Jump to content


Photo

Why car #50 was disqualified at LeMans in 1993?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 FRWL

FRWL
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 April 2004 - 10:01

I can't understand who was the winner of GT Class in 1993 at LeMans - car #50 or car #47. On David Brabham site you can read, that he was the winner in Cat.4 (GT; car#50). But www.wspr-racing.com says that car #50 was disqualified.

Can you write who the official winner of 24h LeMans'93 in GT class is? And why it says that car#50 was disqualified?

Advertisement

#2 HEROS

HEROS
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 April 2004 - 12:54

In Le Mans 1993, the Jaguar XJ 220 #50 was disqualified because of illegal exhaust.

The winner in GT class was Porsche 911 Carrera RSR #47 of Barth-Dupuy-Gouhier with
a 15th overall place.

:wave:

#3 jph

jph
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 14 April 2004 - 13:06

The Jaguars (of which #50 was one) started the race under protest, as the scrutineers ruled that the absence of catalytic converters meant that the cars did not comply with IMSA rules. Walkinshaw appealed against the scrutineers' decision, on the basis that the requirement for 'cats' did not apply to racing versions, so the cars were able to start the race. The arguments dragged on for some time after the race (several weeks) and in the end the ACO rejected Walkinshaw's appeal on the grounds that it had not been lodged in time. I'm not sure whether or not it was ever firmly established whether the exhaust system was actually illegal, as this was a question of interpretation of IMSA rules.

#4 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 14 April 2004 - 14:39

Not the first time that French organizers DQ'd a British car to let a French team win... :p

#5 jph

jph
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 14 April 2004 - 16:13

Originally posted by ensign14:
Not the first time that French organizers DQ'd a British car to let a French team win...



As in 1962 with the Lotus 23s, they took the precaution of setting the disqualification in motion before the event, rather than for some perceived infringement after practice (let alone the race) had started. In this case, however, I cannot help but wonder whether Mr Walkinshaw was the specific target, rather than a car that happened to be both British and a possible class winner?

#6 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 14 April 2004 - 18:58

Has there ever been any logic or rationality to what the ACO does? :drunk:

#7 Murray Lord

Murray Lord
  • Member

  • 32 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 15 April 2004 - 03:47

I recall a friend asking Jack Brabham the following year how the appeal from David's disqualification turned out. His reply was something like "In the end they got told to return one of the trophies but they could keep the other one!" So it's no wonder no one can tell whether the car was disqualified...

#8 bill moffat

bill moffat
  • Member

  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 15 April 2004 - 09:01

Originally posted by ensign14
Not the first time that French organizers DQ'd a British car to let a French team win... :p


True, but a bit harsh this time.

A little birdie told me that the 220's were generally running in a spec. that was a liberal interpretation of the rule book...;)

The ACO remains an unusual oganisation with some odd ideas (although only one WR entry accepted this year!), however they still run IMHO the greatest race in the World.

#9 GIGLEUX

GIGLEUX
  • Member

  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 15 April 2004 - 18:42

Originally posted by ensign14
Not the first time that French organizers DQ'd a British car to let a French team win... :p

Oh perfida Albion ,sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probet...!

#10 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 15 April 2004 - 19:14

Originally posted by GIGLEUX

Oh perfida Albion ,sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probet...!

Cursus Montis Caroli? Minimi? :lol: