Peugeot 2010-2011 (Temporarily Closed)

[Laurent]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

BTW you seem to be the only person that noticed that #4 Oreca 908 had contact with #12 Lola Rebellion 10 min before it had its driveshaft replaced. That contact could definitely explain the failure.

Well, that's no secret. You can find the information on lemans.org. It occured at 2:39 AM.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

@chernaudi: Where do you keep getting this wild speculation? I can imagine that they used older parts in testing, in previous races (e.g., Sebring or Spa) and/or during Le Mans practice and qualifying session. But no way that they started Le Mans with old parts (e.g., engine or gearbox)!
Okay, the tubs were used last year, but normally that should not be a problem. The Kolles teams for instance uses very old chassis: #14 = chassis 201 (built in 2007) and #15 = chassis 101 (built in 2006).

@Laurent: That is good news. BTW you seem to be the only person that noticed that #4 Oreca 908 had contact with #12 Lola Rebellion 10 min before it had its driveshaft replaced. That contact could definitely explain the failure.

Well, why the tub breakage? As you mentioned, Kolles used one of the first Audi R10s built, and they didn't have tub problems.

What would be interesting is if the #3 Pug had the cracked tub at Sebring in either or both '09 and '10. If so, then it might be a problem isolated to that particualr tub. If not, then it may be cause for worry.

Peugeot used 2009 spec engines at Sebring during the race and at Paul Ricard with Oreca. And the Oreca Pug was basically out performed by a basically brand new Audi R15 that outside of testing never turned a lap, let alone at Paul Ricard. And with the Peugeot Sport braintrust in the Oreca pits that weekend, one would have to assume that both Oreca and Peugeot knew what they were doing, but Audi basically outperformed them come race time. Ideal fastest laps suggested that the two cars were more or less equal, but thoughout most of the race, the Audi was slightly faster.

Of course, we have no idea what spec of engine that Peugeot had at the 12 hour test at Sebring that they appeared to have destroyed. If it was a new engine(LM spec), then its a problem with that particular specification.

But if Peugeot is going to do the LMIC, can they afford to run 2009 engines in their cars, since straightline speed is the Pug's saving grace and they seem to have lost that, perhaps not at Le Mans(most of the time, the R15's were still 5-10km/h slower in the speed trap, though that's better than 5-10 mph!), but at shorter tracks, like Road Atlanta, where the R15 come racetime was as fast as the 908 in the speed trap even with the channel bodywork last year, and was faster than the Pugs in the race as well?

Or do they place their bets on the LM2010 engines being able to last a 1000k or 1000 mile race? Either way, Peugeot may be damned if they do and damned if they don't, since the development potential of the 908 must be exhausted, and maybe Le Mans has finally shown that, as it seemed that Peugeot over stepped the bounds of their car's reliablity to get more speed.

And as to the specualtion, go on Mulsanne's corner's facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...98&topic=14091

Here's what one poster said about Peugeot's 2010 Le Mans effort, and what he says, if true, is disconcerting for those who pull for Peugeot:

"Law of averages, used parts, arrogant behaviour in the press room as well as on the track. It's beginning to sound like the race was pre-destined? I'm just a very technically interested spectator, but I know that Le Mans is so difficult to complete that Murphys law must be obeyed at all times. Apparantly Peugeot forgot just that. Couldn't they have used some of their WRC experience?

I also can't help thinking there's an interesting resemblance with how french cousin Matra did 40 years ago. They too were angry, arrogant, and was backed enormously by the entiere French nation - even financially! Despite that, it took them 6 years to win the 24 hours!"

He was just one of many to draw parallels to Matra's repeated defeats at Le Mans until 1972-74.

[chernaudi]

An interesting tidbit from connnectingrod.it and their Le Mans race report: it seems that telemitry gave Peugeot very little to no warning of the engine failures until they happened.

Report under Hours 17-20: http://www.connectingrod.it/LeMansSe...h/24h_eng.html

Whatever went wrong, it was swift and brutal it seems, though why would engine that ran for 17-23 hours without a sign of failure instantly destroy itself?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Well, why the tub breakage? As you mentioned, Kolles used one of the first Audi R10s built, and they didn't have tub problems.

What would be interesting is if the #3 Pug had the cracked tub at Sebring in either or both '09 and '10. If so, then it might be a problem isolated to that particualr tub. If not, then it may be cause for worry.

The 908-05 chassis that cracked in Sebring '09, was the one that Minassian crashed in Silverstone '08. That could be an explanation. In Sebring the tub was repaired on site (as documented on http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmarch09.html) and finished to race. In fact, the same chassis won PLM '09.

I agree that they probably made that part of the tub a bit too thin.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Of course, we have no idea what spec of engine that Peugeot had at the 12 hour test at Sebring that they appeared to have destroyed. If it was a new engine(LM spec), then its a problem with that particular specification.

Quesnel said to Autohebdo that the Sebring engines were a different spec than Le Mans. We don't know whether this means a 2009 engine with a new engine mapping or an interim spec.

Anyway, one engine presumably failed in testing after the race. We all know that the same engine is used to simulate a 24 hour race.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Or do they place their bets on the LM2010 engines being able to last a 1000k or 1000 mile race? Either way, Peugeot may be damned if they do and damned if they don't, since the development potential of the 908 must be exhausted, and maybe Le Mans has finally shown that, as it seemed that Peugeot over stepped the bounds of their car's reliablity to get more speed.

All evidence suggests that the problematic engine spec can do 12 hours without any problem. In Le Mans, which has a lot of full throttle running, the engines failed after at least 16 hours. In Sebring it failed after at least 12 hours. No engine failure in 1000 km of Spa either.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And as to the specualtion, go on Mulsanne's corner's facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...98&topic=14091

Here's what one poster said about Peugeot's 2010 Le Mans effort, and what he says, if true, is disconcerting for those who pull for Peugeot:

"Law of averages, used parts, arrogant behaviour in the press room as well as on the track. It's beginning to sound like the race was pre-destined? I'm just a very technically interested spectator, but I know that Le Mans is so difficult to complete that Murphys law must be obeyed at all times. Apparantly Peugeot forgot just that. Couldn't they have used some of their WRC experience?

Again where is this "used parts" coming from? All parts that wear (gearbox, engine, brake disks, wheel hubs, drive shafts, ...) are replaced before the race. Which other parts should they have replaced as well? Steering wheel, windscreen wiper, rearview mirror, ...?

And what is wrong with "law of averages"? You need more cars to have a shot at victory in Le Mans. Audi is applying it as well: they went from 2 to 3 cars when Peugeot came. I think they are glad they did, because in 2007 and 2008 only 1 of the 3 R10s finished on the podium.

I don't feel the Peugeot staff except for some drivers (e.g., Montagny) were arrogant before the race. They were always saying that Audi would be closer during the race. Okay, there was the famous interview with the adrenaline pumped Davidson, but lets not go there.

Everybody agrees that Peugeot has learned their lessons from the 2008 defeat and really matured in 2009 with the arrival of Quesnel. So somehow it is strange that they fail so miserably this year. This only confirms that the engine failures were indeed totally unexpected. Something went wrong with their testing routines or their quality control (e.g., bad batch of parts).

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Whatever went wrong, it was swift and brutal it seems, though why would engine that ran for 17-23 hours without a sign of failure instantly destroy itself?

If a component fails, this happens out of the blue. No steady drop in oil pressure or slow rise in temperature. Just crack, boom, done. A lot of the engine failures in Formula 1 are like that: everything fine, lots of smoke, perhaps some fire, total stop.

We saw a number of these engine failures this year: Ford GT1, 2 x Corvette GT2, 009 Aston Martin.

[gwyllion]

FYI http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...112155#p112155

Read in L'Equipe today, tomorrow Mr. Quesnel is received by the general director General of Automobiles Peugeot, and must make the "debriefing" of the "debacle" of Le Mans 2010.
They speak of a particular investigation led to finding the cause, but do not give the reason of the engine failures.
I hope that we will have a "relevant" statement from them soon ...

[Tim the Grey]

I had a nose at the pics from Sebring, referred to earlier here...
Image 2 is the interesting one, for me. FLAME coming out of the exhaust, ahead of the rear wheel. So it ain't the brakes.
But, more significantly, smoke coming out of the intake shnorkel...
Which says, to me, a turbo failed. The curious thing being, ALL the LM failures were right hand. The Sebring one is left hand...

Come on 10/10 brains trust, what happened?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Come on 10/10 brains trust, what happened?

Highest lateral loading at Sebring is T1 and it's a left-hander, highest two lateral loadings at Le Mans - first part of Indianapolis and bends 1 and 3 of the Porsche Curves i.e. right-handers... maybe there's something in that.

[NightStalk3r]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Highest lateral loading at Sebring is T1 and it's a left-hander, highest two lateral loadings at Le Mans - first part of Indianapolis and bends 1 and 3 of the Porsche Curves i.e. right-handers... maybe there's something in that.

Could be oil surge, in the high G corners, i believe the Lambo GT3 had the same issue a few years ago with engine grenading from oil surge in high g corners.

[gwyllion]

They suffered no such issue in the previous 3 years. It would be strange that they changed the oil lubrication/dry sump system for this year.

[chernaudi]

But the LM engines were, as mentioned, a different spec, but being a dry sump system, oil surge shoudn't be a major problem.

Interesting that just now that Peugeot's CEO is insisting that Quesnel come clean about what happened ASAP. Peugeot's higher ups and stock holders aren't appearently happy, obviously with the failures, let alone that it's nearly 3 weeks afterwards and it seems that there's concern within Peugeot about the LMIC, especially considering that the races are shorter and the perfromance gap to Audi at such tracks may go from a 1-3 second a lap advantage to nil, and the Pugs would have to be hammered to keep up, let alone stay ahead if Audi get's their high downforce package(possibly a hybrid of the old R15's and the Acura ARX-02, which is what the R15 Plus' areo package basically is to begin with) right.

Does anyone believe that Peugeot maybe should've done what Audi did and develop both areo/chassis and engine/driveline, instead of just engine. Maybe a little arrogance on Peugeot's part to stick with an areo package that could've been developed further. Or could Peugeot's cash crunch over the past couple of years have forced them down the "all motor" route?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Interesting that just now that Peugeot's CEO is insisting that Quesnel come clean about what happened ASAP. Peugeot's higher ups and stock holders aren't appearently happy, obviously with the failures, let alone that it's nearly 3 weeks afterwards

They had a huge performance advantage and still lost the race. In 2008 this cost Michel Barge his head. It is not so good publicity, if none of your cars reach the finish line. So it is understandable that management wants to know what went wrong.

Lets for one moment assume that Peugeot would not have suffered the engine failure. In that case, Audi would have beaten quite heavily a second year in a row. I am sure Ullrich would have to go the board as well to explain why after one year of development and intensive testing, the R15+ was still 2 sec of pace. Rumors suggest that in that case the LMP1 program of Audi would be stop and it would be Porsche's turn.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

and it seems that there's concern within Peugeot about the LMIC, especially considering that the races are shorter and the perfromance gap to Audi at such tracks may go from a 1-3 second a lap advantage to nil, and the Pugs would have to be hammered to keep up, let alone stay ahead if Audi get's their high downforce package(possibly a hybrid of the old R15's and the Acura ARX-02, which is what the R15 Plus' areo package basically is to begin with) right.

I don't think Audi will put a lot of effort in a special aero package. They will probably just run the nose with 2 dive planes (seen in Paul Richard) and use a larger gurney flap on the back (seen in Sebring testing).

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Does anyone believe that Peugeot maybe should've done what Audi did and develop both areo/chassis and engine/driveline, instead of just engine. Maybe a little arrogance on Peugeot's part to stick with an areo package that could've been developed further. Or could Peugeot's cash crunch over the past couple of years have forced them down the "all motor" route?

Sorry, but the Peugeot is a lot more than all motor. The suspension of the 908 is still superior to the R15+. It is very gentle on the tyres: Davidson did 4 stints with an average laptime of 3:21.5 with one set of Michelin rubber. The Peugeot drivers could use a lot more curb, perhaps because of the rumored front inerter or just because of 4 years of suspension refinement. Peugeot clearly has an aero advantage in low drag configuration.

After four years they could not do a lot of development. Last year they already pulled a rabit out the hat with the new nose. So for this year they focussed on the one element that still had some development potential: the engine. Yes, it appears that they went too close the limit, but it is pretty amazing that they were able to gain so much power with smaller air restrictors and lower boost.

BTW you still have not explained the "used parts" theory.

[chernaudi]

As I said, I never suggested that Peugeot used old parts until it was brought up on Mulsanne's Corner's Facebook page's discussion section, which I've linked to several times.

I don't believe that Peugeot's J-damper has helped them-remember Ferrari broke suspension parts on their cars by curb-hopping at Monza in '07 or '08 when they tried the J-damper. I think that Peugeot has learned not to use F1 style rock hard suspension settings that got them in trouble at Sebring and Le Mans in '08.

So Davidson did a quadrurple stint in his Pug? I believe that each Audi also did a quadruple stint at least once during the race. Also, the Audis did their fair share of curb hopping. One of the things that Audi said was a problem with the '09 test day cancelation was the curbs at Le Mans. Some are smooth, gentle, and can be attacked(the Ford and Dunlop Chicanes), some are just painted strips(like in the Esses), and some are glorified street curbs(Mulsanne chicanes, for example).

In the latter section of track, neither Audi or Peugeot used the curbs. But then again, Audi didn't usually attack the curbs like it was a qualifying lap and they got a 1-2-3, and the Peugeots at times hammered the curbs in various areas(such as the steel speed bumps on the extreme inside of Ford and Dunlop), and they not just handgrendaded engines, but broke minor ancelary bits(alternator/starter motor on the #1 and a half-shaft on the #4, both of which were problems that Peugeot have had off and on though out the car's life, especially anything relating to the rear suspension).

One advantage that Peugeot may've had was forward bite(ie, acelleration out of slow corners) due(at least in part) to the 908's rearward weight bias. I believe that Montangny said at PLM last year that the R15's near 50/50 weight distribution hurt them out of slow corners, but gave the Audis and advantage in the rain and in faster corners.

Against the 908, which was designed for Le Mans from the get-go, could the R15's more ALMS-friendly features(zero-keel suspension, still fairly high downforce bodywork that seems to be inspired by the Acura ARX-02 and its almost 50/50 weight distrbution) hurt it at Le Mans with its slow corners that feed onto stright-line blasts?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

As I said, I never suggested that Peugeot used old parts until it was brought up on Mulsanne's Corner's Facebook page's discussion section, which I've linked to several times.

So someone over there blames the #3 suspension failure on "a very used tub" and hints at other "raced/used pieces". I listed the history of the Peugeot cars in http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...66#post2719866 The Oreca chassis was doing its 3th Le Mans and did not break. Clearly Peugeot knows quite well when to replace components. Maybe the tub reuse strategy of Peugeot is not optimal (Audi builds a new chassis every year), but the pickup point failure is more a design fault instead of an operational fault.

It would be nice to know which reliablity issues were down to "raced/used pieces". I can only think of the electrical short circuit. Do they really have to replace the wiring loom every race? The alternator, starter motor and management unit had to be replaced, but not because they broke on their own.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

they not just handgrendaded engines, but broke minor ancelary bits(alternator/starter motor on the #1 and a half-shaft on the #4, both of which were problems that Peugeot have had off and on though out the car's life, especially anything relating to the rear suspension).

The #4 driveshaft failed after a collision with a Lola Rebellion car. So that does not necessarily classify as a reliability problem.

[gwyllion]

More gossip: http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...112316#p112316

So, after some echoes of my workplace where we make some parts on the cylinder heads, it seems that the problem occurs on the bottom of the connection rods. However I have no info if this is a fault of the material health, or a design problem. All this to be taken lightly, that's what I was told by a colleague who deals with a Peugeot staff member.

[HORNDAWG]

It broke, the others blew up, end of race! MAYBE we will find out why eventually.








L.P.

[gwyllion]

If it are indeed the connection rods that failed, there are only a limited number of explanations. Design mistake by Peugeot (e.g., too light, wrong shape, ...) or poor quality provided by supplier (e.g., manufacturing defects).

[chernaudi]

There may be more than one factor on the engine failures. Yes, it's been stated here several times that Peugeot has had some supply and quality control problems(look at the Sebring '09/'10 and LM '10 tub failures-either a design problem or faulty repair work), so I wouldn't be surprised if Peugeot did something they didn't know was wrong in that circumstance.

I doubt that it's a third party supplier's issue: Audi and Peugeot get pistons from Mahle, electronics from Bosch, and turbochargers from Garrett. Audi also buys gearbox parts from XTrac, and Peugeot gets similar items from Ricardo, a former Audi supplier BTW. Both have had few issues with using similiar components from the same companies. So it might just be how those items are screwed together that's at issue.

I hope for Peugeot's sake that they learn from this mistake if they're serious about the LMIC. Because it seems that Peugeot has been slow to learn from the other mistakes they've made in the past(J-damper issues, speed vs strategy, dodgy if not downright dangerous performance in the rain, et al).

Barge was demoted as Peugeot Sport boss after '08 and Quesnel replaced him, but it seems that deep down little has changed. Parts still break, the 908's still horrid in the rain/changing track conditions, the 908's still marginal in terms or reliability(Famin said that the #9 race winner from '09 had brake and clutch problems, and it's been said that the #8 was asked to slow to preserve it's brakes that year as well).

History has had a tendancey to repeat itself with Peugeot, especially when Audi is able to push them to their limits(like at Le Mans this year), and force what I feel are unneccesary mistake from drivers and strategist alike. I mean, Peugeot had 1-3 seconds a lap over Audi if they needed it. Were orders for the drivers to push when the had such a cushion necessary? Each time one of the engines let go, it was either after a green flag stop when the cars were being pushed, or while being pushed. Was such a call or tactic necessary?

But then again, if the drivers didn't push, would Peugeot have discovered the issue?

Also, it must be considered the differences in the failures. The #2 Pug's engine let go out of the Dunlop Chicanes after a green flag stop. The #1 and #4 let go near top speed near the right-hander before Indianpolis. The #1 survived long enough to make it to the pits, the #2 and #4 were done as soon as they found some runoff area to ditch. Also, the #1 simply smoked, while the #2 and #4 caught fire, with it coming out the exhaust-not typical for a simple rod failure.

Perhaps the rod failures were a consequence of any valvetrain or piston damage issues.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

There may be more than one factor on the engine failures. Yes, it's been stated here several times that Peugeot has had some supply and quality control problems(look at the Sebring '09/'10 and LM '10 tub failures-either a design problem or faulty repair work), so I wouldn't be surprised if Peugeot did something they didn't know was wrong in that circumstance.

Did Peugeot suffer a tub failure in Sebring this year? I thought both cars ran fine without any technical issues?

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I hope for Peugeot's sake that they learn from this mistake if they're serious about the LMIC. Because it seems that Peugeot has been slow to learn from the other mistakes they've made in the past(J-damper issues, speed vs strategy, dodgy if not downright dangerous performance in the rain, et al).

In 2009 Peugeot showed that they have learned a lot of their past mistakes. What do you mean with J-damper issues?

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Barge was demoted as Peugeot Sport boss after '08 and Quesnel replaced him, but it seems that deep down little has changed. Parts still break, the 908's still horrid in the rain/changing track conditions, the 908's still marginal in terms or reliability.

Peugeot showed very good reliability this year (Sebring, Spa) until the tub and engine failure in Le Mans.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Perhaps the rod failures were a consequence of any valvetrain or piston damage issues.

If the rod breaks, the piston gets loose from the crankshaft, hits the valves and gets damaged as well. At this stage, a lot of other engine components can get damaged as well: metal pieces flying through exhaust will damage the turbos, the crankcase can be punctured, oil can be spilled on the hot exhaust, ... The fact that the cars showed different symptons, does not prove that they suffered a different component failure.

Clearly, the Peugeot investigation was a matter of determining which component failed first and caused the others to break as well. According to this guy on the EI, the conclusion was that the connection rod failure started everything.

[chernaudi]

I've also heard(and seen the result of) that if a valve spring breaks, it can bend/break the rod from the piston's impact with the valve.

And as I mentioned, if Peugeot gained so much experience in 2008, why were the 908s horrid at PLM in the rain and couldn't keep out of their own way? And why were areas such as driveline and brakes an issue at Le Mans in 2009 when they were just coasting half the race? Was the 908 designed(albeit unintentionally) to have such a close margin of failure? It just seems that so much on the car has been marginal as far as mechanical failure, and that the fact that it's reliablity improved so little outside of 1000km races(I won't even count Sebring '10, as they were clearly coasting most of the race until near the end) is to me shocking after four years of work? In 2010, the Pugs should've been bullet proof, especially after the 10-12 30 hour tests they did this year with no major dramas.

Does the 908 have naturally narrow margins of error as far as parts failures or is mechanically less tolerant of abuse than the Audis have been? Or is it the drivers just hammer the car too much? Or was this simply a case of Peugeot trying to the most out of any advantage they had over Audi(engine power and straightline speed), and they pushed it too far?

[Mal]

I suspect Peugeot knew they had a potential problem which is why they didn't push too hard early on. I remember the RLM crew being mystified in the first few hours as to why the Pug would run one or two fast laps in a stint and then settle in to the more measured pace. Strategy would tell you to go fast enough to gain a full lap advantage asap then settle into a more measured pace. However they did not do that right from the start.

The car could run a faster pace as we all saw but the components could not stand up to it for a prolonged period.

Audi's policy of relentless pace and reliability kept the pressure on and the issues that put the Pugs behind forced them to run at a pace they couldn't sustain.

The question is who took the decision to run a do or die effort to win or bust and was that the right decision?

Would they have been better running a steady pace and collecting a podium finish rather that the embarrassment of total failure and once the problem occurred in one or two cars should they have slowed the Oreca car to try and avoid it.

I think they should have run at a pace they could reliably sustain than risk the total failure they got. A second or third place finish would have been better than what they got.

I think they knew the risk and for whatever reason chose to ignore it.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Mal

The question is who took the decision to run a do or die effort to win or bust and was that the right decision?

I think they knew the risk and for whatever reason chose to ignore it.

I rather admire Peugeot's decision to switch to a 'win or die' strategy (whether they knew it or not) once the wheels started to come off their challenge. For me, it was a glorious defeat, and I shall remember 2010 for that, rather than Audi's win.

[chernaudi]

Sadly, Peugeot may've fought to the bitter end, but it was a step too far.

Would Peugeot have had the failures regardless, or did they forget 2009, where their "slow and steady" entery brought home the bacon at the end of 24 hours? Le Mans, to most, will be remembered for Audi taking a shock 1-2-3 and Peugeot falling flat on their face in a race, that on paper at least, was pretty much theirs to lose. That's what all the headlines on Monday morning's Sports pages had, and what intenet reports blared immedately following the race. Sad, but true.

My question is why hammer your cars at qualifying speeds much of the race when a "keep your friends close, your enemies closer" approach would've worked. Bait Audi by staying tanalizingly within reach, the open the taps late to get an unassialable lead. Peugeot seemed to sort of be doing that early. But when the #3 retired, their tactics shifted, and the #1 had electrical problems. Then the #4 had half-shaft issues(which were primarily caused by contact). Each of those issues set them back, and if they wanted a win, they had no choice. It was do or die by that stage.

But then again, Le Mans from 1993-2010 didn't count for a championship. Granted, a finish at Le Mans is cherished by most, but Peugeot didn't come to collect a finish. Audi came to win after '09's relative disaster, and Peugeot knew that they'd have a fight on their hands.

And to Mal, I was indeed surprised how close the Audis stayed to the 908s immedately after the start. If not for the pace car situaltion, Peugeot would've had a fight on their hands on that restart, and that would've been 1 minute that they couldn't play with like they did.

[sssssssss]

i think it's pretty obvious peugeot did not have the speed advantage this year, actually. we saw the r15+ being faster than the 908 @ le castellet, then again at spa being almost as quick as the peugeot without using the setup that the track required and for sure peugeot understood as well that in 2010 audi finally have the car to beat the 908 on speed, which most probably made them tune their engines as high as possible in order to still keep the only true advantage they had the past years against audi: speed. the peugeot guys actually stated before the race that they know the r15+ has the speed on the track this year and that they don't want to fight them on the track, but on strategy, but ultimately, they still decided to force the already proven durability of the 908 by tuning their engines to maximum, in order to still be competitive to audi on the straights (which, with a similar setup, as seen @ le castellet, would not have been possible). that's just why i think they lost: they were actually slower than audi and forced the cars too much by engine setup.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I've also heard(and seen the result of) that if a valve spring breaks, it can bend/break the rod from the piston's impact with the valve.

Valve springs are not cooled or lubricated. So that does not correspond with the engines failing on the outlap.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And as I mentioned, if Peugeot gained so much experience in 2008, why were the 908s horrid at PLM in the rain and couldn't keep out of their own way?

Peugeot was 1-2 in the mixed condition 1000 km of Spa this year. Not?

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And why were areas such as driveline and brakes an issue at Le Mans in 2009 when they were just coasting half the race?

Judging from the lap times the drivers were able to do before the engines blew, the brake and transmission were in very good condition. Remember that according to Davidson they improved the reliability of the gearbox a lot:

The thing I was most concerned about was the gearbox, because when you're pushing that hard you start locking up the rears under downshifts and you can hear that the transmission isn't happy – but that was strong. That's been one of the things that has been a little bit of an Achilles' heel in the long tests we've done, but the team was on top of it and had done its homework regarding that aspect of the car.

source: http://www.crash.net/le+mans/news/16...n_le_mans.html