cars used to turn-up in the paddock on flat-bed trailers, towed by tatty old vans, with a crew of helper's that looked like New Age travellers! I believe one of the bloody things,the Green one, still holds the record for the fastest ever car down Mulsanne Straight - 250mph plus.Those were the days!

Although their straightline speed was impressive, that was what they went there for. They rarely figured at the front. The WMs count as Le Mans legends - 250mph is cool - but I don't think they are underrated!

[chernaudi]

I must say that the WM's are somewhat underrated, as they were fast for a privateer team(though they were somewhat supported by PSA, ie Peugeot), and relied on amuatur and pro drivers with relatively little LM expeience. In the race, their cars were slower than the Porsche 956/962C, and the Silk Cut Jaguars and Sauber M-Bs. But they did manage to get one of their cars to finish 4th at LM in 1980.

And is WM in anyway related to the current WR effort?

[krt917]

Fourth place in 1980 was indeed a good result, even though it was the year of one of the weaker Le Mans entries.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.
I've got nothing against WM, but I think that they're reasonably well known due to their straightline speed despite the fact that they achieved relatively little in terms of results.

Having said that, didn't Dorchy lead briefly early on one year - 1985?

Just to throw another possible car into the discussion. How about the Ferrari 330P4? Often cited as one of the most beautiful sportscars ever, it was also mighty effective. Finished 2-3 at Le Mans in 1967 despite being thrashed in an effort to beat the Fords, which had an engine capacity advantage of three litres.

The car also won the Daytona 24 Hours and Monza 1000kms and Ferrari won the manufacturers title that year.

[Hammerdown]

Originally Posted by krt917

How about the Ferrari 330P4? Often cited as one of the most beautiful sportscars ever, it was also mighty effective. Finished 2-3 at Le Mans in 1967 despite being thrashed in an effort to beat the Fords, which had an engine capacity advantage of three litres.

And not a restrictor in sight! Don't know if Bob Reibe reads this thread, but I'm sure he'd love this little factoid. No replacement for displacement!

[Truckosaurus]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And is WM in anyway related to the current WR effort?

I believe the 'W' in both is Gerard Welter.

[FIRE]

WM = Welter Meunier
WR = Welter Racing

When Michel Meunier left the team Gerard Welter renamed the team to Welter Racing.

[rcarr]

Originally Posted by krt917

More recently, I think the 1999 BMW V12 deserves to be in the list:



I don't think that this is quite correct. The Toyotas and Mercs made the headlines, but the BMWs quietly got on with the job and were quicker than people expected: almost as quick as the Toyota GT-One but, if memory serves, with better fuel consumption.

After Brundle's problems the JJ Lehto/Jorg Muller/Tom Kristensen car swapped the lead with the Thierry Boutsen/Allan McNish/Ralf Kelleners Toyota until Boutsen had his crash. That obviously helped BMW but the point is that they were competitive. And it's hardly BMW's fault that the Mercs took off!

Yannick Dalmas, Pierluigi Martini and Jo Winkelhock were fortunate that Karayama's Toyota had that puncture, but remember that the other car was several laps down the road before Lehto's accident, caused by the throttle sticking open.

And then the car was pretty handy in the States in 2000, despite the fact that the Audi R8 (the successful one, as opposed to the R8R and R8C, which the Bimmer beat at Le Mans in 1999) was a more modern design.

Everyone tries to argue me down about the BMWs speed but in all reality, they were not as quick as the Mercedes or the Toyotas. The roof made a big difference in terms of speed.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/trap.htm

[SALEEN S7R]

Originally Posted by krt917

More recently, I think the 1999 BMW V12 deserves to be in the list:



I don't think that this is quite correct. The Toyotas and Mercs made the headlines, but the BMWs quietly got on with the job and were quicker than people expected: almost as quick as the Toyota GT-One but, if memory serves, with better fuel consumption.

Indeed, the #17 BMW qualifed 3rd on the grid with a 3:31.209 not far behind the #1 Toyota GT1 which took pole with a 3:29.930. Beating 2 of the 3 Toyota's and outqualifying all the Mercedes was quite a achievement. IMO.

[zac510]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

One beautiful car which never won LM was the Ferrari 333SP - it was of course very successful elsewhere, though:

Well said!

[Gil Abobeleira]

Originally Posted by rcarr

Everyone tries to argue me down about the BMWs speed but in all reality, they were not as quick as the Mercedes or the Toyotas. The roof made a big difference in terms of speed.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/trap.htm

That's why the Audi R8 (one of the "slowest" LMP1 cars on a straight line) was so "slow"

[rcarr]

Originally Posted by Gil Abobeleira

That's why the Audi R8 (one of the "slowest" LMP1 cars on a straight line) was so "slow"

To be honest, the Audi team had such a well oiled machine that could last the 24hrs rather than the faster rivals which couldn't.

The R8 was built so well they had an advantage in the pits too! Catch bolt system on the gearbox and on the front crashbox, I believe. Rather than having to bolt off several pieces, the Audi undid catch bolts in a matter of seconds.

[Dunlop Corner]

Originally Posted by rcarr

Everyone tries to argue me down about the BMWs speed but in all reality, they were not as quick as the Mercedes or the Toyotas. The roof made a big difference in terms of speed.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/trap.htm

That's why the open cars were allowed to run wider tires if i am not wrong. They lost some times on the straight, but was able to get that back later in the lap.


They controlled that race right from the start. Kristensen laid back at the first stint while Brundle and Schneider were going crazy up front. Then Tom started to catch them, and after some good laps after the Mercedes and Toyotas pitted (BMW had much better fuel economy), Tom was able to hand the car over to Muller in the lead. The car was up in front with the Boutsen Toyota, while the Mercedes and the Brundle car hit problems. Then Boutsen crashed, and BMW had it in the bag.

I don't think it is fair at all to say BMW won because of attrition. That could be said about the 98 Porsche GT1. But the 99 BMW was a very worthy winner of the strongest Le Mans in recent years. And that makes it underrated.

[Satorian]

1995 Honda NSX GT2

Hey, it finished and it finished first in class. And, really, rarely anybody ever mentions it. I would have loved to see an NA2 NSX GT2 in recent years in FIA GT/LMS.

[chernaudi]

I'd agree with the GT2 NSX. No one ever hears/says anything about it.

As for the R8 being slower in a straight line, I think it has more downforce than many LMP cars at LM. The R8 ran only about 205mph at most, while the Dome and the Toyota GT1, for example, did about 215. Aperantly, Audi decided that what they lose down the straights, they can make up in cornering. Even the Bentley Speed 8 struggled to do much over 200-205 at LM for top speed for much the same reasons(more downforce).

[F360]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

you are right i never thought of the ferrari 333SP, so that shows its an underdog already!

very true about the 333sp it won the sebring 12 hours in 1998 and was one of the favorites to win lemans in 98 but it didnt come through unfortunately.

Not quite right..........didn't win outright......but did win its class that year...

[Randy]

Originally Posted by jhansen

The Dome was only ever hugely quick in a straight line.

As for Pescarolo, they were not as fast as the R10s in 2006. But you're right, they were quickest in 2005 and completely dropped the ball.

Dropped the ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suggest you have a look at the regs.

[Gil Abobeleira]

Originally Posted by rcarr

To be honest, the Audi team had such a well oiled machine that could last the 24hrs rather than the faster rivals which couldn't.

The R8 was built so well they had an advantage in the pits too! Catch bolt system on the gearbox and on the front crashbox, I believe. Rather than having to bolt off several pieces, the Audi undid catch bolts in a matter of seconds.

Let me rephrase it

Straight line speed is not the most important factor nowadays at LeMans (post Hunaudières chicanes).
The BMW, as well as the Audi, were slower on those speedtraps, but, at the end of the lap, they were as fast (BMW) or even faster (Audi) than the other cars who had greater top speed.

[chernaudi]

That's what I'm trying to refer to. True, the Toyota GT1 was much faster than the Audi in a straight line, but the Audi cornered far better, and was far better on the brakes, probably due to downforce as much as anything else. And straightline speed doesn't matter as much due to things like the Porsche Curves, the Dunlop Chicane, and the Mulsanne Chicanes.