[LM24] Worst sportscar ever to win Le Mans

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Must be that vile Rondeau !!!

Why was the Rondeau vile?

The car that won in 1980 was 5th fastest in practice, (its sister car driven by pesca was on pole) another Rondeau was 3rd. It was well driven, and had fewer problems than the 2nd place 936/908.80.

The 379 also finished in the top 5 the year before, a later model the 379C finished 2nd & 3rd in 82, even in 83 when the 956 steamroller started one still got up to 10th.

Far far from the worst car to ever win even if there is such a thing.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

John, I added your suggestions and took off the Jag as no one had voted for it.

Many thanks, Paul

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by jhansen

The winning car was something like 19th on the grid and won on the back of reliability and mileage.

How else is someone going to win, if not by being the most reliable and doing the most miles?

To finish first, one first has to finish!

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Nordic

Even the Dauer 962 had to overcome the might of Toyota to win, in some respects that makes it a great car.

That was the problem - it was the way it won. Given the rule requirements of the year it was an appalling sports car, but a fantastic out-and-out racing car.

[Hazza]

Well, I'm in a limbo, like people have said, "Le Mans corporate specials" really don't appeall to me, and, frankly the concept of the Dauer 962 appalls and excites me at the same time (Being a massive 956/962 fan)...so I'm in a bit of a twist...

Ahh, pfft, As Jim Richards said "It's not cheating if you get away with it", so that rules out the 962.

And Brabs didn't win for Bently, if he had, it would've been okay. (What was that about Biased views?)

[Pete Fenelon]

Originally Posted by Hazza

And Brabs didn't win for Bently, if he had, it would've been okay. (What was that about Biased views?)

Like you, I've always felt Brabs was one of the "good guys" and therefore whatever he drives is OK!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by jhansen

That's actually a very good observation MM. I was thinking about this the other day. The winning car was something like 19th on the grid and won on the back of reliability and mileage. The Saubers and Jags were the more complete cars and the Peugeots were on the rise.

I just don't follow that at all. Le Mans is about the car which covers the greatest distance in the 24 hours. As I recall, the winning Mazda in 91 covered a greater mileage thanm the winning Jag in 90........

[krt917]

I think that it's true to say that bad cars simply don't win Le Mans, but I guess you can judge it on how many cars were better/faster that fell away from a given event and allowed another car to win. Although I have issues with the Dauer Porsche I don't think it was a 'bad' car - the car itself wasn't the 'worst winner' at Le Mans.

Candidates for me include the 1952 300SL and 1975 Gulf Mirage mentioned above, but also the Lagonda that won in 1935. Again, it wasn't a bad car, but it shouldn't have beaten the Alfas. If the chasing Alfa had been given the right pit signals towards the end it quite possibly would have won.

I don't think that I'd count the '55 D-Type win as I think that it was as good, if not better than the 300SLR round Le Mans. Whether Hawthorn/Bueb would have been enough to see off the combination of Moss/Fangio is open to debate, of course, but the Jaguar would have been a factor.

Originally Posted by jhansen

That's actually a very good observation MM. I was thinking about this the other day. The winning car was something like 19th on the grid and won on the back of reliability and mileage. The Saubers and Jags were the more complete cars and the Peugeots were on the rise.

Don't agree with this. The C11s were faster and should have won, but behind them the Mazda was quick enough to see off the rest, including the Jaguars. The Peugeots were hopeless at Le Mans in 1991, though they did get better that year after they stole the XJR-14s aero package (just my opinio, not fact!). It is true that Mazda were helped by the rule/weight changes, but they had had some good Le Mans efforts before the win and the 787B was a pretty decent car.

[skycafe]

I don't know if I can buy into any of them. If you condem the Dauer as a rules trick, then you must also include the 917, which was built to what was meant to be a limited production GT class, and not a wicked prototype. The same can be said of the 935 Moby Dick, which while itself didn't win, helped spawn the Kremer 935 that did in '79 (the Kremer car being in ways more 'sedate' then the 935/78).

The NART Ferrari 250LM that won in 1965 started about as far back as the Mazda, didn't it?

I think if you win, you chose the correct weapon for the task. You had a team that worked, a car that worked, a driver combo that worked, and you had luck. What proportions those apply may vary.

robert

btw, I am such a sarcastic SOB that it has taken all the restraint in the world to avoid starting a thread about the car you were most ambivilent about that performed well, or some such.

[AllonFS]

I'm in the 'If it won it's not a bad car camp'. The almost unprecedented combination of reliability and metronomic speed of the R8s has changed the character of Le Mans somewhat. In previous years; luck, driver skill, reliability and outright speed had a more equal effect on the outcome. Some great drivers and cars won deservedly, some should have done but didn't. But the winner of Le Mans is quite simple, the car still running at the end that has covered the most distance. Therefore any car that wins deserves to do so.

Okay off my soap box. I'm going to be reallly controversial now, how about the GT40 of Ickx/Olivier in 1969? An old car, not the fastest and only won because the magnificent 917 of Elford stopped when laps in the lead and the 908 had problems when otherwise it would have won. Don't worry, I'm not reallly going bonkers, but it does show how any car can be described as good or bad depending on your view.

[krt917]

Funnily enough I thought of that, but I reckon that would be a different thread. The GT40 wasn't a 'bad' car, obviously, but in terms of winning races that the car shouldn't have, the '69 Le Mans win is right up there. Of course, it did have the advantage of being run by the best team in the business, and the drivers weren't too shabby either!

[Rich R]

even though it is one of my favourites, i would say the ferrari 375 plus shouldn't have beaten the d-types in 1954, but it did somehow if only by a minute or so. the fact the race was run in pouring rain should have played into the jags hands even more, with their monocoque chassis and disk brakes up against the ferrari's ladder chassis and drum brakes. the only advantage the ferrari had was a monstrous engine pushing it down the straights.

[Adam43]

I liked the Bentley, irrespective of its origin or what it actually was. It looked great! For similar reasons I liked the Toyota too - I never thought I'd want a Toyota to win Le Mans (alas it didn't)!

On the topic - every car that won deserved it. You can argue against a lot of them. The Mazda had a weight break. The Dauer a class break - although having it in the race made the race! etc. Some have won because others have failed. Or the rules changed. etc However they still won Le Mans! They are great cars.

[Rhino]

I voted for the Dauer, thought the Toyota deserved it that year especially as it had the name of Roland Ratzenberger on the side as he was signed to drive it.
Think the Bentley criticism is harsh, never was a rebadged Audi, the engine and money may be Audis, but the transmission was not the same and the car was developed and built in England.

[ADx_Wales]

the peugeot in 1992, because there was hardly any competition left in the WSC, thanks to the white haired gerbil of motorsport who has now gone on to destroy what was called formula one.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by ADx_Wales

.....thanks to the white haired gerbil of motorsport....

Now that has to be the best description I've heard in a long time.

Thanks.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Rich R

even though it is one of my favourites, i would say the ferrari 375 plus shouldn't have beaten the d-types in 1954, but it did somehow if only by a minute or so. the fact the race was run in pouring rain should have played into the jags hands even more, with their monocoque chassis and disk brakes up against the ferrari's ladder chassis and drum brakes. the only advantage the ferrari had was a monstrous engine pushing it down the straights.

An interesting call. The Jaguars were delayed for niggling reasons, and the quickest (Moss, of course) retired with brake problems. It didn't rain the whole time so that there were times when the Ferrari's power advantage enabled it to stretch to a 2 lap lead at one stage. It did have one other advantage, I feel - Froilan Gonzales, arguably a better driver than either Rolt or Hamilton and certainly inspired on that day.

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I liked the Bentley, irrespective of its origin or what it actually was. It looked great! For similar reasons I liked the Toyota too - I never thought I'd want a Toyota to win Le Mans (alas it didn't)!

On the topic - every car that won deserved it. You can argue against a lot of them. The Mazda had a weight break. The Dauer a class break - although having it in the race made the race! etc. Some have won because others have failed. Or the rules changed. etc However they still won Le Mans! They are great cars.

Agree with both paragraphs in their entirety, but this has been an interesting thread, nevertheless.

[Aysedasi]

A good thread indeed with many interesting and erudite contributions - hey, well done guys!

[krt917]

Originally Posted by John Turner

An interesting call. The Jaguars were delayed for niggling reasons, and the quickest (Moss, of course) retired with brake problems. It didn't rain the whole time so that there were times when the Ferrari's power advantage enabled it to stretch to a 2 lap lead at one stage. It did have one other advantage, I feel - Froilan Gonzales, arguably a better driver than either Rolt or Hamilton and certainly inspired on that day.

Interesting suggestion with the '54 Ferrari. The 375 win was certainly one of Gonzales's greatest moments. He was able to haul the big car around considerably quicker than Trintignant.

I've always been suprised by reports of the time, which said that the Ferrari's drums were pretty much as good as the Jag discs in '54. I believe that they were developed from the GP cars, and I suppose that the discs were newish on the D-Type (though C-type had used them to win in '53).

It certainly wasn't the best car to win Le Mans, but I don't think it was quite the worst either.

[mpd00tgl]

Non of them. Especially not the DAUER 962 either.

[Aysedasi]

Why especially?

I say especially so the Dauer.......

[cybersdorf]

Originally Posted by Rhino

I voted for the Dauer, thought the Toyota deserved it that year especially as it had the name of Roland Ratzenberger on the side as he was signed to drive it.

It broke my heart, too.

Think the Bentley criticism is harsh, never was a rebadged Audi, the engine and money may be Audis, but the transmission was not the same and the car was developed and built in England.

Isn't this the same excuse they use for every British car these days?

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by cybersdorf

Isn't this the same excuse they use for every British car these days?

An unnecessarily dismissive and insensitive thing to say. Rhino was merely stating a fact, not offering an 'excuse'. He doesn't need to. Many cars show national characteristics even when they may have components made in other countries. What about the Mercedes SLR; I believe there was a substantial input and development from a British based company, but it exudes German characteristics. So what nationality do you think Aston Martin is? Owned by Ford, with engines now being built in Germany, its Britishness is there for all to see, just as it was with the Bentley.

[ADx_Wales]

the thing is, is ANY car made entirely out of one nations parts and run by one nation these days?......the Bently romp was obviously Audi organised (maybe not as disguised R8s, but just look at the rear wings on them), the toyota "we're gonna win without winning" GT1s were chiefed by a Dane, and the Mercedes Group C effort was run by the Swiss conglomerate who in the past have been Ferrari's Gimp in F1.

if there has been one, your looking at the ferrari efforts of the early 70s am i right?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by John Turner

An unnecessarily dismissive and insensitive thing to say. Rhino was merely stating a fact, not offering an 'excuse'. He doesn't need to. Many cars show national characteristics even when they may have components made in other countries. What about the Mercedes SLR; I believe there was a substantial input and development from a British based company, but it exudes German characteristics. So what nationality do you think Aston Martin is? Owned by Ford, with engines now being built in Germany, its Britishness is there for all to see, just as it was with the Bentley.

Well said John, IMO.