Discussion
olliethehut said:
Ford built a car that was at the very limit of the rules, and in one respect broke them
This sort of thing has been happening in various motorsport disciplines for decades!Jean Todt did similar with the Peugeot 205 in the group B era. I saw or read an article on his running of the Pug team during that era and he admitted to reading the rule book many times, deciphering the rules individually and having the car built exactly to that rule, or beyond the rule to such a minimal degree that it wasn't obviously noticed and therefore never really picked up that it allowed them marginal gains, but enough to take a win.
During the group B days cheating by certain teams was well know (Lancia's alleged fire extinguishers filled with NOS etc etc.)
Its all a bit handbags in the GTE Pro class between Ford & Ferrari, But they should have known what they were signing up to by allowing the car to run under the waiver to race. So far the only complaints I've heard about have been between Ford & Ferrari.
No one seems bothered with Corvette when they come in and dominate, despite not being part of the WEC series?
Will anyone ever be given permission like Ford has in future, maybe not.
Toyota Hybrid Racing said:
The team will analyse the cause of the problem as part of its preparations for the 2017 Le Mans 24 Hours, which begin immediately.
Full press release http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/heartbreak-at-le...Chapeau, chaps.
RichB said:
Leithen said:
All car manufacturers enter Le Mans for promotional reasons, and given that the class performance is controlled by BoP (Balance of Performance) restrictions to equal the field, it shouldn't really matter what car is entered.
However, there's unease about how Ford have gone about "winning Le Mans" 50 years after their famous 1960's effort.
First off, this is a class win, not overall. Still a great achievement, but not on the same par as in the 60's.
They've produced a race car that will have a very limited number of road going versions, and they haven't been built yet. Should that matter? Well probably, because we've been here before in several forms of the sport where homologation specials become the excuse to have a dominant race car. Their competitors adhere to the GT "spirit" more completely. Does the class want to be filled with one off "specials" that are more akin to McLaren P1's, La Ferrari's or Porsche 918's? Maybe that's OK, but it's a step change that will probably make entering the class far more expensive and difficult.
But with BoP this shouldn't matter right? In theory yes, but BoP is a very inexact science and likely to hack more people off than satisfy them. Add to which it would appear that Ford had been rather blatantly sandbagging in the year's previous WEC rounds and Le Mans practice, one has to question how much they were respecting the purpose behind BoP.
The protest against the Risi Ferrari position lights has added to the sense of distaste, as it seems very mercenary and shows the marketing exercise for what it really is - trying to create a 1-2-3 finish rather than being satisfied with simply beating the Ferrari into second place. However, there are protests flying back and forwards between several of the teams, so perhaps they felt bounced into making the protest to protect their win. Nonetheless is has left a sour taste.
The one remaining unanswered protest, apparently made by a number of competitors is that the Fords broke a 7% rule that attempts to keep the performance of each class distinct from each other. Basically the Ford was too close to the LMP2 field in a straight line. This goes to the heart of the matter, as Endurance racing / Sports Car racing is doing rather well at the moment, arguably far better than anything single seaters can produce. However that success is predicated on large fields, relatively easy entry criteria, availability of cars and cost. If the Ford GT is heralding a new era of either homologation specials or silhouette racing cars, this may be put in jeopardy.
Finally, there is a feeling that the authorities have bent rather too far backwards in accommodating the behemoth that is Ford to be certain of their participation.
Very good post. However, there's unease about how Ford have gone about "winning Le Mans" 50 years after their famous 1960's effort.
First off, this is a class win, not overall. Still a great achievement, but not on the same par as in the 60's.
They've produced a race car that will have a very limited number of road going versions, and they haven't been built yet. Should that matter? Well probably, because we've been here before in several forms of the sport where homologation specials become the excuse to have a dominant race car. Their competitors adhere to the GT "spirit" more completely. Does the class want to be filled with one off "specials" that are more akin to McLaren P1's, La Ferrari's or Porsche 918's? Maybe that's OK, but it's a step change that will probably make entering the class far more expensive and difficult.
But with BoP this shouldn't matter right? In theory yes, but BoP is a very inexact science and likely to hack more people off than satisfy them. Add to which it would appear that Ford had been rather blatantly sandbagging in the year's previous WEC rounds and Le Mans practice, one has to question how much they were respecting the purpose behind BoP.
The protest against the Risi Ferrari position lights has added to the sense of distaste, as it seems very mercenary and shows the marketing exercise for what it really is - trying to create a 1-2-3 finish rather than being satisfied with simply beating the Ferrari into second place. However, there are protests flying back and forwards between several of the teams, so perhaps they felt bounced into making the protest to protect their win. Nonetheless is has left a sour taste.
The one remaining unanswered protest, apparently made by a number of competitors is that the Fords broke a 7% rule that attempts to keep the performance of each class distinct from each other. Basically the Ford was too close to the LMP2 field in a straight line. This goes to the heart of the matter, as Endurance racing / Sports Car racing is doing rather well at the moment, arguably far better than anything single seaters can produce. However that success is predicated on large fields, relatively easy entry criteria, availability of cars and cost. If the Ford GT is heralding a new era of either homologation specials or silhouette racing cars, this may be put in jeopardy.
Finally, there is a feeling that the authorities have bent rather too far backwards in accommodating the behemoth that is Ford to be certain of their participation.
Nice balanced summary.
Out of interest, what is the minimum number of cars that a manufacturer must make to be classed as a "production" car?
The two applications of the letter of the rules that seemed disappointing to me were the issue of the position indicator lights on the Ferrari, and the removal of the #5 Toyota from the results due to the length of time it took to complete it's last limp home lap.
In both cases, these seem emotionally unfair and unnecessary, however from a practical point of view they were both essential to ensure that precedence isn't set for other defects and deviations from the rule book.
For the Toyota result, I had always thought that endurance racing was founded on a total distance run, and the #5 car should have kept it's place on a count back basis, having completed many more laps than cars that "finished", so this rule application was a new lesson on me, and one that only adds to their pain.
mat205125 said:
For the Toyota result, I had always thought that endurance racing was founded on a total distance run, and the #5 car should have kept it's place on a count back basis, having completed many more laps than cars that "finished", so this rule application was a new lesson on me, and one that only adds to their pain.
As did I! Absolutely gutted for Toyota - to have given such a thrilling race for all 24h is magnificent, but to lose it on the last lap is such a shame. Fingers crossed Toyota won't be too disheartened and come back fighting for next year.
mat205125 said:
For the Toyota result, I had always thought that endurance racing was founded on a total distance run, and the #5 car should have kept it's place on a count back basis, having completed many more laps than cars that "finished", so this rule application was a new lesson on me, and one that only adds to their pain.
As far as I know the logic behind this is that it stops a situation where there could be a lead car 3 laps in the lead, stop with 5 minutes to go in the pit lane knowing the second place car can't catch up the number of laps, therefore stopping from the fans seeing the car finish the race? mat205125 said:
Out of interest, what is the minimum number of cars that a manufacturer must make to be classed as a "production" car?
There doesn't seem to be a production number any more, but it's hard to find a technical document that states the strict homologation criteria. The best I can find is this.fiawec said:
The "Le Mans" Grand Touring Endurance car ("LM" GTE) is a car having an aptitude for sport with 2 doors, 2 or 2+2 seats, opened or closed, which can be used perfectly legally on the open road and available for sale thanks to the dealer network of a manufacturer recognised by the Endurance Committee.
Perhaps it is now intentionally vague? It's a cart before the horse scenario, where production waivers were granted as there wasn't a production car available to homologate. Perhaps more disappointingly it would appear that there is no intention to offer the race car for sale for use by other teams, and the race program is only for two years. Hopefully this will change and the car will be campaigned in various series.As a contrast, at the unveiling of the 488 GTE/GT3 it was reported that 150 race car variants of the 488 would be produced over a four year cycle.
em177 said:
mat205125 said:
For the Toyota result, I had always thought that endurance racing was founded on a total distance run, and the #5 car should have kept it's place on a count back basis, having completed many more laps than cars that "finished", so this rule application was a new lesson on me, and one that only adds to their pain.
As far as I know the logic behind this is that it stops a situation where there could be a lead car 3 laps in the lead, stop with 5 minutes to go in the pit lane knowing the second place car can't catch up the number of laps, therefore stopping from the fans seeing the car finish the race? Having the requirement to complete the last lap under a certain time also ensures that the start finish straight doesn't become clogged with limping, lame and knackered cars that will be pushed or coaxed across the line on starter motors once the lead car has completed the race.
Perfectly logical, however still painful for Toyota.
mat205125 said:
em177 said:
mat205125 said:
For the Toyota result, I had always thought that endurance racing was founded on a total distance run, and the #5 car should have kept it's place on a count back basis, having completed many more laps than cars that "finished", so this rule application was a new lesson on me, and one that only adds to their pain.
As far as I know the logic behind this is that it stops a situation where there could be a lead car 3 laps in the lead, stop with 5 minutes to go in the pit lane knowing the second place car can't catch up the number of laps, therefore stopping from the fans seeing the car finish the race? Having the requirement to complete the last lap under a certain time also ensures that the start finish straight doesn't become clogged with limping, lame and knackered cars that will be pushed or coaxed across the line on starter motors once the lead car has completed the race.
Perfectly logical, however still painful for Toyota.
So if the rule hadnt come in, Toyota woulda still come 2nd. Again, the rules are the rules, but its a new rule which smarts a bit.
p1stonhead said:
From what I read yesterday though, apparently the 'cool down' lap is only a recent thing. Previously the cars would just double back into the pits / into the back of the garages about 200m down the road. One of the Audi drivers had to clarify from Leena Gade when she told them to go all the way round again because they were not expecting it.
So if the rule hadnt come in, Toyota woulda still come 2nd. Again, the rules are the rules, but its a new rule which smarts a bit.
AIUI, they still would have been a DNF. Have to cross the line after 24 hours. You can be 20 laps ahead of the first finisher and still not win if you don't take the flag.So if the rule hadnt come in, Toyota woulda still come 2nd. Again, the rules are the rules, but its a new rule which smarts a bit.
p1stonhead said:
mat205125 said:
em177 said:
mat205125 said:
For the Toyota result, I had always thought that endurance racing was founded on a total distance run, and the #5 car should have kept it's place on a count back basis, having completed many more laps than cars that "finished", so this rule application was a new lesson on me, and one that only adds to their pain.
As far as I know the logic behind this is that it stops a situation where there could be a lead car 3 laps in the lead, stop with 5 minutes to go in the pit lane knowing the second place car can't catch up the number of laps, therefore stopping from the fans seeing the car finish the race? Having the requirement to complete the last lap under a certain time also ensures that the start finish straight doesn't become clogged with limping, lame and knackered cars that will be pushed or coaxed across the line on starter motors once the lead car has completed the race.
Perfectly logical, however still painful for Toyota.
So if the rule hadnt come in, Toyota woulda still come 2nd. Again, the rules are the rules, but its a new rule which smarts a bit.
RichB said:
p1stonhead said:
mat205125 said:
em177 said:
mat205125 said:
For the Toyota result, I had always thought that endurance racing was founded on a total distance run, and the #5 car should have kept it's place on a count back basis, having completed many more laps than cars that "finished", so this rule application was a new lesson on me, and one that only adds to their pain.
As far as I know the logic behind this is that it stops a situation where there could be a lead car 3 laps in the lead, stop with 5 minutes to go in the pit lane knowing the second place car can't catch up the number of laps, therefore stopping from the fans seeing the car finish the race? Having the requirement to complete the last lap under a certain time also ensures that the start finish straight doesn't become clogged with limping, lame and knackered cars that will be pushed or coaxed across the line on starter motors once the lead car has completed the race.
Perfectly logical, however still painful for Toyota.
So if the rule hadnt come in, Toyota woulda still come 2nd. Again, the rules are the rules, but its a new rule which smarts a bit.
Perhaps I misheard. Anyway the new 6 minute rule means they wouldn't have gotten there in time anyway.
Leithen said:
However, there's unease about how Ford have gone about "winning Le Mans" 50 years after their famous 1960's effort.
It was a Lola victory really though! Edited by Leithen on Monday 20th June 10:50
http://broadleyautomotive.co.uk/the-legacy
p1stonhead said:
Ah yes makes sense now. I thought they made it all the way round again though but it just took 12 minutes or something?
Perhaps I misheard. Anyway the new 6 minute rule means they wouldn't have gotten there in time anyway.
The rule came in 10 years or so ago. before that all sorts of wrecks would be sent out of the pits just before the end to limp around one slow lap to cross the line after the flag had dropped. they could take ages to get around. Also lots of cars were slowing on the last lap to limit the number of laps they needed to do which is crap for the tv. so they came up with a minimum time for the last lap.Perhaps I misheard. Anyway the new 6 minute rule means they wouldn't have gotten there in time anyway.
iirc its mainly so they can open the public bits of the road straight after the race, thats also why they dont do a lap after finishing.
p1stonhead said:
As a little side not isn't it a bit sad that this thread only has 15 pages when a typical F1 race gets to 50+?!
Utterly baffling to me that there is seemingly such a lack of interest/discussion.
Strange because last year there was 40-50 pages on lemans 2015. But btcc thread have dropped down to less than 3 pages now despite increased viewings so maybe less people are seeing these threads as its now in a separate thread and don't forgot there is an identical thread going in the leman sub section for the race.Utterly baffling to me that there is seemingly such a lack of interest/discussion.
Last F1 thread was 18 pages not 50. I think people have just got pissed off with the endless bickering and sniping that goes on generally in Pistonheads. I hardly bother to post on F1 because I just know someone will pick an argument no matter what. People probably think all the motorsport threads are the same.
MG CHRIS said:
don't forgot there is an identical thread going in the leman sub section for the race.
I have just looked that is in the Events forum. I never look in the Events forum because I don't go to the events, the race thread should not be in there as the events forum is for posting about attending and organising meets and such if you are going.Race threads should always be in the Motorsports forum.
If I had noticed it I would have moved it in here.
FourWheelDrift said:
I have just looked that is in the Events forum. I never look in the Events forum because I don't go to the events, the race thread should not be in there as the events forum is for posting about attending and organising meets and such if you are going.
Race threads should always be in the Motorsports forum.
If I had noticed it I would have moved it in here.
I agree completely, events section is for the people attending the event, whereas this section is for the poor suckers who cant attend.Race threads should always be in the Motorsports forum.
If I had noticed it I would have moved it in here.
While I watched 20hours of this years race I didn't post much here(prior years I would probably have posted 20+ posts as the race progressed) because there just seemed to be no life in this this thread which I think was due to two simultaneous threads which I think was a really dumb idea, a mod should have closed the one in the events and directed the traffic to here.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff