94 replies to this topic

[Doug Nye]

In the days when two-man driving crews were standard, each 24-Hour race at the Sarthe produced two 'Le Mans-winning drivers'.

In most cases those crews truly shared the workload apart from a few major instances, such as Luigi Chinetti in 1949 when Lord Selsdon contributed very little indeed.

But in this present era of three-man crews every race produces a trio of 'Le Mans-winning drivers.

It's becoming such a common accolade as the years roll by that I feel it has rather demeaned the distinction.

Jenks used to differentiate - very emphatically - between 'winning drivers' and 'drivers who have finished first'.

Might it be of interest to discuss which victorious drivers at Le Mans really contributed the 'Le Mans-winning' performance - and which ones might not have made such a distinguished contribution? For example - while Ickx/Oliver's Gulf Ford GT40 won in 1969, and although I'm something of an Ollie fan (one of a minority?), there is a strong argument that the last-gasp win made Ickx that year's truly 'Le Mans-winning driver', while Jack Oliver is one of the many who have 'finished first in the Le Mans 24-Hour race'. There is a difference...

DCN

[jcbc3]

or.....if the car had been driven at 'Ickx tempo' all the way it would have broken down?

However, contributing to the thread I think we can also say that the 1985 race was 'won' by Klaus Ludwig (co-driven by luminaries John Winter and Paolo Barilla) as well as the 1984 race where he was co-driven by the quite brilliant Henri Pescarolo, who though was fading at the time.

[Tim Murray]

The 1977 race is another that would have had a different winner without the tremendous drive put in by Jacky Ickx.

[BRG]

I think this is a bit of an unfair comment and that such comparisons are perhaps a little odious. IMO, if a car has covered more kms than any of the others at Le Mans in the 24 hour period, then anyone who has contributed to the driving deserves the accolade of winner.

To pick out one driver because he was faster is perhaps unwise. The car concerned might not have finished if it was thrashed to death for the whole race at that rate, so it could be argued that the slower driver(s) in fact ensured the win despite the faster drivers efforts. Even today, with apparently bulletproof cars, there is still an art to keeping a good pace but preserving the tyres. The fast drivers that are lauded here could well be the ones that burn out the rubber and lead to longer pit-stops to change tyres that negate any advantage gained. This year, I think we saw some consummate endurance race driving. I am not sure that there is much place for the banzai driver at Le Mans.

Of course there were/are drivers that can preserve the car and the tyres and still run faster than their colleagues and these are those that we rightly regard as the masters of endurance racing - Ickx, Wollek, Bell, Kristenson et al. But they all rely on their colleagues to secure the wins.

[jcbc3]

As you can see from my initial post, BRG, I agree mostly with you. However, I also know that Tom K was absolutely furious in 2006 with his co-drivers because they repeatedly rode the kerbs with the, at that time quite, unproven car. So this was an instance of the faster driver being the more gentle...

[Vitesse2]

In most cases those crews truly shared the workload apart from a few major instances, such as Luigi Chinetti in 1949 when Lord Selsdon contributed very little indeed.

DCN

To be fair, His Lordship was unwell - not that that takes anything away from Chinetti's performance. But Lord Selsdon had co-driven one of the V12 Lagondas in 1939: WO Bentley targetted the two cars with finishing at a speed 1 mph faster than the winning Delahaye from 1938, which they did, with almost metronomic regularity. Lords Selsdon and Waleran were fourth, less than a lap behind the "professionals" Dobson and Brackenbury in the other car.

However, it's probably the fewest hours driven by a driver who won the Rudge-Whitworth Biennial Cup.

[Victor_RO]

Funnily enough, this year both the winning car and the second-placed car had one driver each which didn't make too much of a contribution, with the majority of the driving eventually shared by the other two.

[Barry Boor]

Really? Can you give statistics to support that statement, please?

[Bauble]

I tend to agree with DCN here. Take 1954 when Gonzales and Trintignant in a Ferrari narrowly beat Rolt and Hamilton in a D-Type, the race run in pouring rain!

Back then an accident tended to be a serious business, but, while visually horrific, McNish's shunt left him virtually unscathed! I have always thought bringing in more than two drivers was a bit 'sissy'. Driving single for 24 hours is perhaps a tad too risky, but

"When men were men, and they raced in green".

[D-Type]

To be fair, His Lordship was unwell - not that that takes anything away from Chinetti's performance. But Lord Selsdon had co-driven one of the V12 Lagondas in 1939: WO Bentley targetted the two cars with finishing at a speed 1 mph faster than the winning Delahaye from 1938, which they did, with almost metronomic regularity. Lords Selsdon and Waleran were fourth, less than a lap behind the "professionals" Dobson and Brackenbury in the other car.

However, it's probably the fewest hours driven by a driver who won the Rudge-Whitworth Biennial Cup.;)

By a curious symmetry, in 1932 Chinetti was genuinely ill and his co-driver Raymond Sommer drove for some 20 of the 24 hours.

[Rob Semmeling]

Jan Lammers writes on his website that he drove for 13 of the 24 hours when he won with Andy Wallace en Johnny Dumfries in 1988.

[Paul Parker]

In the days when two-man driving crews were standard, each 24-Hour race at the Sarthe produced two 'Le Mans-winning drivers'.

In most cases those crews truly shared the workload apart from a few major instances, such as Luigi Chinetti in 1949 when Lord Selsdon contributed very little indeed.

But in this present era of three-man crews every race produces a trio of 'Le Mans-winning drivers.

It's becoming such a common accolade as the years roll by that I feel it has rather demeaned the distinction.

Jenks used to differentiate - very emphatically - between 'winning drivers' and 'drivers who have finished first'.

Might it be of interest to discuss which victorious drivers at Le Mans really contributed the 'Le Mans-winning' performance - and which ones might not have made such a distinguished contribution? For example - while Ickx/Oliver's Gulf Ford GT40 won in 1969, and although I'm something of an Ollie fan (one of a minority?), there is a strong argument that the last-gasp win made Ickx that year's truly 'Le Mans-winning driver', while Jack Oliver is one of the many who have 'finished first in the Le Mans 24-Hour race'. There is a difference...

DCN

Without meaning any offence or traducing his abilities perhaps Maurice Trintignant falls into this category after sharing the winning Ferrari at Le Mans 1954 with Froilan Gonzalez, ditto Ivor Bueb's role a year later albeit under exceptional (bad) circumstances.

[Victor_RO]

Really? Can you give statistics to support that statement, please?

I can only rely on what has been said on Radio Le Mans, but according to Paul Truswell Pedro Lamy only drove two or three stints early on in the race (so something less than 35 laps) and then never actually drove the car again for the whole race, the rest of the driving was done by Bourdais and Pagenaud; this point was made in commentary at the end of the race. Also, for the #2 Audi, they went out of their driver rotation for the last few hours: Fassler was supposed to replace Treluyer with about 4 hours to go, but they put Lotterer back in the car (who had driven only 3 hours previously), and with the stint lengths, Lotterer and Treluyer did the last 10-11 hours between themselves, it was discussed on-air when the last driver change for that car was performed.

Unfortunately the ACO website doesn't list full reports of driving time as far as I'm aware.

[Paul Parker]

I tend to agree with DCN here. Take 1954 when Gonzales and Trintignant in a Ferrari narrowly beat Rolt and Hamilton in a D-Type, the race run in pouring rain!

Back then an accident tended to be a serious business, but, while visually horrific, McNish's shunt left him virtually unscathed! I have always thought bringing in more than two drivers was a bit 'sissy'. Driving single for 24 hours is perhaps a tad too risky, but

"When men were men, and they raced in green".

Apologies Bauble I was not plaigirising and did not see your post.

[small block]

or.....if the car had been driven at 'Ickx tempo' all the way it would have broken down?

This part of a 2004 Daily Sportscar interview with Jackie Oliver make interesting reading:

The 1969 Le Mans is generally perceived as Jacky Ickx’s great race. Why have we never heard your side of the story?
“Jacky was the prima donna of the team. He started the race, he finished the race. My memories of that race were that it was easy, we were cruising. In fact I was quicker than he was at Le Mans; it was another of my good circuits. I was good in quick corners and there are a lot of them at Le Mans: for example through White House, I could get the car almost flat through there. I knew Jacky couldn’t. He said he was but I knew he wasn’t. In the race we were instructed to drive just off the limit with the brakes and everything else, cut our braking distances back, cut the revs back, be smooth with the gearbox and the car. I drove that way and so did Jacky. But Jacky claimed to Horsman all the time that I was going too fast. He told them to slow me down. Horsman talked to me between stints. We drove two hours on and two hours off then. I said ‘Quite honestly John, I’m smooth.’ He understood that and didn’t say anything to me and told Jacky to shut up.

“What Jacky would do when he had taken over from me was put one lap in that was just a little bit quicker than mine and then settle back to his pace. I didn’t bother with that, but it was important to Jacky because he wanted to remain number one in the team.”

[David M. Kane]

small block very interesting comments from Jackie Oliver.

As to driver bravery; I don't think it's fair for spectators to pass judgment on said subject...sorry.

[Bauble]

Apologies Bauble I was not plaigirising and did not see your post.

Paul,
And I thought EVERYONE, ALWAYS read my posts, you have shattered my dreams!!

Seriously I 'see where you're coming from', but while I would agree that Ivor the Driver could not match the Farnham Flyer's's pace, I have no idea how Petoulet compared with the Pampas Bull in terms of lap times or length of time at the wheel. Do you know how they stack-up against each other?

Cheers,

bauble

Edited by Bauble, 13 June 2011 - 18:06.

[ensign14]

However, contributing to the thread I think we can also say that the 1985 race was 'won' by Klaus Ludwig (co-driven by luminaries John Winter and Paolo Barilla) as well as the 1984 race where he was co-driven by the quite brilliant Henri Pescarolo, who though was fading at the time.

Didn't Barilla do a fair bit of the driving in that race though? IIRC "Winter" only had a couple of hours.

Then there's the conundrum that is Jean-Louis Rosier, there was a suggestion that the timekeepers mixed him up with his dad, and so only credited him with a couple of laps, I don't suppose we'll ever know definitively whether he did any more in 1950...

[RobertE]

How about Salvadori/Shelby in 1959? Details seem a bit vague, but I understood that Roy did the Lion's share of the work...

[RCH]

, but while I would agree that Ivor the Driver could not match the Farnham Flyer's's pace,

Whilst I would never normally question Stirling Moss's view on things I've always been a little doubtful about his assertion that if the Merc hadn't been withdrawn in 1955 he and Fangio would have won easily. This was based on the fact that Bueb was not a top flight driver. Before my time really but would Bueb have been able to keep his end up sufficiently to have kept the Jaguar in the running? I wouldn't think it was beyond the realms of possibilty that Moss and Fangio would have tried to outdo each other and driven the 300SLR into the ground. There are many examples of ultra successful sports car drivers, Gendebien springs to mind, who Stirling would not have considered top flight.

[RCH]

How about Salvadori/Shelby in 1959? Details seem a bit vague, but I understood that Roy did the Lion's share of the work...

Careful the Carroll Shelby can do no wrong police will be after you...

[Barry Boor]

Where the first and second place cars from Sunday are concerned, irrespective of how many hours/laps any of the six drivers did, the fact remain that those two cars were driven FLAT OUT for all the race (apart from the long safety car periods). Had any of the six been anything other than fractions slower than his fellows, the cars would not have finished 13 seconds apart, having exchanged the lead depending on pit stops virtually the whole way.


Just my view.

BTW, was there ever a faster final lap?

[ensign14]

I wouldn't think it was beyond the realms of possibilty that Moss and Fangio would have tried to outdo each other and driven the 300SLR into the ground.

I dunno, Fangio tended to have a very good record of reliability in Grands Prix, and Moss of course won the brutal Mille Miglia going flat out, as well as both being intelligent enough to think of the team (how often was Fangio beaten at Mercedes? By Moss at Aintree and Kling at the Avus) to have reined it in.

[jcbc3]

Didn't Barilla do a fair bit of the driving in that race though? IIRC "Winter" only had a couple of hours.

Then there's the conundrum that is Jean-Louis Rosier, there was a suggestion that the timekeepers mixed him up with his dad, and so only credited him with a couple of laps, I don't suppose we'll ever know definitively whether he did any more in 1950...

In the realm of this thread we are then comparing Barilla and Oliver. And it is my impression that Oliver did more to support Ickx in '69 than Barilla did Ludwig in '85.
But as I also stated a couple of times, I don't really agree with the premiss of the thread anyway...

[bigears]

What about Hurley Haywood's contribution during the 1977 Le Mans when Jacky Ickx did most of the chasing into the Renaults with Jurgen Barth coaxing the car to the finish?

I recall in an Autosport Le Mans supplement stating that he drove for a very short time as it was his first Le Mans race or something?

[xj13v12]

I think there is an element of this discussion as yet overlooked and that is the existance of very clear team orders. Reading Wyer's book and others on LeMans it is very clear that after a few hours and certainly through the night the pace drops and the #2 driver had a specific role to drive to a speed dictated by the manager and protect the car physically and mechanically. This period might have represented 9 or 10 hours of the race in many cases. Keeping the car on the island, straight and conserving it with mechanical sympathy were the stock and trade of the 2nd driver and perhaps to a lesser extent the third driver these days. Maintaining track position, often during the most difficult foggy night stints, is critical to being in a position to press on later in the race. Reading the Porsche/Jaguar years race reports and driver's comments reveals that some drivers were better at this than others and got double stints with a short break and then another double stint, at that time about 2 hours per stint. In other words 8 hours of the most demanding track time. That same driver might not have been an ex F1 driver and therefore slower than the team ace who would then have the task of being in the car and racing which ever other car might be in the hunt towards the end. The short of this is that LeMans is a very tactical race and in years gone by the middle stages were often a regularity run. Wyer's Ford GTs sometimes ran 20-30 seconds per lap off their pace. That does not mean the driver was incapable, just following instructions.

Current LeMans as pointed out is much more a flat out race and being a second off the pace when pressing on would indeed be a significant disadvantage to the team these days and that in a nutshell is why today's race is a different animal to glorious days of Ferrari, Porshe, Jaguar et al. Remember too that the F1 ace in olden days only wanted to race and was happy to blow the car up within 3 hours and go home. Many of them hated LeMans and there are many tales of such deliberate acts of over driving including one that led to a win. Which pair in a GT40 felt the gearbox was dodgy so decided to drive like hell and wait for the inevitable breakage? They found themselves in an unassaiable lead and then had the task of preserving what was left of their box with now destroyed synchros. Someone can remind us which pair that was.
My point is that the premise is that not all drivers are equal, no doubt true, but historically the #2 driver still had to use considerable skill to assist the car into a winning position. I am not sure I can agree that someone who drove 8-10 hours, often in treacherous conditions, is less a winner than the #1 who was after all expected to be able to run faster than his opponents and team mate. Perhaps the distinction here is the fact that less than 8 hours of the total used to be actual racing, the rest was positioning and tactics.

[RA Historian]

Careful the Carroll Shelby can do no wrong police will be after you...

Calling Art Evans, who is Shelby's Boswell...

But as I also stated a couple of times, I don't really agree with the premiss of the thread anyway...

Agreed wholeheartedly. To imply that someone is not a deserving winner because he "only" drove a handful of hours, or that he was not as fast as the lead driver is both silly and demeaning. He raced in the winning car and won the blasted race, for crying out loud.
Tom

[RCH]

ISTR that in 1990 Tom Walkinshaw held back the number 3 (paying?) drivers from driving just to keep them available should the main drivers both need a break. In fact the nominated third driver in the winning car (can't remember offhand who he was) didn't drive at all because Walkinshaw drafted in Martin Brundle who had himself been kept back to step into the leading Jaguar at some point. I have a feeling the driver who didn't get to drive threatened to sue.

Also Walkinshaw was critical of third driver Franz Konrad in the eventual second place car despite him doing what seemed to be sterling work mid morning blocking the Brun Porsche and allowing the leader to make up time lost in an impromtu stop to change the screen.

[Giraffe]

Brundle t/f'd to the no.3 Jag bumping Salazar (whom I don't think had driven) down to the no.4 car in which entered driver Luis Sala was "not invited to drive in the race" due to his slow times in practice.

Edited by Giraffe, 14 June 2011 - 07:49.

[Paul Parker]

Paul,
And I thought EVERYONE, ALWAYS read my posts, you have shattered my dreams!!

Seriously I 'see where you're coming from', but while I would agree that Ivor the Driver could not match the Farnham Flyer's's pace, I have no idea how Petoulet compared with the Pampas Bull in terms of lap times or length of time at the wheel. Do you know how they stack-up against each other?

Cheers,

bauble

Gonzalez had the pace, at that time he was arguably the 3rd quickest driver on a GP grid and was not yet burdened by the death of his compatriot Marimon. I seem to recall in Touch Wood that it was Froilan who matched the pace of the Rolt/Hamilton D type, not 'Trint' but I'm not with my books right now so this is from memory.

Anyway this was nearly 60 years ago, gulp, and things were very, very different. You couldn't drive a period sports racing car to the max in dry conditions for 24 hours or indeed even half that, in my opinion the battle between Ferrari and Jaguar to the end in 1954 was only possible due to the very wet, cool conditions which are much easier on the mechanicals.

As for 1955 and the 300SLRs maybe these might have been an exception, being apparently bullet proof apart from rumours of clutch and brake weakness. However this too was a largely wet, cool race and in my opinion Fangio/Moss would have won easily, Fangio rarely broke his cars and SCM would not have needed to drive too hard.

Nevertheless I am reminded of the Rindt/Gregory '65 win and the fact that they drove the Ferrari as hard as it would go to win and it survived so there's always the exception.

[RCH]

Gonzalez had the pace, at that time he was arguably the 3rd quickest driver on a GP grid and was not yet burdened by the death of his compatriot Marimon. I seem to recall in Touch Wood that it was Froilan who matched the pace of the Rolt/Hamilton D type, not 'Trint' but I'm not with my books right now so this is from memory.

Anyway this was nearly 60 years ago, gulp, and things were very, very different. You couldn't drive a period sports racing car to the max in dry conditions for 24 hours or indeed even half that, in my opinion the battle between Ferrari and Jaguar to the end in 1954 was only possible due to the very wet, cool conditions which are much easier on the mechanicals.

As for 1955 and the 300SLRs maybe these might have been an exception, being apparently bullet proof apart from rumours of clutch and brake weakness. However this too was a largely wet, cool race and in my opinion Fangio/Moss would have won easily, Fangio rarely broke his cars and SCM would not have needed to drive too hard.

Nevertheless I am reminded of the Rindt/Gregory '65 win and the fact that they drove the Ferrari as hard as it would go to win and it survived so there's always the exception.

Gonzalez and Trintignant were both top line GP drivers even if Gonzalez was quicker. Rolt & Hamilton were not which in a way makes the point that you don't need to be a super successful F1 driver to score well.

I had always considered that Fangio was not a car breaker and that they should have been able to keep the car going reliably at a winning speed. However why did the level headed JMF indulge in a titanic battle with Hawthorn rather than let him go, if the feeling was they could beat the Jaguar due to Ivor Bueb not being up to the standard of the others?

[Bauble]

The point about Grand Prix drivers V Ordinary Mortals, is interesting but Stirling has always acknowledged that Fangio was the better driver in a Grand Prix car, but stated that he was better in a sports car, which JMF did not really like. Rolt and Hamilton were pretty much the ideal pairing for Le Mans I would say. There is no doubt that Moss would have been considerably faster than Bueb, so in theory the 'Hun Car' would have won, but such speculation is pointless. It just did not happen that way.

As to Gonzo V Trint. yes Frolian was a better GP driver, but Maurice was very experienced, and I am sure was more than capable of pulling his weight at Le Mans.

Either way two drivers is best, makes winning all the more worthwhile.

Edited by Bauble, 14 June 2011 - 12:55.

[Giraffe]

Either way two drivers is best, makes winning all the more worthwhile.

When did 3 drivers become compulsory? The 1979 victory of the Whittington brothers with Klaus Ludwig devalued the race for me.

Edited by Giraffe, 14 June 2011 - 13:34.

[RA Historian]

When did 3 drivers become compulsory? The 1979 victory of the Whittington brothers with Klaus Ludwig devalued the race for me.

Was it made mandatory, or did it just evolve? I really don't know.

The Whittingtons devalued a lot of what they touched. But as drivers, they really were smoking! (sorry)
Tom

[Phil Rainford]

Where the first and second place cars from Sunday are concerned, irrespective of how many hours/laps any of the six drivers did, the fact remain that those two cars were driven FLAT OUT for all the race (apart from the long safety car periods). Had any of the six been anything other than fractions slower than his fellows, the cars would not have finished 13 seconds apart, having exchanged the lead depending on pit stops virtually the whole way.


Just my view.

BTW, was there ever a faster final lap?

Have to agree with Barry here....

The cars at Le Mans are driven by the drivers as if the race is a sprint event, while the fact that the Mulsanne straight now has two chicanes no longer allows the drivers to relax and stretch their muscles as was the norm before

Not saying that it is harder/easier than before but the four hour stint that Lotterer drove in the winning Audi with the second place Peugeot ready to pounce at the slightest mistake was as good a performance as I have witnessed in many years


PAR

[Julian Roberts]

Have to agree with Barry here....

Not saying that it is harder/easier than before but the four hour stint that Lotterer drove in the winning Audi with the second place Peugeot ready to pounce at the slightest mistake was as good a performance as I have witnessed in many years

PAR

That was some pressure they resisted; immense. Later that day, Vettel didn't keep his head for even a lap.

It was an outstanding performance which I will remember for a long time; I bet he (and Treluyer & Fassler earlier) held his breath every time he lapped a Ferrari too !

[Gert]

I can only rely on what has been said on Radio Le Mans, but according to Paul Truswell Pedro Lamy only drove two or three stints early on in the race (so something less than 35 laps) and then never actually drove the car again for the whole race, the rest of the driving was done by Bourdais and Pagenaud; this point was made in commentary at the end of the race. Also, for the #2 Audi, they went out of their driver rotation for the last few hours: Fassler was supposed to replace Treluyer with about 4 hours to go, but they put Lotterer back in the car (who had driven only 3 hours previously), and with the stint lengths, Lotterer and Treluyer did the last 10-11 hours between themselves, it was discussed on-air when the last driver change for that car was performed.

Unfortunately the ACO website doesn't list full reports of driving time as far as I'm aware.

On the Timing sheets from AlKamel, you can see who drove which laps:

Peugeot 9
* 001-039 = Bourdais
* 040-075 = Pagenaud
* 076-109 = Lamy
* 110-155 = Bourdais
* 156-203 = Pagenaud
* 204-238 = Bourdais
* 239-275 = Pagenaud
* 276-310 = Bourdais
* 311-355 = Pagenaud

Pagenaud = 166 laps = +/- 46.8%
Bourdais = 155 laps = +/- 43.7%
Lamy = 34 laps = +/- 9.6%

Audi 2
* 001-048 = Tréluyer
* 049-092 = Fässler
* 093-130 = Lotterer
* 131-175 = Tréluyer
* 176-220 = Fässler
* 221-240 = Lotterer
* 241-294 = Tréluyer
* 295-355 = Lotterer

Tréluyer = 147 laps = +/- 41.4%
Lotterer = 119 laps = +/- 33.5%
Fässler = 89 laps = +/- 25,1%

Edited by Gert, 14 June 2011 - 15:29.

[Glengavel]

Nevertheless I am reminded of the Rindt/Gregory '65 win and the fact that they drove the Ferrari as hard as it would go to win and it survived so there's always the exception.

I'm sure I read somewhere (always a reliable source!) that they drove flat out because they didn't think the car would survive the 24 hours anyway, or wouldn't beat the Fords, or whatever, so decided just to enjoy themselves.

[La Sarthe]

I think there is an element of this discussion as yet overlooked and that is the existance of very clear team orders. Reading Wyer's book and others on LeMans it is very clear that after a few hours and certainly through the night the pace drops and the #2 driver had a specific role to drive to a speed dictated by the manager and protect the car physically and mechanically. This period might have represented 9 or 10 hours of the race in many cases. Keeping the car on the island, straight and conserving it with mechanical sympathy were the stock and trade of the 2nd driver and perhaps to a lesser extent the third driver these days. Maintaining track position, often during the most difficult foggy night stints, is critical to being in a position to press on later in the race. Reading the Porsche/Jaguar years race reports and driver's comments reveals that some drivers were better at this than others and got double stints with a short break and then another double stint, at that time about 2 hours per stint. In other words 8 hours of the most demanding track time. That same driver might not have been an ex F1 driver and therefore slower than the team ace who would then have the task of being in the car and racing which ever other car might be in the hunt towards the end. The short of this is that LeMans is a very tactical race and in years gone by the middle stages were often a regularity run. Wyer's Ford GTs sometimes ran 20-30 seconds per lap off their pace. That does not mean the driver was incapable, just following instructions.

Current LeMans as pointed out is much more a flat out race and being a second off the pace when pressing on would indeed be a significant disadvantage to the team these days and that in a nutshell is why today's race is a different animal to glorious days of Ferrari, Porshe, Jaguar et al. Remember too that the F1 ace in olden days only wanted to race and was happy to blow the car up within 3 hours and go home. Many of them hated LeMans and there are many tales of such deliberate acts of over driving including one that led to a win. Which pair in a GT40 felt the gearbox was dodgy so decided to drive like hell and wait for the inevitable breakage? They found themselves in an unassaiable lead and then had the task of preserving what was left of their box with now destroyed synchros. Someone can remind us which pair that was.
My point is that the premise is that not all drivers are equal, no doubt true, but historically the #2 driver still had to use considerable skill to assist the car into a winning position. I am not sure I can agree that someone who drove 8-10 hours, often in treacherous conditions, is less a winner than the #1 who was after all expected to be able to run faster than his opponents and team mate. Perhaps the distinction here is the fact that less than 8 hours of the total used to be actual racing, the rest was positioning and tactics.

I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with this. If we take Le Mans legend and 5-times winner Derek Bell as an example, he matched good speed with consistency and mechanical reliability to be the great sportscar driver he was, given the cars of the day. That's why the likes of Bell and Brian Redman were in such demand in that period, and the likes of Ickx and Siffert requested that they be their partners. The latter pair wouldn't have won nearly as many races without the efforts of the other two.

I was really impressed by Andre Lotterer's final stint this year. Not only was it long, he was quick, pretty well avoided any mistakes, put up with occasional spotting rain on slicks, put up with some monkeying around by various Peugeot drivers and the corporate (and career?) pressure of being Audi's only representative for over half the race. A top drawer effort.

Peter

[Jesper O. Hansen]

With gradually more corners and chikanens added to Le Mans, there are more breaking zones, and traffic will potentially be more difficult to pass. Weather cars are easier or harder on drivers these days than they were 50 years ago I'm in no position to tell, but as the track has become harder, I'd say the track has gradually warrented three-driver crews.

As a fan looking in from the out side I have no real way of telling which driver pulled his er her load and who didn't with regards to strain on the car or team orders. For me it's more interesting to follow my 20 or 30 odd pet drivers and how they fare throughout the race and much of the time it's as much a matter of how the team fares.

Jesper

[Formula Once]

Having entered/ran LM teams for quite a few years, here are my thoughts.

Outsiders such as journalists can claim that one driver has won a LM "more" than his team mate(s) all they want, but it does not really matter. Or shouldn't rather.

We could now here analyse every 79 LM thus far raced, but as any team member, drivers included, knows, nobody can win the race by himself, but anyone can lose it. Anyone's contribution is thus crucial in its own right, shape or form and it truly is a team effort. Jan Lammers, for example, indeed drove over 13 hours in 1988, and did so magnificently, whilst team mate Andy Wallace did not do many hours in the same car. But Andy jumped in the car for the first time while it was leading during a mighty fight with Porsche and then, as an LM rookie, performed greatly under huge pressure. So how could anyone, leave alone from the press room or grandstand, rightfully label him. or whoever you wanna pick for that matter, a less "winning-ier" driver.

Also, again only outsiders could suggest doing LM with two drivers is harder/more difficult/braver than with three and thus ignore the fact that the characteristics of the race and the cars have changed so dramatically/fundamentally over the years as improved technologies allow drivers to race harder and the track has been crucially altered.

Edited by Formula Once, 14 June 2011 - 20:48.

[RA Historian]

Well said! You have stated very well exactly how I feel also. All this talk about so and so not being as worthy a winner as driver 'A' is just so much horse manure. As I said several posts up, if this driver raced the car during the 24 Hrs, and the car won the race, well, then this driver is a winning driver, for crying out loud. To say otherwise is just rubbish.
Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 14 June 2011 - 23:43.

[NPP]

This is a very enlightening discussion

[arttidesco]

I am not one to harbour bitterness, but when I competed in the Mondello 24 hours in 1990 our fastest, of three drivers, was also the one who stuffed the front of our car into the Autosport () entry during the opening laps ensuring we had a long pit stop to identify why the car was overheating, then lost extra time while we blagged a spare fan off a properly equipped team and then replaced our damaged item.

A winning team depends as much on good preparation, as everyone on the team performing to the best of their ability for 24 hours while not exceeding it.

While I am sure Klaus Ludwig played an important part in three Le Mans victories, by the same token did he play an important part in the Jaguar Victory of 1988 ?

Meantime lets hope when they start handing out gongs in the new year that Leena Gade does not get forgotten for the part she played in this years Le Mans victory :-)

[Paul Parker]

I'm sure I read somewhere (always a reliable source!) that they drove flat out because they didn't think the car would survive the 24 hours anyway, or wouldn't beat the Fords, or whatever, so decided just to enjoy themselves.

I also read that somewhere but the point I was making was that the Ferrari LM survived the merciless caning, something that the period GT40s could not have endured, indeed that year they all broke if I recall correctly whilst the new P2 Ferraris were also found wanting.

[Paul Parker]

Gonzalez and Trintignant were both top line GP drivers even if Gonzalez was quicker. Rolt & Hamilton were not which in a way makes the point that you don't need to be a super successful F1 driver to score well.

I had always considered that Fangio was not a car breaker and that they should have been able to keep the car going reliably at a winning speed. However why did the level headed JMF indulge in a titanic battle with Hawthorn rather than let him go, if the feeling was they could beat the Jaguar due to Ivor Bueb not being up to the standard of the others?

In GP terms Gonzalez was capable of winning a GP on merit, even though he only won two champioship races. This reflects his racing during the Fangio/Ascari hegemony, his 1953 Portugese shunt and as is known the death of Marimon definitely affected him. After 1954 he only drove in 5 more GPs (1 in 1955, 2 in 1956, 1 in 1957 and 1 in 1960) of which 4 were in the Argentine.

'Trint' by comparison was a safe pair of hands and his 2 Monaco victories were courtesy of attrition, although he was quite successful in non-championship events, but he was never a regular F1 front runner in very long career. Otherwise his best GP result was finishing a very close 2nd (with fastest lap) at the 1959 US GP. He had of course suffered a serious accident at Bremgarten in 1948 that was nearly fatal which possibly took its toll. Rolt and Hamilton were part time GP racers, of which Rolt was the better and quicker driver, but in the C and D type in 1953/54 they were a match for anyone around Le Mans as history records. In 1954 these two were able to match Gonzalez more or less, despite a minor shunt, but were much quicker than Trintignant in the wet conditions.

As for Fangio v Hawthorn, these two already had form, Reims in '53 as we know, and despite the Le Mans tragedy and its aftermath, they did it again at Dundrod later that year. One has to conclude that Fangio liked a dice as much as any good racer and it was, perhaps, as much a Mercedes v Jaguar thing as it was JMF v MJH. This had nothing to do with Bueb's ability to keep up, which he couldn't and Mercedes surely knew it, presumably Jaguar did too, although Coventry did not have an obvious partner to match or near match Hawthorn (allegedly Hawthorn was very favoured by 'Lofty' and not to be challenged by any other Jaguar team driver as Hamilton found out post Reims '56) in pace. Indeed the original choice by Mike was for his protege Don Beauman who possibly would have not have been as quick as Ivor the driver.

[Pablo Vignone]

Without meaning any offence or traducing his abilities perhaps Maurice Trintignant falls into this category after sharing the winning Ferrari at Le Mans 1954 with Froilan Gonzalez, ditto Ivor Bueb's role a year later albeit under exceptional (bad) circumstances.

Froilán says that he drove 17 of the whole 24 hours.

[Paul Parker]

Froilán says that he drove 17 of the whole 24 hours.

Thank you for that, can I presume that you have spoken to the great man, if so it is always good to have the information first hand.

[Bauble]

Comments about Hawthorn not liking competition in his co-driver, is rather odd when you consider that he shared with Desmond Titterington at Dundrod later in the year. Titterington was a very rapid sports car driver with plenty of experience of Jaguars, and more than held his own in the TT, did he lap faster than Mike?

As to Le Mans, I doubt that either Juan or Mike were to concerned with winning the race as to beating the other. Pride would have played a big part I reckon. Anyway it was magnificent to watch.

[Bauble]

Meantime lets hope when they start handing out gongs in the new year that Leena Gade does not get forgotten for the part she played in this years Le Mans victory :-)

Didn't she do well!!