2016 Le Mans 24 Hours - 15th to 19th June 2016

[Com Fox]

How junk would a car be that couldn't handle 100kph or less? You would be defecating in liters every time you made a pit stop,

and if it was the case for Toyota (which I doubt as the theory of slower speeds = danger is ridiculous IMO), then they pretty much deserved to lose.

 

[CodeRedR51]

then they pretty much deserved to lose.

This is pretty ridiculous to say, IMO.

 

[ederss7]

No. The Toyota was only one lap ahead of the #8. You have your timeline messed up. Koby wasn't at fault for that damage either. I keep seeing this here and other forums. That damage was there from contact with a GTE earlier in the race. The performance wasn't all there, but it was made worse because Koby spun when he was catching the #2.

Bring on Nurburgring. I wonder if Toyota will have the Spa/Silverstone package or run something with even more downforce?

I'm not talking about the first time they tried to repair the car. It's towards the end of the race when Toyota knew it was impossible to the catch the Porsche ahead and when the car was reportedly having handling issues. At this stage of the race the Audis were several laps behind. Toyota had plenty of time to fix the car for good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinion about what happened to Toyota. They had terrible luck, but I car that wants to win Le Mans can't afford to have a failure like that, even after +380 laps. These top teams do endurance test that lasts way more than 24h. Last year they covered more laps, which would mean the #5 would probably not finish the race, although in not a such cruel way. To summarize: Toyota did a good job but unfortunately it wasn't enough. Simple as that. Again, great performance for a completely new car.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

This is a bad argument.

All the teams agreed to waiver the rule to allow the Ford GT to compete and the League allowed it too, therefore they did not break any rules by participating. It's a terrible argument when the league who creates and enforces the rules have allowed it.

Whether or not it breaks the rules "for you" means little to nothing and whether I have a full understanding of GTE-PRO rules also means little to nothing in regard to this.

BTW before you say he knows more then me... well the people that run this league that allowed the Ford GT to participate know more about the rules than him.

You still haven't answered the question now again for the 3rd time have you read the GTE rule book yes or no?

If you don't answer then everyone is going to assume you haven't read the rule book hence you have absolutely no idea what on earth you are talking about.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I find it slightly annoying that the ACO never permitted the Maserati MC12 to race at Le Mans, but now allowed Ford to do it, even though the situation with the cars are very similar, if not the exact same. To my knowledge, there are only two things that effect this, that have changed in the homologation forms; the number of roadcars that has to be built, and the introduction of waivers. Thank you BMW...

 

[Skython]

I find it slightly annoying that the ACO never permitted the Maserati MC12 to race at Le Mans, but now allowed Ford to do it, even though the situation with the cars are very similar, if not the exact same. To my knowledge, there are only two things that effect this, that have changed in the homologation forms; the number of roadcars that has to be built, and the introduction of waivers. Thank you BMW...

The MC12 at Le Mans would have been the coolest thing to ever happen.

 

[AerodyManiac]

Budget doesn't make a team an underdog. While Audi has the money to make an OP car, the LMP1 regulations really hurt Audi's LMP1 production, you can see from multiple races since 2014 that Audi have been struggling to get to grips with the 2014 regulations.

Why not? Budget dictates how much research you can do on your car, which in turn affects the raw speed of your car and its reliability over long races.

Remember I was using Bo's logic of the past not mattering so Audi's history wouldn't matter either.

I think Audi has it's own plans on winning races as they are always reliability over speed and pace. However, not only has diesals been relatively nerfed but the new fuel flow regulation prevents Audi doing what it wants to do.

Also Toyota's performance this year has already proved that they are threats and not underdogs, Them being pictured as inferior is very absurd to me, they stopped being underdogs after 2013. They've overtaken Audi in terms of performance.

Actually, I'd argue that Toyota is yet to overtake Audi in terms of pace at some aspects, as the Audis were faster at the 6 Hours of Silverstone than Toyota, with the fastest Audi clocking a 1:40.461, compared to the fastest Toyota managing a 1:40.657. And if I remember correctly, both cars are running a high downforce aero package there.

Sure, it's on a different track, which, you may argue, doesn't really matter. But then if you look at the highest speeds the cars achieved during Le Mans, the fastest Audi was the fastest car among the whole field, with its speed being 343.4 kph, and the fastest Toyota only managed a 334.9. And Le Mans is a track where there are a lot of long straights. So Audi isn't really the underdog.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I find it slightly annoying that the ACO never permitted the Maserati MC12 to race at Le Mans, but now allowed Ford to do it, even though the situation with the cars are very similar, if not the exact same. To my knowledge, there are only two things that effect this, that have changed in the homologation forms; the number of roadcars that has to be built, and the introduction of waivers. Thank you BMW...

The MC12 was one of the biggest 🤬 takes in Motorsport history ranking along side the M3 GTR and the Z4 GTE.

 

[Com Fox]

Why not? Budget dictates how much research you can do on your car, which in turn affects the raw speed of your car and its reliability over long races.

It's not about how much resources you have, it is how you use it. Audi goes for more complex ideas to also show off its technology while Toyota just goes for the win, granted maybe if Toyota had more resources they would do it too but I don't think it matters as Toyota have obviously shown to build top level cars since 2014.

Sure, it's on a different track, which, you may argue, doesn't really matter. But then if you look at the highest speeds the cars achieved during Le Mans, the fastest Audi was the fastest car among the whole field, with its speed being 343.4 kph, and the fastest Toyota only managed a 334.9. And Le Mans is a track where there are a lot of long straights. So Audi isn't really the underdog.

Audi was very inconsistent with that though, Audi was the fastest but they barely touched it. Toyota was consistently more faster than Audi

 

[Clark]

@mt.lynx I though the MC12 couldn't do LM because it was too wide?

 

[Furinkazen]

@mt.lynx I though the MC12 couldn't do LM because it was too wide?

And it was the definition of "homologation special"

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

@mt.lynx I though the MC12 couldn't do LM because it was too wide?

To be fair all you would need to do is put Augusto Farfus behind any car for it to be too wide.

 

[AerodyManiac]

It's not about how much resources you have, it is how you use it. Audi goes for more complex ideas to also show off its technology while Toyota just goes for the win

Do you have any sources to back up that?
Besides, even if you do, it's Audi's decision to go along that path, which doesn't make it an underdog, as it too has the choice to opt for the alternate route.

Toyota have obviously shown to build top level cars since 2014.

What about 2015? They were pretty much the slowest of the hybrid LMP1 field during that season.

 

[Com Fox]

Do you have any sources to back up that?

The technology that Audi actually runs on its R18s and its own ordinary cars co-exist with each other, you have Audi e-tron lineups that co-exist with the car as well as the Audi Diesal's that Audi keep insisting on using since for its LMP 2016.

Besides, even if you do, it's Audi's decision to go along that path, which doesn't make it an underdog, as it too has the choice to opt for the alternate route.

The definition of an Underdog is:
noun: underdog; plural noun: underdogs

1. a competitor thought to have little chance of winning a fight or contest

Doesn't matter if Audi chose it, it still makes them underdogs.

What about 2015? They were pretty much the slowest of the hybrid LMP1 field during that season

True, it was a shocking year but it hardly makes them underdogs this year.

 

[Clark]

And it was the definition of "homologation special"

But at least compared with the Ford they'd delivered some road cars to customers before racing it.

 

[Furinkazen]

The technology that Audi actually runs on its R18s and its own ordinary cars co-exist with each other, you have Audi e-tron lineups that co-exist with the car as well as the Audi Diesal's that Audi keep insisting on using since for its LMP 2016.

Apart from totally dodging the original question you were asked... Audi moved from there own flywheel system to battery packs this year - like everybody else in LMP1-H. So thats not an excuse.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I don't think it matters as Toyota have obviously shown to build top level cars since 2014.

They've built top-level cars since the '80's. They have also entered with a top-level car after their F1 period in 2012. The TS030 was extremely quick and successful. This is why it saddens me so much what happened this year. Some of the most amazing and revolutionary cars in Le Mans were Toyotas, like the TS020 and they still haven't done it because of some stupid issues.

EDIT: From the FIA WEC facebook page:

I love how everyone, including Porsche and Audi are reacting.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

They've built top-level cars since the '80's. They have also entered with a top-level car after their F1 period in 2012. The TS030 was extremely quick and successful. This is why it saddens me so much what happened this year. Some of the most amazing and revolutionary cars in Le Mans were Toyotas, like the TS020 and they still haven't done it because of some stupid issues.

EDIT: From the FIA WEC facebook page:

I love how everyone, including Porsche and Audi are reacting.

There was nothing revolutionary about the ts020.

 

[Com Fox]

Apart from totally dodging the original question you were asked... Audi moved from there own flywheel system to battery packs this year - like everybody else in LMP1-H. So thats not an excuse.

Ok then nevermind about that

 

[G.T.Ace]

There was nothing revolutionary about the ts020.

The aerodynamics were, the car definitely shaped how closed prototypes still look.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

The aerodynamics were, the car definitely shaped how closed prototypes still look.

Not really but anyway.

 

[MatskiMonk]

(which I doubt as the theory of slower speeds = danger is ridiculous IMO)

I'm not making excuses for Toyota reliability, but it's often said that these highly strung engines with incredibly tight tolerances are designed to perform within a certain window, and for Le Mans, that will be centered around going flat-out for 24 hours. The prime examples that spring to mind are cooling and tyre wear. These two things can easily be negatively impacted by travelling much slower than anticipated. Not saying these were the case for Toyota, but I'm surprised you see them as ridiculous.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I'm not making excuses for Toyota reliability, but it's often said that these highly strung engines with incredibly tight tolerances are designed to perform within a certain window, and for Le Mans, that will be centered around going flat-out for 24 hours. The prime examples that spring to mind are cooling and tyre wear. These two things can easily be negatively impacted by travelling much slower than anticipated. Not saying these were the case for Toyota, but I'm surprised you see them as ridiculous.

What he said they had a 911 GTE on the drivers parade and that was hanging around as it couldn't you can't drive these cars slowly.

 

[Com Fox]

I'm not making excuses for Toyota reliability, but it's often said that these highly strung engines with incredibly tight tolerances are designed to perform within a certain window, and for Le Mans, that will be centered around going flat-out for 24 hours. The prime examples that spring to mind are cooling and tyre wear. These two things can easily be negatively impacted by travelling much slower than anticipated. Not saying these were the case for Toyota, but I'm surprised you see them as ridiculous.

While that is true, the fact that Toyota was the only LMPP1 affected by this, either means Toyota wasn't folly prepared for all Le Mans situation or something else happened.

None of the other cars received much damage from driving slowly for 1 Hour after the period was done.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

While that is true, the fact that Toyota was the only LMPP1 affected by this, either means Toyota wasn't folly prepared for all Le Mans situation or something else happened.

None of the other cars received much damage from driving slowly for 1 Hour after the period was done.

Audi had to change a turbo.

 

[Furinkazen]

While that is true, the fact that Toyota was the only LMPP1 affected by this, either means Toyota wasn't folly prepared for all Le Mans situation or something else happened.

None of the other cars received much damage from driving slowly for 1 Hour after the period was done.

Porsche had to change a whole hybrid system.

Kolles had to change everything.

Ford broke a gearbox before the race even began.

 

[Touring Mars]

Sir Chris Hoy's Le Mans photo essay in today's Guardian...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2016/jun/21/chris-hoy-drives-le-mans-a-photo-essay

Erm lads, I think we've taken the weight reduction a bit too far...

 

[Com Fox]

They didn't break down though (except maybe Kolles (didn't see what went wrong with them) but they have always had trouble), they were able to keep going and try to adapt to the situation.

So yes, probably was the slowing down and yes other cars suffered a similar fate (though Toyota got worse).

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

They didn't break down though (except maybe Kolles (didn't see what went wrong with them) but they have always had trouble), they were able to keep going and try to adapt to the situation.

So yes, probably was the slowing down and yes other cars suffered a similar fate (though Toyota got worse).

By that argument then nether did the Toyota break down as it made it back round.

 

[IforceV8]

Meanwhile in non trolling land Toyota are still investigating. http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/toyota-still-investigating-cause-of-power-loss/