[LM24 Race] • 24hrs of Le Mans • June, 6th – 13th 2010

[henk4]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

@henk: well, looking at how fast audi is as compared to anybody else these years, except peugeot, i wouldn't say they are not competitive. and the same with toyota in the early '90s, who were much faster than the rest of the field and only behind peugeot. if peugeot want to prove a point and they only do it at le mans, for almost 20 years now, than it's really a point i don't get. like, "we're capable of producing much more efficient cars than the japanese and the germans, but we just don't want to"? is that their point?

audi was the only FACTORY team for quite a while until Peugeot stepped in. And Peugeot participated in the LMS series while Audi did the ALMS, so it is not only Le Mans. On the other had, if it were not for LeMans, I greatly doubt that any factory spend so much money on sportscar racing.

[sssssssss]

well, it's still the le mans car and team that we're talking about, and still the aco. as far as money go, you're surely right.
as far as audi go, they did beat the le mans winning bmws in 2000 and... well, there were the cadillacs in the early 2000s; of course, no one expected them to beat audi, as we don't expect the astons today to do so. so, audi are kind of standing where they're supposed to and where all great manufacturers stood at le mans so far. peugeot are really the only ones to go sf.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by henk4

conspiracy, conspiracy again.

I am never claimed that there is a conspiracy against open cars. I was just listing the fact that a number of things changed after Audi made to decision to replace the R10 with another open car. Lets go over the changes one by one:

(1) I can imagine that the 1 air gun rule was introduced because of lobbying by Peugeot. ACO claimed this was done because of cost saving, which is rather ridiculous: now 3 air guns and more pit crew members are used than with the previous rules.

(2) The +30 kg ballast was the result of attempts to slow down the diesel cars. While IMSA chose to reduce the weight of petrol car (e.g., to 880 kg), ACO decided to increase the weight of diesel cars. Unclear why the ACO toke a different decision. Fact is that in the beginning Peugeot was struggling to get the 908 under the minimum weight. Of course you can also argue that lowering the weight for petrol cars would make the cars more expensive. However in ALMS it was no problem for petrol LMP1s to run less than 900 kg.

(3) A number of factors contributed to the regulation change for the front aero: ACO added the non-wing element rule in response to the "creativity" of Porsche with the RS Spyder, Audi went a bit too far in the literal interpretation of the rules (against the spirit), and Peugeot was whining like hell.

(4) The smaller rear wing is the result of the heavy crashes in 2008. Nothing there.

Will the 2011 Audi be fitted with a roof?

I guess this depends on the rules. Coupes will no longer get the bigger restrictor, but I believe airconditioning is no longer mandatory either.

Personally I don't know whether the drag advantage of coupe has a big effect when top speeds are a lot lower (because of less engine power).

[ianroke]

Originally Posted by henk4

conspiracy, conspiracy again. Will the 2011 Audi be fitted with a roof?

Code name is the R18 I believe.

[Martin90]

speed trap for Q3

1 1 LMP1 Team Peugeot Total Peugeot 908 HDi - FAP 347
2 2 LMP1 Team Peugeot Total Peugeot 908 HDi - FAP 345
3 3 LMP1 Peugeot Sport Total Peugeot 908 HDi - FAP 345
4 8 LMP1 Audi Sport Team Joest Audi R15 TDI 344
5 9 LMP1 Audi Sport North America Audi R15 TDI 344
6 7 LMP1 Audi Sport Team Joest Audi R15 TDI 344
7 4 LMP1 Team Oreca Matmut Peugeot 908 HDi - FAP 342

[sssssssss]

where did you get them from?

[Victor_RO]

They're in the result sheet PDFs on the LM livetiming page.

[henk4]

@Gwyllion
I think only the first point mentioned above is one that may benefit the coupes, in the sense that driver changes can be done at more ease. If that is a Peugeot inspired measure did they collude with Lola and Aston Martin to get this done? Anybody aware of anything like that?

I deliberately used the word conspiracy, because I sometimes get the impression that not few people here consider Le Mans as the home territory for a French brand and that ACO is just a means to make sure that whenever a French brand seriously tries to win, it will happen.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

where did you get them from?

Try this http://www.lemans.org/en/courses/24h...rect-2010.html





L.P.

[Martin90]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

where did you get them from?

This is the exact link to the file:
http://www.lemans.org/iframes/24hdum...ng_3_speed.pdf

[sssssssss]

@henk: it might seem like i was implying that... i certainly do not have a theory like that, but i also have to say it's not completely impossible either; and the national criteria isn't necessary either.
@horndawg&victor: i don't find them... there are the times, the sectors, the secotr analysis, but no speeds... for me at least.

EDIT: thanks martin!

[skeeskirrt]

Originally Posted by gttouring

Anyone know what the infraction was for the Risi Ferrari that sent them to the back. Go Corvettes!

According to this it was a wing irregularity found on the #83 car.
http://www.lemans.org/en/races/24h/u...arity_717.html

[airbusA346]

Originally Posted by Martin90

This is the exact link to the file:
http://www.lemans.org/iframes/24hdum...ng_3_speed.pdf

Where did you find that, because I can't find it on the Le Mans website?

Tom.

[airbusA346]

Originally Posted by skeeskirrt

According to this it was a wing irregularity found on the #83 car.
http://www.lemans.org/en/races/24h/u...arity_717.html

Talk about causing confusion.

Headline mentions #82, and article talks about #83.

Shame that it wasn't talking about #82. lol

Tom.

[cmk]

I really do not buy that cancellation of qualifying times is a fair punishment for the Risi #82's 'infraction'. Maybe a fine, or maybe just take the offending unused gurneys away?

[Martin90]

Originally Posted by airbusA346

Where did you find that, because I can't find it on the Le Mans website?

Tom.

messed around a bit with the links to see if there were any files online that weren't (yet) posted and it appears the speed file was online :P

[airbusA346]

Originally Posted by cmk

I really do not buy that cancellation of qualifying times is a fair punishment for the Risi #82's 'infraction'. Maybe a fine, or maybe just take the offending unused gurneys away?

But if the time was gained due to the offending gurney then the time was set with an illegal car (not sure if illegal is the correct word to use. ). So why should the time be allowed, when the car would have had an unfair advantage?

Tom.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by cmk

I really do not buy that cancellation of qualifying times is a fair punishment for the Risi #82's 'infraction'. Maybe a fine, or maybe just take the offending unused gurneys away?

Originally Posted by airbusA346

But if the time was gained due to the offending gurney then the time was set with an illegal car (not sure if illegal is the correct word to use. ). So why should the time be allowed, when the car would have had an unfair advantage?

Tom.

I have to agree. As close as it was, the gurney could have very well influenced the outcome.



L.P.

[skeeskirrt]

Check that: The Risi website confirms it is the #82 pole sitting car.

http://www.risicompetizione.com/go/3...18EAB0EC244B8D

[broadrun96]

Would seem kind of fishy to just seize the offending parts and not disallow the times for any preceding sessions. That said, how could Risi have been ballsy enough to think the ACO wouldn't measure their parts. Just seems like a dumb thing to think the ACO wouldn't notice. I'm guessing the article is wrong in saying it was the 83 and it was the 82.

[hoppelemine]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84309

Says that the car was to the regulations when it set it's pole time. Rules are still rules though.

[cmk]

It is clear that the time was not set with an illegal car, so arguments to the contrary are spurious at best. I'm not even clear on whether the offending gurney had been run at all. Honestly, if things like gurneys are measured, should it not be at scrutineering before we even get to this stage, rather than two days after a car sets its pole time?

[arakis]

the car set it best time on wensday, and since then they have rebuilt the car, and on thursday they were only beding it in for the race, and trying some race setups, they were trying stuff out, and since their times were nowere near pole times, they probably thought that they didn't need to be 100% carefull! they relaxed and they payed for it, but if its anyithing I know from watching risi over the years, they perform best when in a tight spot

[fanta4]

Originally Posted by cmk

It is clear that the time was not set with an illegal car, so arguments to the contrary are spurious at best.

How do we know that?

[broadrun96]

Are the gurneys for the 430 like the slide in ones that the IRL use on their rear wing? If they had an illegal sized part at any time in the pits, excluding their time could be considered a light punishment whether they set the time with it or not. What's the point in having a part in the garage that could't be used in the event, you're just setting yourself for exclusion during the race if caught. Even if that smaller one is allowed under ALMS/IMSA rules, leave it behind at the race shop.