The races section and the section right below it have been vandalized. ("This section was written by tom cruise")
Wow...that was a fast fix 66.31.245.240 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Jerry
Is there any source about the use of illegal fuel ( nitromethane) by Mercedes ? - Ericd 13:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The 1955 accident is described twice, once in "Accidents" and once under "History". Cut the "Accidents" section? Flapdragon 17:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When I wrote split I mean "into several articles", however I think the article hasn't matured enough today to do this. As the 1955 accident was by far the worst accindent in racing history, I think it's important to keep something outside the history section. Basically I think two events happened in Le Mans that belongs to "general history" as opposed to "Sport history", "Auto racing history" or "24 hours of Le Mans history" : the 1955 accident and Jacky Ickx demonstration. Well that's only my opinion. However this article is need of a lot improvement, the Accidents section is mainly dealing with the 1955 accident. As I wrote this I have the idea that a lot of things could be packed together in a "safety" section. You also notice some contradictions... Well all the article has to be verified for accuracy and NPOV. There's a lot of of urban myths and legend about Le Mans. I have changed my mind several times about my own contributions as I discovered new sources. Ericd 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article has a a few problems that need some attention, notably:
210.49.61.125 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
What's with all this "please copyedit" stuff in recent edit summaries? Surely not just a request for someone else to do the spadework because the editor making changes can't be bothered?! Can I suggest it's not exactly good practice to knowingly add badly badly garbled and misspelt text and just hope all the errors get picked up. It's not asking much for people to read through and spell-check their own edits, rather than expecting someone else to do the job of sorting it all out. This article is in bad enough need of cleanup already. Flapdragon 17:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what's a good practice ? As of today I am the main contributor in this article (which is too large and needing cleanup I admit, but well better something than nothing IMO). I've noted in other article a lot of well writing contributions that have a very week relationship with truth. I've try to expand this article with factualy correct contributions. I'm not a native English speaker and it requires considerable efforts from myself to write well spelled English with style. I can write French with good style and very few spelling errors but I've definetly made the choice to contribute in the English-speaking Wikipedia, because I think it's more universal. What's the sense of collaborative work if the strength of one can not correct the weakness of the other ? If you think it's disrepectful exepecting others to do the job I know I can't do well, I think I'd better go elsewhere.... Ericd 19:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Why not use a word-processor to create the text you plan to add and get it ready before you upload it ? Simply because it's not my kind of work especially on that kind of subject I process by rough notes about what I believe importatnt and then try to turn that mess into something that has some coherence. Have you ever spent two weeks writing a two page article just to notice that your work was already done by another contributor ? A very frustrating experience. Ericd 21:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not meant to be an editing tool. Apart from anything else, by making continual tiny changes in "stream of consciousness" mode, you end up hogging the article when someone else is trying to edit, and their edits, unconnected with what you were in the middle of doing, will be interspersed with yours, making it much harder to follow the progress of what's happened, revert vandalism or whatever. Just take a look at what a mess it makes of the History pages if you continually save without even looking at what you've written. Of course no-one would spend two weeks writing text without even checking that someone else isn't doing the same work, that's ridiculous, but there's nothing at all to stop you spending two minutes writing at least a single coherent paragraph and checking it for errors before uploading it. That's the place for turning your rough notes into serviceable text. Anyway, however often you save, there's still nothing to stop someone else making the change you were going to make, or one that contradicts it, at any moment. That's just the way it goes. Flapdragon 22:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The graph illustrating the number of wins per team is interesting but its also misleading in the sense that one might construe that all teams have entered all races. If a parallel set of bars could be added to the graph denoting the number of races entered per team that would put it in perspective. I.e. Mercedes have had relatively few wins but of course they dropped out for quite a while.-- Hooperbloob 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
while it's odd enough that you consider miles' having actually won two races and finishing first in the third (but not winning only because he was ordered to back off) to be "speculation" regarding his winning all three if he had not backed off, it's your belief that the previous version was in English that I find really stunning. (^_^) Gzuckier 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ive removed the bargraph of winners that was on the page because it was innacuratly stating the number of wins by some manafacturers, and ommissing some manafacturers completly. The Image can still be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Le_Mans.gif if reasons are found to justify its inclusion LuNatic 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that this section be split out into a seperate article and then refer to it here via a "Main article" or "See also" link. I'm not sure of the proper naming convention for the new article, so I based it on this article, but maybe the video gamers use a different convention? -- Brian G 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've split the section into its own article. JustinH 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if "Grand Prix of Endurance" should be used in the intro, at least as an alternative extension or historical synonym, as it is in the individual race pages (eg
1923 24 Hours of Le Mans). I've seen this phrase referred to elsewhere as a former name, but have yet to identify any distinct date of cessation. FWIW, I did run across a listing for a poster for the 1924 race
[1] that bills it as "[Sur le circuit permanent de la Sarthe, le] 2ème Grand Prix d'Endurance de 24 Heures" (with no use of "Le Mans"), which I suppose could translate as "[on the permanent circuit of Sarthe, the] 2nd Grand Prix of 24 Hour Endurance", but I don't know if that sort of thing borders on original research. At the very least, there should be consistency between the nomenclature of
24 Hours of Le Mans and the subordinate articles on individual races.
ENeville 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Belatedly, I see that the
French page has a copy of a poster for the first race.
ENeville 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the official site for the race, they use two names for it: "24 Heures du Mans" and "Le Mans 24 Hours". They don't (to their infinite credit) use the klunky "24 hours of Le Mans" transliteration. This article should follow their example. Also the text "Commonly known as the Grand Prix of Endurance" is clearly incorrect - I've never heard anyone call it that! Mike Moreton ( talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The track map doesn't include the most recent changes between the Dunlop chicane and the Tertre Rouge esses. There's a map at the old Motor Racing Circuits database (which now resides on a new server since the old owners abandoned the original site):
Would have to be modified (shrunk and turned 90 degrees) to fit on the current page tho. John DiFool2 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
For instance it's a WM not a WP that broke the 400 km/h barreer and it was during the race not during practice.... Ericd 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I can find other errors, but I have no time to list them yet. I don't understand why a rewrite introduce wrong information when the good information was in the previous version. Ericd 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is error and innacuracy in the article. And why did you made an an history structured by decades ? Why did you rewrite the article without consideration for the information that was in the previous versions and such a lack of respect for previous editors. What's foolish ? Yes I had enough time to make some edits and verify the hour of the start this year but I have no time and desire to rewrite it... What else ? The MS-650 photo was in the category 24 Hours of Le Mans on Commons. Well I think you acted in good faith, but it's rather weak reguarding information accuracy, anyone who has some knowledge about the Matra prototypes knows this is a road going version. Ericd 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's go : "early competitors cars were street cars with their bodywork removed". Look at the Bentley. Early competitors had to be street legal (unlike GP cars) . Most cars were cabriolets or torpedos. The regulations required the car to run a number of laps with the folding top up.
Most competitors had noticed than reducing the front surface will bring better performance. Look at the small windshield of the Bentley. Aerodynamics was known since the beginning of the 20th century, even if it was at pre-scientific stage. Look at La Jamais Contente or seek for pictures of the Serpollet Oeuf de Pâques.
To be continued... Ericd 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Going on : "two scoring the only victories for a privateer" Well no... The Wyer GT-40s were arguably private cars with very low support from FoCoMo. The last victory for Ferrari was a NART entered 250LM.
1979, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1996 and 1997 races were also won by a privateer.
Ericd 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Going on : "Pierre Levegh crashed into the crowd of spectators". It's a complex matter. He crashed for sure, but not in the crowd. Most people were killed by the blast or the engine that was projected in the crowd. Ericd 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So where are these errors? The359 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Early cars had bodywork, as in the kind of bodywork you'd see on a road going car of that era.
"I nowhere claimed to be an expert on the Matra-Simcas, so I think it is inane to harp on about including a picture of a car which as far as I knew was similar to one of the winners as an example from that era that was NOT another Porsche. If you assume good faith, then leave it at that." Well no, the car was blue like the winning cars, nothing else. Good faith isn't enougth. Collaborative work is summing up knowledge. Ericd 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The history section was put into eras, mostly based on the types of winners at the time. It'd be foolish to have one single long history section without some division. Pre-War races, Post-War races until the change from street-based cars in 1970, the Group 6 era, the Porsche 956/962/Group C era, the GT era, and the modern era. Makes sense to me?
Makes sense to you... There was no change "from street-based cars in 1970" Ericd 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that the Wyer GT-40 that won in 1969 was a street based car ? Ericd 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole thing is, really, making no sense whatsoever now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my choice to divide up the history into certain periods that make some logical sense. Therefore your stance that the article is "full of errors" is wrong, since you've only really pointed out a mistaken picture and the race's starting time accidentally being left out. If you have anything to actually add to the article to help it, please add it. Debating what the GT40 is is rather useless, since its quite clear that the Porsche 917 was completely different and clearly the mark of a whole new era. The359 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Most historians will consider 1968 as the start of new era as it was the first year were engines were limited. Ericd 07:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The 24hrs of Le Mans seems to have been forgotten almost, compared to Formula 1 and NASCAR. It needs expanding much more, with many more pages. There ought to be one explaining each of the four classes, LMP1, LMP2, LMGT1, LMGT2. It also needs to be a lot easier to navigate from the main page to the sub-pages.
How many starts has Terada had, through 2006? Trekphiler 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Would there be any objection if I added a short chapter on the culture and tradition of fans attending the race - this seems to be lacking in the main body of the article and I think is an intrinsic part of the race's DNA. Thoughts please? Warburton62 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Le Mans 1955 crashed car remains.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought someone might be interested in this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=k&q=http:%2F%2Ftools.wikimedia.de%2F~para%2FGeoCommons%2FGeoCommons-simple.kml&ie=UTF8&ll=47.956615,0.216014&spn=0.003075,0.006909&z=17 IchiroMihara ( talk) 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There's discussion on here that may be of interest, in connection with endurance racing. Comment is welcomed. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any information about a series that the 24 hours of Le Mans might belong to. Is there a European version of the ALMS that incorporates the 24 Hours of Le Mans into its schedule, or is Le Mans independent of any series? 209.244.7.241 ( talk) 15:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This probably seems really obvious but when does the race end? It's called 24 hours of Le Mans so presumably it goes on for 24 hours, but does the race stop after 24 hours and whoever's gone the furthest wins? Or do they go a number of laps that should equate to roughly 24 hours? If that's what they do has the circuit/number of laps changed to accommodate (presumably) improved times? 86.8.176.85 ( talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This article states:
"...some Le Mans drivers like Pierre Levegh and Eddie Hall attempted to run the race themselves, hoping to save time by not having to change drivers, although this was later banned after such practices were implicated in the 1955 Le Mans disaster."
The article for the 1955 disaster states that the accident occurred "after just over two hours of racing," and makes no mention of driver fatigue.
If the accident happened so early in the race, how was the lack of shared driving implicated? Is there a reference to justify this statement?
MarkC77 ( talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
For an article of this length, the list of references is woefully short, and there seem to be very few inline references (with many sections containing none at all). Therefore, I am tagging the article as unreferenced - feel free to remove the tag once the situation improves enough to warrant it. Jedikaiti ( talk) 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added to the introduction, per a lead too short tag. The lead was formerly only two sentences long and did not effectively cover the topic. What I added may seem obvious by motorsports standards, but it is important that the introduction provide an overview accessible to the general Wikipedia audience. To further emphasize this point, if necessary, it is worth noting that this topic may be that which those unfamiliar with motorsports identify as defining endurance racing, and visit without any background in the discipline, quite possibly coming to after only reading about a certain car or seeing a few minutes of coverage on television. ENeville ( talk) 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: I used the terms "drivers' champion" and "constructors' champion" as those are they that appear in the infobox. If use of those terms is disputed, it may be best to change them there, too. ENeville ( talk) 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The races section and the section right below it have been vandalized. ("This section was written by tom cruise")
Wow...that was a fast fix 66.31.245.240 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Jerry
Is there any source about the use of illegal fuel ( nitromethane) by Mercedes ? - Ericd 13:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The 1955 accident is described twice, once in "Accidents" and once under "History". Cut the "Accidents" section? Flapdragon 17:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When I wrote split I mean "into several articles", however I think the article hasn't matured enough today to do this. As the 1955 accident was by far the worst accindent in racing history, I think it's important to keep something outside the history section. Basically I think two events happened in Le Mans that belongs to "general history" as opposed to "Sport history", "Auto racing history" or "24 hours of Le Mans history" : the 1955 accident and Jacky Ickx demonstration. Well that's only my opinion. However this article is need of a lot improvement, the Accidents section is mainly dealing with the 1955 accident. As I wrote this I have the idea that a lot of things could be packed together in a "safety" section. You also notice some contradictions... Well all the article has to be verified for accuracy and NPOV. There's a lot of of urban myths and legend about Le Mans. I have changed my mind several times about my own contributions as I discovered new sources. Ericd 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article has a a few problems that need some attention, notably:
210.49.61.125 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
What's with all this "please copyedit" stuff in recent edit summaries? Surely not just a request for someone else to do the spadework because the editor making changes can't be bothered?! Can I suggest it's not exactly good practice to knowingly add badly badly garbled and misspelt text and just hope all the errors get picked up. It's not asking much for people to read through and spell-check their own edits, rather than expecting someone else to do the job of sorting it all out. This article is in bad enough need of cleanup already. Flapdragon 17:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what's a good practice ? As of today I am the main contributor in this article (which is too large and needing cleanup I admit, but well better something than nothing IMO). I've noted in other article a lot of well writing contributions that have a very week relationship with truth. I've try to expand this article with factualy correct contributions. I'm not a native English speaker and it requires considerable efforts from myself to write well spelled English with style. I can write French with good style and very few spelling errors but I've definetly made the choice to contribute in the English-speaking Wikipedia, because I think it's more universal. What's the sense of collaborative work if the strength of one can not correct the weakness of the other ? If you think it's disrepectful exepecting others to do the job I know I can't do well, I think I'd better go elsewhere.... Ericd 19:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Why not use a word-processor to create the text you plan to add and get it ready before you upload it ? Simply because it's not my kind of work especially on that kind of subject I process by rough notes about what I believe importatnt and then try to turn that mess into something that has some coherence. Have you ever spent two weeks writing a two page article just to notice that your work was already done by another contributor ? A very frustrating experience. Ericd 21:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not meant to be an editing tool. Apart from anything else, by making continual tiny changes in "stream of consciousness" mode, you end up hogging the article when someone else is trying to edit, and their edits, unconnected with what you were in the middle of doing, will be interspersed with yours, making it much harder to follow the progress of what's happened, revert vandalism or whatever. Just take a look at what a mess it makes of the History pages if you continually save without even looking at what you've written. Of course no-one would spend two weeks writing text without even checking that someone else isn't doing the same work, that's ridiculous, but there's nothing at all to stop you spending two minutes writing at least a single coherent paragraph and checking it for errors before uploading it. That's the place for turning your rough notes into serviceable text. Anyway, however often you save, there's still nothing to stop someone else making the change you were going to make, or one that contradicts it, at any moment. That's just the way it goes. Flapdragon 22:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The graph illustrating the number of wins per team is interesting but its also misleading in the sense that one might construe that all teams have entered all races. If a parallel set of bars could be added to the graph denoting the number of races entered per team that would put it in perspective. I.e. Mercedes have had relatively few wins but of course they dropped out for quite a while.-- Hooperbloob 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
while it's odd enough that you consider miles' having actually won two races and finishing first in the third (but not winning only because he was ordered to back off) to be "speculation" regarding his winning all three if he had not backed off, it's your belief that the previous version was in English that I find really stunning. (^_^) Gzuckier 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ive removed the bargraph of winners that was on the page because it was innacuratly stating the number of wins by some manafacturers, and ommissing some manafacturers completly. The Image can still be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Le_Mans.gif if reasons are found to justify its inclusion LuNatic 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that this section be split out into a seperate article and then refer to it here via a "Main article" or "See also" link. I'm not sure of the proper naming convention for the new article, so I based it on this article, but maybe the video gamers use a different convention? -- Brian G 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've split the section into its own article. JustinH 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if "Grand Prix of Endurance" should be used in the intro, at least as an alternative extension or historical synonym, as it is in the individual race pages (eg
1923 24 Hours of Le Mans). I've seen this phrase referred to elsewhere as a former name, but have yet to identify any distinct date of cessation. FWIW, I did run across a listing for a poster for the 1924 race
[1] that bills it as "[Sur le circuit permanent de la Sarthe, le] 2ème Grand Prix d'Endurance de 24 Heures" (with no use of "Le Mans"), which I suppose could translate as "[on the permanent circuit of Sarthe, the] 2nd Grand Prix of 24 Hour Endurance", but I don't know if that sort of thing borders on original research. At the very least, there should be consistency between the nomenclature of
24 Hours of Le Mans and the subordinate articles on individual races.
ENeville 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Belatedly, I see that the
French page has a copy of a poster for the first race.
ENeville 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the official site for the race, they use two names for it: "24 Heures du Mans" and "Le Mans 24 Hours". They don't (to their infinite credit) use the klunky "24 hours of Le Mans" transliteration. This article should follow their example. Also the text "Commonly known as the Grand Prix of Endurance" is clearly incorrect - I've never heard anyone call it that! Mike Moreton ( talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The track map doesn't include the most recent changes between the Dunlop chicane and the Tertre Rouge esses. There's a map at the old Motor Racing Circuits database (which now resides on a new server since the old owners abandoned the original site):
Would have to be modified (shrunk and turned 90 degrees) to fit on the current page tho. John DiFool2 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
For instance it's a WM not a WP that broke the 400 km/h barreer and it was during the race not during practice.... Ericd 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I can find other errors, but I have no time to list them yet. I don't understand why a rewrite introduce wrong information when the good information was in the previous version. Ericd 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is error and innacuracy in the article. And why did you made an an history structured by decades ? Why did you rewrite the article without consideration for the information that was in the previous versions and such a lack of respect for previous editors. What's foolish ? Yes I had enough time to make some edits and verify the hour of the start this year but I have no time and desire to rewrite it... What else ? The MS-650 photo was in the category 24 Hours of Le Mans on Commons. Well I think you acted in good faith, but it's rather weak reguarding information accuracy, anyone who has some knowledge about the Matra prototypes knows this is a road going version. Ericd 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's go : "early competitors cars were street cars with their bodywork removed". Look at the Bentley. Early competitors had to be street legal (unlike GP cars) . Most cars were cabriolets or torpedos. The regulations required the car to run a number of laps with the folding top up.
Most competitors had noticed than reducing the front surface will bring better performance. Look at the small windshield of the Bentley. Aerodynamics was known since the beginning of the 20th century, even if it was at pre-scientific stage. Look at La Jamais Contente or seek for pictures of the Serpollet Oeuf de Pâques.
To be continued... Ericd 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Going on : "two scoring the only victories for a privateer" Well no... The Wyer GT-40s were arguably private cars with very low support from FoCoMo. The last victory for Ferrari was a NART entered 250LM.
1979, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1996 and 1997 races were also won by a privateer.
Ericd 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Going on : "Pierre Levegh crashed into the crowd of spectators". It's a complex matter. He crashed for sure, but not in the crowd. Most people were killed by the blast or the engine that was projected in the crowd. Ericd 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So where are these errors? The359 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Early cars had bodywork, as in the kind of bodywork you'd see on a road going car of that era.
"I nowhere claimed to be an expert on the Matra-Simcas, so I think it is inane to harp on about including a picture of a car which as far as I knew was similar to one of the winners as an example from that era that was NOT another Porsche. If you assume good faith, then leave it at that." Well no, the car was blue like the winning cars, nothing else. Good faith isn't enougth. Collaborative work is summing up knowledge. Ericd 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The history section was put into eras, mostly based on the types of winners at the time. It'd be foolish to have one single long history section without some division. Pre-War races, Post-War races until the change from street-based cars in 1970, the Group 6 era, the Porsche 956/962/Group C era, the GT era, and the modern era. Makes sense to me?
Makes sense to you... There was no change "from street-based cars in 1970" Ericd 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that the Wyer GT-40 that won in 1969 was a street based car ? Ericd 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole thing is, really, making no sense whatsoever now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my choice to divide up the history into certain periods that make some logical sense. Therefore your stance that the article is "full of errors" is wrong, since you've only really pointed out a mistaken picture and the race's starting time accidentally being left out. If you have anything to actually add to the article to help it, please add it. Debating what the GT40 is is rather useless, since its quite clear that the Porsche 917 was completely different and clearly the mark of a whole new era. The359 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Most historians will consider 1968 as the start of new era as it was the first year were engines were limited. Ericd 07:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The 24hrs of Le Mans seems to have been forgotten almost, compared to Formula 1 and NASCAR. It needs expanding much more, with many more pages. There ought to be one explaining each of the four classes, LMP1, LMP2, LMGT1, LMGT2. It also needs to be a lot easier to navigate from the main page to the sub-pages.
How many starts has Terada had, through 2006? Trekphiler 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Would there be any objection if I added a short chapter on the culture and tradition of fans attending the race - this seems to be lacking in the main body of the article and I think is an intrinsic part of the race's DNA. Thoughts please? Warburton62 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Le Mans 1955 crashed car remains.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought someone might be interested in this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=k&q=http:%2F%2Ftools.wikimedia.de%2F~para%2FGeoCommons%2FGeoCommons-simple.kml&ie=UTF8&ll=47.956615,0.216014&spn=0.003075,0.006909&z=17 IchiroMihara ( talk) 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There's discussion on here that may be of interest, in connection with endurance racing. Comment is welcomed. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any information about a series that the 24 hours of Le Mans might belong to. Is there a European version of the ALMS that incorporates the 24 Hours of Le Mans into its schedule, or is Le Mans independent of any series? 209.244.7.241 ( talk) 15:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This probably seems really obvious but when does the race end? It's called 24 hours of Le Mans so presumably it goes on for 24 hours, but does the race stop after 24 hours and whoever's gone the furthest wins? Or do they go a number of laps that should equate to roughly 24 hours? If that's what they do has the circuit/number of laps changed to accommodate (presumably) improved times? 86.8.176.85 ( talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This article states:
"...some Le Mans drivers like Pierre Levegh and Eddie Hall attempted to run the race themselves, hoping to save time by not having to change drivers, although this was later banned after such practices were implicated in the 1955 Le Mans disaster."
The article for the 1955 disaster states that the accident occurred "after just over two hours of racing," and makes no mention of driver fatigue.
If the accident happened so early in the race, how was the lack of shared driving implicated? Is there a reference to justify this statement?
MarkC77 ( talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
For an article of this length, the list of references is woefully short, and there seem to be very few inline references (with many sections containing none at all). Therefore, I am tagging the article as unreferenced - feel free to remove the tag once the situation improves enough to warrant it. Jedikaiti ( talk) 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added to the introduction, per a lead too short tag. The lead was formerly only two sentences long and did not effectively cover the topic. What I added may seem obvious by motorsports standards, but it is important that the introduction provide an overview accessible to the general Wikipedia audience. To further emphasize this point, if necessary, it is worth noting that this topic may be that which those unfamiliar with motorsports identify as defining endurance racing, and visit without any background in the discipline, quite possibly coming to after only reading about a certain car or seeing a few minutes of coverage on television. ENeville ( talk) 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: I used the terms "drivers' champion" and "constructors' champion" as those are they that appear in the infobox. If use of those terms is disputed, it may be best to change them there, too. ENeville ( talk) 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)