I am getting increasingly annoyed by the appearance of Steve McQueen’s pictures on various Le Mans ‘history’ websites. Even the ACO’s own website now has his picture alongside a caption “L’Histoire d’une course légendaire”. Without wanting to go into a review of the movie – although I might – the plain fact of the matter is that Steve McQueen was a movie actor, who never participated in the race, and apart from the film, has no connection with it. If you’re going to show the picture of a movie legend associated with the race, then show Paul Newman’s face – at least he finished on the podium.
The twenty-first century is dominated by icons – I have them all over my computer, for goodness’ sake; and the beauty of an icon is that in a single (hopefully simple) image, you can convey a whole lot of meaning. Steve McQueen may be iconic, but I would rather see the “Legend of Le Mans” meaning conveyed by a more appropriate image. The Le Mans start, for example, wasn’t only used at Le Mans, but was something very special to the race, and conveys very well the historic era.
Other Le Mans images would be the old Dunlop Bridge and the descent to the esses –somewhat easier to depict, perhaps, than drivers running across the track to their cars, or one that does it for me, a picture of a car, any car, rounding the old Mulsanne Corner, hugging the wall on the inside, with a marshal – or better yet, a gendarme – standing atop like a beacon.
Surely these would be more suitable images than a McQueen’s V-sign?
There is a tendency for movies, based on truth, but not accurate reflections of the truth, to become accepted - in particular, I am thinking of various Hollywood war movies which have americanised British war heroes - and anything that dilutes truth is a bad thing, in my book.
By all means let us rejoice in the history of Le Mans, in the legend that the race has become, but please let us use some more suitable iconic images than Gulf 917s and movie actors!
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Friday, 23 July 2010
Classics
I have mentioned before that there seems to be a great deal of sportscar racing these days – the month of May was congested generally, and July and August are particularly busy if you are involved in the American Le Mans Series.
In theory, this is good for spectators and entrants alike, as there is clearly a greater supply of sportscar races than there is a demand. However, this means of course that the quality of the individual events is somewhat less. Just as in Formula 1 racing (I do struggle to call them Grands Prix), there may be too much.
The same tendency is now happening in the field of historic racing cars. So far this year we have had the Monaco Historique, the Le Mans Classic and with the Silverstone Classic and the Goodwood Revival meetings still to come there is ample opportunity to see historic cars of all shapes and sizes in some wonderful settings. And now I read of the ‘Legends of Motorsports’ to be run at Sebring in December.
But.
There had to be a ‘but’, didn’t there? And I have to admit that I haven’t been to, nor am I planning to go to any of these events this year. I used to go regularly to Silverstone, to what was then the ‘Coys Historic Festival’ (no need to use the word ‘Classic’ then), and I have been to Goodwood’s Revival, although that was a good few years ago as well now. I enjoyed visiting the Masters Festival at Brand Hatch on the late May Bank Holiday weekend earlier this year: as always at such events, the access to the paddock was marvellous, and my son relished the opportunity to sit in a 1960’s Ford Mustang, whose driver was happy to stop and chat.
I was tempted to suggest that ‘Classic Racing’ is an oxymoron, but that would be unfair. I much prefer the term ‘Historic Racing’, and I am the first to say how much I enjoy seeing old cars out on the track and competing, much more than in museums. I do like museums by the way, but I fear that might the subject of a different essay. What I dislike is (a) when owners of historic machinery restore them beyond ‘reasonable limits’ to be more competitive and (b) when competitiveness becomes excessive and the racing gets out of perspective.
There is probably a greater disparity in driver talents in historic racing than in any other form of motor sport. I find it a shame that some of the ‘heroes’ of historic racing haven’t been able to find recognition elsewhere. Drivers like Martin Stretton, Barrie Williams, Frank Sytner and Gerry Marshall all competed in contemporary cars as well, but were undoubtedly at their peaks when driving historic cars. And at the same time, wealthy amateurs were having a go in their pride and joy – but did it really matter who won? Well, yes, of course it did, but you weren’t going to re-write the history book as a result.
What Historic (or Classic) racing lacks is gravitas. At the end of the day, winning in a historic race does not make the Ferrari 512P quicker, slower, better or worse than a Porsche 917. Particularly if the pair of them get beaten by a Lola T70 Mk III. Indeed those are all anyway somewhat subjective matters. What matters is whether the car won in its day or not. I doubt whether historic racing in forty years time will involve Peugeot 908s or Audi R15s, but if it does, and a Peugeot wins, it will not change the fact that Audi scored a clean sweep of the podium positions at Le Mans this year. That was important. That was what the manufacturers were spending millions of Euros trying to do.
A favourite car of mine is the Aston Martin DBR1 that won Le Mans in 1959. It is great that the very same car often appears in Classic races, as well that it often wins. But there is a danger that the notion enters the consciousness of the common fan that this car was dominant. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that it won the Le Mans 24 hour race was totally unexpected (and a credit to John Wyer’s skill as a master tactician).
It’s a bit like having a tour around a WWII battleship. You can stare up and marvel at the big guns, squash down into the rating’s quarters, or stand up on the bridge and gaze through the windows, narrow your eyes and visualise an enemy coastline. But you can’t truly imagine the emotion of being in the heat of battle without talking to someone who was really there, and is prepared to talk to you about it.
That’s why folk like Stirling Moss, David Piper, Richard Attwood and Jackie Oliver are important. Get them out in the cars, and their juices start to flow. What’s important is to listen. Learn from history and you have the chance not to repeat it – I know, I am paraphrasing, but therein lies truth.
I’ve got nothing against historic racing in general. The very fact that it is hugely popular with spectators and competitors, is not (always) outrageously expensive and it provides a way of extending the active life of cars that might otherwise stay in garages is a vindication of the genre. And if the opportunity would arise, I would go to any of the events I have mentioned without hesitation. But not all of them.
My concern is that these events represent organisers attempting to cash in on commercial benefits and once again offer us, the consumer, more than is good for us. A lack of moderation seems to be a sign of the times we live in.
In theory, this is good for spectators and entrants alike, as there is clearly a greater supply of sportscar races than there is a demand. However, this means of course that the quality of the individual events is somewhat less. Just as in Formula 1 racing (I do struggle to call them Grands Prix), there may be too much.
The same tendency is now happening in the field of historic racing cars. So far this year we have had the Monaco Historique, the Le Mans Classic and with the Silverstone Classic and the Goodwood Revival meetings still to come there is ample opportunity to see historic cars of all shapes and sizes in some wonderful settings. And now I read of the ‘Legends of Motorsports’ to be run at Sebring in December.
But.
There had to be a ‘but’, didn’t there? And I have to admit that I haven’t been to, nor am I planning to go to any of these events this year. I used to go regularly to Silverstone, to what was then the ‘Coys Historic Festival’ (no need to use the word ‘Classic’ then), and I have been to Goodwood’s Revival, although that was a good few years ago as well now. I enjoyed visiting the Masters Festival at Brand Hatch on the late May Bank Holiday weekend earlier this year: as always at such events, the access to the paddock was marvellous, and my son relished the opportunity to sit in a 1960’s Ford Mustang, whose driver was happy to stop and chat.
I was tempted to suggest that ‘Classic Racing’ is an oxymoron, but that would be unfair. I much prefer the term ‘Historic Racing’, and I am the first to say how much I enjoy seeing old cars out on the track and competing, much more than in museums. I do like museums by the way, but I fear that might the subject of a different essay. What I dislike is (a) when owners of historic machinery restore them beyond ‘reasonable limits’ to be more competitive and (b) when competitiveness becomes excessive and the racing gets out of perspective.
There is probably a greater disparity in driver talents in historic racing than in any other form of motor sport. I find it a shame that some of the ‘heroes’ of historic racing haven’t been able to find recognition elsewhere. Drivers like Martin Stretton, Barrie Williams, Frank Sytner and Gerry Marshall all competed in contemporary cars as well, but were undoubtedly at their peaks when driving historic cars. And at the same time, wealthy amateurs were having a go in their pride and joy – but did it really matter who won? Well, yes, of course it did, but you weren’t going to re-write the history book as a result.
What Historic (or Classic) racing lacks is gravitas. At the end of the day, winning in a historic race does not make the Ferrari 512P quicker, slower, better or worse than a Porsche 917. Particularly if the pair of them get beaten by a Lola T70 Mk III. Indeed those are all anyway somewhat subjective matters. What matters is whether the car won in its day or not. I doubt whether historic racing in forty years time will involve Peugeot 908s or Audi R15s, but if it does, and a Peugeot wins, it will not change the fact that Audi scored a clean sweep of the podium positions at Le Mans this year. That was important. That was what the manufacturers were spending millions of Euros trying to do.
A favourite car of mine is the Aston Martin DBR1 that won Le Mans in 1959. It is great that the very same car often appears in Classic races, as well that it often wins. But there is a danger that the notion enters the consciousness of the common fan that this car was dominant. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that it won the Le Mans 24 hour race was totally unexpected (and a credit to John Wyer’s skill as a master tactician).
It’s a bit like having a tour around a WWII battleship. You can stare up and marvel at the big guns, squash down into the rating’s quarters, or stand up on the bridge and gaze through the windows, narrow your eyes and visualise an enemy coastline. But you can’t truly imagine the emotion of being in the heat of battle without talking to someone who was really there, and is prepared to talk to you about it.
That’s why folk like Stirling Moss, David Piper, Richard Attwood and Jackie Oliver are important. Get them out in the cars, and their juices start to flow. What’s important is to listen. Learn from history and you have the chance not to repeat it – I know, I am paraphrasing, but therein lies truth.
I’ve got nothing against historic racing in general. The very fact that it is hugely popular with spectators and competitors, is not (always) outrageously expensive and it provides a way of extending the active life of cars that might otherwise stay in garages is a vindication of the genre. And if the opportunity would arise, I would go to any of the events I have mentioned without hesitation. But not all of them.
My concern is that these events represent organisers attempting to cash in on commercial benefits and once again offer us, the consumer, more than is good for us. A lack of moderation seems to be a sign of the times we live in.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Bruno Famin's press release
So, Peugeot has issued the results of their post mortem. I am not sure how my readers (if there are any) actually find their way here, but it can be found in full on dailysportscar.com (or www.endurance-info.com if you don't want to subscribe to dailysportscar). And you really need to have read both that and my own post Le Mans thoughts - which have been published only on dailysportscar.com - to make sense of this. On the assumption that you have, I shall proceed.
Firstly, I am impressed by Bruno Famin. I am also impressed by the English translation of his statement. (If only the publishers of the Le Mans annual would use the same translator, but that's another issue.)
Famin seems to get to the heart of Peugeot's engine problem without attributing any blame. It seems an honest and open analysis of what went wrong. There is the slight open question of what happened at the Sebring test, when a Peugeot arrived in the pits with a similar-looking flame from the exhaust pipe, looking suspiciously like an engine failure. Whether this alerted the men from Velizy to a conrod problem, and led to the development of the new part, we don't know.
It looks to me that the fundamental problem that Peugeot faced is the one of finding out where the limit is. I am reminded of one of Gilles Villeneuve's first tests in a Formula 1 car, when he spent the first session spinning at various corners, then went faster than anyone else had in the same car. In order to understand the limit, you need to go over it. Having a car that is reliable in testing is no use at all if your tests are not simulating race conditions.
By Famin's own admission, Peugeot's experience at Le Mans is limited to the four occasions they've been there since 2007. And of course Audi's experience since their debut in 1999 is augmented by all that they've learnt in their partnership with Joest Racing. In Famin's words: 'il est difficile de tout maîtriser' (or 'it is very difficult to master everything').
As Audi discovered in 2009, when the R15's radiators got clogged up.
In a way, I find all this heartening: it shows that Le Mans is still a massive challenge, not just for the privateers, but also for the rich manufacturers. I feel that I can now draw a line under the 2010 race - what a classic.
And I hope that between now and the end of the year, we get a good set of regulations for next year's race, which will enable next year's race to be the starting point of a new era of sportscar racing.
Firstly, I am impressed by Bruno Famin. I am also impressed by the English translation of his statement. (If only the publishers of the Le Mans annual would use the same translator, but that's another issue.)
Famin seems to get to the heart of Peugeot's engine problem without attributing any blame. It seems an honest and open analysis of what went wrong. There is the slight open question of what happened at the Sebring test, when a Peugeot arrived in the pits with a similar-looking flame from the exhaust pipe, looking suspiciously like an engine failure. Whether this alerted the men from Velizy to a conrod problem, and led to the development of the new part, we don't know.
It looks to me that the fundamental problem that Peugeot faced is the one of finding out where the limit is. I am reminded of one of Gilles Villeneuve's first tests in a Formula 1 car, when he spent the first session spinning at various corners, then went faster than anyone else had in the same car. In order to understand the limit, you need to go over it. Having a car that is reliable in testing is no use at all if your tests are not simulating race conditions.
By Famin's own admission, Peugeot's experience at Le Mans is limited to the four occasions they've been there since 2007. And of course Audi's experience since their debut in 1999 is augmented by all that they've learnt in their partnership with Joest Racing. In Famin's words: 'il est difficile de tout maîtriser' (or 'it is very difficult to master everything').
As Audi discovered in 2009, when the R15's radiators got clogged up.
In a way, I find all this heartening: it shows that Le Mans is still a massive challenge, not just for the privateers, but also for the rich manufacturers. I feel that I can now draw a line under the 2010 race - what a classic.
And I hope that between now and the end of the year, we get a good set of regulations for next year's race, which will enable next year's race to be the starting point of a new era of sportscar racing.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Making hay while the sun shines...
As I mentioned last week, I have been lucky enough to have the use of an Audi R8 Spyder for a few days. It has taken the children to school, brought me to the office, and been used to drive to the dsc cricket match and to visit my nephew and his family. I've done about 500 miles since last Thursday, most of them with the top down, and every single one of them has been extremely enjoyable. Today the man will come and take it away, and I will feel very sad. This will be an unwarranted emotion, since I still will have all that I had before - my 'usual' S4, the family, our house, and the good health of us all. But one gets greedy, doesn't one? In fact the whole business of the last few days have been filled with potentially undesirable tendencies - greed, envy, lust, arrogance, you name it.
But the fact remains that such things happen, and have to be enjoyed when they do. I have also been lucky enough to have been give two wonderful books in the last few weeks. The first is Audi's "Thirty Years of Quattro", which celebrates and documents the marque's various forays into motorsport over the last generation. Interestingly, not so many of them were four-wheel-drive vehicles, so I am interested to read how that is handled.
The other book that arrived recently was Reynald Hezard's "956 - Esquisses de Performances (Sketches of Performance)", which chronicles every single 956 chassis from Porsche - including all the liveries in which they raced. Like the Audi book, I haven't really read this yet, but having a thumb through reveals a deceptively mighty tome. The research seems meticulous - but I will have to reserve a definitive judgement until I have had chance to examine it more closely.
Whichever way you look at it though, even though I attend far fewer motor races than I did when I was younger and single, I still have every reason to be grateful for the good things that happen to me.
It won't always be this way, but it is important to make the most of the good times while they last.
But the fact remains that such things happen, and have to be enjoyed when they do. I have also been lucky enough to have been give two wonderful books in the last few weeks. The first is Audi's "Thirty Years of Quattro", which celebrates and documents the marque's various forays into motorsport over the last generation. Interestingly, not so many of them were four-wheel-drive vehicles, so I am interested to read how that is handled.
The other book that arrived recently was Reynald Hezard's "956 - Esquisses de Performances (Sketches of Performance)", which chronicles every single 956 chassis from Porsche - including all the liveries in which they raced. Like the Audi book, I haven't really read this yet, but having a thumb through reveals a deceptively mighty tome. The research seems meticulous - but I will have to reserve a definitive judgement until I have had chance to examine it more closely.
Whichever way you look at it though, even though I attend far fewer motor races than I did when I was younger and single, I still have every reason to be grateful for the good things that happen to me.
It won't always be this way, but it is important to make the most of the good times while they last.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Audi R8 Spyder
I am a very lucky boy indeed. At Le Mans this year, David Ingram, Audi UK's Product & Technology PR Manager, mentioned to me that he might be able to let me have an Audi R8 Spyder to try out at the end of June. Well, this morning a bright red Audi R8 Spyder was delivered to my front door for me to drive for a few days.
What a spectacular car it is! I don't think I have ever sat in a car worth more than £100,000 before, let alone driven one. Taking my young son to school, and then on the drive to work this morning, I hardly explored its potential, but it certainly does what it does in a very wonderful way. Fast? Of course it's fast. Very fast. But it is the handling that is most impressive. OK, so I'm not the kind of guy who's going to slide it around corners and try to get the tail to hang out. But on the couple of corners where I did attempt to go around more quickly that I would in my usual transport (an S4 - itself with 333PS and quattro drive) the R8 felt as sure-footed as you could possibly want.
And it has a fantastic exhaust note. The V10 purrs at low revs, no V8-style burbling, nothing raucous at all, but when you accelerate remotely sharply (even from 5mph to 30mph in town) you get this lovely, powerful sounding roar. 5.2 litres and in excess of 500bhp. That's more than a Formula 1 car had when I first started watching Grands Prix.
In terms of specifications, I haven't really noticed much. It has a radio, a CD player, a SatNav and it's supposed to connect to my mobile phone, but I couldn't get that bit to work. But I didn't try very hard. Who'd want to be on the phone when you've got the experience of driving to enjoy?
Thank you very much Audi. I am going to enjoy the next few days a lot.
What a spectacular car it is! I don't think I have ever sat in a car worth more than £100,000 before, let alone driven one. Taking my young son to school, and then on the drive to work this morning, I hardly explored its potential, but it certainly does what it does in a very wonderful way. Fast? Of course it's fast. Very fast. But it is the handling that is most impressive. OK, so I'm not the kind of guy who's going to slide it around corners and try to get the tail to hang out. But on the couple of corners where I did attempt to go around more quickly that I would in my usual transport (an S4 - itself with 333PS and quattro drive) the R8 felt as sure-footed as you could possibly want.
And it has a fantastic exhaust note. The V10 purrs at low revs, no V8-style burbling, nothing raucous at all, but when you accelerate remotely sharply (even from 5mph to 30mph in town) you get this lovely, powerful sounding roar. 5.2 litres and in excess of 500bhp. That's more than a Formula 1 car had when I first started watching Grands Prix.
In terms of specifications, I haven't really noticed much. It has a radio, a CD player, a SatNav and it's supposed to connect to my mobile phone, but I couldn't get that bit to work. But I didn't try very hard. Who'd want to be on the phone when you've got the experience of driving to enjoy?
Thank you very much Audi. I am going to enjoy the next few days a lot.
Friday, 18 June 2010
Audi Time Spent in pits
Trawling through the data... first level confirms that pit stop times for the first three cars home were:
no 9 - Bernhard / Dumas / Rockenfeller: 33 stops (including 9 driver changes) total time in pit 35 mins 25 secs
no 8 - Fässler / Lotterer / Tréluyer: 33 stops (including 8 driver changes) total time in pit 35 mins 31 secs
no 7 - McNish / Kristensen / Capello: 33 stops (including 8 driver changes) total time in pit 38 mins 17 secs
Bear in mind these times include the time spent driving (at 60 km/h) the length of the pit lane, which takes approximately 24 seconds. So subtract 13 mins 12 secs from these times if you want to know the time spent stationery in front of the garage.
Also, the no 7 car was held at the end of the pit lane for approximately 2 minutes on its fifth stop (Capello at 20:57), due to the safety car being on the circuit.
Two years ago, the winning Audi spent less than 32 minutes in the pit lane, but then of course the regulations allowed tyre changes to be done much more quickly - by four mechanics instead of just two.
Further analysis later.
no 9 - Bernhard / Dumas / Rockenfeller: 33 stops (including 9 driver changes) total time in pit 35 mins 25 secs
no 8 - Fässler / Lotterer / Tréluyer: 33 stops (including 8 driver changes) total time in pit 35 mins 31 secs
no 7 - McNish / Kristensen / Capello: 33 stops (including 8 driver changes) total time in pit 38 mins 17 secs
Bear in mind these times include the time spent driving (at 60 km/h) the length of the pit lane, which takes approximately 24 seconds. So subtract 13 mins 12 secs from these times if you want to know the time spent stationery in front of the garage.
Also, the no 7 car was held at the end of the pit lane for approximately 2 minutes on its fifth stop (Capello at 20:57), due to the safety car being on the circuit.
Two years ago, the winning Audi spent less than 32 minutes in the pit lane, but then of course the regulations allowed tyre changes to be done much more quickly - by four mechanics instead of just two.
Further analysis later.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Peugeot
I am told that whatever Peugeot's problem was at Le Mans, they themselves don't understand it (yet). The cars arrived back at Velizy yesterday, and engineers started their analysis today. At the moment, they "do not understand exactly what happened".
And, tellingly, they "never had these sort of problem before".
It could take up to two weeks before they are prepared to release further information.
Fascinating stuff.
And, tellingly, they "never had these sort of problem before".
It could take up to two weeks before they are prepared to release further information.
Fascinating stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
