Mulsanne Straight

[Nordic]

Just out of interest, with all the talk about track changes at Le mans and how it is being spoiled. Since the chicanes have been put onto the Mulsanne has there been a serious crash there that resulted in injury apart from the flying merc that thankfully did not?

Is it possible that it was right that they where inserted? when you take into account the number of drivers and others that where killed or injured in the years before. Was the staight a sacifrice worth making?

[Raglanparade]

Well considering the speeds that were happening pre-chicane, you would hate to think the speeds the cars would acheive now.

You will find that it was not the Le Mans circuit itself that decided on the Chicanes, but FIA regulations. In the late 1980's (1986, 1987??) the FIA stipulated that no International Circuit is to have a straight longer then 1 Mile (1.6 Kilometres).

It is for this reason there are two chicanes on the Mulsanne Straight, and the Caltex Chase was added to Bathurst here in Australia.

[Splendid Cat]

There was a similar therad on this July. No idea how you insert a link so I've copied it!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aysedasi
In my early visits to Le Mans there were massive accidents on the Mulsanne. Jo Gartner lost his life there in 86. It was the installation of triple layer armco that probably saved Win Percy's life when his Jaguar flew the following year. In 1990, Jonathan Palmer had a similar acvident in a Joest Porsche when something broke - which I think was probably an element in all three of these accidents (Gartner's being gearbox related and (I assume) Percy's relating to a tyre deflation). And yet I've heard much more from drivers about how they preferred the circuit before the advent of the chicanes (and indeed, additions like the Dunlop Chicane as well). There have always been drivers like Schlesser who professed to hate the place, but generally came back all the same. Personally, I remain to be convinced that the installation of the chicanes was safety motivated and that Badger is right. Balestre and Ecclestone were desperate at the time to force the ACO to toe the line and refusal to comply with FISA mandate would have meant the loss of the world championship round status for Le Mans. A shame the ACO couldn't have read in their crystal balls that Balestre and Ecclestone would shortly destroy that as well.....


Poster by LJ79
Palmer crashed between the chicanes in 90.

Gartner was accelerating just after the right kink after the conifers that leads on to Mulsanne proper.

On the Mulsanne proper Andruet had a big shunt in 85 in a WM as did Dudley Wood in the JFR 956, both nr the kink. Andruet unhurt, Wood broken leg

Sheldon and Olsen had "that" shunt in 84. Sheldon burnt, Olsen ok. (A marshall was killed by debris)

Plus the Nielsen flip and the other close ones, Percy 87, Schlesser 86, Niedwiedz 88. One of the Joest cars had a massive blow out too in 89.

So - deaths on Mulsanne "proper" in modern(ish) era = 0. Even Lafosse's death in 81 was at the start of the straight too.

BTW - this is not to make light of the Gartner / Lafosse / marsall death (Jacky Loiseau IIRC) but provides stats to back you up Ayse

[Javi]

I think also the attempts from some teams (WR?) to achieve more than 400 Kph forced the installations of chicanes. There was an invisible contest for maximum speed among some teams that were not aiming at overall victory, but wanted some publicity this way. I did never go to le mans before the chicanes, it must have been an spectacle but i love le mans right now as well. The first le mans layout was a triangle with three hairpins (magine the speeds right now!) , and I do not think no one misses that one...

[Randy]

I've only driven the track with the chicanes and it is still awesome, hitting 200mph+ before and after the first chicane. Before the chicanes the tyre loading must have been horrendous and that would be a concern for me. But, although I would have found it intimidating thats what motorsport is all about. Full respect for the srivers at LeMans pre-chicanes .

[Nordic]

I am lucky enough to have been both before and after the changes. From my point of view they have not made a great differance apart from the changes in car design that required the cars to run ultra low downforce pre chicane. this point was demonstrated by the Brun team turning up with a short tail 962 and being faster than the long tail ones. (Imagine a long tail R8 or Zytek!)

This change may have also helped make the cars more drivable over the rest of the track and reduced the danger elsewhere.

I was not in favor at the time, but in hindsight it may have been right to do it.

[Kempi]

I dunno if the chicanes really improved safety on the straight. Granted, the cars would most probably still reach 350+ on the Hunaudieres, but the question is if it is really safer to harshly brake from ~330 three times instead of one single time.

The improved safety at other parts of the track I could see due to a more drivable car.

[BSchneiderFan]

My feeling is that it was a knee-jerk reaction (and part of the never-ending FIA/ACO war). Kempi has a point; is it safer to have three heavy braking areas rather than one long straight? Also, are cars not reaching 'terminal velocity' anyway on the three mini Mulsannes? So there is no reason to think they would go much faster on a single Mulsanne. Final point which Andy Wallace raised some while back; the old Mulsanne actually gave drivers a bit of a rest; they could rest their left feet and, passing slower cars aside, have a bit of a break from the hectic melee of the rest of the lap.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by jasonhill9884

Well considering the speeds that were happening pre-chicane, you would hate to think the speeds the cars would acheive now.

Echoing what BSchneiderFan was saying - I don't think speeds would be any higher than we have seen in the past. They peaked before and dipped after rule changes and with the current power restrictions and style of the cars I don't think they would be too fast. Although perhaps I have a different view as to what is too fast!

Is it safer now? Yes, although there are some reasons why it was safer before, but overall it is safer now. However was it too unsafe before, would it be too unsafe if re-introduced? That is a different question.

[Splatz the Cow]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Also, are cars not reaching 'terminal velocity' anyway on the three mini Mulsannes? So there is no reason to think they would go much faster on a single Mulsanne.

I disagree, most cars would go significantly faster if there no chicanes. The McLarens were topping out up to 310-320km/h in the late 90s, but they are capable of going easily to 340-350km/h if the wing angle was reduced, and chicanes were removed. One can only guess at the speed of the Bentley and Audi.

What would happen is that cars would be slower through the Porsche curves and other corners, and instead make the time on the Mulsanne.

At the moment cars are maximising time through the corners and minimizing braking distance rather than going for higher top speed. This is because of the chicanes being in place.

[Adam43]

A McLaren was probably faster on the straight than an Audi. Speeds would return to what we had before on the Mulsanne if that I believe. They would make cars more slippery than now, but they'd still have significant wings. Some would hit 250, but that would be it.

[Garrett]

No, the Audi's were faster in a straight line than the McLaren's. From the trap speed records from the Le Mans annuals from 1995 to 2005, the McLarens toped out around 195/200mph. The Audi's all 7 years they have been there (99'-05') have toped out around 195mph to 212mph. Though, 2005 was a slow top speed year for the Audi's due to the regs. I do think that the new LMP1/LMP2 regs for 2006 to whenever will allow the cars to gain more top end on the Mulsanne. For instance, at the unveiling of the Audi R10, there was a statement made by TK that the R10 has significantly more top speed than R8 did. So, if the R8's were running an average of 202mph top end, maybe we could see the R10's topping out at 210mph, or even higher. Any ones guess is as good as mine!

[Happy Snapper]

It's my understanding from talking to some of the drivers that the current fastest part of the circuit is the approach to Indianapolis droite (the right hand part). The ACO have announced they plan to slow this with yet another chicane.

I think the speed traps are set before the breaking zone for Dunlop, and before the breaking zone for play station and I cannot remember where the third one was. I have a document somewhere with all the speed trap speeds.

I hate the design of some chicanes they not only slow the cars they often destroy the flow and rhythm of a circuit, and with Le Mans they have succeeded! IMO, the point of racing is to go fast, and circuits should be safe, but to continually reshape a circuit especially a “road” course to slow cars, I don’t agree. I’m unsure what the answer is but I don’t thinks its “add a chicane on every straight” once the cars reach a certain speed.

[vs346]

The third speed trap, at least in recent years was at the approach to Indianapolis. The fastest cars reach +330 km/h there.

Any time frame on this chicane they want to add there, and is it official or just rumour?

[Purist]

I don't see the top speeds being higher with the new cars than with the Group C machines. With the more restricted areo rules, the newer cars i'm confident have more frontal area, and they have 100-150 less openly-advertised horsepower than the Group C cars (LMP900/1s quoted 600-650hp, Croup Cs quoted 700-800hp). Top-end speed is a function of power versus frontal area, so I think you can do the math. Also, a number of the Groups Cs were lighter than the LMP900/1s, so they could accelerate more quickly. Then there is the matter of gearing, which would have to change on the newer cars so that they wouldn't blow up, and the result would be less rapid acceleration. Finally, if you trim out the cars for low downforce/low drag, they will not corner as quickly, and hence will not reach that terminal velocity as quickly.

To be honest, after all the first laps I've seen at Portland and Monza, as well as the whole of the 2000 German GP, I'm not convinced that chicanes have real redeeming value. They destroy the flow of circuits, but the crashes alone are more than enough. It's also ironic that you guys have pointed out that those fatal and injury accidents, in most cases, happened WELL BEFORE the cars reach those really high speeds. And as one of you pointed out, is it really safer to have three massive braking zones rather than just one? Now thast I think of it, if the braking zones are shorter with the higher downforce, wouldn't you go off course at a higher rate of speed if you misjudged compared to if you had the lower downforce setup?

[JAG]

I remember seeing an interview on Eurosport with Jacly Ikx, he said the current cars accelerate much more quickly than Group C cars, particulalry those prior to 1989/90, as they can get their power down and are more efficient in all areas.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Happy Snapper

It's my understanding from talking to some of the drivers that the current fastest part of the circuit is the approach to Indianapolis droite (the right hand part). The ACO have announced they plan to slow this with yet another chicane.

The one benefit of this is that cars do not have to be tailored so specifically to Le Mans.

In past years cars have had to be slowed, soley because of the speeds they reached at Le Mans, everywhere else they were fine and perfecly safe.

We are now at a point were the cars, aer wise, are as safe as they can be at this moment in time, while the circuit itself is not too disimilar to other quick circuits around the world.

There is now little or no need to drastically change the car regs should speeds/lap times improve.

And at least the ACO seem prepared to remedy their mistakes, altering the profile of new track sections so as to retain the tracks charactor.

[Happy Snapper]

Originally Posted by vs346

The third speed trap, at least in recent years was at the approach to Indianapolis. The fastest cars reach +330 km/h there.

Any time frame on this chicane they want to add there, and is it official or just rumour?

It was "made public" some time back in the big plan for the circiut I think 07 they want to get the pit lane and paddock area sorted before they start it.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by JAG

I remember seeing an interview on Eurosport with Jacly Ikx, he said the current cars accelerate much more quickly than Group C cars, particulalry those prior to 1989/90, as they can get their power down and are more efficient in all areas.

I think they stop alot better as well.

one of you pointed out, is it really safer to have three massive braking zones rather than just one?

As Randy has pointed out, sustained high speeds loaded the tyres on the old straight, this caused problems. Maybe more than the slowing the car 2 more times?

[Happy Snapper]

Originally Posted by JAG

The one benefit of this is that cars do not have to be tailored so specifically to Le Mans.

Very good point, some drivers miss the ability to have a little rest down the Mulsanne! I guess at 300 KPH plus at some points you can still relax between the two breaking points for the chicanes, and with the Mulsanne kink being flat in everything now there's another short rest period.

[Splendid Cat]

Originally Posted by Happy Snapper

Very good point, some drivers miss the ability to have a little rest down the Mulsanne!

Lammers used to put his left foot on the throttle down Mulsanne

[racer69]

Originally Posted by jasonhill9884

Well considering the speeds that were happening pre-chicane, you would hate to think the speeds the cars would acheive now.

You will find that it was not the Le Mans circuit itself that decided on the Chicanes, but FIA regulations. In the late 1980's (1986, 1987??) the FIA stipulated that no International Circuit is to have a straight longer then 1 Mile (1.6 Kilometres).

It is for this reason there are two chicanes on the Mulsanne Straight, and the Caltex Chase was added to Bathurst here in Australia.

The installation of Caltex Chase at Bathurst had absolutly nothing to do with any FIA regulations or rulings!

For starters the FIA limit on straight lengths did not come into being until 1989 or 1990 (whatever the first year Le Mans had chicane's), and as mentioned this was all caught up in the FIA/ACO battles.

Bathurst had been FISA inspected after the 1986 race and was past in it's then-current layout, with the proviso of guardrails surrounding the entire circuit.

The Chase was installed at the behest of the Bathurst Police Department, who had put pressure on the ARDC to do something to Conrod in the wake of Mike Burgmann's death in 1986. If nothing was done the Bathurst Police threatened the race's future, as it is of course a public road. Therefore Conrod got butchered.

Terminal speeds were never the main issue on Conrod straight, the main problems were the second hump, which wasn't helped when the JPS Bridge was installed in 1982 which upset the airflow as the cars crested the hump, and the diagonal escape at the end of the straight.


As for Le Mans, the installation of the chicanes on Mulsanne made the rest of the track quicker of course, especially up around the Porsche Curves, as you could run more downforce without losing too much on the Mulsanne. The cars are still getting towards top speed in between the chicanes now, it's just they have to stop and start it 3 times rather than once.......

[TigerII]

Originally Posted by Nordic

I think they stop alot better as well.




As Randy has pointed out, sustained high speeds loaded the tyres on the old straight, this caused problems. Maybe more than the slowing the car 2 more times?

The faster you go the less time you spend at high speed.

The cars would accelerate faster, due not only to improvements in technology, but due to changes in gearing for the shorter straights.

Le Mans is about improving cars not changing the track to suite the cars. Leave that for F1. There have been more than sufficient safety improvements at LeMans. I'd like to hear Martin Brundles comments. (finb his comments about danger in motorsport).

Cheers

Scott

[MikkoJalonen]

Yeah Audi was quicker than McLarens but I think GT-One has the record in speed to the modern race cars.I still keep the GT-One as a fastest modern Le Mans racer of all times. The top speed record is 405 km/h and was done at the 89 race if I remember right.At the same weekend the record was firstly brokened by Jean-Louis Schlesser with his Sauber C9. Also I have one video on my computer where C group racers go down the straights and in the same vid to one Jaguar the back parts will flew to the skies. Also I have talked to Schlesser and he has said that it was crazy to go down that straight as actually you couldnt see to much in those speeds and still you needed to control the car and stay focused.

Anyway yes even the whole track has changed totally during the years and many times but I must say that I like to the chicaned version more than for the old version.As 99 is my favourite Le Mans year maybe that track version is the one I like the most.

[TigerII]

Originally Posted by MikkoJalonen

Yeah Audi was quicker than McLarens but I think GT-One has the record in speed to the modern race cars.I still keep the GT-One as a fastest modern Le Mans racer of all times. The top speed record is 405 km/h and was done at the 89 race if I remember right.At the same weekend the record was firstly brokened by Jean-Louis Schlesser with his Sauber C9. Also I have one video on my computer where C group racers go down the straights and in the same vid to one Jaguar the back parts will flew to the skies. Also I have talked to Schlesser and he has said that it was crazy to go down that straight as actually you couldnt see to much in those speeds and still you needed to control the car and stay focused.

Anyway yes even the whole track has changed totally during the years and many times but I must say that I like to the chicaned version more than for the old version.As 99 is my favourite Le Mans year maybe that track version is the one I like the most.

99 was a very good year. (Not for Toyota though).

Mulsanne's Corner for top speeds up to 1990:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/maxspeed.htm