# Talk:2017 24 Hours of Le Mans

This (currently very short) article mentions it will be the 85th running three times. Is this really necessary? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

G-Drive's two car entry will be run by two different teams, the 22 will be the car from the ELMS run by Dragonspeed and the 26 the WEC car run by TDS. I am therefore wondering what the consensus is on splitting one team into two in order to highlight the fact that they are separate entities run under the same banner? Wesutf1 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the entry list currently makes inappropriate use of colors. WP:COLOR clearly explains that we should not use colors as a means to convey information, simply because not everyone can see them. But even for a visually unimpaired person like myself it makes the table much more difficult to read. This should be addressed.Tvx1 18:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The ALM and WEC colours are too similar. They might be separate in the entry lists, but if you intend to incorporate then into the results tables, you potentially run into a problem, especially if you want them to be immediately recogniseable at a glance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
They are not kept for the results table.  I personally was never a fan of their use in the first place and feel that people arbitrarily assign colors to teams that don't qualify as full-season entries. The359 (Talk) 14:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Q:  What happened to the 2017 Garage 56 entry?  
Were there entries that were not accepted?  Why not?  
Is the ACO no longer doing the Garage 56 / New Technology entry thing?  
Dpep (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to specifically identify provisional pole positions in each class? Surely only the leading overall qualifiers in each class is all the matters? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not? The359 (Talk) 16:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Because they are utterly superfluous. In the example of the Canadian GP, it is even more egregious, since Q1 and Q2 times are erased for Q3 contenders. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Because it offers people examples of how cars performed under different conditions.  If I mentioned the fastest lap time of the Wednesday practice session, which I plan to do, would it be superfluous? The359 (Talk) 23:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The intro makes great play of the fact that this was the first time an LMP2 car led the race. I've toned this down a bit, but I am still slightly concerned that there is undue weight given by including this fact in the lede. After all, it isn't the first time (far from it) that a second- or third-class car has led the race. Indeed, famously, the 1979 24 Hours of Le Mans race was actually won by a Group 5 'special production' car with the fastest prototype (nominally a 'higher' class of car) finishing only fourth. This smells a little of recentism to me, but I'd be interested in others' opinions. Pyrope 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It is something better left in the race summary.  And the last time a car not from the top class won the race was 1998, with a GT car.  But it is the first time from the modern LMP rules introduced in 2001/2001 that a lower class car led. The359 (Talk) 23:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Precisely, although the 911 GT1 was arguably simply a better car than the privateer prototypes that year, whereas the works 936 should have had the legs of the 935 if it weren't for failures. Anyway... Pyrope 22:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)