Still, I managed to get myself settled in and spent Thursday afternoon setting up ‘my’ corner of our broadcast studio. The various ‘Hyperpole’ sessions to determine the grid positions took place on Thursday evening to the usual fanfare, and I was pleased to see the entire driving crews of the successful teams in each class being celebrated this year. The razzmatazz was followed by one-hour of Free Practice, which was my first scheduled session on air, from 11pm until midnight.
Every year sees changes here and there, and yet much remains the same. Facilities have improved, for spectators, teams, media and for those who are following the race at home (of which there seem to be ever more). The official attendance figure was published as 350,105 – counting all the people on site, not just spectators. Given that every pass has to be scanned by an official, there’s no reason to doubt the accuracy of that number. But does the person holding the scanner need to scan their pass? I’m never sure. Who checks the checkers?
Bar code scanning of passes is a relatively new innovation, of course. It was introduced in 2007, and everyone had to have their passes scanned on the way in and out of the circuit. I remember queuing for ages trying to get out of the circuit in the early hours of Friday morning following Thursday’s night qualifying session, when all I really wanted was my bed!
These days the process works more efficiently, and hopefully addresses the problem of fraudulent folk trying to beat the system. Does anyone remember the days of having to collect a ‘pass-out’ ticket as you left one spectator zone and headed to another?
It is, I believe, part of human nature to look back fondly on the past, and sometimes in so doing, we overlook what is good about the present. We are repeatedly told these days that the current ‘Hypercar era’ represents a golden period for world championship sportscar racing, and I wouldn’t disagree. The presence of eight manufacturers on the grid in the top class of the entry is very welcome, but not unique. In 1999 there were ten, and back in 1955 there were twelve manufacturers entered in the 3- and 5-litre engined classes, most of which could have been regarded as potential winners. Unfortunately, 1955 is remembered more for its tragedy, but going into the race, sportscar racing had reached something of a zenith. Did you know that in addition to Ferrari and Maserati (Italy), Mercedes (Germany), Peugeot, Gordini, Talbot and Panhard (France), Cunningham (USA) there were twelve British car manufacturers represented on the grid in 1955? No prizes for naming them, but if you want to put them in a comment, I promise I’ll reply. Interestingly, in 1955, none of the 58 cars that started the race had a roof. In 2026, of course, all of them did.
There are two things that particularly distinguish the current era, in my opinion. The first is the closeness of the leading Hypercars. The second is the reliability.
The table below shows the average of the best 20% of laps completed by the best of each Hypercar manufacturer.
Race - Average of best 20% of laps
| Car | Average Lap Time | Delta to mean |
|---|---|---|
| Toytoa | 3m 27.030s | -0.47% |
| Cadillac | 3m 27.088s | -0.44% |
| BMW | 3m 27.318s | -0.33% |
| Ferrari | 3m 27.918s | -0.04% |
| Alpine | 3m 28.042s | 0.02% |
| Genesis | 3m 28.377s | 0.18% |
| Aston Martin | 3m 28.390s | 0.18% |
| Peugeot | 3m 29.883s | 0.90% |
To put these numbers into context, at the outset of the Hypercar era, the aim of the FIA/ACO Balance of Performance was to put everyone within 2%. One cannot argue that the performance windows within which the cars must now operate are indeed very well-matched indeed. If it weren’t for Peugeot, (which was horribly disappointing) skewing the average, the numbers would be even closer. But for me (and for many to whom I have spoken), this is not truly in the spirit of Le Mans. Historically, the race has brought together cars with different strengths – some with better speed, some with better performance in the wet, better fuel economy, better reliability, and so on. Often, this would mean a runaway winner, or a fast car embarking on a fruitless chase, and rarely, I’ll admit, a close finish. But does a close finish mean a good race?
Since Hypercar, the cars are all super-reliable, built to withstand being driven over kerbs, bouncing with seeming impunity through gravel traps, off barriers or other cars, and with everything electronically controlled, making survival the rule rather than the exception. In the six years that it has been in operation, there have been just 15 Hypercar retirements, out of 87 entries – an attrition rate of just over 17%. The last time that fewer than 40 cars were still running after 24 hours was more than a decade ago, in 2015. In the 1980s and 1990s, when I first was attending the race, the most cars that ever finished was 30, in 1993.
Then there are the Safety Car interruptions, which will always – these days – bunch up the field. Whether you’ve had a spin, a stop-and-go penalty or an extra pit stop; provided you stay on the lead lap, a Safety Car will bring you back into contention. This is probably just as well, really, since the Balance of Performance ensures that you can’t catch up any other way.
I don’t deny that all this makes for great television. And it doesn’t really matter if you tune in for the first hour or two, or for a few hours in the middle of the night, or for the last part of the race – you’re practically guaranteed to see some close battles going on. Yet I look back fondly on those days when the spectator enclosure opposite the pits would slowly fill from Sunday lunchtime, maybe a couple of dozen (if you were lucky) cars still circulating, many carrying the wounds of the battle, a few being driven close to their limit – and raising cheers from the crowd – most separated by several laps, but all dedicated to getting to the end of the race. It may not have been action-packed, but it did contain emotion, significance and was important, somehow.
