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

[Dunlop Corner]

Just to clear something up, that was not Kristensen in the car. Capello was in the race at that moment, and i beleive it is the number 3 Audi, not the 1.


Hall deserved every punishment avaiable. I know he is british and that it was not on purpose, but that was an awful bit of driving. He is just passing the P2 car, why on earth do he then go all the way to the right of the track when he knows the car is there? Since this was a weak P2 car, it did not effect the outcome of the race. But what if it had been say the Risi Ferrari. That move by Hall was so redicoulos it could have been anybody he would have put off.
A very harsh penalty definately in place. I would have thought it would have been a 3 minute stop/go, but they decided for the kind of strange driver red card. I can see the point, since this was not a sporting fault but a blatent driver error that ruined another cars race. If it had been a no-name rookie pay driver, i would have said this move shows he did not belong in the race. Should Hall get off more lightly because he is a known driver?

If a personal exclusion is a penalty avaible to the directors, i think this was a time to use it. The question then becomes wheter it is "safe" to have cars race with only two drivers, or what happens if another driver makes the same mistake. We have seen several times that cars have been driven throughout the race with only 2 drivers. Biela and Kaffer did it some years ago, and even inexperienced prototype drivers such as Lotterer and Zwolsmann managed it this year. The drivers definately have a harder time than with 3 guys sharing the load, but i think it has been proven it can be done. And as such, there is nothing wrong with excluding a driver for a very big personal faul, such as this one.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Dunlop Corner

If a personal exclusion is a penalty avaible to the directors

Forgive me for asking but ..... on the off chance that two drivers of the same car got a simelar race meeting ban , how would that work out ?

Once the clean driver did his maximun of a four hour stint , the car would have to retire , or not . That is hardly fair now , is it ?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Forgive me for asking but ..... on the off chance that two drivers of the same car got a simelar race meeting ban , how would that work out ?

Once the clean driver did his maximun of a four hour stint , the car would have to retire , or not . That is hardly fair now , is it ?

Well, sorry to say, if 2 drivers in the same car get themselves dqed and the third driver cannot bring the car home due to driver/time rules, yes the car should be dqed. It is not the fault of the ACO, or any sanctioning body, that the 2 drivers committed acts that ruined it for the team!



L.P.

[Adam43]

Too true!

[courageous]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

teams should be allowed to nominate a reserve driver, I think that makes sense.

They are allowed a reserve driver - as long as that driver has done the qualifying laps.

At least 3 other cars had to run with 2 drivers for the most part of the race & fatigue is just an excuse - 2 drivers used to be the norm (lest we forget the driver who I have forgotten who did all bar 1 lap on his own).

As far as the nature of the exclusion - I think it is a good thing, punish the driver but not the team.
Assuming that some sort of penalty was to be given - the alternative would have been a 3 minute stop & go - best part of a lap.

[courageous]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Forgive me for asking but ..... on the off chance that two drivers of the same car got a simelar race meeting ban , how would that work out ?

Once the clean driver did his maximun of a four hour stint , the car would have to retire

No, they would just have to park it for the driver rest period - they could still do the finish, albeit well down the order (which is entirely fair if the team has picked a driver line up that reckless)

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by courageous

They are allowed a reserve driver - as long as that driver has done the qualifying laps.

Then why isn't anyone doing it?

At least 3 other cars had to run with 2 drivers for the most part of the race & fatigue is just an excuse - 2 drivers used to be the norm (lest we forget the driver who I have forgotten who did all bar 1 lap on his own).

Different eras. Slower cars.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by courageous

They are allowed a reserve driver - as long as that driver has done the qualifying laps.

At least 3 other cars had to run with 2 drivers for the most part of the race & fatigue is just an excuse - 2 drivers used to be the norm (lest we forget the driver who I have forgotten who did all bar 1 lap on his own).

As far as the nature of the exclusion - I think it is a good thing, punish the driver but not the team.
Assuming that some sort of penalty was to be given - the alternative would have been a 3 minute stop & go - best part of a lap.

No they are not allowed a reserve driver!! As per Art. 6.1.3 b/ on page #9 of the SR here



L.P.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by gert

Didn't Bourdais once put out martin Short's car? I don't think he was even punished?

Yeah, but Bourdais is French.

[courageous]

Ahh - ACO sporting regulation article 49.B.iii subsection F.iv.97

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by courageous

Ahh - ACO sporting regulation article 49.B.iii subsection F.iv.97

Don't give up the day job! And if there even was such an article, it would be moot. Supplemental Regulations (SR) for an individual race supersede the standard ACO sporting regulations!





L.P.

[GORDON STREETER]

Having known Stuart since he knee high to a grass hopper and raced against him when he drove his dads car with Andy Rouse, I have always found him to be level headed and a good clean driver. OK he made a mistake (like we all have done) and put his hands up, but the penalty IMHO was out of order.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Then why isn't anyone doing it?


Different eras. Slower cars.

Yep the 956 and 917 etc were dog slow, and without the weight of Air con and power steering alot easier to drive.

[Le Vieux]

Originally Posted by Nordic

Yep the 956 and 917 etc were dog slow, and without the weight of Air con and power steering alot easier to drive.

The 917 was so slow it still holds the lap record at LM.

[Lusitano]

ACO = French
Peugeot = French
AMR = not

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

The 917 was so slow it still holds the lap record at LM.

At a version of LM with less corners.

I'd expect the cornering speeds of modern LMPs to be considerably above what a 917 and 956 could do. And that's what requires the most effort.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

The 917 was so slow it still holds the lap record at LM.

They must have been a breeze to drive, 4 speed maunal gearbox, no air con or cool suit, sitting in what amounted to a fuel tank on wheels held together with a bit of tubing.

[Tim the Grey]

Bendy tubing, at that... Well, at least with a 917 it was.

[AstonGeoff]

Was the penalty applied in relationship to the amount of damage caused to the Radical I wonder? There have been plenty of occasions when one car has (maybe) inadvertantly knocked another off and there has been no penalty applied, but the Radical suffered most of it's damage due to the location of the accident and the location of safety walls and tyres. If there had been a large gravel trap to the right of the Radical it would probably have suffered no more than some lost time as it was extracted from the gravel. I'm not saying that there should have been a gravel trap there, but more that the penalty, if any, would have been a lot less had the incident happened, say, going into the Dunop chicane.

Stuarts a great bloke, and he made a mistake, a stop go of some length might have been more in order.

The other big question is what happens in the future when, for example, an Audi bif's a Pug (or any other car) off, will we see Pug putting in a complaint and asking for the driver to be exluded?

[Le Vieux]

From "the Certain Sound" by John Wyer, on the Porsche 917
"The car was obviously not short of power but all the drivers were loud in their criticism of the roadholding" (p214)

"It may be assumed that the 917L was capable of 225mph" (p220, talking of Le Mans 1970)
"The 917L tested at the 1970 Le Mans trials was, frankly, a pig to drive and all the drivers hated it" (p220)

Porsche 956: Maximum speed set by Klaus Ludwig in the Joest car in qualifying in 1965 was 372kph (231mph) Source: Moity & Tessidre Le Mans Yearbook 1985, page 184

Best speed achieved in the 2008 race 319kph 198mph by no.7 Peugeot. Source: same authors, 2008 Yearbook, p234

Now that we've put "dog slow" into perspective,, can someone enlighten me as to what would represent "quick"?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AstonGeoff

Was the penalty applied in relationship to the amount of damage caused to the Radical I wonder? There have been plenty of occasions when one car has (maybe) inadvertantly knocked another off and there has been no penalty applied, but the Radical suffered most of it's damage due to the location of the accident and the location of safety walls and tyres. If there had been a large gravel trap to the right of the Radical it would probably have suffered no more than some lost time as it was extracted from the gravel. I'm not saying that there should have been a gravel trap there, but more that the penalty, if any, would have been a lot less had the incident happened, say, going into the Dunop chicane.

Stuarts a great bloke, and he made a mistake, a stop go of some length might have been more in order.

The other big question is what happens in the future when, for example, an Audi bif's a Pug (or any other car) off, will we see Pug putting in a complaint and asking for the driver to be exluded?

I am not sure if that is how the penalties are assessed. It seems a plausible scenario and would not suprise me, if they were being decided in such a manner.




L.P.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

From "the Certain Sound" by John Wyer, on the Porsche 917
"The car was obviously not short of power but all the drivers were loud in their criticism of the roadholding" (p214)

"It may be assumed that the 917L was capable of 225mph" (p220, talking of Le Mans 1970)
"The 917L tested at the 1970 Le Mans trials was, frankly, a pig to drive and all the drivers hated it" (p220)

Porsche 956: Maximum speed set by Klaus Ludwig in the Joest car in qualifying in 1965 was 372kph (231mph) Source: Moity & Tessidre Le Mans Yearbook 1985, page 184

Best speed achieved in the 2008 race 319kph 198mph by no.7 Peugeot. Source: same authors, 2008 Yearbook, p234

Now that we've put "dog slow" into perspective,, can someone enlighten me as to what would represent "quick"?

Amen, Slow they were not!!

As you, I think those cars where as hard and tiring to drive as anything on the track today.

For Prodrive to say it was dangerious following Halls exclusion, is their opion and not really backed up with fact. If they believed it then they should have pulled the car out the race.

I think the true purpose of the statement was to deflect the blame from the appaling driving displayed by Hall.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

From "the Certain Sound" by John Wyer, on the Porsche 917
"The car was obviously not short of power but all the drivers were loud in their criticism of the roadholding" (p214)

"It may be assumed that the 917L was capable of 225mph" (p220, talking of Le Mans 1970)
"The 917L tested at the 1970 Le Mans trials was, frankly, a pig to drive and all the drivers hated it" (p220)

Porsche 956: Maximum speed set by Klaus Ludwig in the Joest car in qualifying in 1965 was 372kph (231mph) Source: Moity & Tessidre Le Mans Yearbook 1985, page 184

Best speed achieved in the 2008 race 319kph 198mph by no.7 Peugeot. Source: same authors, 2008 Yearbook, p234

Now that we've put "dog slow" into perspective,, can someone enlighten me as to what would represent "quick"?

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.

[Nordic]

Agree that a modern car is faster over a lap of the current circuit than a 956 or 917, that is without doubt.

The two eras pose very differnet challanges, the 956 was a step up over the 917 for example, and at the time it was said how easy the 956 was to drive compared to the 917, which was a beast.

What neither of those two had was massive amounts of downforce so the 'g' was lower, so therefore it could be said easier to drive, I suspect the ride was softer as well.

what they had instead was manual shift gearboxes with a lever, no air con or cool suit, few if any drivers had physio between stints (maybe a quickie in the caravan!) no power steering, poor lights etc

Very different beasts, but no less tiring I would have said.

[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 .