BS: 1955 Le Mans disaster.

Subject: BS: 1955 Le Mans disaster.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jul 12 - 07:33 PM

I am of the view that the principal fault was that of Macklin's Austin Healey. This was the Le Mans 100/4 and its top speed would have been nowhere near the over 180 nearly 200 mph of the D-Type (then with probably 285 bhp but very low drag coefficient for the time) and the Mercedes 300SLR (about 315 bhp, and ver streamlined but bulkier being a space frame rather than a monocoque with subframes). I've driven a 300bhp D-Type replica and although I wasn't really allowed to kick it hard I have some idea of how it behaved. The disc brakes needed a VERY heavy push to generate max deceleration.

The Healey had huge outboard drums (and the Mercs had simply MONSTROUS drums). Not so fade resistant but twin leading shoe drum brakes have a self-servo effect so the initial grab is every bit as good as discs if not better (and on discs the servo answering time does figure into initial retardation).

Hawthorn had really only just overtaken Macklin when he saw a pit signal to come in for fuelling. He'd have been wiser to take another lap but he decided to brake and pull in. At this stage he was probably going about 40 mph faster than Macklin. Macklin should also have been aware of Levegh in the number two Merc (being lapped by Hawthorn and on the outside correctly giving way but only a bit slower than Hawthorn) and Fangio in the number one Merc coming up dead astern behind Hawthorn, faster than Levegh, and competing furiously with Hawthorn. If Macklin had seen Hawthorn he should also have seen the two mercs.

Film from the time shows a puff of something from the right hand front of Macklin, who then veers wildly across the track behind Hawthorn.

I think Macklin should have had time to brake hard and admittedly be delayed by Hawthorn. He had to lose 40 mph less which should pretty much have compensated for the reaction time. I don't think he simply locked a wheel and got pulled left. I think he hit the pit wall (possibly by locking his brakes) - when his best course of action, if hitting anything, was to hit Hawthorn where the speed differential was tiny in comparison.

What I don't have is a report of the Macklin/Hawthorn libel action some years later (before Hawthorn killed himself in a different Jaguar - a slightly tweaked 3.4 Mark 1 saloon - I have not driven a Mark 1 but I have driven a 3.4 Mark II and while it was surprisingly quick for a car that age it seemed to have good road manners - far better than the barge-like Aston Martin road cars) overtaking a different Mercedes (a 300 SL drophead) in the rain on the then Guildford bypass).

It's possible I might have my mind changed by that libel action. I have also driven the new road as close as one can get to the scene of the accident - and got a Volvo through there at speeds close to those reported by the press at the time of the Hawthorn accident - but on a dry day with almost no wind, unlike the day of Hawthorn's death when it was pissing down with VERY severe winds.

Has anyone any views on the Le Mans crash?

Subject: RE: BS: 1955 Le Mans disaster.
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 12 - 10:40 AM

I knew immediately this was your thread Richard. Who else?

Nothing wrong with your analysis but over the years this crash has been analyzed and researched and written about from so many different angles that there really is pretty much only one conclusion that fits. From Hawthorn's too often aggression to Levegh's age to the awkward positioning on the track with the cars in the precise spot for such a slaughter.............I've read it was fate and also inevitable.   John Fitch believed it was Hawthorn and always maintained that in the moment Hawthorn believed that he himself was responsible.

The only answer that makes sense is this was simply a racing accident. Because of the spectator loss of life there was a need to affix blame. The truth is that racing is a dangerous pursuit. While it is far less dangerous today, it still is a blood sport. Replace each driver with someone different and the result may well have been different.......or it could have been the same. Probably the only thing that might have actually changed the equation was the disparate performance of the cars and yet even that in and of itself cannot be blamed. The proximity of the crowd could have factored in of course but not as a trigger cause.

Almost 60 years later it no longer matters. We learned a few lessons there but trying to pin the wreck on anyone is futile. I might go more with Hawthorn although I have always believed him to be one of greats. And if he changed his mind about his own responsibility (which he did), isn't that normal? Don't you have to do that to continue on after such a tragedy? Macklin felt he was in the position of being held less than professional, also a natural reaction. Poor Levegh took a beating in this mess even in death. I read somewhere he was the last one identified as well but his wife knew before anyone even was sure who was involved that he was dead.



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 1955 Le Mans disaster.
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 11 Jul 12 - 12:11 PM

Interesting to note that F1 drivers who suddenly duck into the pits are penalised these days: Sergio Perez received a drive-through penalty at Monaco in May for suddenly chopping across Kimi Raikkonen's car to pit.

BTW 11 June was the 57th anniversary of the disaster.

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: 1955 Le Mans disaster.
From: Will Fly
Date: 11 Jul 12 - 12:18 PM

I know nothing of the technical aspects of this terrible event, but the thread brought back vivid memories of the news reports of the day - over 80 spectators killed as I remember, with some decapitated by flying wheels. I was 11 at the time.

Wasn't it this crash that gave rise to radical track safety measures in motor racing?

Subject: RE: BS: 1955 Le Mans disaster.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Jul 12 - 12:20 PM

I have seen the horrifying film of this incident, and I never want to see it again. Remember an Italian marshall was killed at Monza just a few years back, so it's not totally a thing of the past.

I too have driven that bit of road many times Richard, once even driving a Coombs tuned 3.4, and I never did understand how that accident happened, but happen it did. Incidentally the Coombs jag wasn't mine, and it was undriveable in the wet, with normal tyres fitted.
BTW Richard, you may remember that Coombs garage wasn't that far from the scene.

Subject: RE: BS: 1955 Le Mans disaster.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jul 12 - 03:48 PM

Spaw - yes Hawthorn was a very aggressive driver, but how does he lose about 40mph before Macklin can react? Does anyone know the top speed of the Le Mans Healey 100/4? I'm betting about 140. I never managed to get an MGC over 135 and that was the much more effective 6-pot engine.



John - What normal tyres? OK the Dunlop Durabands allegedly on the Hawthorn Mk1 were a very early and somewhat iffy radial (but they were on wider rims at the rear that Jag later offered as an option) but SP41s were great in the wet, and C41s more than adequate. I have seen no suggestion that the Hawthorn Mk1 was developing much more than 230 bhp (220 standard). Yes the Coombs garage was close and there were suggestions that it was trying to cure a sticking hairtrigger throttle on Hawtohrn's jag at the time.    And yes the Mk1 jag had a bad reputation in the wet - as did the Mk1 Zodiac with about half the power.