24 HOURS OF LE MANS: THE ANALISYS

The 2026 24 Hours of Le Mans came to an end with Toyota returning to victory and, beyond the result itself, I think this win tells a different story compared to the Japanese manufacturer’s previous successes. Not so much — or not only — because they ended Ferrari’s recent dominance, but because of the way they did it.

For the first time in several years, I got the feeling of watching Toyota win without necessarily relying on overwhelming superiority or a particular set of circumstances. They simply executed the best race.

The #7 TR010 of Kobayashi, De Vries and Conway came out on top ahead of a BMW #20 that got surprisingly close and the other Japanese Hypercar, which for long stretches of the race had actually looked like the most convincing candidate for victory.

Many people will focus on strategy, traffic management, pit wall decisions and the fact that Toyota — as often happens — made little to no mistakes. All fair. But in my opinion, there’s a risk of reading the result backwards. Toyota didn’t win because they managed the race better. Toyota was able to manage the race better because they probably had the most complete package over the full distance.

Which does not mean having the fastest car. Quite the opposite.

Looking at the surface-level numbers — top speed, straight-line performance and the sectors most dependent on power — the TR010 didn’t seem to have any obvious advantage. At certain points, especially during the night, Cadillac even looked superior. The difference was somewhere else. The feeling was simply that Toyota was in a position where they could choose when to push.

And when a car is capable of lowering its race pace or finding three tenths per lap without falling outside its operating window, over a 24-hour race it completely changes the way you build the event.

In my opinion, one of the aspects that showed up less in the numbers but much more in the onboard footage was curb behavior.

Through the final chicanes, the TR010 attacked the curbs far more aggressively than the competition. Not for spectacle, but for efficiency. They were able to travel less distance and, most importantly, do it without compromising stability or platform control.

It may sound like a detail, but it isn’t. Because Le Mans is often explained through top-speed figures, when in reality it’s also decided in all those places where you simply avoid losing time. Not surprisingly, Sector 1 was one of the few areas where Toyota genuinely seemed to make the difference.

And this is where the tire discussion comes into play. The new Michelins probably shifted the competitive balance more than people are acknowledging. Toyota never gave the impression of being dominant on softs, while on mediums — which ultimately became the reference compound for the race — they simply looked perfectly inside the operating window.

The moment you’re able to extend stints without losing performance while still keeping the ability to lower lap times when needed, you automatically gain the freedom to take more risks everywhere else.

For this reason, personally, I consider this victory significantly more meaningful than the previous ones.

Behind Toyota, the result that probably raises the most questions is BMW’s: second place, 10 seconds behind. Which doesn’t sound like much. And honestly, it isn’t. Because getting that close to winning Le Mans inevitably makes you start wondering where more could have been found.

The M Hybrid V8 confirmed how much progress it has made in this configuration and I still think that, in hindsight, they left something on the table.

Many are attributing everything to the final safety car, but I’m not completely convinced. Looking at ideal pace and the time Toyota lost in the pits, the opportunity seemed to be there. The point is that BMW looked extremely strong at the beginning of stints, while Toyota seemed to improve as tire degradation started becoming a factor. And over the long run, that difference became visible.

A similar story applies to Cadillac, which for long stretches of the night actually looked like the favorite. On soft tires and in cooler temperatures, the V-Series.R was probably the strongest car in the field, but then the race changed.

Mediums became the reference again, temperatures rose and matching Toyota became significantly more difficult. The retirement of the #38 completed the picture. Still, the feeling remains that this was a major missed opportunity.

Ferrari finished fifth with the #51 of Pier Guidi, Giovinazzi and Calado. Honestly, I don’t think they were ever truly in contention for the win. It was a complicated weekend, an inconsistent race, but above all a level of competitiveness that didn’t seem sufficient to attack the front.

And here the tire discussion comes back again. Over the last few years Ferrari had built part of its advantage on the ability to exploit certain compounds more effectively than others. This year, that advantage seems to have disappeared.

That doesn’t mean they suddenly lost a second per lap or that the 499P has become a mediocre car overnight — as some people are already suggesting. It simply means the relative advantage appears to have narrowed.

Alpine struggled, looking compromised by energy management over each stint right from the beginning. The speed was there, but the race became too dependent on constant conservation.

Aston leaves with a respectable top ten.

Peugeot, meanwhile, continues to give the impression of being trapped inside a concept that simply struggles to express itself at Le Mans. I keep reading comparisons with Spa that, in my opinion, make little sense. They are fundamentally different tracks.

At Le Mans, in order to compensate for weaknesses in certain areas, you would have to grant advantages that would become impossible to manage elsewhere.

Genesis, on the other hand, impressed despite the final result telling only part of the story.

© Simone Marchetti Cavalieri