[LM24] Le Mans Trap Speeds

[sssssssss]

yes that's true. i forgot about it but yes - i saw the video on youtube - it was raining more heavily in 1992 than in 2007. it seems peugeot are bound to attract heavy rain at le mans, doesn't it? )

anyway, one thing to remember is that in 1992, the fastest cars, which went 335 km/h and 334 km/h respectively (in the race) were the toyotas... i don't know about the peugeots, but i know these 2 were the fastest speeds of the 1992 race. but in practice nobody had the 905 beaten, at 351 km/h.

still, in 1993, the porsches went 20 km/h faster than the peugeot 905 (!!!) - that was 366 km/h for the 962 against 346 km/h for the pugs.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

still, in 1993, the porsches went 20 km/h faster than the peugeot 905 (!!!) - that was 366 km/h for the 962 against 346 km/h for the pugs.

I didn't realise that, but it perhaps isn't suprising. The 905 was a downforce car. Maybe the 962 still had a little hang over from pre-chicane Le Mans too. Also, I'm trying to remember, what were the fuel rules then? Did the Porsches care more about fuel economy than the 3.5l cars?

[CUT 7]

[quote=sssssssss]) that's ok cut 7! you don't have to be as freaky as i am and actually remember all this stuff! this is illness!
quote]
Im not as bonkers as i thought...
The quickest ever recorded ever at LM was 254 mph by a WM pug, presumbly the mad V10 atmo pug.
However, how it managed to get up to that speed with the new chicane in place i dont know.
Or maybe its a pug of pre-atmo pre-chicane days.

[sssssssss]

[quote=CUT 7]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

) that's ok cut 7! you don't have to be as freaky as i am and actually remember all this stuff! this is illness!
quote]
Im not as bonkers as i thought...
The quickest ever recorded ever at LM was 254 mph by a WM pug, presumbly the mad V10 atmo pug.
However, how it managed to get up to that speed with the new chicane in place i dont know.
Or maybe its a pug of pre-atmo pre-chicane days.

Yup that speed was in the pre-chicane days. It was in 1988 and it was not an official Peugeot, it was the WM P88 with a Turbo Peugeot ZNS4 3000 cc V6 engine. The car hit those 405 km/h (252 mph I think) on the full Mulsanne Straight but only managed 3:34.650 time in qualifying, which in '88 meant it was only 22nd . And its engine broke very early in the race... so not really the endurance of an official Peugeot engine

The highest top speed of a car that lasted until the end of the race (and in fact won it in 1989) was the almost 401 km/h (249 mph) of the Sauber Mercedes C9 - again, 1989. But on the Mulsanne chicanes track configuration, the highest speed was the Porsche 962 in 1993 hitting 366 km/h (227 mph). To be noted that the Nissan R90CK also hit 366 km/h in 1990 (when setting that great time of 3:27).

[chernaudi]

The WR was from 1988-two years before the chicanes. It used a 2.85 liter turbocharged Peugeot PRV V6. So it had no relation to the 905.

[dj choc ice]

indeed, there was no relation between the mechanicals made by peugeot for the WM to the mechanicals of the 905, the 905 i believe had an engine that was used later on in jordan formula 1 car's when the 3.5 litre formula went down the toilet, a real shame imo, as the 3.5 litre car's were the best race car's to have ever raced, partially because i love nothing more than the sound of a high revving V10 or V8, hence why i miss the judd GV4 4.0 V10 exhaust note so much.

in hindsight i would think the old 905 would only corner slightly quicker than a current car, and although the trap speed for the 905 on the mulsanne is much higher i would think because of its manual gearbox it could be slower getting up to say 160mph than a modern car with a semi auto race gearbox.

just to clarify something on the 905 as well, the car appeared in various guises, the 1990 car was woefully underpowered and aerodynamically imbalanced, then half way through 1991 the car had a huge aero update and engine update, then in 1992 the car had another fairly big aero rework and engine modification and in 1993 i think the mods to the 905 were only to the engine and gearbox and we did get the 905 evo 2 with a load more downforce, and i believe the first sequential gearbox in sportscar racing even though i dont think the car ever raced.

but im curios as to how much power the 905 really had?, ive read in many places on the different years of the 905 and the power figure's for each year for the atmo 3.5 V10 vary from these in each year.

1990:550-600bhp
1991:600-660bhp
1992:640-700bhp
1993:640-725bhp

im just wondering what the more exact power figure's were for each year, i did hear that in 1993 the car's were going to be air restricted in 3.5litre to around 550bhp, was this true or untrue?

[sssssssss]

as far as i know the 1992-1993 peugeot 905 had 680 hp. but you can never be quite sure of the official statements of the manufacturers - a good example would be the r10, about which audi claim to have about 650 hp, but inside the race environment everybody talks about it as having 700 hp (the most relevant quote on this subject is henri pescarolo's, who declared in 2006 that it's very hard to race a 640 hp petrol car - the pescarolo c60 '06 - against a 700 hp turbodiesel. so we might as well suspect that the 905 had more than 680 hp, especially if we look at those absolutely terrifying lap times of 1992 (3:21).

i think the big difference between the 905 and all other prototypes was in fact the corner speeds, because the trap speed of 351 km/h isn't so much faster than others (for instance, in 1999 Toyota hit 352 km/h and poled at 3:29.930 - an excellent time, but still over 8 seconds slower than the pug, the audi r8c hit 349 km/h, the mercedes clr hit 349 km/h, the bmw v12 lmr hit 342 km/h).
also, in 1993, the peugeot 905 hit 346 km/h as opposed to porsche's 366 km/h, and still peugeot poled at 3:24.940, while the 962's best lap was 3:37.630. so i think it's obvious the pug's acceleration and especially corner speeds were most important.

[CUT 7]

Thanks for the clarification.
While we're on this , i noticed that the Jag (ford)XJR-14 atmo qualified 1st but didnt start,and the race was won by Rotary Mazda ,the XJR-12 , pre-atmo 7 litre V12 coming 2nd. So why didnt the atmo car start.It was 'withdrawn' ?
As for the reason why the V10 peugeot was so quick ?
Acceleration, & great, great chassis

[Adam43]

The XJR-14 was a sprint car at the time, it hadn't been developed for Le Mans. Both Mercedes and Jaguar took the approach of qualifying the two 3.5l cars, but concentrating the race on the old proven cars. Peugeot had no old car, and they progressed as Mercedes and Jaguar expected their 3.5l cars to. Starting the 14 would have only have been a distraction for Jaguar.

Interestingly even before the 3.5l cars, Jaguar were running a Sprint (V6) and a Endurance (the good old V12).

[JAG]

Originally Posted by CUT 7

V good info cheers.
So the answer is 'not much in it'
the atmo pug & jag wasnt realy a Gp c car so I kind of exclude them from my pontificating .They were the daddy though, speed wise.F1 cars with carbon fibre body bits .Thanks to bernie they were the death knell to Gp C...Oh no i got me self started again

Group C cars were fast over a single qualifying lap, but current cars are much, much quicker during the race, particularly over 12hr/24hr.

Even when you look at the 3.5l cars, it was only the last generation 905 that was significantly quicker, the 92/93 Toyota TS010 lapped around 3.37/7 in qualifying.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

The XJR-14 was a sprint car at the time, it hadn't been developed for Le Mans. Both Mercedes and Jaguar took the approach of qualifying the two 3.5l cars, but concentrating the race on the old proven cars. Peugeot had no old car, and they progressed as Mercedes and Jaguar expected their 3.5l cars to. Starting the 14 would have only have been a distraction for Jaguar.

Interestingly even before the 3.5l cars, Jaguar were running a Sprint (V6) and a Endurance (the good old V12).

But Jaguar did initially have plans for an endurance XJR-11 turbo car, I guess they ditched this idea when they realised that car only had two competitive years ahead of it before the 3.5l cars hit the scene.

See the light's on the No.4 car.

[CUT 7]

Originally Posted by JAG

Group C cars were fast over a single qualifying lap, but current cars are much, much quicker during the race, particularly over 12hr/24hr.

Even when you look at the 3.5l cars, it was only the last generation 905 that was significantly quicker, the 92/93 Toyota TS010 lapped around 3.37/7 in qualifying.

Over a race much, much quicker ?
ill stick with 'not much in it'
Good LM pic. Should be almost that many cars in a few weeks at 'Stone....

[Alex Hodgkinson]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

in hindsight i would think the old 905 would only corner slightly quicker than a current car

Not if you factor in 14 years worth of tyre development - the 905 on the latest tyres would be a quicker car than it was in 1993 surely!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JAG

But Jaguar did initially have plans for an endurance XJR-11 turbo car, I guess they ditched this idea when they realised that car only had two competitive years ahead of it before the 3.5l cars hit the scene.

Yes, the endurance versions were a few years behind for both so they always stuck with the developed car.

I agree that the current cars all have the advantage in the race. The general reliability of these cars has improved and it allows them to push more.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by CUT 7

Over a race much, much quicker ?
ill stick with 'not much in it'
Good LM pic. Should be almost that many cars in a few weeks at 'Stone....

The likes of the R10 can run 3.30's consitently for 24hr's, the turbo Group C cars were closer to 3.40, same for the atmo cars as they were fragile.

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by JAG

Group C cars were fast over a single qualifying lap, but current cars are much, much quicker during the race, particularly over 12hr/24hr.

Even when you look at the 3.5l cars, it was only the last generation 905 that was significantly quicker, the 92/93 Toyota TS010 lapped around 3.37/7 in qualifying.

i don't know about all the laps of the group c cars during a race or the current lmp1 times during the whole race, if anybody does (about all their laps in a race - or their general pace, please correct me), only about the best laps of every race. and basically it seems to me that there wasn't a great difference... the current lmp1's don't seem much, much faster... let's take a look at the statistics (these are the fastest RACE laps for each year):
2006 - best lap - audi r10 tdi - 3:31.211
2005 - best lap - pescarolo c60 - 3:34.968
2004 - best lap - audi r8 - 3:34.264
2003 - best lap - bentley speed 8 - 3:35.529
2002 - best lap - audi r8 - 3:33.483
2001 - best lap - audi r8 - 3:32.429
2000 - best lap - audi r8 - 3:37.359
1999 - best lap - toyota gt-one - 3:35.052
............................................................
1993 - best lap - toyota ts010 - 3:27.470
1992 - best lap - toyota ts010 - 3:32.295
1991 - best lap - sauber mercedes c11 - 3:35.564
1990 - best lap - nissan r90ck - 3:40.030

it was 3:27 for the toyota ts010 in 1993, not 3:37. so it was in fact much quicker than today's lmp1 cars even on race pace. audi r10 and peugeot 908 only lapped 3:27's on the new 2007 track configuration...which is about 3 seconds faster.

[JAG]

3.37 was a mis-type.

The 3.27 was set by Irvine in a specially prepared car that was already out of the running, likely the same in '92 as the 905's were undoubtedly quicker but had more to lose.

It was a balls out lap to get a little glory for Toyota, I think Nissan did the same in 1990 with one of the US run cars.

Ultimate lap times are indeed very close, but current cars run closer to that pace for the duration of the race.

[sssssssss]

Uuh, and concerning the 2007 trap speeds - just one more observation: it's now obvious that Audi aren't telling the whole truth about the true performance of the R10, because officially, they claimed the car has a top speed "in the region of 330 km/h", just as with the R8. But if the R8 hit a maximum of 330 km/h indeed at Le Mans (2002), in 2007 the R10 already went 339 km/h (which is rather a speed in the region of 340 km/h), and who knows how much faster it can actually go?...

In fact, I heard a rumor that the R10 actually hit 354 km/h on a private test (or test day - can't remember exactly). And I also read on mulsannescorner.com that there is a rumor of the R10 going 350 km/h on Paul Ricard, which definitely means they can do at least that on Le Mans too if they really want to. It's just hillarious that they didn't bother to push harder than 326 km/h in 2006 while others did 332 km/h... Audi seem to be playing some kind of a game against the others...

[Adam43]

I wouldn't read too much into that. Firstly the numbers are unconfirmed and unofficial, but also they could probably do 370kmph if they took the wings off!

I doubt they limited the top speed to play a game.

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I doubt they limited the top speed to play a game.

Agreed. Too much at stake....Obviously

[JAG]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

Uuh, and concerning the 2007 trap speeds - just one more observation: it's now obvious that Audi aren't telling the whole truth about the true performance of the R10, because officially, they claimed the car has a top speed "in the region of 330 km/h", just as with the R8. But if the R8 hit a maximum of 330 km/h indeed at Le Mans (2002), in 2007 the R10 already went 339 km/h (which is rather a speed in the region of 340 km/h), and who knows how much faster it can actually go?...

In fact, I heard a rumor that the R10 actually hit 354 km/h on a private test (or test day - can't remember exactly). And I also read on mulsannescorner.com that there is a rumor of the R10 going 350 km/h on Paul Ricard, which definitely means they can do at least that on Le Mans too if they really want to. It's just hillarious that they didn't bother to push harder than 326 km/h in 2006 while others did 332 km/h... Audi seem to be playing some kind of a game against the others...

I've noticed most manufactuers quote the speed they achieve at Le Mans, or thereabouts, when asked about top speed.

I've no doubt the R10 could top 240mph if it was the old Mulsanne and the car was optimised.

Audi run lots of downforce, so quite often aren't the quickest on top speed.

[CUT 7]

Originally Posted by JAG

The likes of the R10 can run 3.30's consitently for 24hr's, the turbo Group C cars were closer to 3.40, same for the atmo cars as they were fragile.

yeah, undoubtably true. GP C cars were fragile.
Quarter century further on, one would hope there would be some improvement in reliability.
Still what were learning from this little debate is that GP C cars were actually quicker, although unable to sustain that over long periods.
Now if we compare GP C cars with the protos of 25 years previous, say 1990 back to 1965 we have a rather different picture.Thin tyres no aerodynamics to speak of, only the begining of rear engines(yes we were very slow to take it up after Audi proved its worth in the 30's, bizarre...)less than 100bhp a litre lumps etc
The reason why im interested in this debate is not actually to prove which cars are quicker.(though thats fun in itself...)Its immaterial.But to add to my pet theory that technoligy, not just in motorsport, changed more between my childhood & my 20's than it has since.Theres has been improvements but no real 'breakthroughs' .Well thats my pet theory anyway....

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I wouldn't read too much into that. Firstly the numbers are unconfirmed and unofficial, but also they could probably do 370kmph if they took the wings off!

I doubt they limited the top speed to play a game.

the idea was they did not have competition serious enough to make them bother to go quicker than that. the r10 wasn't for sure limited at 326 km/h in 2006, the point was they simply did not have a reason to push harder than that (voila - with peugeot in the lineup the r10 already was the fastest car in the field), that's why i said they seem to play a game.
clearly, as JAG already mentioned, audi are running with very high downforce, which although may not seem the best choice for a track so fast as le mans, looks quite positive for their lap times.

i personally think audi ran a little less downforce in 2007. that's maybe why 1- they achieved higher top speeds (because the new track config might not be enough for that difference - for instance, pescarolos went 325 km/h in 2006 and 328 km/h in 2007, audi went 326 km/h in 2006 and 339 km/h in 2007) and 2- the cars were a bit harder to control (which some of the drivers noted this year about the r10) and so we would explain 2 of the 3 cars out by accident, which never happened to audi before. i think it's an interesting hypothesis...

[sssssssss]

http://66.218.71.231/language/transl...s&fr=yfp-t-453

This article is immediately after Audi presented the 2006 R10 TDi in Paris I think... They say indeed its top speed is 370 km/h.

[Adam43]

A very confusing game then.

I don't think a lack of downforce was the cause of the accidents. Of course it may have helped Rockenfeller with more grip, but ultimately he went off because he was pushing too hard in the conditions (maybe he would have gone off at a higher speed with more downforce! ). The other Audi went out because a wheel came off, I don't see how downforce would have helped here.