I remember it, but not well. Hawthorn was involved, and so was an amateur driver, Lance Macklin I think. Utterly horrendous crash that brought everyone up short.
Run-off areas and Armco aren't picturesque, but they do have a positive side, as do flameproof overalls, proper helmets, roll cages and so on.
I think of the two crashes at Monaco yesterday, Barichello's high-speed off when his car disintegrated, and whoever it was running over Chandok. No one even badly shaken. It wouldn't have been like that in the fifties.
|
|
It was WW2 again. Jaguar (hawthorn) and Mercedes (fangio / moss) were trying to muller each other. Something had to give and it was mercedes.
|
I watched it but there was nothing new. Curious that there was no report of why the Austin Healey driver moved over. What did he have to say about it? And the French police report is still secret?
JH
|
>> I watched it but there was nothing new. Curious that there was no report of
>> why the Austin Healey driver moved over. What did he have to say about it?
>> And the French police report is still secret?
>>
>> JH
I think the Austin Healey moved over to avoid rear ending Hawthorn who had overtaken him and then pulled right and braked to stop in the pits.
|
Seems reasonable but why did they not report what the driver had to say?
JH
|
I remember watching this on the motor racing series 'The Power and the Glory'.
It's amazing that the same kind of accident hasn't happened in rallying, where those drivers are speeding through an opening avenue of people. Some of the photographers are actually standing in the road to get that 'perfect' picture, milliseconds before the car shoots past. It would only take a slight trip, and that would be it.
|
>> but there was nothing new. >>
To the contrary, it proved that Macklin in the Healey was not in full control when he swerved around the slowing Hawthorn hence he moved over too far into the path of the much faster Levegh.
Not to apportion any blame of course, it was a racing accident, abeit an immensely tragic one.
|
Sorry Cheddar, it didn't prove anything, that was presented as speculation. I'm not saying it's not true, simply repeating how it was delivered in this programme. This is an old story and nothing new was presented. They must have got to the bottom of it 55 years ago. The lack of testimony from Maklin(?), the AH driver, at least in this programme, is remarkable.
JH
|
>> Sorry Cheddar, >>
You clearly missed the footage showing that Macklin kicked up dust on edge of the right hand side of the circuit behind the slowing Hawthorn before swerving to his left into the path of Levegh. As I say it is not a matter of blame, rather cause.
|
Cheddar, no I didn't miss that. And the commentary clearly pointed it out and said that it indicated that he MAY have lost control. All very maybe, possibly, perhaps. It is most curious that there was no report of what Macklin had to say. Though I note that it was reported that he sued Hawthorn, libel I think the programme said. No doubt if Macklin is still alive then it is not possible to report what was considered libelous, without being sued.
JH
|
I watched the programme with considerable interest last night (though I only watched it once!), but I seem to be missing the finer points of this debate?? From the reconstructed amateur film (which I think it was said has only recently come to light), the sequence of events seemed pretty clear: race leader Hawthorn's Jag laps and overtakes Macklin's slower Healey but almost immediately brakes for the pits, baulking Macklin and causing him to brake too, possibly locking a wheel and throwing up dust. An exasperated Macklin swings hard to the left around the decelerating Hawthorn, but straight into the path of Levegh's Merc which is barreling down the outside with Fangio right behind him. Levegh has no time to react and can't avoid running up the sloping back of the slow-moving Healey and taking off like Thunderbird 2. Well, that's the way it looked to me....
If the footage we saw was not available to the enquiry, there may have been many conflicting eye witness accounts. It was mentioned that Hawthorn at first believed he had caused the crash, but quickly retracted and was later sued by an embittered Macklin. All of this in a dare-devil age with a lack of regard for safety that beggars belief today.
Last edited by: Dieselfitter on Wed 19 May 10 at 12:49
|
That's a good summary D, and that's how I see it. But, do you agree, that the programme avoiding saying as much? And I find it very odd that there was no report of what Macklin said at the time.
I think the cause of the accident was a lethal combination of circumstances and it would be wrong to blame any one factor. They all combined to create circumstances where an accident was likely and, when it happened, there was little protection for the drivers or specatators.
JH
|
Yes, it's clearly contentious even 55 years on, and even though none of the drivers are still living. I think we're all agreed that it serves no purpose to speculate on who was most culpable. History seems to record that Macklin make a 'defensive' move to avoid colliding with Hawthorn.
The programme avoided speculation too but did point out that almost a veil of secrecy descended on this most appalling accident, including a buried police report, an uncertain number of spectators killed, no memorial etc.
|
|
Although I didn't go to the race, it was particularly nostalgic for me. I worked for a component supplier to Jaguar in the early 1960s, and met Norman Dewis (who was by then Jaguar's chief test driver) quite often in the course of my job. On one occasion I worked on a Mercedes 300 automatic that had been brought over from Germany by Rudolph Ulenhaut for us to investigate a problem associated with my employers parts.
|
>>a problem associated with my employers parts.
Fatigue?
|
>> >>a problem associated with my employers parts.
>>
>> Fatigue?
>>
No.
|
The book covers it a lot better... I watched it last night and was very disappointed that only the last 15 minutes or so actually covered what could have caused the crash... most of it seem to cover the spectators and that baby... and Fitch's hatred of Hawthorne.
The book is well worth a read if you haven't already, it analyses it in a lot more detail, showing just how much it was a disaster waiting to happen...
Re the rallying, hasn't a "car into the crowd" happenned already? I thought that the Group B cars were banned because of a similar incident?
|
I thought it gave a sense of reality and horror that can only come from an eyewitness account. I hope that was not voyeuristic. We have to learn from such things. Even after that, motor racing was slow to change and it took a series of tragedies to get it to where it is today.
Here's a starter for rallying deaths and injured, and that's only WRC. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_World_Rally_Championship_accidents
JH
|
Recently found - in our local charity shop - some books from that era - automobile year 56; 57/58 and 58/59.
Amazing pics of racecourses where the hay-bales and poles were there to mark the track, NOT to do anything safety-wise.
The Mille Miglia was run on roads lined by the public - one year a dozen died - and the drivers srove in polo shirts, helmets and cravats.
Refuelling - dirty great funnels and jerry cans full of juice. Normally weilded by some chap in jeans and a t-shirt!
Last edited by: Webmaster on Fri 28 May 10 at 11:54
|
>> Refuelling - dirty great funnels and jerry cans full of juice. Normally weilded by some chap in jeans and a t-shirt!
You forgot to add "while the driver sat in the car having a smoke"
|
Le mans 1955 - Armel Coussine
