Sportscars that were worse than their predecessors

[Dario911]

Lancia was a nice car, with a beauty shape. But I prefer Porsches anyway.
LC2 was fast because the italian technicians believed they only need more power to be faster than Porsche. So, they equipped the car with a powerful engine, but the car was not as reliable as it must be. When the Porsche introduced its 962, they were always faster than Lancia, so the italian manifacturer decided to leave endurance because there was no way to beat Porsche.
So, the Lancia adventure in Le Mans was over. Porsches were superior under every point of view, if compared to the Lancias.
Nothing is like a 956/962 in Rothmans or Joest New Man livery!

[Cuttlefish]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

The LMP07 was a factory effort was it not?

Chris

Strictly speaking, the LMP07 was fully backed by Panoz. So in that sense, its a factory team. But its unfair comparing Panoz (revenue less than $250 million, probably $100-150 million)* to other factory teams like Audi (revenue $53 billion), Porsche (revenue $11 billion) or even Aston Martin (revenue around $1 billion).




*Couldn't find any exact figure for Panoz. Panoz' holding company, Fountainhead, apparently had revenue of $250 million, which most likely includes many of Don Panoz' other ventures.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by minimangler

Luck, my friend. The mulsanne's corner article is scathing, to say the least.

And wasn't it only 2?

In fairness, the 2KQ update, the 01Q (no matter that the 2KQ name carried on for some entries, it was still an updated car bearing little resemblance to the blunt/pug nosed debutant), was actually quite good. That's the car that had all the success.

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Cuttlefish

Strictly speaking, the LMP07 was fully backed by Panoz. So in that sense, its a factory team. But its unfair comparing Panoz (revenue less than $250 million, probably $100-150 million)* to other factory teams like Audi (revenue $53 billion), Porsche (revenue $11 billion) or even Aston Martin (revenue around $1 billion).




*Couldn't find any exact figure for Panoz. Panoz' holding company, Fountainhead, apparently had revenue of $250 million, which most likely includes many of Don Panoz' other ventures.

Yeah, I won't debate how much of an uphill battle it was for Panoz. I'll merely say that the LMP07 seems like a failed bit when you look at the LMP01.

Chris

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by marcosgt

I'd chip in for the Mazda 787B and the TWR Mazda thing (RX01?) - The Rotary engined Mazdas were as much part of the Le Mans atmosphere as the big wheel and frites - I can clearly remember walking into the circuit on the Friday evening one year and hearing a howl and KNOWING it was the Mazda being bedded in on the airfield runway.

Of course, Mazda are STILL the only Japanese marque to win Le Mans (which must irk all the others enormously), but the TWR thing was a rather cynical and unsuccessful marketing exercise.

M.

That may be so, but the car in Charge/Renown colours in 1992 was a thing of beauty, as far as I'm concerned. And it was driven with more gusto by Volker Weidler in the opening laps than most other cars I've seen at Le Mans before or since.....

http://www.aysedasi.co.uk/gallery/1992p/S1/92s103.jpg

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by minimangler

Porsche 997 GT2, following the 996

At least, in terms of competitiveness and all round mechanical incompetence

Or any "racing" Lambos for that matter


FYI: The 996/997 GT2s were never made to have racing variants, unlike the GT3.

[minimangler]

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

Or any "racing" Lambos for that matter


FYI: The 996/997 GT2s were never made to have racing variants, unlike the GT3.

I mean the 997 currently racing in FIA GT2 LMGT2 etc.

Not the road going GT2.

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by minimangler

I mean the 997 currently racing in FIA GT2 LMGT2 etc.

Not the road going GT2.

I see. Shame then the GT2 isn't put to good use in the GT1-class racing, but then again it is well known (from the past) that FIA does not favor cars with force-induction.

[David]

Morning warm-up, Le-Mans 1999. Approaching Mulsanne, Mark Webber's CLR takes flight. There were three flying Mercedes at Le Mans in 1999. Mark Webber had two incidents - one in Thursday evening practice and the one shown above.

Although not a Merc fan, I did admire the way they translated the road car styling cues into their race car. It did, however, show some lack of aerodynamic refinement.

1. I can't resist showing this pic one more time.
2. I know, it has already been beat to death.
3. It is a real cover pic, I just took the AutoWeek stuff off.
4. What do you suppose the Viper driver is hoping?

[sssssssss]

In terms of number of victories and the authority with which they were brought, the Audi R8 was better than the R10. I suppose this year's Le Mans victory (and the 2007 one too, actually, when the R10 was obviously the fastest car of the race, even with the Peugeot 908 in) has really made the R10 look very good. Because, ultimately, the R10 had exactly that better fuel consumption to compensate the 908's speed advantage. So it's hard, after 2007 and especially 2008, to say that the R10 is worse than it's predecessor. But the R8 had more and more obvious victories than the R10 will have time from now on to obtain.

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

In terms of number of victories and the authority with which they were brought, the Audi R8 was better than the R10. I suppose this year's Le Mans victory (and the 2007 one too, actually, when the R10 was obviously the fastest car of the race, even with the Peugeot 908 in) has really made the R10 look very good. Because, ultimately, the R10 had exactly that better fuel consumption to compensate the 908's speed advantage. So it's hard, after 2007 and especially 2008, to say that the R10 is worse than it's predecessor. But the R8 had more and more obvious victories than the R10 will have time from now on to obtain.

I wouldn't say the R10 is worse than the R8, just more boring.

Regarding R10's success, it's rather hollow since it was deemed obsolete by a lesser prototype class in ALMS, regardless of the excuses or unfairnesses that Audi and its fans were crying foul of.

Obviously, one can only stay at the top (with next to no meaningful competition) for so long.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

I wouldn't say the R10 is worse than the R8, just more boring.

Regarding R10's success, it's rather hollow since it was deemed obsolete by a lesser prototype class in ALMS, regardless of the excuses or unfairnesses that Audi and its fans were crying foul of.

Obviously, one can only stay at the top (with next to no meaningful competition) for so long.

These are both valid points (yours and those of sssss), but I think ultimately the R10 will be remembered as a successful intermediate between the R8 and Audi's first closed coupe (although they ran a modified R8 in the early days that was a coupe) diesel, which they will ultimately need to compete with the 908, which gets faster every day.

DK

[Aysedasi]

But two consecutive year's wins at Le Mans can hardly be called 'hollow' in anyone's books, surely? The R10 had more than meaningful competition there this year - but (disappointingly for me) Peugeot blew it.....

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

But two consecutive year's wins at Le Mans can hardly be called 'hollow' in anyone's books, surely? The R10 had more than meaningful competition there this year - but (disappointingly for me) Peugeot blew it.....

I would agree.
Also as to the competition in the ALMS from Porsche, it has to be said that the Spyder came in to the series heads above the other P-2 competition and was, by pen, made to stay competitive with the R-10. And contrary to what some think, that fact is not lost on some fans who are not in Audi's camp so to speak! Also Acura's entrance into the ALMS has benefitted from the rules also when it comes to being competitive for the overall. Don't get me wrong as both the Porsche and Acura programs are stellar and very competitive, as shown by the Spyder's performance on the Continent, but they are rules aided in the ALMS. Which is the providence of the ALMS to produce a product that is compelling for its current and future fans. Hollow? I think not!


L.P.

[The Badger]

Its easy to say the R10 doesnt look as good , results wise , as the R8 . But you gotta take a look at the competition at the time , plus the RS Spyder has a larger tank in the ALMS .

Now Pug has moved the goal posts so to speak , and the R10 lost its edge , maybe sooner than expected . But in the end it did exactly what it was supposed to do ..... win Le Mans ..... 3 times too . If and when Pug win Le Mans , it wont be with the 908 . So I guess the R10 is pretty successful .

What 908-HDI said ..... "I wouldn't say the R10 is worse than the R8, just more boring" ..... I completely agree with .

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by The Badger

What 908-HDI said ..... "I wouldn't say the R10 is worse than the R8, just more boring" ..... I completely agree with .

I confess I am with you there. Incredible car but stunningly dull to watch...... (except in-car..... )

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by 908-HDI

I wouldn't say the R10 is worse than the R8, just more boring.

Regarding R10's success, it's rather hollow since it was deemed obsolete by a lesser prototype class in ALMS, regardless of the excuses or unfairnesses that Audi and its fans were crying foul of.

Obviously, one can only stay at the top (with next to no meaningful competition) for so long.

That's rather unfair to say, from my standpoint. The Audi R10 is a brilliant car, if you compare the race data of this car with anything else than the 2008 Peugeot 908, it really is something special. The ALMS really goes for the idea of having two different approaches to creating relatively equally fast cars, it's not excuses. That's really Audi against Porsche with comparable premises. And as some have already said, the 2007 and 2008 competition were far from next to no meaning.
On the other hand, let's remember Audi did have strong competition in the R8 days as well, especially in the ALMS, with BMW and also Panoz. And Cadillac was a big manufacturer there, although they did not succeed in doing anything really interesting. Audi had some strong competition over time and dealt with it just as good as with the non-manufacturer teams. Peugeot always were SF at LM, reemember 1992 and 1993. And if Toyota couldn't manage to beat them those years, Audi did - both in 2007 and 2008. So the R10 really seems a great car to me.

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I confess I am with you there. Incredible car but stunningly dull to watch...... (except in-car..... )

Mostly true from where I stand as well... Although I like the front of the car. That nose and those lights really look beautiful to me.
The in-car shots are the ones that show that car's tremendous force and that's mainly why they interrupt the boredom. I remember there were several times that the R10's engine proved incredible power on acceleration sections, where the R10 was better even than the 2008 Peugeot (probably the only spots, the exit of slow corners).

[JAG]

The R10 has won on the long straights of Le Mans against Peugeot, and on ALMS street circuits against a Porsche P2 perfectly suited to that territory.

That alone is more notable than the R8 going through the motions for 5+ years, with the odd underdog putting up an occasional fight.

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by JAG

The R10 has won on the long straights of Le Mans against Peugeot, and on ALMS street circuits against a Porsche P2 perfectly suited to that territory.

That alone is more notable than the R8 going through the motions for 5+ years, with the odd underdog putting up an occasional fight.

Quite true, but let's remember too Audi R8 against BMW V12 LMR back in 2000.
In any case, my original point wasn't that the R10 is worse than the R8, it was just highlighting the cases in which the R8 was better and those when R10 was better.

[Aysedasi]

I think you mean 1999. That year was the Audi debut with the R8Cs and R8Rs. 3rd and 4th was a pretty good result in my book. And the year before - 1998 - The Porsche GT1's trashed the BMWs......

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think you mean 1999. That year was the Audi debut with the R8Cs and R8Rs. 3rd and 4th was a pretty good result in my book. And the year before - 1998 - The Porsche GT1's trashed the BMWs......

'99 was ok too, but actually I was reffering to the 2000 ALMS championship.
And speaking of the Porsche GT1 trashing the BMWs, it seems to me quite obvious that Audi and Porsche share their race experience, not only because they never race each other in the same class, but also because they have exactly the same style of racing the top class (whichever it might be): they're among the fastest over 1 lap, but not necessarily THE fastest, they are the 2 most reliable racecars in the world, they rely on corner speeds and downforce rather than the supreme top speed, they usually have kind of the same drivers... And I guess you reffered to that a bit with adding the 1998 remark there, right?

[Aysedasi]

Sorry I was (as usual) in LM mode...... No, my 98 remark was just a comment on the fact that the BMWs actually put up a poorer show in their debut year of 98 than the R8s did in theirs - at Le Mans.

[sssssssss]

That's true as well. I'm too in LM mode usually

Now also, adding to that comparison of first-timing Le Mans 24 Hours, Peugeot kind of did better than Audi in 2007 with that 2nd place, although that was mainly due to Audi's accidents. And also they had some experience from 1991-1993, unlike Audi in 1999. I don't want to remember Mercedes's (first) experiences at LM .

[Aysedasi]

But remember also Peugeot's first experience in 1991? A massive flop, for which they made up in 92 and 93 against very strong Toyota opposition.