Was the R8 really that good?

[danhx]

Now that the old gal has officially resigned to live out the rest of her days knitting afghans on her front porch, I think it's appropriate to take yet another look at the Audi R8 to contemplate whether it was really that good, or just fortunate.

I know, I know, everyone's thought or chatted about this in some way, but I haven't yet seen the idea hashed out in one place at one time. And I think it's time that changed. Not that I don't think it's an incredible machine, nor do I want to detract from the accomplishments of its engineers and drivers. To the contrary, I'm a huge fan of all involved. Audi gave sportscar racing life in some otherwise stormy days. Still, though, there's this lingering question over whether it is legitimately as good as the world claims.

Think about it. The R8 hit its stride amidst a deep lull in prototype competition; Audi never had any serious foes to contend with. Sure Panoz was there, and they fought valiantly for a while. But the Georgia-based team has at best a tenth of Audi Sport's budget (probably much less). Panoz simply doesn't have the resources to keep up with a major, deep-pocketed manufacturer like Audi (Volkswagen AG). Plus the plucky American squad got sidetracked midstream by the ghastly LMP07 project. ... Thanks Thorby...

So who else was around the hassle the German machine? Racing for Holland's Domes? Only in qualifying. Everyone knew then even more than now that the Judd's ability to last twice around the clock was questionable at best.

Bentley? Doesn't count. Same parent company. That's like beating yourself in a thumb war.

MG? Never had a whisper of a chance with that overgrown hand grenade of an engine.

Pescarolo? Now we're talking. No doubt over the past three years the Pescarolos have been the best of the rest, at least for outright speed, and this year in particular the tussled mightily against the teutonic R10. But the Pescarolo is a modified Courage. Ingeniously modified, yes. But they're still little more than a crafty overhaul of someone else's car that wasn't exactly setting the world on fire to begin with. In all truthfullness, it probably should never have been that close to the front, and I give Henri truckloads of credit for pushing his team as far as he did. I don't think many other team owners could have done it with the same equipment. But would a similarly-derived car have done nearly as well as recently as, say, 1999, when four major manufacturers ran in the top class? I can't bring myself to say yes.

Casting further shadow on the R8's success is that much of it came during a recession that stifled would-be competitors. I wonder how many design firms and privateer teams wanted to but could not run because they lost sponsors or just couldn't scrape up the cash to play? Remember Reynard? They hatched the Zytek 04S before going bankrupt. And for that matter, I wonder how many major manufacturers shied away from dumping millions into a program that might have drawn fire from investors? Cadillac anyone? The Caddy LMP02 might have been the most promising Audi killer, but lack of corporate (read: investor) support killed it. Throw Chrysler in there, too. Remember, that Dallara LMP was designed at their request. I have to think that ol' daddy Daimler Benz was still squeemish from the Peter Dumbreck aerobatics in '99.

My conclusion is this: the Audi R8 was an above-average -- but not overly spectacular -- car inadvertantly built at precisely the right time to capitalize on relative weakness throughout the rest of the LMP field.

Put down the knife. I'm not done yet.

Where the R8 truly made its mark was its adaptability and ease of use. Drivers and mechanics alike loved it, and it thrived through several regulation revisions. That is indeed rare. While the "racing side" of the car itself was more of a combination of the best of its predecessors than a ground-breaking engineering feat, the "logistics side" of the car was a quantum leap in the way designers think about assembling sports prototypes. It gave credence to the idea of making the best of a car's weaknesses rather than sacrificing oneself to the futility of trying to eliminate those flaws. The Audi boys knew the transmission could hold their fate, so they designed around it, making it possible to change the entire rear end in less time than a racing lap at La Sarthe.

So does this mean the R8 is any more or less deserving of a place in the Pantheon of racing machinery alongside gods like the Porsche 917? You tell me.

[gttouring]

Competition aside- in the form of outright fighters, it did get bested a few times by the Panoz LMPo1 and a little DysonLola on occasion.
but for 5 Lemans appearances- it won them with the interloping Bentley, the Audi did what few other cars could do- race for 24 hours ad win- in a number of races and circuits, the winning record of the car say much of its durability speed and character. It is a legend among sportsracers for sure, it will be heralded as such
after all on paper the Panoz in coupe or open form seemed like the machine to beat...and how many cars make it to the end of 24 hours or 12 to fight for the Laurels?
at daytona, sebring , LeMans- it has done it all...

[andy_b]

The Reynard-Zytek-Creation which didn't do bad last year.

Sure budget helped Audi be pretty much unbeatable, but there wasn't much which could beat it week after week really which in my book makes it a perfect endurance car

[The Badger]

It never even had an engine failure (i think) .

I reckon its the prototype that set the standard and nobody ever came close to knocking it off its perch . Sure , there were a few one off's , but nothing really challanged it .

I hate to say it , but it "was" better that the 956/962 !!!

I hate saying that !!!

[b1ackcr0w]

There's two ways of looking at the R8's dominance. You can take the view that the competition wasn't up to scratch. The other way of looking at it is that all the other serious contenders have taken one look at it, and realised that it was going to be darn near impossible to beat unless there was a radical change in the rules.

I suspect that even near the end of it's lifecycle, there were plenty of options left to make it even better.

In the end, it's difficult to argue against it being a near perfect expression of a machine specifically designed to do a job.

[isynge]

When I first read danhx's posting I wanted to disagree vehemently, but actually there's a lot of truth in there. Thought provoking in lots of ways.

Thinking about how the R8 has shaped up against previously dominant cars, the 956/962 was unbeatable 1982-85, by '86 it was struggling and by '87 to all intents and purposes it could only really hope for a lucky win. In that period it saw off Ford (in works and Rondeau guises) and Lancia in terms of serious works competition, and it was only really with the arrival of Jaguar and Mercedes that it all started to get more difficult. What added to the drama of the mid-80s was the seriousness of the privateer Porsches, something that Audi never had to face.

Compare that with the R8, in the equivalent timeframe (2000-2003) seen off BMW, Cadillac, Panoz, MG, Chrysler, and, to an extent, its Bentley stablemate, to say nothing of the numerous serious garagistes. The real difference is that in the last two years of its life (i.e. 2004 and 2005) instead of having an aging chassis contending with an aggressively developing works contender it’s only really had to cope with the (admittedly strong) likes of Dyson and Pescarolo (the latter of which beat them to last year’s LMES title).

Looking at that the R8’s had to cope with more opposition in terms of numbers, but perhaps nothing of the order of the Merc and Jag assault in the late 80s. On balance – honours probably even.

The R8 vs the 917? There’s a different story – I think the really heretical argument would be to pitch that the 917 wasn’t in the same league. It was always going to be monumentally short lived – exploiting a regulation loophole. It was a poorly sorted car when it came out, it only had to cope with serious Ferrari opposition in 1970, and never coped well on tracks where a bit of manoeuvrability were needed (Nurburgring, Piccolo Maddonie) and in terms of being an all-rounder wasn’t a patch on the 908. That said, if you’re looking for an icon, it’s a Gulf 917 every time…

[paul-collins]

So, how'd the R8 do on overall records for distance? Is there any other metric that can be used to compare eras?

[TheNewBob]

Let's not forget the R8's of 2003-2005 were increasingly more restricted machines, yet they still managed to convincingly beat other cars, weather the other cars were works backed or not.

It took different sets of new rules for the car to become obsolete, even in the LMES and ALMS in '05 it was always a force to be reckoned with. For that reason, I think it deserves it's place in motorsport's great history.

[Graham Goodwin]

In answer to the thread title - Yes, it really was that good!

Make no mistake the thing scared off other actual and potential entries

[russ250575]

You can only Beat the other cars on the grid so I agree the answer is YES

[dj choc ice]

the audi R8 wasnt just above average it managed to beat the
1999 BMW V12 LMR in a few races in 2000 and that has to count for something especially when you take into account how fats the BMW LMR's actually were in 1999 and the only cars which could take the fight to the audi R8 were the bentley speed 8's as well as the dome S101 which could generally match it on terms of speed at lemans, the pescarolo's from 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and also the zytek 04S and DBA 03S judd from last year and but really the cadilac LMP-02 could have been a audi R8 killer if they got the funding that car showed great pace during races and a lot of potentiol while the little zytek 04S in my eyes was a triumph considering it was built on a miniscule budget and was faster than the R8 on pretty much all tracks

[paul-collins]

2000: 368 laps = 5007.988 km
2001: rain
2002: 375 laps = 5101.875 km*
2003: Bentley
2004: 379 laps = 5173.35 km
2005: 370 laps

* race when Audi assumed the new "post-Mulsanne chicane" record for distance; curiously not for speed, as their last lap took too long

For reference:

1988: 394 laps = 5332.79 km ("post-Porsche curves" record)
1971: 396 laps = 5335.31 km (overall record)

[jhansen]

The R8 is definitely that good.

First off it has the record to prove it. Poles, fastest laps, reliability, race wins, Le Mans wins, Sebring wins, championships, etc. Not to mention consider how many different teams won with this car (Joest, Champion, Goh, Veloqx, Johansson). I will not even attempt to list the different drivers that have won in this car, too long. During its life the R8 defeated some darn good race cars. The Panoz LMP1, BMW LMR, and MG Lolas are probably the most notable, as they were manufacturer creations and race winners. But it also beat the Bentley creations, the Cadilacs, and the Chrysler powered Dallaras. Sure, it beat a host of privateer designed cars as well, but some of those are quite impressive. They just lacked funds.

Secondly, it scared off the pretenders. I have no doubt that other manufacturers shied away from going to toe to toe with the R8. That is ultimately too bad, as others proved the R8 was beatable. Although, I’m not sure it was beatable at Le Mans (Bentley victory aside).

Thirdly, just look at how that car is designed. In my opinion it cannot be done justice unless viewed in person. The car is so well put together. When it is on the track though, you can see just how amazing it is. It was fast on all sorts of circuits. Easy to work on. Built like a tank, yet quite nimble. Fuel efficient, but torquey. Maybe not the most aggressive in terms of aerodynamics, but fundamentally sound. Many belied its engine note, but I found it appropriate. It just seemed to carry on about its business.

Fourthly, and perhaps most notably, is that I don’t think we saw its true capability. This car did not evolve heavily over its life, as others did not push it. Audi surely made an impressive return on investment with this creation.

It has easily earned its place in sportscar history in my opinion.

[Mal]

Also it changed the face of sportscars probably forever, in that it made it necessary and possible to run flat out for the whole race distance.

It was designed in a way that enabled major repairs, that previously would have retired a car, possible in a few minutes.

[Audi R8R]

If you look at it from the point of view of the competition, it will always look like the odds are stacked in the R8's favour. But then, isn't it down to the competition to step up to the plate and challenge the best of the time?

For the last 6 years, the R8 has been the best of the time (it still is, if you think about it).

Where the R8 scored highly compared to former (and some current) thinking in sportscar design was that rear end (initially, though, with the advent of the ACO rule change, it's now bomb proof for 24 hours) and its 'honed from a block of granite' type build quality.

How many other prototypes would have stood up to the shunts that the R8 has over the last 6 seasons and been able to carry on back to the pits, make swift and easy repairs and be back out challenging for podium results..? None, and I ask myself and anyone else out there whether a Porsche 917 would have been able to either?

It truly is a remarkable piece of engineering and for its place in history it simply is the best car there has ever been. Why other manufacturers have ploughed money into F1 when they could have made history by beating Audi at Le Mans beggars belief, but that god, for sportscar racing on both sides of the Atlantic, that Audi have never given up and gone to play elsewhere.

[JAG]

The R8 has been the best of the best, quick, strong and reliable.

But it's also fair to say they've had more than their fair share of luck, over and above that which you create

It's also fair to say Peugeot will be the first opposition they've come up against (since the 2000 R8 debut) that will not be lacking in any specific area, whether it be budget, board/company commitment, technical expertise etc.

The V12 LMR was at the end of it's development in 2000, while Panoz could not achieve more than they did without a much bigger budget.

[GTfour]

Wether I like it or not,it's record and bombproof buildquality make it one of the most impressive sportscars I ever saw. I must admit though,that I personnaly thought it was a boring car to see racing for the fact that it was so darn quiet!

[PascaLM]

The R8 was fantastic, the involvment of VAG was complete to make a legend of this car. It was good on the track, and above all in its conception. Remember how the two Audi that crashed in the Porsche curve at LM in 2004 were repaired within less than one hour.

[Duffacus]

An interesting debate,

I think the fact that it's still been winning in 2006 (ALMS) has a lot to say for this car.

I also think JAG is right when mentioning about the new Pug, that WILL be interesting.

When this car first appeared, I hated it, it always won and I wanted something bad to happen to this car every time out, just to give some other cars a chance, which never really happened. Bearing in mind a lot of those other cars were some of my favourites.

But as the years wore on, 2004 and particularly in 2005 I started to love this car, maybe because newer, faster cars started to appear which meant the R8 had to fight that little bit harder as it was being pushed just that little bit more. I’ll never forget LMES Silverstone 2005, not just because of the appalling weather, but also because of that lone R8 and what it achieved in that race.

Yes, it really was that good.

[Splatz the Cow]

My answer is no, it wasn't that good.

However, it was good.

Comparing the evolution of the car to some competitiors, gives a far more realistic analysis I feel.

The first year BMW LMR was fantastic, despite still having the BMW engine from the McLaren which had to be changed and made smaller to fit.

The first Audi R8 was heavy and underpowered.

The first Cadillac was a great little car, but was also underpowered, and suffered some handling and reliability issues.

The first Panoz prototype was absolutely brilliant, with stacks of torque, great handling, and a was fast too.

I think the first Toyota, though, was the outright best of the bunch.

The Chrysler was pretty good first up, and certainly benefitted from peeking over the neighbours' fence.

BMW and Toyota went to Formula 1, and Chrysler, and Cadillac, (and Porsche) withdrew to make SUVs for the American market.

It took a few years for the R8 to become good, and when it did it was fighting opposition that were no longer being updated and developed at the same rate as itself.

I am not convinced that the car is so remarkable.

It had chronic transmission problems, which the solved by removing the rear half of the car and adding a new rear half from a different car, which I do not believe is what sportscar racing is about.

Another interesting point is they way the car was a nightmare to drive in the rain, and was dominated by an ancient Panoz. The Audi had a lot of understeer built into it, perhaps that was why, but I am surprised the traction control was not able to deal with it.

Given the Audi budget, or any manufacturer budget, the Toyota and BMW would have been developed at a similar rate for the life of the Audi R8, and been easily a match or better for the Audi.

Is the Audi R8 that good, no, the opposition remaining was that bad in comparison.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Splatz the Cow

.

The first Cadillac was a great little car, but was also underpowered, and suffered some handling and reliability issues.

.

So all in all not THAT great then

Originally Posted by Splatz the Cow

.

It took a few years for the R8 to become good, and when it did it was fighting opposition that were no longer being updated and developed at the same rate as itself.

I am not convinced that the car is so remarkable.

It had chronic transmission problems, which the solved by removing the rear half of the car and adding a new rear half from a different car, which I do not believe is what sportscar racing is about.

Another interesting point is they way the car was a nightmare to drive in the rain, and was dominated by an ancient Panoz. The Audi had a lot of understeer built into it, perhaps that was why, but I am surprised the traction control was not able to deal with it.

It took the R8 a "few years to become good" Hardly! The R8R finished on the podium in its first and only Le Mans run and in 2000 on their debut at Le Mans the R8 proper took a 1,2,3, following that result up with a 1,2 the following year (in VERY wet conditions where the R8 was anything but dominated by the Panoz!) and a 1,2,3 again the year after that! - After the Bentley steamroller (just a third place that year it was another 1,2,3 in 2004 and finally a 1,3 in 2005 - Massively impressive

Chronic transmission problems! Where did you get that from? - And the quick change rear end was hardly half the car!

To say that the Audi was 'dominated by and ancient Panoz' in the rain or elsewhere is also rather questionable - See above for Le Mans 2001! The Panoz scored some great wins but they were very much against the trend - 137 podium placings from R8s in 79 races is a stunning score - And remember to finish on the podium you have, actually, to finish the race!

Beyond that the R8 has finished on the podium in every single ALMS race it has ever contested (and has won 50 of them) - has set pole position 48 times out of 79 and fastest lap 59 times out of 79.

That was over a period where the Panoz, Cadillac, MG Lola, Dallara Chrysler, Domes, Courages, DBAs, Zyteks, Pescarolos and plenty more besides had the opportunity to 'have a go'

You can only beat what the rest put in front of you and that's exactly what the R8 did - 63 times

[TheNewBob]

I must agree with Graham here. The R8 only appeared in 2000 and won at LM right from the word go. Even in '03 it claimed some kind of victory - whilst Bentley won overall, the R8's still took LMP900 honours.

I don't believe the Panoz was particularly "ancient" at that time, either. It first appeared in '97 (I think...?), so by 2000 and 2001 it should be well developed and reaching it's peak.

It's all very well saying the Toyota's and BMW's may well have won if they'd been developed - fact of the matter is that never happened, they both went elsewhere. You can only try and beat whatever competition is set against you, Audi did what they had to do to beat the other teams/cars at that particular time.

In a 24-hour race innovation is welcome, you don't enter a race to "know" that your car will fail you, so I don't see why a change of rear end is such a bad thing - You do what you have to do to get yourself to the end in as good as shape as you can. Controversial, yes, cheeky, definitely, but Audi had the balls and the brilliance to make it work. the ACO banned it, but I'm sure all other LMP900/LMP1's would have appeared with it before now should it still be legal.

[Graham Goodwin]

And what's more when the ACO did outlaw the rear end the R8 still won!

[Audi R8R]

Originally Posted by Splatz the Cow

My answer is no, it wasn't that good.

However, it was good.

Comparing the evolution of the car to some competitiors, gives a far more realistic analysis I feel.

The first year BMW LMR was fantastic, despite still having the BMW engine from the McLaren which had to be changed and made smaller to fit.

The first Audi R8 was heavy and underpowered.

The first Cadillac was a great little car, but was also underpowered, and suffered some handling and reliability issues.

The first Panoz prototype was absolutely brilliant, with stacks of torque, great handling, and a was fast too.

I think the first Toyota, though, was the outright best of the bunch.

The Chrysler was pretty good first up, and certainly benefitted from peeking over the neighbours' fence.

BMW and Toyota went to Formula 1, and Chrysler, and Cadillac, (and Porsche) withdrew to make SUVs for the American market.

It took a few years for the R8 to become good, and when it did it was fighting opposition that were no longer being updated and developed at the same rate as itself.

I am not convinced that the car is so remarkable.

It had chronic transmission problems, which the solved by removing the rear half of the car and adding a new rear half from a different car, which I do not believe is what sportscar racing is about.

Another interesting point is they way the car was a nightmare to drive in the rain, and was dominated by an ancient Panoz. The Audi had a lot of understeer built into it, perhaps that was why, but I am surprised the traction control was not able to deal with it.

Given the Audi budget, or any manufacturer budget, the Toyota and BMW would have been developed at a similar rate for the life of the Audi R8, and been easily a match or better for the Audi.

Is the Audi R8 that good, no, the opposition remaining was that bad in comparison.

You need your head testing!

[GTfour]

My feeling for the R8 is a little like Duffacus. It's funny to see people trying to bash the R8 in any way possible for it was so invincible.
It's a bit like the 956/962 which was becoming boring to see winning again and again as well.
To bad Audi made the choise to develop the R8 instead of the R8C.