Mecachrome responds to Ginetta's statements

The announcement of the Ginetta G60-LT-P1 package for the next Silverstone meeting (August 17-19) in WEC was accompanied by an explanation: a change of engine supplier. The CFEC TRSM Racing structure wanted to move from the Mecachrome block to an AER engine, but according to the team, the request for approval came too late.

A situation to which Mecachrome was keen to provide its point of view. Remember that the Ginetta LM P1s were unable to compete in the opening event at Spa last May, following financial problems with the sponsor CFEC, the boss of the entity having been imprisoned, hence an already complicated context around the team.

“We worked closely with Ginetta, and we were confident that as two young WEC teams we could put in strong performances, admits Bruno Engelric, director of Mecachrome Motorsport.

Ginetta and Lawrence Tomlinson enabled Mecachrome to launch its LM P1 engine, and they were incredibly supportive when the program was in its infancy, and we would like to thank them for that.

During our first tests, there were some issues that could be blamed on Mecachrome, but there were also some issues that weren't engine-related. We worked to resolve them together.

Drive less than 3 km with both front cars Le Mans was far from ideal, and we didn't clock more than two hours at a time, refining the small details of the engine or chassis, which is normal for a completely new engine-chassis package.

When we arrived at the Prologue test, we still did not have a contract for the WEC season, while the cars could only run thanks to the financial support of Ginetta. Financial problems continued at Spa and, despite attending the venue, Ginetta decided not to qualify, nor race.

This absence of racing before Le Mans allowed us to continue to develop the car during the Test Day and during the race week. We had some questions about how the engine performed when installed in the car versus how it ran, but that's crucial information that you can only get with track testing.

However, one car finished the race despite a long period in the garage, which cannot be attributed solely to engine problems. The other car was forced to retire with an electrical problem, which was not the fault of the Mecachrome technical team.

There were regular complaints about the engine not being powerful enough compared to other units on the market, but from day one Ginetta and Mecachrome had agreed that the main objective was to finish Le Mans to the specifications of the original engine. If we had 50 more hp, the end result would have been the same, or even worse.

Reliability has to be the priority in endurance racing, especially with a completely new package, because you need miles to understand and develop the engine and chassis.

With the recurring financial uncertainty on the program, the Mecachrome Group was unable to continue the development of the engine without any guarantee. We knew that the FIA/ACO engine regulations would certainly be reviewed after the race – as has already been the case – and we wanted to ensure that any new investment would make sporting and financial sense.

From a technical and performance perspective, Mecachrome has respected its promised and agreed commitments from day one. Commercial and financial issues ahead of the Super Season did not help the business relationship. On a technical level, and despite the lack of testing, we delivered what we committed to.

We are surprised by the choice of Ginetta and Manor to accept an engine that has been in development for years, but which failed to finish at Le Mans in June. Seeing the checkered flag during his first participation shows the quality of our work and the potential of the Mecachrome engine. »

Macachrome indicates that it remains focused on its LM P1 program, and intends to “return to Endurance in the near future ".