Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans/Archive 1

Vandalism

The races section and the section right below it have been vandalized. ("This section was written by tom cruise")

Wow...that was a fast fix 66.31.245.240 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Jerry[reply]

Fuel

Is there any source about the use of illegal fuel (nitromethane) by Mercedes ? - Ericd 13:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio 4 programme "In Living Memory", 27 April 2005. They made it clear it was all hotly debated, but it seemed there might be something in it. Some of the victims had only internal injuries, of the sort you'd expect in an explosion, as opposed to being hit by wreckage. Flapdragon 16:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

duplication

The 1955 accident is described twice, once in "Accidents" and once under "History". Cut the "Accidents" section? Flapdragon 17:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. We will probably have to split the history section one day.... Ericd 19:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely the history section is aready split, into many subsections. Or is that not what you meant? It seems pointless to have two very similar (though not identical paras) giving the same info, first under "Accidents":

In 1955, Pierre Levegh was invited to drive a Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR. Racing for the lead, he hit the back of a slower Austin-Healey which had to swerve left in order to pass the Jaguar of Mike Hawthorn who suddenly moved over to the pits. The much faster Mercedes was unable to avoid the Austin-Healey, was catapulted upwards by the sloped rear end and crashed into the huge crowd opposite of the pit lane, disintegrating into parts. The driver and more than 80 spectators were killed, and many others were injured.

And then at "History":

In 1955, Pierre Levegh was allowed to drive a Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR after his excellent previous efforts. He was chasing Mike Hawthorn, when Hawthorn's Jaguar passed a slower Austin-Healey before suddenly braking to enter the pits on the right. This forced the Austin-Healey over to the left into the path of the faster Mercedes which was approaching at high speed. It ran into the back of the Austin-Healey, was catapulted into the air, and crashed into an earth bank designed to protect the crowd, disintegrating and killing the driver and 80 spectators, and injuring many others.

They even conflict slightly ("invited/allowed"; crashed into the bank or into the crowd?). If "accidents" is worth keeping as a section of its own perhaps the subheading in the history heading should just refer back to that. Flapdragon 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote split I mean "into several articles", however I think the article hasn't matured enough today to do this. As the 1955 accident was by far the worst accindent in racing history, I think it's important to keep something outside the history section. Basically I think two events happened in Le Mans that belongs to "general history" as opposed to "Sport history", "Auto racing history" or "24 hours of Le Mans history" : the 1955 accident and Jacky Ickx demonstration. Well that's only my opinion. However this article is need of a lot improvement, the Accidents section is mainly dealing with the 1955 accident. As I wrote this I have the idea that a lot of things could be packed together in a "safety" section. You also notice some contradictions... Well all the article has to be verified for accuracy and NPOV. There's a lot of of urban myths and legend about Le Mans. I have changed my mind several times about my own contributions as I discovered new sources. Ericd 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All that is absolutely fair comment, but I don't think any of it invalidates my point that the same paragraph shouldn't appear twice (with subtle variations) in the same article. I'll leave it to those who know something about the subject to decide where/how it should be presented and which version of the facts is correct, but it shouldn't be like this. Flapdragon 23:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marked for Clean-up

This article has a a few problems that need some attention, notably:

The previously mentioned duplication of the worst crash information,
The large size of the article. The History section should actually be moved to the page it claims you can find it at, and a short summary made for this page. Even by itself, the History section is lengthy and written in a non-flowing bullet form and could do with some reworking.
I split the first sentence but it might still need work - the way it was previously worded stated that it was the most famous endurance race to be held at Circuit de la Sarthe, instead of the world, which was intended.
Not necessary, but it would also be nice to have a picture of the track layout.

210.49.61.125 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the third issue, attempted rewriting it for better fluidity in English. Chr.K. 07:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"please copyedit"

What's with all this "please copyedit" stuff in recent edit summaries? Surely not just a request for someone else to do the spadework because the editor making changes can't be bothered?! Can I suggest it's not exactly good practice to knowingly add badly badly garbled and misspelt text and just hope all the errors get picked up. It's not asking much for people to read through and spell-check their own edits, rather than expecting someone else to do the job of sorting it all out. This article is in bad enough need of cleanup already. Flapdragon 17:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's a good practice ? As of today I am the main contributor in this article (which is too large and needing cleanup I admit, but well better something than nothing IMO). I've noted in other article a lot of well writing contributions that have a very week relationship with truth. I've try to expand this article with factualy correct contributions. I'm not a native English speaker and it requires considerable efforts from myself to write well spelled English with style. I can write French with good style and very few spelling errors but I've definetly made the choice to contribute in the English-speaking Wikipedia, because I think it's more universal. What's the sense of collaborative work if the strength of one can not correct the weakness of the other ? If you think it's disrepectful exepecting others to do the job I know I can't do well, I think I'd better go elsewhere.... Ericd 19:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you have contributed so much to the article but it would be even better if you would spend just a little of that time checking what you have written before submitting it. That's what the preview button is for, not to mention spellcheckers and dictionaries. I'm not talking about subtle shades of English style and idiom, or the odd rare grammatical slip-up, but obvious mistakes in almost every line: "The mainweaknesse of the 1972 670 ... was taht...", "The race went on at planned", "a serious differential problems", "[he] choose the lowest optionmuch tio the surprise of Porsche management" and so on -- these are just fautes de frappe and fautes d'inattention which could easily be avoided. When it starts to make the text incomprehensible (I for one don't understand "On Shelby's iniative T the GT-40's were fitted with engine as the Cobras") then it's not helping the article, and at the moment the quality of this one seems to be going down not up. If the idea that "it's better than nothing" leads to a substandard, incomprehensible article then that is doing Wikipedia a disservice. In the age of spell-checkers and online dictionaries it really doesn't take "considerable efforts" to avoid basic spelling and grammatical errors. Why not use a word-processor to create the text you plan to add and get it ready before you upload it? -- that makes the History much more "cleaner". Would you be keen to spend your editing time correcting the slips of other people, when you could be doing something interesting instead? Incidentally, if you don't feel your English is good enough (and I'm sure that's not true) what would be so wrong with contributing the facts to the French Wikipedia, from where they could be translated to add to the English one? That kind of collaborative effort might be just as fruitful as expecting others to clean up basic slips. Wikipédia has 176k articles, hardly a lost cause unworthy of anyone's time. That way both wikis would get the benefit of your knowledge, without creating tedious spadework for other people. Best wishes, Flapdragon 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use a word-processor to create the text you plan to add and get it ready before you upload it ? Simply because it's not my kind of work especially on that kind of subject I process by rough notes about what I believe importatnt and then try to turn that mess into something that has some coherence. Have you ever spent two weeks writing a two page article just to notice that your work was already done by another contributor ? A very frustrating experience. Ericd 21:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant to be an editing tool. Apart from anything else, by making continual tiny changes in "stream of consciousness" mode, you end up hogging the article when someone else is trying to edit, and their edits, unconnected with what you were in the middle of doing, will be interspersed with yours, making it much harder to follow the progress of what's happened, revert vandalism or whatever. Just take a look at what a mess it makes of the History pages if you continually save without even looking at what you've written. Of course no-one would spend two weeks writing text without even checking that someone else isn't doing the same work, that's ridiculous, but there's nothing at all to stop you spending two minutes writing at least a single coherent paragraph and checking it for errors before uploading it. That's the place for turning your rough notes into serviceable text. Anyway, however often you save, there's still nothing to stop someone else making the change you were going to make, or one that contradicts it, at any moment. That's just the way it goes. Flapdragon 22:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winners bar graph

The graph illustrating the number of wins per team is interesting but its also misleading in the sense that one might construe that all teams have entered all races. If a parallel set of bars could be added to the graph denoting the number of races entered per team that would put it in perspective. I.e. Mercedes have had relatively few wins but of course they dropped out for quite a while.--Hooperbloob 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no offense, but

while it's odd enough that you consider miles' having actually won two races and finishing first in the third (but not winning only because he was ordered to back off) to be "speculation" regarding his winning all three if he had not backed off, it's your belief that the previous version was in English that I find really stunning. (^_^)Gzuckier 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innacurate Bar Graph

Ive removed the bargraph of winners that was on the page because it was innacuratly stating the number of wins by some manafacturers, and ommissing some manafacturers completly. The Image can still be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Le_Mans.gif if reasons are found to justify its inclusion LuNatic 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Videogames

I would suggest that this section be split out into a seperate article and then refer to it here via a "Main article" or "See also" link. I'm not sure of the proper naming convention for the new article, so I based it on this article, but maybe the video gamers use a different convention? --Brian G 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the section into its own article. JustinH 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names for the race

I'm wondering if "Grand Prix of Endurance" should be used in the intro, at least as an alternative extension or historical synonym, as it is in the individual race pages (eg 1923 24 Hours of Le Mans). I've seen this phrase referred to elsewhere as a former name, but have yet to identify any distinct date of cessation. FWIW, I did run across a listing for a poster for the 1924 race [1] that bills it as "[Sur le circuit permanent de la Sarthe, le] 2ème Grand Prix d'Endurance de 24 Heures" (with no use of "Le Mans"), which I suppose could translate as "[on the permanent circuit of Sarthe, the] 2nd Grand Prix of 24 Hour Endurance", but I don't know if that sort of thing borders on original research. At the very least, there should be consistency between the nomenclature of 24 Hours of Le Mans and the subordinate articles on individual races. ENeville 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Belatedly, I see that the French page has a copy of a poster for the first race. ENeville 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the official site for the race, they use two names for it: "24 Heures du Mans" and "Le Mans 24 Hours". They don't (to their infinite credit) use the klunky "24 hours of Le Mans" transliteration. This article should follow their example. Also the text "Commonly known as the Grand Prix of Endurance" is clearly incorrect - I've never heard anyone call it that! Mike Moreton (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In 40 years I have only ever heard this event called the "Le Mans 24 Hours" or perhaps the "Le Mans 24 Hour Race", not as you say the 'klunky transliteration' of the current title; our view is supported by the BBC coverage. Even though changing the title to Le Mans 24 Hours implies we'll have to change the titles of all the 'year' events (e.g. 2009 24 Hours of Le Mans), links, etc. this is surely the logical and correct title to be used in an English-language encyclopedia. Let's change it. Disambiguator (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard any and all combinations of Le Mans. Here's SpeedTV's coverage refering to it was both Le Mans 24 Hour and 24 Hours of Le Mans. I see no reason to change it. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nobody is disputing that various terms are used; but if you read carefully you will see what people here are saying it is that '24 Hours of Le Mans' is simply a lazy transliteration of the French '24 Heures du Monde', whereas for a top English language encyclopedia we should be aiming for something better. Do you have evidence why it should not be changed? Disambiguator (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why this still hasn't been changed over 12 months later. Anyone who actually knows anything about this race should know it is normally referred to as the "Le Mans 24 Hours". Any use of "24 Hours of Le Mans" (whether or not it is used by some) sounds to me like a poor, literal translation, possibly one by a non-native English speaker a native English speaker with no personal interest in or experience of the event. Surely the official Web site, on top of established usage, is enough evidence? John Pilgrim (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate track map

The track map doesn't include the most recent changes between the Dunlop chicane and the Tertre Rouge esses. There's a map at the old Motor Racing Circuits database (which now resides on a new server since the old owners abandoned the original site):

[2]

Would have to be modified (shrunk and turned 90 degrees) to fit on the current page tho. John DiFool2 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current rewrite is full of errors

For instance it's a WM not a WP that broke the 400 km/h barreer and it was during the race not during practice.... Ericd 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 = full of errors? If you have something more specific, point it out or fix it? The359 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find other errors, but I have no time to list them yet. I don't understand why a rewrite introduce wrong information when the good information was in the previous version. Ericd 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if there are errors, point them out and/or fix them. It's foolish to sit here and say you don't have the time to list them while you clearly have time to edit the article multiple times. The only two errors you have fixed has been to remove the Matra-Simca picture (which was found in the Category:24 Hours of Le Mans on Commons) and put back in the schedule start time which I had forgot to replace. The359 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is error and innacuracy in the article. And why did you made an an history structured by decades ? Why did you rewrite the article without consideration for the information that was in the previous versions and such a lack of respect for previous editors. What's foolish ? Yes I had enough time to make some edits and verify the hour of the start this year but I have no time and desire to rewrite it... What else ? The MS-650 photo was in the category 24 Hours of Le Mans on Commons. Well I think you acted in good faith, but it's rather weak reguarding information accuracy, anyone who has some knowledge about the Matra prototypes knows this is a road going version. Ericd 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go : "early competitors cars were street cars with their bodywork removed". Look at the Bentley. Early competitors had to be street legal (unlike GP cars) . Most cars were cabriolets or torpedos. The regulations required the car to run a number of laps with the folding top up.

Most competitors had noticed than reducing the front surface will bring better performance. Look at the small windshield of the Bentley. Aerodynamics was known since the beginning of the 20th century, even if it was at pre-scientific stage. Look at La Jamais Contente or seek for pictures of the Serpollet Oeuf de Pâques.

To be continued... Ericd 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going on : "two scoring the only victories for a privateer" Well no... The Wyer GT-40s were arguably private cars with very low support from FoCoMo. The last victory for Ferrari was a NART entered 250LM.

1979, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1996 and 1997 races were also won by a privateer.

Ericd 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going on : "Pierre Levegh crashed into the crowd of spectators". It's a complex matter. He crashed for sure, but not in the crowd. Most people were killed by the blast or the engine that was projected in the crowd. Ericd 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then...

The history section was put into eras, mostly based on the types of winners at the time. It'd be foolish to have one single long history section without some division. Pre-War races, Post-War races until the change from street-based cars in 1970, the Group 6 era, the Porsche 956/962/Group C era, the GT era, and the modern era. Makes sense to me?
I rewrote the history because the previous editors had jumped from discussing history to discussing rules and various things with no real structure. The article was a complete mess with huge gaps, poor layout, and lack of explanations.
I forgot to add the time for the start back in. I had moved it in the original edit it but had forgotten to place it back into a proper section.
I nowhere claimed to be an expert on the Matra-Simcas, so I think it is inane to harp on about including a picture of a car which as far as I knew was similar to one of the winners as an example from that era that was NOT another Porsche. If you assume good faith, then leave it at that.
Early cars were ones without bodywork, as in the kind of bodywork you'd see on a usual road going coupe. They were, as you specifically say, torpedos, which were cars without excess bodywork. And I'm well aware most were cabriolets.
I also know that those cars had this bodywork removed for weight and aerodynamics. I don't see anything in my edits that says otherwise.
It clearly says privateer constructors in the article. I never said privateer teams.
And Pierre Levegh's car did partially crash into the crowd. The entire incident is well covered at 1955 Le Mans disaster, the blurb in this article was meant to just sum the events up quickly.

So where are these errors? The359 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early cars had bodywork, as in the kind of bodywork you'd see on a road going car of that era.

"I nowhere claimed to be an expert on the Matra-Simcas, so I think it is inane to harp on about including a picture of a car which as far as I knew was similar to one of the winners as an example from that era that was NOT another Porsche. If you assume good faith, then leave it at that." Well no, the car was blue like the winning cars, nothing else. Good faith isn't enougth. Collaborative work is summing up knowledge. Ericd 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Le Mans cars had full bodywork, some were torpedos as you yourself stated. And Matra-Simca MS650s raced at Le Mans, even if it was not that particular one, and that picture was in a Le Mans category, so yes there is plenty of reason to assume it is a suitable picture to place in when I wanted a picture of a Matra-Simca that ran at Le Mans. Good faith is more then enough reason to place that picture there.

Sorry, good faith id probably enough to put a picture here. But not enought to revert my edit 62.212.105.216 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are EricD - You removed the picture claiming it was an MS650 from the Tour de France. However MS650s did run at Le Mans, so I put the picture back simply as an example of Matra-Simcas. It was only on the second removal that you specified that the car was not the same as the MS650s that ran at Le Mans. The359 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are so more errors you wish to point out, I see no reason to continue to bash this rewrite. It is, quite frankly, a huge improvement on the article that was here a week ago. The359 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history section was put into eras, mostly based on the types of winners at the time. It'd be foolish to have one single long history section without some division. Pre-War races, Post-War races until the change from street-based cars in 1970, the Group 6 era, the Porsche 956/962/Group C era, the GT era, and the modern era. Makes sense to me?

Makes sense to you... There was no change "from street-based cars in 1970" Ericd 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last street-based car to win (until the 1990s) was in 1969, hence it was a key point to set a date. It would be similar to breaking up the history of the Indianapolis 500 to mark the last win by a front-engine car and the change to rear-engine dominance. And what does my choice of eras to break the Le Mans history into have to do with the article being "wrong?" Nothing is factually wrong in that history, hence you have no legitimate complaint. The359 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that the Wyer GT-40 that won in 1969 was a street based car ? Ericd 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to go back to the 1950s to find a winner based on a production road car. The GT40 was a production car of sorts, of course, but not any more so than a Porsche 917 or 935. - Ian Dalziel 10:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They built 31 street legal GT40s. Granted, they appeared after the GT had already been racing, but that's no different then moddern homologation specials like the Porsche 911 GT1 and Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR. The Porsche 917 did not have any road going counterparts nor did they share any road going parts from other Porsches. The359 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The GT-40 was designed from the start to win Le Mans. Ford intended to meet the production requirement to homologate the car in GT but as soon as they had won Le Mans they gave up. If you count the GT-40 as a street car you can also count the Dauer 962 that was arguably designed for street use before being raced. IMO there's only one street-based car that won Le Mans after WWII it's the Mc Laren F1. The car was designed for street use when there was no category in racing to race such a car. Ironically this car saved Le Mans : at that time there was not enougth cars to have a decent starting grid. Le Mans defined its own regulations to allow racing the Mc Laren (as well as anything that was fast and spectacular enougth to be appealing for the spectator). The car was a very expensive toy for street use but a real bargain for private team seeking a good performance at Le Mans (especially if you rented the car instead of buying it like the Kokusaï racing that won in 1995). This 1995 victory is a real winner-winner game Mc Laren rented the car, the sponsor had maximal notoriety for minimal cost and the value of the car immediately grew to higher than a new one ! Ericd 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Porsche 911 GT1, Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR and CLK LM, Toyota GT-One, Nissan R390 GT1, and others were all intended to win Le Mans first. Their production versions usually came later as well. That does not negate the fact that they were homologated street car-based racers. Ford clearly did not just give up on building stret cars if they built 31. They may not have built enough, but they still intended to build a road car for homologation purposes. And yes, the Dauer 962 Le Mans is a street car as well. Five road cars were built total, four of which came after the car had won Le Mans. And actually Porsche did not come to Dauer's door asking to race the 962 until after construction of the initial 962 road car had begun. The359 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK and you know about the Lancia Stratos ? Ericd 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. What does any of this have to do with the article on the 24 Hours of Le Mans? Because this is becoming ridiculous. The359 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not ridiculous... This is only a collective effort to have some intelligence on a topic... an hundred lines on a talk page for two lines in the article is the right amount to write a featured article IMO. The Lancia Stratos is a street legal car (hmm... well at least in Italy...) but it is widely considered as the start of a new era as the first car designed from scratch to win in rallies. Ericd 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford built Twelve pre-production Ford GT (the name GT-40 came later)-Chassis numbers 101 to 112- for racing by works team(s). this was enough to race for 2 years. The stock GT-40 (4-digits chassis numbers) were stock cars in the sense that were customers cars for racing by private teams (altougth everal stock cars were used by works teams with various racing tuning). Yet, who built the GT-40 ? Early pre-production cars were probably built at Lola plant with various sub-contractors like Abbey Panels of Coventry. Later, Ford established a new subsidiary under the direction of Wyer, Ford Advanced Vehicles Ltd (FAV) to built the car. After the 1967 wictory, FAV was sold to Wyer and became Wyer Automotive Ltd. Wyer Automotive keep the right to build Ford GT-40 while being an independant company. The deal was peanuts for FoMoCo executives but a jackpot for Wyer... And who built the various road-going GT-40 ? Wyer, making money of what was peanuts in FoMoCo accounts... What else , a road going car ? Ericd 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW your rewrite as some qualities IMO. Ericd 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reply on the McLaren F1 bit, on the August 2003 issue of Classic and Sportscar magazine, (from what I can recall as that issue is stashed away somewhere in the house, therefore it is tricky to dig it out) Bscher and Bellm brought a road going F1 with converting it for racing in mind, McLaren got wind of that and decided to build a homlogation special for privateers to race, so therefore that could make the fact that year was won by a homlogation car. Also to reply to that bit about how 1996 was won by a privateer, didn't Porsche lend Joest some factory support that year, should all their 911 GT1 not make it to the finish line, Porsche only dropped support the following year to prioritise their GT1s and only came back backing them for the following year. Willirennen 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren F1 cars raced at Le Mans were in fact mostly F1 GTR, a racing derivative made by McLaren and sold to privateers. Ericd 07:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is, really, making no sense whatsoever now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my choice to divide up the history into certain periods that make some logical sense. Therefore your stance that the article is "full of errors" is wrong, since you've only really pointed out a mistaken picture and the race's starting time accidentally being left out. If you have anything to actually add to the article to help it, please add it. Debating what the GT40 is is rather useless, since its quite clear that the Porsche 917 was completely different and clearly the mark of a whole new era. The359 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out other errors than a picture and missing information about the schedule. Read above. For instance Pierre Levegh car did not hit any spectator. Ericd 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "quite clear" is that neither of those cars was based on a production car. Purpose built racing cars which are capable of being adapted for road use are not the same thing as "production-based" cars.

I don't see why a Porsche 917 would be any more difficult to use on the road than a Ferrari P4 - your "era" just doesn't work. -- Ian Dalziel 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is those two were never made into road cars, the GT40s were. The359 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most historians will consider 1968 as the start of new era as it was the first year were engines were limited. Ericd 07:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be silly to attempt to break up a history section right in the middle of Ford's win streak. 1969 nicely bookends the end of Ferrari, Jaguar, and Ford's dominance and the start of Porsche and Matra-Simca's dominance before we get to the full Group C era. If that doesn't make logical sense, I don't know what does. The359 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The 24hrs of Le Mans seems to have been forgotten almost, compared to Formula 1 and NASCAR. It needs expanding much more, with many more pages. There ought to be one explaining each of the four classes, LMP1, LMP2, LMGT1, LMGT2. It also needs to be a lot easier to navigate from the main page to the sub-pages.

The biggest loser?

How many starts has Terada had, through 2006? Trekphiler 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fans and spectators

Would there be any objection if I added a short chapter on the culture and tradition of fans attending the race - this seems to be lacking in the main body of the article and I think is an intrinsic part of the race's DNA. Thoughts please? Warburton62 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it had been an important part of the event, can't see why not. Willirennen 10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Le Mans 1955 crashed car remains.jpg

Image:Le Mans 1955 crashed car remains.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps of Sarthe, France

I thought someone might be interested in this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=k&q=http:%2F%2Ftools.wikimedia.de%2F~para%2FGeoCommons%2FGeoCommons-simple.kml&ie=UTF8&ll=47.956615,0.216014&spn=0.003075,0.006909&z=17 IchiroMihara (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, way cool. Thanx! TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been there a while, just part of the Bugatti Circuit. The359 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue

There's discussion on here that may be of interest, in connection with endurance racing. Comment is welcomed. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Series

I don't see any information about a series that the 24 hours of Le Mans might belong to. Is there a European version of the ALMS that incorporates the 24 Hours of Le Mans into its schedule, or is Le Mans independent of any series?209.244.7.241 (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mans has been independent since the demise of the World Sportscar Championship in 1992. There is a Le Mans Series in Europe, but Le Mans is not part of the schedule. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long/far is the race and has this changed as times get faster?

This probably seems really obvious but when does the race end? It's called 24 hours of Le Mans so presumably it goes on for 24 hours, but does the race stop after 24 hours and whoever's gone the furthest wins? Or do they go a number of laps that should equate to roughly 24 hours? If that's what they do has the circuit/number of laps changed to accommodate (presumably) improved times? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes. Leader at the end of 24h wins. Class leaders, ditto. Distance is the leader's. It has varied as the length/layout of the course has changed, too. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driver fatigue and 1955 accident

This article states:

"...some Le Mans drivers like Pierre Levegh and Eddie Hall attempted to run the race themselves, hoping to save time by not having to change drivers, although this was later banned after such practices were implicated in the 1955 Le Mans disaster."

The article for the 1955 disaster states that the accident occurred "after just over two hours of racing," and makes no mention of driver fatigue.

If the accident happened so early in the race, how was the lack of shared driving implicated? Is there a reference to justify this statement?

MarkC77 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That needs removing. FWI hear of the wreck, it was a boobed avoidance move by Levegh. He got out of shape & put the 300 in the cheap seats. Fatigue no factor. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

For an article of this length, the list of references is woefully short, and there seem to be very few inline references (with many sections containing none at all). Therefore, I am tagging the article as unreferenced - feel free to remove the tag once the situation improves enough to warrant it. Jedikaiti (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I have added to the introduction, per a lead too short tag. The lead was formerly only two sentences long and did not effectively cover the topic. What I added may seem obvious by motorsports standards, but it is important that the introduction provide an overview accessible to the general Wikipedia audience. To further emphasize this point, if necessary, it is worth noting that this topic may be that which those unfamiliar with motorsports identify as defining endurance racing, and visit without any background in the discipline, quite possibly coming to after only reading about a certain car or seeing a few minutes of coverage on television. ENeville (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that parts of it are wrong. There is no championship and no champions. There is no specific award for being the winning constructor, only the winning drivers and team (obviously teams and constructors can be the same thing in some, but not all, cases) are awarded trophies on the podium. The person who reverted you before specifically stated they were doing so because your edit was inaccurate, not because of anything to do with common knowledge for those not involved in motorsport. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited out the parts which seem to me to be just plain wrong. I can't see how this addresses the tag, though - that is calling for the lead to summarise the article, not just have verbiage added to it. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Champion is a plain language term use to indicate the winner of an event. --Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed extended lede - how does this read to you as a proposed longer introduction to give an introduction better suited to those unfamiliar with the topic.

The 24 Hours of Le Mans (French: 24 Heures du Mans) is the world's oldest sports car race in endurance racing, held annually since 1923 near the town of Le Mans, France. Commonly known as the Grand Prix of Endurance and Efficiency, race teams have to balance speed against the cars ability to run for 24 Hours without sustaining mechanical damage to the car and manage the cars consumables, primarily fuel, tyres and braking materials. The endurance of the drivers is likewise tested as drivers frequently spend stints of over two hours behind the wheel before stopping in the pits and allowing a relief driver to take over the driving duties. Drivers then grab what food and rest as they can before returning to drive another stint. Today it is most common that three drivers will share each car.

The race is organised by the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO) and runs on a circuit containing a mix of closed public roads and specialist motor racing circuit that are meant not only to test a car and driver's ability to be quick, but also to last over a 24 hour period. The competing teams will race in groups called classes for cars of similar specification while at the same time competing for outright placing amongst all of the classes. Originally the race was held for cars as they were sold to the general public which were then called Sports Cars compared to the specialist racing cars used in Grands Prix. Increasing over time the competing vehicles evolved away from its publically-available road car roots and today the race is made of two classes specialised closed-wheel prototype sports cars and two classes of Grand Turismo cars which bear much closer resemblance to high performance sports cars as sold to the public.

Competing teams have had a wide variety of organistion, ranging from competition departments of road car manufacturers who are eager to prove the supremacy of their products, to professional motor racing teams who represent their commercial backers, some of which are also road car manufacturers attempting to win without the expense of setting up their own teams, to amatuer race teams, racing as much to compete in the famous race as to claim victory for their commercial partners.

The race is held near the height of the European summer in June, leading at times to very hot weather conditions for the drivers, particularly in closed roof vehicles whose cabins can heat up to uncomfortable hot temperatures with generally poor ventiliation, but rain, even heavy rain is not uncommon. The race begins in mid-afternoon, racing through the night and following morning before finishing at the same time the race started, the following day. Over the 24 hour period modern competitors will complete race distances well over 5000 kilometres. The present record is 5410 kilometres, recorded in the 2010 race. It is a distance over six times longer than the Indianapolis 500, or approximately 18 times longer than a Formula One Grand Prix.

Thoughts? --Falcadore (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some quibbles, maybe.

A cite on "sports car"?
Change "closed-wheel" (a term I've never heard); "bodied car" is (unfortunately...) liable to create confusion among non-race fans, so another term is welcome. Same with "closed roof"; if it has a roof, "closed" would seem to be a requirement. (Just use "closed cars"? Or is that another confuser? Are average readers stupid? :/)
Delete "Gran Turismo", absent a cite these fall into a definable GT class; the early LeMans cars did, up through about the 250 or 365GTB, but I really doubt the prototypes & GTs remotely do anymore, not being (AFAIK) street legal anywhere in the civilized world.
Delete the "six times longer"/"eighteen times longer" as generally irrelevant; they're very different formulae. (A mention of the 12h of Sebring or 1000km Nürburgring, maybe...)
Mention of driver changes is essential. I'd also say mention of how that's changed would be good, without getting into too much detail: used to be, drivers went the whole distance solo (or, at least, some did; how, IDK 80 ).
Mention of how much the distance has changed would be worthwhile: "originally 'x' km, now over 5000", or something.
Emphasis on teams is a bit strong; it's common now, but AFAIK, most of the early racers, up into the '60s, were privateers.
Finally, in general, the wording needs a bit of fixing, too, but that's after the content is settled.

In all, a pretty good start IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Sports car meant in the 1920s what touring car meant in the 1970s and what production car means today. Several times over the years the term for a lightly modified road car has had to be rebooted because of evolution. Touring cars today are represented by DTM and V8 Supercar and Super 2000, very much wild modifications. So touring car didn't mean lightly modified anymore so Production Cars is starting to become a popular term. Like Group N for example. Didn't include cites because I wanted to get the wording down.

2 - closed wheel as opposed to open wheel. I find 'Bodied' to be confusing as body is not defined anywhere. Open-wheel is a reasonably common term, closed wheel is obvious by comparison. But I'm far from settled, I just could not think of a better describer.

3 - I use Gran Turismo as it explains what GT stands for.

4 - six/eighteen times longer. It is definately relevant is it estblishes in the minds of those perhaps unfamiliar with sports car racing comparisons to motor racing they may have heard of. It helps highight the difference between Le Mans and the much more well-known open wheel style racing. Comparing to Sebring and Nurburgring I would find much less useful to explain to the general public style of reader as these races are much less well known. It's like explaining to a NASCAR fan that Adrian Sutil is a much better driver than Esteban Gutiérrez or Mikhail Aleshin. Without a more familiar frame of reference, the comparison is meaningless.

5 - did make at least one mention of driver changes. One driver efforts were exceedingly rare from what I recall. Two drivers was common place up until the early 80s. The shift was gradual, but eventually legislated. --Falcadore (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you're using it (correctly, it sounds like) as a period technical term, it needs clarification from the broader common use now.

2. Open-wheel is common, & the opposite I've always heard is "bodied cars". "Defined", no, just commonly used. "Closed-wheel" I've never heard. I will confess, not a fan of GT racing...

3. Gran Turismo is also a specialized term, with particular parameters of its own outside LeMans racing, which is my objection. It's been appropriated, & has come to have a broader meaning in automotive marketing, but that's another issue.

4. I don't mean to entirely delete lengths (tho I'm less sure there's a need); instead, a mention of the 500mi length at Indy or Daytona, or F1's 2-hour rule (tho that might need a date). You might say, "Today, while F1 uses a 2h time limit, & NASCAR's longest are 500mi, Le Mans continues to hold to its 24h format, unchanged since [year of inception]; current distances are in excess of 5Kkm."

5. AFAIK, one-driver runs were uncommon, but not unheard of, before the driver-change rule came in. Since quite a few were privateers, it wouldn't be too big a surprise the rich boys wouldn't turn over their expensive toys to somebody else. Also, speeds were (relatively) much lower, & the hazards of lack of sleep much less well understood, compared to now. How much amphetamine use there was is also unknown...& probably slim chance we'll ever know. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Formula One race distances are not defined by the 2 hour rule, which exists only for television in case an event runs too long. Formula One races are set (Monaco is an exception) at just over 300 kilometres. Using the 2 hours is not really accurate. Indy 500 is likewise defined by distance travelled as are all NASCAR races. By comparing distance travelled it translates into the more familiar (in Indy/NASCAR) terminology, and does not need the additional explanation of how long it takes in terms of time for F1, Indy or NASCAR. Distance travelled is also how the majority of Sports Car Races have been defined over history. Monza 1000, Suzuka 1000, Mille Miglia etc. Time defined races are the exception, so I translate towards the rule.

1923 24 Hours of Le Mans, not a single one driver entry. Running quickly over dozen samples from 20's 30s, 50s and 60s saw not one single driver entry. Uncommon is very generous. It is only not unheard of because the very very rare attempts were quite the sensation, mostly because of their failures. Are you sure they were as common as you claim? I can only immediately recall of one attempt, and I can't recall of an attempt succesfully finishing. --Falcadore (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean F1 distance is set to the 2h rule, but duration is, as I understand the rule, TV or no. In the wet, it will come in play & the race is stopped even if full scheduled distance isn't reached. And given lap times in the dry, full distance is routinely around 1h 40m in any case. (BTW, some '30s GPs were run to a 10h rule.) What I was getting at was a comparison: F1 at 2h max, NASCAR a 500mi max, but LeMans is 24h, unlimited distance.

I also won't argue rarity of one-drivers; working from memory, I had the impression of a handful in the '30s, but that may only be because only one of the pair was mentioned (or stuck in memory...) If ride-sharing was the usual practise, even before it became mandatory, a mention of that would more than satisfy me for the lead; any one-driver effort would rightly belong in the body, among the remarkable (or trivial ;p) circumstances. Unless he won. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The duration of Formula One races is not set to two hours, they occasionally shorten races on the day to two hours to suit television broadcast in the event of weather or some other reason slowing the race down so the 300 kilomtres can't be reached in time before the end of the telecast. There is no minimum time. They do not continue racing until the two hour mark if the 300 kilometres has already been achieved, two hours is a secondary consideration next to the 300 kilomtres. Some of the faster races like Italy have a "duration" of just 90 moniutes. Timed duration is not an accurate tool to measure Formula One races. In writing the way I did it is merely comparing like, for like.

It is written several times throughout the article the race is 24 hours long, I don't think anyone is going to miss that. The comparison I am trying to draw is just how much longer in distance Le Mans race travels. F1 300k, Nascar 600 mi, Le Mans 24 Hour, doesn't do that at all. --Falcadore (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I used the terms "drivers' champion" and "constructors' champion" as those are they that appear in the infobox. If use of those terms is disputed, it may be best to change them there, too. ENeville (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The infobox "motorsport championship" is inappropriate - this is a single race. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a case for a new infobox based on the F1 race infobox optimised for titles that are a single race/event and not decided by a pointscore. --Falcadore (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.usgpindy.com/news/story.php?story_id=1417
- In Graham Hill on 2011-03-22 11:20:36, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
- In 24 Hours of Le Mans on 2011-06-19 05:37:52, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]