"1923 Le Mans" question

[helgi]

It appears to be that the very first edition of "24 Hours of Le Mans" was only a first part of a three-years competition. Chenard et Walcker Prix was oriented for the car which would be most effective through all that three years.
If it's true, then why there's no information about it?

[kober]

No information? Check wikipedia

The 24 Hours of Le Mans was first run on 26 and 27 May 1923, through public roads around Le Mans. Originally planned to be a three year event awarded the Rudge-Whitworth Triennial Cup, with a winner being declared by the car which could go the farthest distance over three consecutive 24 Hour races, this idea was abandoned in 1928 and overall winners were declared for each single year depending on who covered the farthest distance by the time 24 hours were up.

[helgi]

Well, I usually don't trust Wiki in questions of history. But at this point they are right. Nevertheless, is it fair to name the winners of 1923 race as the first winners of Le Mans? Hasn't circumstances changed since then? Besides there's no mention of the Rudge-Whitworth (I've missprinted in the first post) winners. Wasn't it so important even in 1925 or 1928? Or Grand Prix d'Endurance was big enough itself?

[Vitesse]

Here's a summary I wrote in "another place", based on Brian Laban's book about Le Mans:

The Rudge-Whitworth Triennial Cup was competed for once only (1923-5), but the original intention was that it would be a rolling competition, with a new Triennial starting each year. When Le Mans started, the intention was that it should be for unmodified production cars, with a minimum number of thirty constructed - the original rule said that non-competing examples should also be presented at the circuit at the time of scrutineering for comparison, but that was never enforced. Cars were divided into classes by capacity and a target distance was set for each class, ranging from 920km for cars under 1100cc up to 1600km for cars over 6500cc. Any car which was more than 20% behind target at six hours was eliminated - there were further eliminations at 12 hours (15% behind) and 18 hours (10% behind). All cars which finished and had equalled or exceeded their target distance would become eligible for the second part the following year, when a new rotation would start, thus allowing new competitors to join in.

It is important to realise that in the first three years there was no actual official "winner" of Le Mans, in terms we would understand today ie greatest distance covered. The result, such as it was, was determined by the percentage by which cars completing the 24 hours exceeded their target. In other words an 1100cc car which completed 1012km (110% of target) would be higher up the general classification for the Rudge-Whitworth than a 6500cc+ car which completed 1680km (105% of target).

The first Biennial was started in 1924 and ran in parallel to the first Triennial.

In January 1925 The Autocar attempted to explain:

It is not an easy matter to follow the rules of this event, and in most cases the public simplifies the result, somewhat unscientifically, by looking upon the one having gone the greatest distance as the winner. It is necessary, however, to find a winner of the trophy, and according to the rules which have now been published, this will be done in the following manner for all those having qualified in the first two races. By taking the results obtained in 1923 and 1924, curves will be plotted, the points of which will show identical performances in the different piston displacement classes. The winner of the triennial cup and the holder of the two biennial cups will be the ones whose curve reaches the highest point, as based on effective distance covered."

So that's all clear then

[helgi]

Thanks a lot!!! That's what I was talking about. You just can not understand the 20's - 30's racing using the terms of modern racing.

[Corktree]

Originally Posted by helgi

You just can not understand the 20's - 30's racing using the terms of modern racing.

This should the epitaph on the tombstone for the fora supposedly discussing the history of automobile racing.

This is the basic, if not fundamental, reason why so much of the supposed history of automotive competition being provided by non-historians and/or untrained researchers ranges from, not to mince words, merely poor to utterly abysmal; one need only read fora such as this one and others to realize that. It is not only regarding relatively obscure matters such as this one referring to the rather convoluted way the early Grands Prix de Endurance were actually conducted, but the lack of empathy for an era that comes from being unable to shed the anachronistic thinking that is brought to an examination of the topic. People tend to dwell on the low hanging fruit such as the machinery -- the cars -- and avoid the "politics" and the context of racing which tends to not fit very easily with the way automobile racing has been conducted over the past several decades. A forum such as this one and the few others attempting to be "historical" in their content tend to do as much (if not more) harm than good.

I have generally stopped paying much attention to these fora with the exception of an occasion look every once in a great while. The fora tend to be exercises in a few voices attempting to explain things in a matter consistent with the Zeitgeist while being drowned out by the usual cacophony of generally mindless chatter.

Not that I would wish to venture an opinion, of course.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Corktree

I have generally stopped paying much attention to these fora with the exception of an occasion look every once in a great while. The fora tend to be exercises in a few voices attempting to explain things in a matter consistent with the Zeitgeist while being drowned out by the usual cacophony of generally mindless chatter.

Sorry, which 'fora' are you referring to? Fora (subforums?) here?

[Corktree]

Fora is the plural of forum.

And, yes, I am referring to this particular forum as well as several others.

[SAMD]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary...
forum n. (pl. forums) 1) a meeting or medium for an exchange of views. 2) (pl. fora) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Corktree

Fora is the plural of forum.

I may consider myself corrected then. On the other hand, I may not.

And, yes, I am referring to this particular forum as well as several others.

I suspect that had the OP posted his enquiry in the Le Mans sub-forum, he would have received a number of immediate and wholly accurate responses. Quite aside from the fact that the internet is littered with sites giving a detailed history of the great race.

This is a discussion forum. Or a meeting or medium for an exchange of views.... Not an online motorsport encyclopaedia.

Not that I want to venture an opinion, of course......

I have generally stopped paying much attention to these fora with the exception of an occasion look every once in a great while. The fora tend to be exercises in a few voices attempting to explain things in a matter consistent with the Zeitgeist while being drowned out by the usual cacophony of generally mindless chatter.

At the risk of offending - and yes, I'll take that risk, why do you look in once in a great while? I make it about 4 times a year? As forum staff, we have an interest in why people come here - and go away again. With such a low opinion of what goes on here, what brings you back?

[ensign14]

I think the triennial was only awarded twice. The biennial cup went on much longer though. Various supply companies made play in their publicity that they had contributed to "winning" the 1923 race...