[LM24] Anomalous Le Mans results

[isynge]

AGD makes a good comment in the "what to talk about thread" about whether 1991's results should really be taken all that seriously.

Originally Posted by AGD

If I recall correctly, Schumacher was in the last Mercedes that had a shot at winning before suffering a mechanical failure that needed lengthy repairs. The Mercedes were the favorites that year and I guess you could say that maybe he should have won it had his car not failed him and his teammates, but we can say that about a lot of people. Anyway, 1991 was just a really goofy year with the wacky rules and such. Since this is an off-topic thread to begin with, I guess it is a legitimate question to ask how seriously people take the 1991 race results. IMO, it was a bit of a farce.

Now, from my perspective I fully respect the 1991 result, and subtracting the Mazda to give us a Jaguar whitewash (who had never been remotely in the hunt) wouldn't have been a true reflection either.

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?

[AGD]

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.

[Mike_Wooshy]

History is written by the victor.... Simples..... those are the law of the jungle.

[Aysedasi]

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.

[The Badger]

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 .

[AGD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

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 .

I don't really have a major issue with the Dauer 962. Not only was it within the rules, but it was probably more within the spirit of the rules than some of the homologation specials we saw later on that decade.

You can also talk about Bsher taking out the Toyota , and the BMW took the win ..... but thats life .

I don't know if Bsher really "took out" the Toyota, if anything it was like what the Gene Peugeot did to the Audi this year. Maybe it was accidental, maybe not. I guess Bsher always had the excuse that he was a gentleman driver. Besides, the Toyota still had to catch up to the winning BMW which was still leading at the time of Katayama's flat tire. Anyway, there were certainly a lot of coulda, woulda, shouldas in 1999. It wasn't the closest finish and the best car probably did not win (even if you think the BMW was the best car in the race, the #17 car was probably better than the winning car), but I think that race proved just how hard Le Mans is to win especially when there is so much competition. 1998 was kind of like that too with the major problems BMW and Mercedes had.

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.

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Mazda deserved it cuz they had the best prepared machine , and it didnt break .

This I agree with. I compare it to the modern diesel/petrol thing, the rules seem to favour the diesels (understatement of the year!), but those teams still have to run a good race, the cars still have to last the distance and the drivers need to keep it on the track. How many times have all the Audis and Peugeots finished, for example?

If it were a 10-lap sprint race then its definitely unfair, but over 24 hours is a completely different story.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

How many times have all the Audis and Peugeots finished, for example?

At Le Mans? Once ('08).

'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"

[Adam43]

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.

[chernaudi]

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.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by isynge

1995 when the rain and a couple of iffy calls from Courage denied Andretti and Wollek their win but got the popular McLaren result?

I would have to say that this one was really one of my saddest 24 hours. While it was really nice to see the beautiful McLaren win, I really felt it would be the last chance for Wollek and Andretti to win and they came so close. What a bummer!

DK

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

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.

I accept that's true, and Badger is right as well in that the ACO allowed it to happen.

[Adam43]

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.

[Gingers4Justice]

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.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by AGD

I don't know if Bsher really "took out" the Toyota, if anything it was like what the Gene Peugeot did to the Audi this year

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 .

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

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.

What did Jackie Ickx have to do with the Mazda win ?

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 !!!

[Mike_Wooshy]

Jackie was helping Mazda that year, I cant remember his exactly role in the team but he did play a part.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Mike_Wooshy

Jackie was helping Mazda that year, I cant remember his exactly role in the team but he did play a part.

Head Consultant IIRC.

[nobster]

I have Ickx on photo at the podium ceremony just after the race, wearing the same clothing as other Mazda personel.

[chernaudi]

Ickx was team manager and de Chaunac was/is founder and owner of Oreca, who ran the Mazda program in 1991.