22 replies to this topic

[TheMidnight]

Just watched the one of the latest 'Architects of F1', and was very interested to hear Gordan Murray talk about his experience of winning Le Mans with the McLaren F1 GTR. Interestingly he states that winning Le Mans is far tougher than winning an F1 championship, let alone winning it first time like McLaren did with the GTR. He was speaking mainly (imo) from the reliability aspect and the sheer stress put upon the cars, a whole grandprix season non-stop etc. Without stating a petulant F1 vs Le Mans ruck, what are people's thoughts on the comparison??

[Kalmake]

The one that has tougher competition is harder to win. Technical differences don't matter. F1 is harder to win. NASCAR Cup is harder to win.

[Winter98]

Just watched the one of the latest 'Architects of F1', and was very interested to hear Gordan Murray talk about his experience of winning Le Mans with the McLaren F1 GTR. Interestingly he states that winning Le Mans is far tougher than winning an F1 championship, let alone winning it first time like McLaren did with the GTR. He was speaking mainly (imo) from the reliability aspect and the sheer stress put upon the cars, a whole grandprix season non-stop etc. Without stating a petulant F1 vs Le Mans ruck, what are people's thoughts on the comparison??

Le Mans and F1 cars are both engineering marvels.

Considering they are designed for completely different types of racing, I'm not sure how you could compare them.

[Zippel]

Le Mans and F1 cars are both engineering marvels.

Considering they are designed for completely different types of racing, I'm not sure how you could compare them.

Gordan Murray has and I think that's the point. In one you need to build a car that's fast and reliable for two hours 20 times. While the other needs to be fast and extremely reliable over a 24 hour period.

[jonpollak]

Next to Newey GM is my favorite.

TBird to Vegas !!!
Y'all need to hear THAT story.
Jp

[pingu666]

le mans would be a harder event, so would dakar, king of hammers etc
with those long events, or brutal like koh, something going wrong will take you out of contention completely. you could bin your f1 car in several rounds and still win wdc

[TheMidnight]

The one that has tougher competition is harder to win. Technical differences don't matter. F1 is harder to win. NASCAR Cup is harder to win.

In F1 you have multiple chances per year to win a race and thus a WDC or WCC, Le Mans you get one shot per year. Technical differences do matter, it's a little unfair to discount that.

The level of top teams in Le Mans is of course lesser than F1 but I think it's a little too simplistic to say more competitors means it's therefore harder, the biggest challenge at Le Mans is lasting the distance, let alone racing against your competitors.

I think both sports are pinnacles of different areas of motorsport. Yes the F1 field is more competitive in laptime but even though say for instance a Williams is a second off the pace, you've still got no hope of winning a championship in it.

I was very impressed Murray said what he did and I can personally see how he feels more satisfaction from his Le Mans win over his mutliple F1 titles. It's not him saying though that Le Mans is better than F1, just what win he values the most.

Edited by Elissa, 09 July 2013 - 10:45.

[BRG]

A Le Mans winner covers more distance (some 3,500kms) in one 24 hour period than the F1 boys cover all season. All on one engine, one gearbox, one chassis. They can't even top up the oil. And Le Mans is a really high speed track where cars go faster every few minutes than an F1 car does ever. It is a massive technical challenge and one that is met each year by teams with a fraction of the resources of a top F1 team.

But it is still really like trying to compare Usain Bolt (100m) with Stephen Kiprotich (marathon).

[Kalmake]

Le Mans and F1 are similar enough that same driving and engineering talents apply to both. It's not as big a difference as 100m to marathon.

F1 has more money. Drivers and engineers like money. F1 has best drivers and engineers.

FWIW next year's F1 engines have to last about 4-5000km each.

[Victor_RO]

A Le Mans winner covers more distance (some 3,500kms) in one 24 hour period than the F1 boys cover all season. All on one engine, one gearbox, one chassis. They can't even top up the oil. And Le Mans is a really high speed track where cars go faster every few minutes than an F1 car does ever. It is a massive technical challenge and one that is met each year by teams with a fraction of the resources of a top F1 team.

But it is still really like trying to compare Usain Bolt (100m) with Stephen Kiprotich (marathon).

Actually... slight correction, they can top up on engine fluids (oil, coolant etc.), otherwise they wouldn't be able to send cars back on track after they come in with loss of fluids from damaged radiators that need to be replaced.;)

[BoschKurve]

Le Mans and F1 cars are both engineering marvels.

Considering they are designed for completely different types of racing, I'm not sure how you could compare them.

At this point in time, I'd say LMP cars are far more impressive from an engineering perspective as they have to be able to handle the pounding they take for 24 hours. Reliability is one of the most difficult things to get proper, and a F1 car needs only to be reliable for anywhere from 80-120 minutes. It's a completely different animal having to ensure reliability for 24 hours of on the limit driving.

Keep in mind too, F1 has had a number of frozen regulations for quite some time now whereas LM continues to evolve.

[Kalmake]

I agree LMP tech is more impressive and interesting in some aspects. F1 has had engine freeze for ages now and laughable tyres. However, the question was which is harder to win.

[Kalmake]

In F1 you have multiple chances per year to win a race and thus a WDC or WCC, Le Mans you get one shot per year. Technical differences do matter, it's a little unfair to discount that.

The level of top teams in Le Mans is of course lesser than F1 but I think it's a little too simplistic to say more competitors means it's therefore harder, the biggest challenge at Le Mans is lasting the distance, let alone racing against your competitors.

I think both sports are pinnacles of different areas of motorsport. Yes the F1 field is more competitive in laptime but even though say for instance a Williams is a second off the pace, you've still got no hope of winning a championship in it.

I was very impressed Murray said what he did and I can personally see how he feels more satisfaction from his Le Mans win over his mutliple F1 titles. It's not him saying though that Le Mans is better than F1, just what win he values the most.

One shot makes it more random. If you are the best team, yes, that makes it harder for you. On the other hand, everyone else gets more of a chance to fluke it. Williams and Maldonado could be F1 champions if it was one race.

[BoschKurve]

I agree LMP tech is more impressive and interesting in some aspects. F1 has had engine freeze for ages now and laughable tyres. However, the question was which is harder to win.

Le Mans easily because most of the field has no chance of winning the race outright, just their class. Only the LMP1 class has any real chance of winning the race outright.

Also consider how thoroughly Audi has dominated the race since 2000. Bentley and Peugeot were the only teams that managed to win the overall race out of the last 14 Le Mans.

Since 2000 you've had Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, Brawn, and Red Bull win championships (2013 has 3 possible contenders for the title, if Lotus pulled it off it would make it 6 different winners).

LM has only had 3 different winners over that time period.

[Kalmake]

Your logic is twisted. Less competitors obviously makes it easier for the remaining ones to win.

Bentley won when Audi factory team didn't take part. And then they left.

[Risil]

I'm content with the idea that their engineering challenges are equal but different. If only you could say the same about their media profiles.

Edited by Risil, 09 July 2013 - 19:22.

[BoschKurve]

Your logic is twisted. Less competitors obviously makes it easier for the remaining ones to win.

Bentley won when Audi factory team didn't take part. And then they left.

You still have to contend with 50+ other entries on the track, that while they may not be involved in your class, still can cause a problem due to the need to overtake them.

I mean look at F1 and how guys whine about having to contend with a few backmarkers...imagine them having to contend with 40-50 backmarkers?

The point is, Le Mans has a lot more inherent challenges involved beyond just simply engineering a reliable prototype. Let's not forget too that one car has to be setup for 3 different drivers...that's a tremendously challenge to have to deal with as obviously all drivers have their preferred setups.

[Nonesuch]

With the limited number of gearboxes and engines, I don't understand how anyone can claim F1 cars only need to last 300km. At a time, yes, but F1 cars are definitely not as expandable as they were 15 years ago.

Even so, I'm usually more impressed by the Le Mans race than your average F1 race. That's in part because as time passes I'm becoming less and less enamoured of the concept behind a year-long championship with little value on individual wins. Who (outside this board ;) ) still knows who won the this or that Grand Prix of in 2011? And even though Le Mans is part of a championship, the race itself has such a high profile that winning it matters and is remembered.

As to which one is a bigger challenge to constructors and drivers? How can I tell! It's incredibly difficult to win Le Mans as Peugeot and Toyota have and are finding out. But it's hard to win in F1 too - ask Williams, or Honda, or Sauber, or McLaren this year. Toyota could never win in F1 despite throwing truckloads of money at their project, but they're relatively competitive at Le Mans. So who knows!

Winning in F1, and winning a championship, is a great feat. It's not something you luck into (notwithstanding regulation shenanigans), but I personally think winning Le Mans is more impressive. I'll admit I have no measurable reasons for that preference, though.

I'm content with the idea that their engineering challenges are equal but different.

I agree, that's nicely phrased.

Edited by Nonesuch, 09 July 2013 - 19:46.

[byrkus]

There were some curiousities with McLaren's win at Le Mans 95. First of all, it was a GT1 class car -production based!- and not an actual LMP prototype. Secondly, in qualifying they were more than 11 seconds slower than fastest car (LMP WR), and even two seconds slower from Ferrari F40 in their class. Thirdly - that race was one of the wettest ever, and the winning car drove only 299 laps, or 4055 kms - compare that with 2010 record of 397 laps, or 5410 kms.

But in the end it doesn't matter. A win is a win, and if everybody else falters, it's not the winners' fault. The second placed car, LMP Courage driven by Andretti / Wollek / Helary, made a special stop near the end of the race because of car cleaning (!!), so that the sponsor decals would look nicer. Quite extraordinary, really.

I can concur with Murray - Le Mans is definately harder to win. Especially with a car, which isn't in the preferred racing class.

[BRG]

Actually... slight correction, they can top up on engine fluids (oil, coolant etc.), otherwise they wouldn't be able to send cars back on track after they come in with loss of fluids from damaged radiators that need to be replaced.;)

I'm probably just out of date, but I am fairly sure that you couldn't top up the oil at Le Mans back in the past at least. But doubtless the rules have been changed, hardly a rare thing with the ACO. Coolant topping ups, no problem.

[Victor_RO]

I'm probably just out of date, but I am fairly sure that you couldn't top up the oil at Le Mans back in the past at least. But doubtless the rules have been changed, hardly a rare thing with the ACO. Coolant topping ups, no problem.

I think there was a rule about the cars not being allowed to be topped up with oil and/or coolant within the first 1 or 2 hours, not sure if it exists any more. Oil refills are definitely very common in the second half of the race.

[onewingedangel]

Wonder if Gordon Murray may be interested in working with McLaren and Honda again, away from F1. Persuading Honda to productise the istream process that created the T25/T27 could be a massive victory.

[Brother Fox]

le mans would be a harder event, so would dakar, king of hammers etc
with those long events, or brutal like koh, something going wrong will take you out of contention completely. you could bin your f1 car in several rounds and still win wdc

I bet thats giving some fanboys an idea to calculate who covered the most ground in the shortest time over a year to 'explain' why their boy was the real champ in a particular year.

By my quick count theres only 5 in contrention this year now .... and its between Kimi & Lewis ... good thing they havent got any crazy fans