Toyota was the best Hypercar race package. The #8 was strongest over the deeper race averages, while the #7 had the best short-run pace and excellent sector performance. Toyota’s strength came from consistency and cornering efficiency rather than straight-line speed.
Cadillac was still the main opposition, especially through the #12, but it did not convert its build-up advantage into race dominance. BMW #20 was also very strong and looked like a genuine front-group car over the race. Ferrari and Alpine were competitive but a step behind, Aston Martin and Genesis were further back, and Peugeot remained clearly off the leading Hypercar pace.
This is less a race report more a selection of interesting performance snippets.
Lap Times – Drivers – Sectors – Speed Trap – Tyre Used – Pit Stops
Lap Times
Toyota was the strongest race package. The #8 Toyota led the deeper race averages, while the #7 Toyota had the strongest short-run race pace. Together they showed the best combination of speed and consistency across the race.
Cadillac remained very competitive, but the race was not as Cadillac-led as the build-up. In test day, practice and qualifying, Cadillac — especially the #38 — looked like the overall benchmark. In the race, the #12 was the strongest Cadillac and remained very close to Toyota, but the #38’s race was compromised and the make did not retain the clear advantage it had shown beforehand.
BMW was strong, especially through the #20. BMW had been very quick in the build-up, particularly on single-lap pace, and the #20 carried that into the race with very good long-run performance. The #15 was still quick, but less convincing over the deeper race averages.
Ferrari was solidly in the middle group. The Ferraris were competitive and close to each other, but they did not have the outright consistency of Toyota, Cadillac or the best BMW. That broadly matched the build-up, where Ferrari was close but not class-leading.
Alpine stayed competitive but just off the front group. Both Alpines were respectable over race averages, but neither became a clear lead contender. This was similar to the build-up picture: Alpine had good pace, but not quite enough to be the reference.
Aston Martin, Genesis and Peugeot were further back. Aston Martin had useful speed in places but did not convert it into strong average lap pace. Genesis was behind the main factory group but ahead of Peugeot on race pace. Peugeot remained the weakest make, consistent with the build-up.
Drivers
Toyota’s driver performance was the race benchmark. Ryo Hirakawa produced the fastest race lap, while Kamui Kobayashi was especially strong over the short and medium driver averages. Toyota’s strength was not limited to one driver; the pace was spread across both cars.
Will Stevens was the standout Cadillac driver. He had the strongest long-run driver contribution for Cadillac and completed the most laps of any Hypercar driver listed. That helped make the #12 Cadillac the closest sustained threat to Toyota.
This is influenced by when the drivers were on track – was it during happy hour.
BMW’s strongest race work came from the #20 crew. Sheldon van der Linde and Robin Frijns were both very competitive, and the #20 looked like BMW’s best race car.
Ferrari’s best contributions came from the #51 and #83 crews. The drivers were consistent, but the cars were not quite at the Toyota/Cadillac/BMW level on race pace.
Alpine had a balanced but not class-leading driver spread. The #35 and #36 both had decent contributions, but no Alpine driver shifted the car into the lead group.
Sectors
The top three cars feature heavily in the sector rankings.
Toyota’s race advantage came through the flowing and high-speed parts of the lap. Toyota was especially strong in S1, S3, the Esses, Porsche Curves and Maison Blanche. This matched the build-up pattern, where Toyota had already looked very good through the Esses and Porsche Curves.
Extra Sectors
Ferrari was competitive but not dominant in any major area. The Ferraris were often near the front but rarely the benchmark. Their race profile was solid, but not sharp enough to match Toyota, Cadillac or BMW.
Peugeot struggled across both sectors and full-lap averages. It was generally near the back through the major sector groups, which matched its weak race pace and the build-up trend.
Slow Corner Sectors
Fast Corner Sectors
BMW #20 had one of the best all-round sector profiles. It was strong in S2, the Mulsanne sections, Porsche Curves and the run towards Porsche. Its sector strength explains why it was close on longer race pace.
Low Speed Acceleration Sectors
Aston Martin retained good low-speed and exit performance. It was strong in Daytona Exit and Ford Exit, continuing a pattern seen in the build-up. However, those strengths did not add up to front-running full-lap averages.
Medium Straights
Long Straights
Cadillac remained very strong through the straight-line and acceleration-heavy parts of the lap. The #12 in particular was excellent in S2 and several Mulsanne-related sectors. This was also consistent with the build-up, where Cadillac looked strongest through long straights and acceleration zones.
and that leads into Speed Trap…
Speed Trap
In an attempt to remove the fastest tow supported speed trap numbers the averages from Top 20% to Top 60% laps. Obviously not perfect, but better than including a lot of laps, or including those super good laps.
How did this compare with the Build-Up
The race was partly consistent with the build-up, but the lead make changed.
The main difference was at the front. In the build-up, Cadillac looked like the benchmark, especially through the #38. In the race, Toyota became the benchmark, with both cars showing stronger full-race pace than the rest.
Several patterns stayed the same. Toyota’s strength in the Esses and Porsche Curves carried into the race. Cadillac remained very strong through straight-line and acceleration-heavy sectors. Ferrari and Alpine stayed in the competitive middle group. Aston Martin continued to show sector flashes without matching that over full laps. Peugeot remained at the back.
The speed-trap picture changed more than the lap-time picture. Cadillac and Alpine had looked especially strong before the race, but Ferrari and Genesis became more prominent in race speed averages. Toyota’s race success came despite not being the fastest through the speed traps.
Tyre Useage
The race was mostly a Medium tyre race, with Softs used heavily through the middle of the race and Hards used mainly at the start or very late by selected cars.
- Start / early race: mostly Mediums, but several cars started on Hards or mixed Hard/Medium sets.
- Middle of race: many cars moved to Softs, especially from roughly the morning/mid-race phase onwards.
- Final phase: most leading contenders returned to Mediums, while some cars, especially Peugeot, Genesis #19 and Cadillac #101, finished on Hards.
This is just a combination of various shapshots of what tyres were on the car. It will have missed some changes, but gives an idea of the evolution.
Toyota used a fairly conventional race pattern after a different opening choice. The #7 started with a mixed Medium/Hard set, then ran mostly Mediums before moving onto Softs in the middle of the race. It returned to Mediums for the final phase. The #8 was more Medium-heavy early, also used Softs through the middle of the race, then returned to Mediums late. Toyota did not rely on Hards late, unlike Peugeot, Genesis #19 or Cadillac #101.
Overall, Toyota’s tyre use looked controlled: Mediums for stability, Softs for the key performance window, then Mediums again to finish.
Cadillac split its approach by car. The #12 Jota Cadillac had one of the clearest compound progressions: Hard early, Medium next, Soft through the middle, then Medium late. That looks like a structured plan rather than reactive switching. The #38 Jota Cadillac followed a similar general idea before its problems: Hards at the start, then Mediums, then Softs during its main competitive phase.
The #101 WTR Cadillac was different. It ran Mediums early, a long Soft phase through the middle, then moved to Hards late. That made it one of the few cars to finish the race on a harder-compound strategy.
BMW was mainly Medium and Soft. The #20 ran a lot of Medium early, moved onto Softs through the middle of the race, then returned to Mediums late. That matched its strong race rhythm. The #15 was similar, but retired.
Ferrari used the most complex tyre patterns. The Ferrari cars frequently used mixed compound sets, especially combinations of Medium, Hard and Soft across the four corners. The factory cars and the #83 AF Corse car often did not simply run four matching tyres.
The general Ferrari pattern was Mixed Hard/Medium early, then mostly Mediums, then Soft or mixed Soft/Medium in the middle, before returning to Medium or mixed Medium/Hard late. That suggests Ferrari was tuning balance corner-by-corner more than most of the other makes.
Alpine had two different approaches. The #35 was mostly Medium for a long opening and middle phase, then used Softs later, before returning to Mediums at the end. The #36 started on Hards, moved to Mediums, then had a long Soft phase, before finishing on Mediums. Alpine’s pattern was fairly conventional, but #36 used Hards earlier than #35.
Aston Martin was mostly Medium-led, with Softs in the middle. The #007 ran Mediums for most of the race, switched to Softs for a mid-race phase, briefly used mixed Soft/Medium sets, then returned to Mediums. The #009 also used Mediums heavily, with a Soft phase in the middle and some mixed Soft/Medium running. Aston Martin did not show the same heavy Hard use as Peugeot, Cadillac #101 or Genesis #19.
Genesis didn’t see the tyre strategy play out fully on #17 as it retired, it went to softs mid race. The #19 used Mediums early, Softs through the middle, then moved into mixed Medium/Hard sets and eventually Hards late.
Peugeot used Hards more than most. Both #93 and #94 used Hards early, Mediums through the middle, Softs for part of the race, then returned to Hards late. That made Peugeot one of the clearest Hard-compound users, especially in the final hours. It was a noticeably different pattern from Toyota, BMW, Aston Martin and Alpine, which generally finished on Mediums.
Summary:
- Medium was the default Hypercar race tyre. Almost every car used it for long parts of the race.
- Softs were the main performance tyre through the middle phase. Toyota, BMW, Cadillac, Alpine, Aston Martin and Genesis all used Softs when track conditions were likely more favourable.
- Hard use was selective. It was common at the start for some cars, but late-race Hard use was mainly Peugeot, Cadillac #101 and Genesis #19.
- Ferrari used the most mixed-compound running. The Ferraris often combined compounds across the four corners rather than simply fitting four of the same tyre.
- Toyota’s race-winning pattern was not extreme. It was mainly Medium, then Soft, then Medium. That suggests the advantage came from execution and pace on conventional compounds rather than an unusual tyre choice.
Pitstops By Car
During the race BMW sacrificed some speed to eek out an additional lap. Peugeot also did more 13 laps stints compared to most, but they weren’t fast anyway.
Pit stop details of some key cars:
