Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion Page Archive[edit]

In order to improve the usefullness of the talk page, I have archived the previous talk page here [[1]]. I only archived material I felt was no longer in date. If you disagree with any of the changes, feel free to make changes of your own. DrMotley (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have added an actual archive, what you did was delete the content. --Falcadore (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speed Racer[edit]

Looking at Le Mans cars from the late 1960s, I’m surprised that this wasn’t mentioned as a major influence to the Speed Racer cartoon. (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aerodynamics and maximum speed on Mulsanne[edit]

The "1982–1993" section reads

In 1989 too a W.M.-Peugeot set up a new record speeding at 406 km/h (253 mph)

But the Innovations/Aerodynamics section does not seem to acknowledge this

During the 1988 race, the crew of a W.M. prototype taped over the engine openings and set a recorded speed of 404 km/h (251 mph) down the Mulsanne in a publicity stunt, although the car was almost undrivable elsewhere on the circuit and the engine was soon destroyed from a lack of cooling. However, for the 1989 event, the Mercedes-Benz C9 reached 399 km/h (248 mph) under qualifying conditions.

It seems to me that if Peugeot reached 406 km/h in 1989 under qualifying or race conditions then the Innovations/Aerodynamics section should reference this instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5910 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the back of mind mind both the Welter Peugeot and the Sauber C-9 were clocked at 405kph (+/- 3kph). But it was the Welter Peugeot that achieved the speed during the race while the Sauber Mercedes did during qualifying. So officially the speed record goes to Roger Dorchy (driver) and the Welter Racing WM-Peugeot. The Welter car was a very tiny car for reduced drag, it was not only very difficult to drive, but also the air intakes were partially taped over to improve aerodynamics and was retired early into the race with overheating problems. The Sauber Mercedes instead was a proper racecar competing for overall victory, but as it was turbocharged the drivers could increase the power output of the engine in qualifying to maximize speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the official ACO speed trap figures, published after the 1989 race, the C9 reached a maximum speed of 400 km/h in qualifying and 386 in the race. This was the last time the Mulsanne Straight was used in uninterrupted form. From 1990 onwards, two chicanes have been used. The ACO speed trap is the only one in use and all figures which come from it are the official ones. It has been operating and recording statistics since 1961. The ACO, which operates it, is also the managing authority of the 24 hour race. There are no "unofficial" speed traps so due discretion is encouraged when dealing with "claims from other sources". The Peugeot WM88 reached an official 405 km/h in 1988.[1] Flanker235 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "1989 Le Mans 24 Hours", Moity, Christian & Teissedre, Jean-Marc, Autotechnica, Marco, Derrick & Prowse Ltd, Colchester, 1989 P. 195

Index of thermal efficiency[edit]

This is not mentioned in the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then mention it. --Falcadore (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References & Sourcing...again.[edit]

I have added the template for lack of references to the article. For an article of it's size and content there needs to be more than 13 references. Most of the material here is unreferenced, and the referenced material tends to be of a trivial nature. I can see from above that this subject was broached last year, but this needs another look. DrMotley (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article mentions "TERS" without a link or explanation. Does anybody know what it is?     SkyLined (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thermal Energy Recovery System also known as Waste Heat Regeneration. In many ways a standard turbocharged engine could be considered as a TERS unit as it uses the hot high energy gases from the engine to produce power. Bjmullan (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tnx. I've created a few redirects and added a little details to help people find this info.     SkyLined (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I feel old[edit]

For the record, the Targa Florio was never run except as a rally. It was run on a closed course, but not as a circuit race, like Le Mans, with all cars starting at once. Krevlornswath of the Deathwok Clan I hate L.A. 02:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

huh... why are you talking about the Targa Florio on this talkpage? I can't follow you. Saschaporsche (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bexause of someone changing the first sentence of the article using it as justification. --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm sorry, but shouldn't the objective of the race, i.e. to get the maximum number of laps in 24 hours, be mentioned right at the top? After over half an hour of reading, I finally found this in the section "Classification". A bit long since that's all I wanted to know, don't you think?

Also, I don't think "Classification" is a good title for this section. The idea that being classified as a finisher is the main objective might be inferred by the reader, yet cannot be assumed. A title such as "Race Objective" would be more appropriate.

And more generally, the article seems not very well structured and slightly bloated. A bit too much like telling a story, to my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a motor race. THe objective is to win. Number of laps completed is secondary surely? --Falcadore (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. "Greater number of laps than the guy behind you" is a needless "clarification" & IMO a worthless add. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll find more than 1/2 the entrants enter the race with only the intention of finishing the full 24hrs. This is why you'll often see broken cars sitting in their garage with the door open for hours, only to limp around pathetically on the last few laps. It's not like NASCAR or FIA go-karts. Since Nürenburg stopped running sportscars, it's arguably (paris-dakar rally) the toughest race in the world and simply finishing it is a worthy acheivement.
For those at the top, the actual results are determined by distance, not being 1st or the number of laps. It doesn't normally matter, but there was an example in the 1960s where one car won, despite being just behind another because it started the race 24hrs before near the back of the field. I believe it was ruled as having travelled 20m further. I'm not going to bother finding a reference or amend this, as everything I've contributed to this article has been deleted. You're welcome to though, if you're interested. It was pretty funny how confused everyone was. 14:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
That came about because a team attempt to stage a tied finish and officials made an adjudication to get themselves out of the dilemma. It was exceptional circumstances and not any indication of policy of running a race differently from any other motor race. I don't believe you can build a case based on a one-off exception because one team was attempting to be clever. --Falcadore (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You undoubtedly have a better memory than I do, and if you can figure out what this means: (page 60, 84 1.1) then you're greater than me, sir. It specifically states 'greatest distance' and then technically but uselessly contradicts itself in later rules. And is that a remnant of this adjudication there with the grid position bit? :) I know barely enough french to figure out that the english translation is flat out wrong in some cases, and not brilliant in general, but anyone know the official french well?
Above all, it makes exactly no difference, now they have all that in, but the spirit of the race has always been about distance over time (as all endurance races are) and I find it more than a little dissapointing to see it described here like a sprint race. Meh. 01:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
"if you can figure out what this means" It means exactly what it says, & what's said above: the guy who wins covers the most distance in 24h. If you mean "ignoring grid position", that's because the guy starting 20th is farther from the starting line than the guy starting 2d, so the "distance covered" is line to line, not grid box to grid box. It's not contradicted, either, AFAICT. (Did you have a particular point you think does?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rule 84 2.1 Do try to keep up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The method of determining the classification (distance over time) does not alter the fact that it is a motor race with a declared victor and a set of classified results which rank teams against each other, and not the fact they have achieved or exceeded a number of laps they might have hoped to achieve. The most significant coverage will be that of a winner, and suplementary to that, the winners of each class, including that of the amateur classes you are championing. --Falcadore (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
♠"Rule 84 2.1." Still not a contradiction. The number of laps is about classification, not victory. Which is to say, the winner through 5th place, say, may complete the same number of laps, but the leader will have covered more distance when the flag drops (because he's in front, obviously). This does require a basic understanding of how endurance racing is timed & scored, of course, which evidently you're having trouble with.
♠"Do try to keep up." Since you only said "later in the rules", not "immediately after", you're not one to be criticizing, since I had no intention or need to read all the rest of the rules. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:36 & 04:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The objective of the race has shifted somewhat with the move from Le Mans starts to rolling starts. "Distance", as in physical distance, by the completion of the leader's lap during which 24 hours is up, was the old standard when all the cars started along the pit wall, and the distance could be accurately measured. Since the ban on Le Mans style starts, the winner is the first car to complete the leader's lap during which the 24 hours is up. This is the standard used by all endurance races nowadays.
Further, the claim that all endurance races are "distance over time" is a misnomer, as the famous 1000 km races are "time over distance". The359 (Talk) 08:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At six paragraphs the introduction before the table of contents is too long. It should be more brief and it may hinder readers' interest and understanding of the topic, as it did for me. Can some capable people trim and enhance the article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberdyneT850Model101 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons categories needing cleanup[edit]

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to mention this problem, but Commons:Category:24 Hours of Le Mans by year needs some attention. Its subcategories (especially the ones of races in the 20th century) contain many files showing objects that don't match with the (Le Mans race) categories they are categorized in. For example the files are showing Le Mans racecars which are not racing in the specific Le Mans races (maybe racing in another race, for exampe this Ferrari Dino 166P that is racing at 1000 km Nürburgring), but due to the categorization it appears as if they do so. This categorization system is causing following problems:

  • To be consequent you would have to add files of racecars to categories of all races in that these cars have ever participated (Why only 24 Hours of Le Mans?). Then the number of categories in that one file is categorized in would dramatically increase.
  • Categories of specific races lose their sense if files are included that have no relation to the topic of the category. So you will not know which files really show scenes of the specific race.

In addition you will also find files showing objects that lack any relation to 24 Hours of Le Mans races. For example they are showing cars that look somehow similar to cars that have participated in the specific Le Mans races, but they have obviously never done it themselves (for exampe this Renault 4CV).

In my opinion Commons:Category:24 Hours of Le Mans by year would be more scientific and make searches for files easier if they contain only files that match with the topics of these categories. Do you see the point and is anybody ready to clean up? -- (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename section: "Since 2006" to "2006-2013"[edit]

I would like to suggest renaming the section "Since 2006" to "2006-2013". Not right now, but probably upon the conclusion of the 2013 or 2014 race.

With major regulation changes expected for 2014, I feel it may be a good point in time to create a new section, with "Since 2014"

Gojet-64 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expected? Sounds like speculation to me. Confirm that there will be first. --Falcadore (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are expected and already somewhat announced. Plans for rule changes in 2014 have been known since about 2011. I don't have a source off hand but it's something fairly well known. Required hybrid systems for factory teams, possible elimination of privateers in LMP1, various other things. Audi is already developing an entirely new 2014 car and Porsche is entering at the same time as well due to the known rule changes. The359 (Talk) 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the major regulation changes include:

  • All cars must be closed-cockpit
  • Significantly higher engine freedom
  • Changes regarding hybrid systems and fuel use

Sources: [2] [3] Gojet-64 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done.--Vulphere 14:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone please remove the link to the Danish soccer player Allan Simonsen - it is not he who died in the 2013 accident. /Mads — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of race[edit]

Is it really commonly known as the "Grand Prix of Endurance and Efficiency"? It may have been called such at certain points, it may be commonly known as this in French or some other language, I don't know, but I don't think that is has been called anything commonly in English but the "24 Hours of Le Mans" for the duration of my memory, which is five decades or so. (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should be renamed "24 heures du Mans"[edit]

Because this is its original name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME. The359 (Talk) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move to 'Le Mans 24 Hours'[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24 Hours of Le MansLe Mans 24 Hours – Because of WP:COMMONNAME, Petecarney (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archived discussion here

Compare the two options at Googlefight Petecarney (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6.7 million Google results to 5.0 million Google results is hardly a clear cut case of WP:COMMONNAME. In fact it goes to show that both names are almost equally common, making the move frivolous. Going to need something more to convince that it is necessary to rename this article, as well as all the other articles related to it. The359 (Talk) 16:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have followed the race for over 50 years and I have never heard it referred to by the title of the requested move. The current title, while not a literal translation of the French, is closer to it then the new one. thus I would Oppose the requested move. BTW a move of this article would lead to a need to move all of the articles for the individual years races. That is another reason I wouldn't support the move. It might be advisable to inform the Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport of this discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very strange. The results on Googlefight showed a win for "24 Hours of Le Mans" a while ago. Then 10 minutes later it was back to a 5x majority for "Le Mans 24 Hours". WP:COMMONNAME reccommends Google Books as a starting point. This again shows an overwhelming majority for "Le Mans 24 Hours" but the numbers do fluctuate strangely. One minute the ratio is 21,200,000 to 1,660,000 (12.8 to 1), a few minutes later it is 32,900 to 6,260 (5.25 to 1). Petecarney (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Given that the COMMONNAME argument seems to be based on flawed evidence, we should take into account that the official websites all describe it as the "24 Hours of Le Mans". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Can you explain to me what the purpose of a strong oppose is? Opposition is opposition. --Falcadore (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - In addition to Luke's note, the overwhelmingly common name in English is "24 Hours of Le Mans" - "Le Mans 24 Hours" is something I have never encountered "in the wild" outside of badly/literally translated French. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I've occasionally heard American TV commentators call it "Le Mans 24 Hours", but nothing like often enough to qualify as "common". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose not the traditional form -- (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose not convincingly the Commonname. A simple redirect solves any searching issues and there is an WP:Educational component in having the correct name. It's not substationally different. --Falcadore (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gentlemen, I'm astonished by the apparent complete disregard for the principles on which Wikipedia is based - verifiable facts. WP:COMMONNAME indicates how the facts in this matter should be ascertained and that shows 'Le Mans 24 Hours' to be at least 5 times more prevalent than the present name of this article. I think there may be a tendency for some to see the French title '24 heures du Mans' and unconsciously read it as '24 hours of Le Mans'. Checking the facts shows up the error. Excluding dead links, all except one of the references to the article which refer directly to the race, use 'Le Mans 24 Hours' (with or without a final 's') in preference to the current title of this article. References 1,4,6,12,15,16,17,18 have 'Le Mans 24 Hour(s)'. Reference 20 has 'the 24hr Le Mans race'. Reference 7 (referenced 5 times) Uses both forms of the name with 'Le Mans 24 Hours' the most common by a ratio of 2 to 1. The English language version of the ACO official site has 'LE MANS 24 HOURS' in pole position on the first of the four rotating banners at the top of the page. It is demonstrably true that 'Le Mans 24 Hours' is both the official usage and the overwhelmingly common name in English. So let's adhere to the principles of Wikipedia - that verifiable facts overrule personal opinions and fallible memories. Petecarney (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Your COMMONNAME fact is flawed. That's been pointed out to you by a few people. In a quick Google search now, there's just 3 million GHITS between the two; way below the threshold of where COMMONNAME is coming into play. The very page you link to there,, has "24 Hours of Le Mans" in the title of the page. The official Twitter feed says 24 Hours of Le Mans. The FIA use both terms. What is actually happening is very simple; the two terms are interchangeable. However, 24 Hours of Le Mans has been a long-standing, previously uncontroversial name, and as there is no convincing evidence that COMMONNAME supports one or the other, then we shouldn't be moving the page. Particularly as "Le Mans 24 Hours" is an incorrect translation of the French. It's also standard procedure to use X Hours of Trackname, so we'd create inconsistencies there as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, I see no evidence of this "five times" figure. You specifically linked to Google Fight, which does not show the facts you claim. Even without using the Google Fight nonsense, I entered the terms myself into Google and was returned 5.4 million results for "Le Mans 24 Hour" and 2.2 million results for "24 Hours of Le Mans". I'd also point out that the results may be skewed due to the fact that there are actually several races held at Le Mans for 24 Hours (motorcycles, truck racing, karting, etc.) Further, now you want to discuss the "official name" while going on about "common name". Which is it?
Both names are common. Swapping between the two is completely frivilous and does not, in any way, improve the article or the ability for people to find it. The359 (Talk) 19:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Throughout the US coverage of the 2013 race, the SpeedTV graphics and broadcasters consistently referred to the event as the "24 Hours of Le Mans". Or occasionally as "the 90th anniversary of the inaugural 24 Hours of Le Mans". Far less frequently in conversation it was mentioned as "the 24 Hour", "the Le Mans 24 Hour race" and other such variations. But with all the formal titles, graphics and stingers for the event on SpeedTV, and the official event website, referring to it as the "24 Hours of Le Mans", this article should stick with that name. We have an official and widely used way to title the event, and a second, also common way to refer to it. Given that either form is widely used, but one is official, that is the title we should go with. Dworjan (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Footnote: this seems to be a British v US thing. With a 'Googlefight' weighted using Brit or US keywords, 'Le Mans 24 Hours' shows up as approx one-third of the British results (and - more tellingly - in around 80% of references in mainstream media such as The Times and the Daily Telegraph), but a barely believable 0.0001% of US results.
So the article title should follow the British way, because we're nearer the race venue. Onanoff (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not how this works. The359 (Talk) 17:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]



(Sorry if I've formatted or added this incorrectly) This section states that the rules for drivers were changed in 1990 to the 14 hour max per driver with 4 hour max periods. The original "Le Mans" movie released in 1971 has a section prior to the start of the race that the announcer states rules changes that include the 14 hour max total time per driver, the max 4 hour period per driver, a mandatory 1 hour rest time for each driver between periods, and the requirement that the start of the race the drivers be in the vehicle with harnesses secured prior to engine start.


I removed the word "unique" from a section heading, because some of the things described in that section are not unique. I was reverted for no reason by a user who makes a habit of doing that. More surprisingly, I was then reverted three more times by people who apparently don't understand the meaning of the word unique. Some of the things in the section are indeed unique to Le Mans; others are not, as their edit summaries even acknowledged, so the word should obviously not be used in the section heading. Either that, or the things that are not unique to Le Mans must be removed. Which shall it be? (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the section, I can't clearly see what's being claimed to be unique. Perhaps the intended formulation is Traditions and unique rules? I'm going to change to that; if that's not what is intended, the wording of each paragraph needs to make clear whether that thing is "unique", "unusual", "first", or what. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aerodynamics: Neutrality[edit]

“Roger Dorchy to set a recorded speed of 405 km/h (252 mph) down the Mulsanne in a publicity stunt”

Whether this was publicity stunt or not is not relevant to the content of the page. Dorchy either set a record or he didn't. His motivations for doing it are largely irrelevant. Flanker235 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I can agree. Le Mans is about endurance, to completely reject that in order to pursue a populist record unrelated to the object of the race. If a marathon runner paused during a race and made an attempt on the 100m record during the race it would be noted upon by many within the media, as well as surely sabotaging that persons chances to win that marathon. --Falcadore (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is obviously an opinion and I don't think the "publicity stunt" is valid, especially when it's not referenced. Even then it would probably still be a matter of opinion. The page is about the race and some of the aspects of it. I was going to suggest deleting it but if someone can come up with a better way of expressing it, which is more neutral, it might be worthwhile. Flanker235 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Top speed achieved on a straight is frequently a matter of statistical record - a minor one to be sure - but still something that is referred to. What makes it difficult is that like Indianapolis and Bathurst, this is a case where the circuit is the race, and vice versa. Most logically that stat should be on the Circuit du Sarthe article but for the afore-mentioned reason is not out of place here. --Falcadore (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a problem with the top speed being mentioned. Indeed, that's very much a part of Le Mans history. I have a problem with the opinion expressed that it was a publicity stunt, especially when there's no supporting evidence. Flanker235 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling consistency[edit]

The current version mixes different varieties of English – for example, “The race is organized” and “specialised racing cars”. English is not an official or majority language in France. Accordingly, the MoS, which calls for consistency within an article, directs – Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety – that the article should “use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.” The oldest version of the article was not a stub and used “organizers.” Therefore, it seems to me that the article should be made consistent on AE spelling. JamesMLane t c 10:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]