8 replies to this topic

[teegeefla]

I came across a photo in a Road & Track article on Corvettes at LeMans that showed the start of the 1960 race. It seems that the car numbers and their relative grid positions matched, with Corvette #1 qualified ahead of #2 who is ahead of #3 who is ahead of #4. The next car in line is a D-type #5 followed by the Jaguar E2A #6 and so forth. I cannot find any info that tells who was on the pole, so I do not know if that ws the front of the field or somewhere down the line. I would suspect that it is near the front since the E2A set fastest lap. This seems incredibly coincidental. Does anyone know what the starting order was in 1960, and is there an official reason for the sequential numbering of the cars? Thanks.

[ray b]

Corvettes had the BIGGEST MOTORS in the race and leMans officals numbered the cars by motor size at that time
I think they allso lined up in number order NOT practice time so there was no real pole position winner

[wibblywobbly]

Have a look, here:

http://www.formula2.net/1960.htm

[D-Type]

It looks as if 1963 was the year they broke with tradition and the starting order was determined by practice times.

A couple of Le Mans questions that I'm too lazy to research

1. When did they first move to a grid start? (1969 comes to mind?)
2. In determining numbers and start positions did the ACO make any allowance for supercharging?

[VDP]

Indianapolis type start at Le mans 1971

Yes but there is controversy for 1937 by exemple the winning Bugatti


Robert

[wibblywobbly]

Originally posted by D-Type


A couple of Le Mans questions that I'm too lazy to research

1. When did they first move to a grid start? (1969 comes to mind?)
2. In determining numbers and start positions did the ACO make any allowance for supercharging?

In '69, Ickx walked slowly to his car, in protest of the unsafe procedure. Of course, he went on to win! Then, in 1970, the drivers were seated in their cars, engines off, 'til the flag was thrown(remember the movie, with Steve McQeen?. And as VDP wrote, the Indy style start was adopted in '71. Personally, I'd like to see a return to the standing starts, with drivers already in their cars, of course. What excitement!


Not sure about super-charging...Not sure that it would be all that effective, being a high-speed track, where turbos would be much more efficient.

[ray b]

Originally posted by D-Type


A couple of Le Mans questions
2. In determining numbers and start positions did the ACO make any allowance for supercharging?

supercharging doubled the rateing in the 50's ie a 2.0L with a blower rated as a 4.0L

by the 70 this was droped and turbo cars ran without any doubling ie 917k ran in under 5.0L class
and 93x all ran in the 3L class

[Jeremy Jackson]

Ray,

The 917s that ran at LM weren't turbocharged - the CanAm / Interserie 917/10 & 917/30 were, the 917Ks and 917 langhecks ran with 4.5, 4.9 and 5.0 litre engines.

The 935s ran in group 5, latterly Group 5 and IMSA, and as I recall, the category wasn't split on capacity - i.e the 935s with 3/0 & later 3.2 turbo engines ran in the same class as the Beta Monte carlos with 1.4 t/c engines (later 1.8).

The equivalence for Group 6 was a 1.4 multiplier, i think, hence the 936 and it's comptitors had the 2.14 turbo engine, getting it to 3 litres on equivalance.

[Nordic]

At Le Mans 1981 the Lancias raced in the group 5 class up to 2000 along with the 935L1 (1995cc) of Tuff cote racing.

The regular '935's raced the M1's in the over 2000cc class.

Rupert