13 replies to this topic

[TDC]

What was the reason that Aston Martin's Project 212 went out at Le Mans in 1962? It was in the pits for some time for generator repair first, but what took it out of the race?

Contemporary reports give various scenarios, including a piston disintegrating due to a broken oil line, ignition problems, and a missed shift by Graham Hill somewhere on the course that resulted in a blown engine. Anyone know the real story and circumstances?

Thanks, TC

[raceannouncer2003]

What was the reason that Aston Martin's Project 212 went out at Le Mans in 1962? It was in the pits for some time for generator repair first, but what took it out of the race?

Contemporary reports give various scenarios, including a piston disintegrating due to a broken oil line, ignition problems, and a missed shift by Graham Hill somewhere on the course that resulted in a blown engine. Anyone know the real story and circumstances?

Thanks, TC

Henry N. Manney's Competition Press report says "...Graham Hill...missing a shift on the gateless Aston box, touched a valve..."

In "Life at the Limit", Hill says "...we had a piston go..."

Vince H.

[Lola5000]

Ignition

[TDC]

Henry N. Manney's Competition Press report says "...Graham Hill...missing a shift on the gateless Aston box, touched a valve..."

In "Life at the Limit", Hill says "...we had a piston go..."

Vince H.

Thanks for including the sources. But that's the dilemma, isn't it - the different stories. Maybe they're all true. Maybe Hill missed a shift, a valve dropped and broke the piston, which disintegrated, sending bits through the head and severing several plug wires.

Hope others might have a better idea. TC

[Paul Parker]

Thanks for including the sources. But that's the dilemma, isn't it - the different stories. Maybe they're all true. Maybe Hill missed a shift, a valve dropped and broke the piston, which disintegrated, sending bits through the head and severing several plug wires.

Hope others might have a better idea. TC

In Chris Nixon's Volume One of Racing with the David Brown Aston Martins, John Wyer is unequivocal about the cause, a hole in number 6 piston.

I have not got a copy of Wyer's own autobiography That Certain Sound with me to check if he has anything else to say on the matter. In period piston failure crops up fairly regularly amongst the cars and whilst allowing for the long periods spent flat out in top gear at Le Mans and sometimes high temperatures I suspect fuel quality might have something to do with it.

As an example Stan Sproat who was Ecurie Ecosse's chief mechanic told me in 1999 that their Le Mans winning D type crossed the line in 1956 with its no.5 piston almost burnt out together with the combustion chamber. Despite Stan lowering the compression ratio to counteract the poor quality fuel, it was still too high and the car only just made it to the end of the race.

[Tim Murray]

I have not got a copy of Wyer's own autobiography That Certain Sound with me to check if he has anything else to say on the matter.

In the couple of lines devoted to Project 212, he says only that it 'expired'.

[RCH]

The 2 Zagatos in 1962 are reported as retiring due to piston failure. The 2 P214s in 1963 are reported as retiring with piston failure. (Although a little memory in the back of my mind seems to be suggesting that a con-rod through the block may have "damaged" the piston?). Do I see a theme developing?

Which brings me on to something which has puzzled me for the last 47 years (was it really that long ago?). The Mike Salmon/Peter Sutcliffe P214 had been quick in practice for the 1964 race and seems to have started well but then slowly drifted back through the field until it was actually behind some 904 Porsches when it was disqualified. Yet all the contempary reports refer to it as a "reliable" run. Could they have been nursing a problem from early on and was it therefore significant that the disqualification was for early oil replenishment?

[longhorn]

In the couple of lines devoted to Project 212, he says only that it 'expired'.

In Aston Martin Postwar Competition Cars, Pritchard says that it was piston failure caused by a fractured oil pipe after 79 laps. The car had already lost time in the pits due to a faulty dynamo having led on the first lap.

In Racing In The Rain, Horsman says it was a holed piston on the 78th lap. He goes on to say that Wyer had told the press it was ignition failure and just a minor fault.

In Motor Sport August 1962, DSJ also says that it was a broken internal oil pipe at 10pm as darkness fell.

[Paul Parker]

The 2 Zagatos in 1962 are reported as retiring due to piston failure. The 2 P214s in 1963 are reported as retiring with piston failure. (Although a little memory in the back of my mind seems to be suggesting that a con-rod through the block may have "damaged" the piston?). Do I see a theme developing?

Which brings me on to something which has puzzled me for the last 47 years (was it really that long ago?). The Mike Salmon/Peter Sutcliffe P214 had been quick in practice for the 1964 race and seems to have started well but then slowly drifted back through the field until it was actually behind some 904 Porsches when it was disqualified. Yet all the contempary reports refer to it as a "reliable" run. Could they have been nursing a problem from early on and was it therefore significant that the disqualification was for early oil replenishment?

I recall reading somewhere years ago that the DB4GT based motor suffered from an internal hotspot and build up of heat after several hours of high speed racing that caused a loss of power.

Regarding the piston failures of the 214s in 1963 this was, again according to Wyer talking to Chris Nixon: 'This really was an absurd thing: Hepworth & Grandage designed some pistons for us as forgings, but were then unable to make the forging dyes in time so the pistons were made as castings. The heads came off pistons in both cars.' It was this that caused the catastrophic engine failure in McLaren's car at max velocity on Muldoon and the subsequent fatal accident to Bino Heins plus writing off one of the Cunningham lightweight E types.

[JB Miltonian]

The article in "Classic Cars" magazine (January 1975) says:

"...an oil supply pipe fractured and that was that after 5 hours. In fact it was reassembled in time for Monday morning demonstrations to the press who were suitably impressed."

That seems like an odd statement. The Aston crew repaired the engine in the pits after the car retired? Or the car was sent back to the factory while the race was still in progress, and the engine was repaired on Sunday night (?) in time for a demonstration on Monday morning (?).

[RCH]

Now you mention it, I seem to remember Peter Garnier wrote a report on that demonstration in the Autocar issue which contained the Le Mans report. Must have been a relatively easy repair, or perhaps a spare engine was slotted in? Will have to see if I can dig the Autocar issue out and see what it says.

[RCH]

Now you mention it, I seem to remember Peter Garnier wrote a report on that demonstration in the Autocar issue which contained the Le Mans report. Must have been a relatively easy repair, or perhaps a spare engine was slotted in? Will have to see if I can dig the Autocar issue out and see what it says.

The article was actually in the following week's issue and was written by Harry Mundy, he states:
"Originally we reported that the Aston Martin had been eliminated through piston and valve failure, whereas the trouble was a fractured oil pipe on the suction side of the pump. Thus the minor damage could be repaired quickly and the car was awaiting outside the Cafe de l'Hippodrome on the Mulsanne straight at 7:00 am. on the morning after the race, for a trial run by a small party of journalists."

The actual race report only said: "...had dropped a valve..."

Whereas The Motor stated; "...a dropped valve, which occured when Graham Hill selected third instead of fifth gear, sending the revs. up to 6,900, put the car out..."

Mundy's report seems to beg the question, if the repair was minor why was it not done at the time and the car kept in the race?

[TDC]

In Aston Martin Postwar Competition Cars, Pritchard says that it was piston failure caused by a fractured oil pipe after 79 laps. The car had already lost time in the pits due to a faulty dynamo having led on the first lap.

In Racing In The Rain, Horsman says it was a holed piston on the 78th lap. He goes on to say that Wyer had told the press it was ignition failure and just a minor fault.

In Motor Sport August 1962, DSJ also says that it was a broken internal oil pipe at 10pm as darkness fell.

Thanks to all who have responded. It is particularly helpful when sources are mentioned. I spoke with John Horsman today. He confirmed that it was a holed piston that felled the 212, but said nothing of a broken oil pipe. He did tell the story of a quick-on-his-feet Wyer minimizing the problem as ignition related to inquiring journos and making the offer that they could drive the 212 Monday morning. Apparently they thrashed to put in a new motor over Saturday night, tested on Sunday and were ready for journos to drive on Monday. It was a good ploy, as Aston ended up getting a lot of good ink instead of reports of their failure.

Again, thanks, TC

[RCH]

Seems Aston Martin had a problem with pistons and were rather embarrassed about it.