2016 24 Hours of Le Mans

FLRacingFan

Team Owner
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
37,672
Points
1,033
Location
Florida
WEC_GrandCircuitLeMans_7bb19e.png

(All times U.S. Eastern):

Free Practice - Wed 15 Jun - 10h00 4H
Qualification 1 - Wed 15 Jun - 16h00 2H
Qualifying 2 - Thu 16 Jun - 13h00 2H
Qualifying 3 - Thu 16 Jun - 16h00 2H
Warm Up - Sat 18 Jun - 03h00 45 min.
Race Sat - 18 Jun - 09h00 24H

Entry list


Spotter guide


FOX Sports GO and FOX Sports.com provide live streaming video from multiple in-car cameras.

June 18 (all times ET and subject to change):
FS1 8:30 AM to 2:00 PM
FS2 2:00 PM to 4:30 PM
FS2 6:00 PM to 6:30 PM
FS2 7:00 PM to 7:30 PM
FS2 10:30 PM to 2:30 AM (June 19)
FS1 2:30 AM to 9:30 AM (June 19)

*The entire race is streamed live on FOX Sports GO
 
I was looking through the entry list to get an idea of the different manufacturers and cars. I'm not familiar with the LM classes but it looks like Nissan has 20 entries with various teams in LM2 (pretty much a Nissan spec class with only a couple Judd and a Honda). I've only heard of Judd engines in drag racing. No Vipers, I guess Fiat doesn't race. I though it is interesting that each driver has a rating (platinum, gold, silver, bronze), from what I gather it shows the experience of the drivers.
 

Attachments

  • entry-list-24-heures-du-mans-2016.pdf
    143.1 KB · Views: 501
I was looking through the entry list to get an idea of the different manufacturers and cars. I'm not familiar with the LM classes but it looks like Nissan has 20 entries with various teams in LM2 (pretty much a Nissan spec class with only a couple Judd and a Honda). I've only heard of Judd engines in drag racing. No Vipers, I guess Fiat doesn't race. I though it is interesting that each driver has a rating (platinum, gold, silver, bronze), from what I gather it shows the experience of the drivers.
Lots of different chassis in LMP2, but yeah, Nissan's engine is tried and true. I expect MSR to be pretty solid with their HPD engine though, which took the Rolex 24 and 12 Hours of Sebring overall earlier this year. The top two chassis are the Ligier JS P2 and the ORECA 05 (Alpine A460 is just a rebranded ORECA 05 as well) by a solid margin.

There are still some privateer Vipers running in IMSA and PWC, but the Riley Motorsports/Viper Exchange entry was placed so far down on the reserve list that the team came to an agreement with Murphy Prototypes to compete in their LMP2 entry. A lot of people were pissed about it as some questionable entries made it on the first entry list, Riley lead in GTE-Am for a while in last year's race, and they're always competitive in IMSA.

Driver ratings don't mean much for the pro classes but LMP2 requires at least one Bronze or Silver driver and GTE-Am requires two of the drivers to be both Bronze or a Bronze/Silver combination.

Edit: Some technical specs - http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/item/130779-lm24-technical-specs-for-every-car-in-2016
 
....so many random letters and numbers
 
Ford looks mightily competitive.

I will probably be watching the GTE class more than anything, its going to be one hell of a battle.

I miss Mike Conway in IndyCar btw, dude was an absolute gem of a driver.
 
I noticed that Dempsy has a team but Patrick isn't listed as a driver. Can teams have more than 3 drivers?
 
Wow Vettes at the back of the field in GTE. Sandbagging? All the Fords at the top with the 1 ferrari up there. Porsche and Aston Martins mixed toward the bottom.
I wonder if teams try to play the game with the people that decide the BoP. They sandbag all the way through qualifying and then complain that they aren't competitive so they can try and get an advantage for the actual race. With the race being so long and the track being 13-14 miles long, does qualifying position really matter? I would hope this doesn't go on much but I'm sure there is so much money involved it has to happen at some level.
 
I think AoP is the same as BoP. Not sure on the official acronym, but I have read that IMSA uses AoP (Alignment of Performance?) and FIA uses BoP (Balance of Performance).
I think that is probably correct.

I dislike the concept of adjusting performance based on how fast the car is. It's as if it doesn't matter if Corvette or Ferrari or Porsche builds a fast car or a slow one... it will be the same speed as the others after all the fiddling is done. That takes a lot of the buzz out of the competition between marques, IMO. Having said that, I don't have a practical solution to the problem. The economics of it dictate that, if they publish a formula and just go with it like in prior decades, the GT classes will probably have about one manufacturer competing.
 
I dislike the concept of adjusting performance based on how fast the car is. It's as if it doesn't matter if Corvette or Ferrari or Porsche builds a fast car or a slow one... it will be the same speed as the others after all the fiddling is done. That takes a lot of the buzz out of the competition between marques, IMO. Having said that, I don't have a practical solution to the problem. The economics of it dictate that, if they publish a formula and just go with it like in prior decades, the GT classes will probably have about one manufacturer competing.
I have mixed feelings about that. When Vipers were running they dominated the European series. They kept adding weight and they still dominated. I don't think a dominate car is good for a racing series (manufacturers leave the series). Maybe a special unlimited class (no rules) to test what is possible.
 
http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/item/130861-lm24-aco-considering-pre-race-bop-changes-to-gte-pro

Guess they are considering changes already.
I understand both sides of the equation and it really is a tough problem to solve. If you go unlimited, the cost of racing explodes and you will lose manufacturers. If you restrict certain cars to balance the field, there is no incentive to design new and better cars. Very tough problem to solve and you can obviously never make everyone happy!

In the article above they talk about how the turbo charged engines, Ford/Ferrari, are all at the top of the sheet, while the naturally aspirated engines are at the bottom, well behind. One of the Vettes is slower than the first two qualifying cars in the lower series, i.e. GTE-AM.
 
I have mixed feelings about that. When Vipers were running they dominated the European series. They kept adding weight and they still dominated. I don't think a dominate car is good for a racing series (manufacturers leave the series). Maybe a special unlimited class (no rules) to test what is possible.
Essentially LMP1. There's no BoP/AoP there.
 
Wow Vettes at the back of the field in GTE. Sandbagging? All the Fords at the top with the 1 ferrari up there. Porsche and Aston Martins mixed toward the bottom.
I wonder if teams try to play the game with the people that decide the BoP. They sandbag all the way through qualifying and then complain that they aren't competitive so they can try and get an advantage for the actual race. With the race being so long and the track being 13-14 miles long, does qualifying position really matter? I would hope this doesn't go on much but I'm sure there is so much money involved it has to happen at some level.
Everyone had already suspected Ford sandbagged at Spa. Between that race and the Le Mans test, Ford and Aston got -20kg adjustments, Aston got a -0.4mm smaller restrictor size, Ferrari got a +10kg addition after winning Silverstone and Spa, Corvette got a -0.2mm smaller restrictor size.

Test day rolls around and Corvette and Porsche lead, but every single car in the class ran in the 3:55 or 3:56 bracket.

Post-test AoP comes out and Corvette gets another -0.3mm restrictor size reduction, Porsche gets a +5kg weight increase, Ford gets a -5kg weight reduction, Aston Martin gets a -10kg weight reduction and a -0.2mm smaller restrictor.

Race weeks rolls around and all of a sudden Ford and Ferrari have gained four to five seconds of pace from a week and a half ago, with Ferrari getting no change whatsoever and Ford only shedding the 5kg. Yep, a week and a half and Ford and Ferrari have "tuned the setup" to go from 3:56 to 3:51s and 3:52s. :rolleyes:
 
I think that is probably correct.

I dislike the concept of adjusting performance based on how fast the car is. It's as if it doesn't matter if Corvette or Ferrari or Porsche builds a fast car or a slow one... it will be the same speed as the others after all the fiddling is done. That takes a lot of the buzz out of the competition between marques, IMO. Having said that, I don't have a practical solution to the problem. The economics of it dictate that, if they publish a formula and just go with it like in prior decades, the GT classes will probably have about one manufacturer competing.
It's mainly about building a car to get within the performance window and simultaneously building a car that has a wide setup range to work with within that range to overcome whatever sort of weight or restrictor adjustment you get. There's a reason why Corvette has won the last five races at Daytona, Sebring, and Le Mans.

If it were just about building the best car the Ford and Ferrari supercars would smoke the field.
 
http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/item/130861-lm24-aco-considering-pre-race-bop-changes-to-gte-pro

Guess they are considering changes already.
I understand both sides of the equation and it really is a tough problem to solve. If you go unlimited, the cost of racing explodes and you will lose manufacturers. If you restrict certain cars to balance the field, there is no incentive to design new and better cars. Very tough problem to solve and you can obviously never make everyone happy!

In the article above they talk about how the turbo charged engines, Ford/Ferrari, are all at the top of the sheet, while the naturally aspirated engines are at the bottom, well behind. One of the Vettes is slower than the first two qualifying cars in the lower series, i.e. GTE-AM.
The less cynical side of me would like to believe it's because they don't have experience balancing NA versus turbocharged cars. But, if they're using data loggers similar to IMSA's they should've been able to easily pinpoint "areas of underperformance" in the Fords and Ferraris. And Ford versus Ferrari on the 50th anniversary of the original Ford versus Ferrari duel is a marketer's wet dream.
 
The more I read about this I feel like the vettes are sandbagging, the Ford/Ferrari sandbagged before qualifying, and the porshes and AMs only sandbagged a little bit it at all. haha. As much as I hate to admit it, this is interesting to read about and getting me excited for the race!
 
Bernie Ecclestone and Christian Horner would be proud. As for the rest of us... SMH.
 
http://www.motorsport.com/lemans/ne...sk-in-race-penalties-for-manipulation-788803/

Now they are threatening in-race penalties for violations of the BoP!
What a nightmare this has become!
A nightmare for Ford if their 50th anniversary celebration gets crashed with sanctions from the FIA/ACO. A lot of fans are already pissed that they're out there running in a waiver wagon.

IMSA finally took advantage of their sandbagging rule this year and brought the hammer down on Lamborghini after the Rolex 24. It would appear to be time for the WEC to do the same.

It'll be interesting to see whether they boost Aston, Porsche, and Corvette all up to the Ford/Ferrari level or if they up those three a little bit and also peg back Ford and Ferrari. I think it's generally easier to move in one direction than bring two groups to a middle ground.
 
A lot of fans are already pissed that they're out there running in a waiver wagon.
"Waiver wagon" because the production car doesn't actually exist yet? Or because of the four entries?
 
"Waiver wagon" because the production car doesn't actually exist yet? Or because of the four entries?
Production requirements. They don't even build until October or something, and there's a separate production requirement for cars with a carbon tub...or they got rid of the carbon tub rule altogether for 2016. Regardless, they were never going to meet the requirement as it's written in the rules.
 
LMP3/GT3 race, Road To Le Mans, will be streamed live on YouTube at 5 AM Eastern tomorrow. Martin Brundle on pole for United Autosport.

 
Does anyone remember the 1966 race? I hate to admit it, but I do. As a teenager growing up in northern Virginia and already a fan of Enzo Ferrari and his race team, I was hoping for a third straight whipping of Ford's butt by the red cars. Over the years, I have come to appreciate what Ford accomplished at Le Mans, but at the time I was not happy about it.

I don't recall knowing about Ford's manipulation of the finish at the time it happened, but that was a real world class **** up. Ford tried to stage a tie between their #2 and #1 cars. Yes, an official tie, LOL. At the last second, #2 driven by Bruce McLaren spurted ahead to steal the win. But the #1 (Ken Miles & Denis Hulme) were the legitimate winners, having slowed in the final stint to give up a one-lap lead to stage the tie. McLaren's dick move is proof that racing drivers have always been eager to steal from teammates... it's not a new thing. But Ford management was the real bad actor in this deal, lying to Ken Miles about their intentions.
 
Back
Top Bottom