168 replies to this topic

[David Birchall]

I have never commented on this thread before for the reasons stated above. However, I was very much alive then and I still am! I think we should be able to discuss the "mechanical facts" which are not a matter of opinion-or should not be.

(ps I said Macklin was "braking hard")

[Bauble]

I have never commented on this thread before for the reasons stated above. However, I was very much alive then and I still am! I think we should be able to discuss the "mechanical facts" which are not a matter of opinion-or should not be.

(ps I said Macklin was "braking hard")

Despite my last post I find myself here once again. for the last time.

It was an earlier post from DCN that stated that Hawthorn was braking hard.

I would also observe that Hawthorn was not on the 'racing line' and it should have been obvious that he was heading for the pits, due to his positioning on the track, but No one was to blame it was just a racing accident, and should be left like that.

[Jagjon]

Despite my last post I find myself here once again. for the last time.

It was an earlier post from DCN that stated that Hawthorn was braking hard.

I would also observe that Hawthorn was not on the 'racing line' and it should have been obvious that he was heading for the pits, due to his positioning on the track, but No one was to blame it was just a racing accident, and should be left like that.

/www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=78515

I am not sure if this links to British Pathe news but there is a series of Pathe news film about the 1955 Le Mans.
If you get on the site and search, eventually you should find it and some other good films like "Green for Glory", shots of Jim Clark etc.
The Le Mans newsfilm do take some finding and are in several parts, about 5 I think, plus one on the accident itself.
There is also some Le Mans accident on this if it works: www.ina.fr/economie-et-soci.(...)ns.fr,html from forum sport the French site.
Some of the pictures show at least one guy on the pit wall with cine camera filming.
Many people look shocked at the accident unfolding in front of them, the pictures grandstand side are pretty grim.
If I remember correctly one shot is of Hawthorn coming into his pit and drifting past as the Healey passes him, slamming into the pit wall ahead of the Jaguar pit and then rebounding across the track to the grandstand side. (Unless I get it totally wrong!)
It is then trolley jacked and pulled back infront of the pits by marshalls, a decidedly dodgy manoeuvre amongst speeding traffic.
I was always a Hawthorn fan and would be glued to the radio for any m/sport esp. involving Jaguar.
I was 9 at the time and remember the "adults" comments regarding the news at the time which seemed to have it in for Hawthorn.
This was upsetting to hear this about one's "hero", and obviously one is biased and does not want any guilt aportioned.
Years later I read the Lance Macklin autobiography, and he had his opinion, and obviously was not a fan and didn't think much of Hawthorn, and made comments about the blonde haired child appearing at races, which came out later in the Nixon book as MH's son
Really, it's been a long time coming to show that it was a series of circumstances on a too narrow track that was to blame.
You also hear a French pronounciation of Levegh which ends sounding "g" more "leg" than "lay"!
I'm amazed that something similar has not happened at Monaco for example, having seen Lauda's BMW M1 hit the netting high in 1979.
F1 safety gets blinkered sometimes, sort of who you know and where it is, rather than true thoughts of safety.

[Flaminiasupersport]

Yesterday evening there was a program on ARTE about this tragic accident.

So many things have been said, so many reactions have been analysed and yet so many questions remain.

Almost everybody was hard on Hawthorn, some on Macklin and some others on Levegh... Judging calmly afterwards what the drivers had to do in split seconds is an open road to all kind of theories. I feel the organisation failed in some way as they hadn't foreseen that their "endurance" race became a 24Hours speed race where top drivers were fighting like hell to be in pole position instead of showing the world their car could stand 24h of non-stop driving...

I just feel it was bad luck. Evrything was twisted. The "endurance" race was held at infernal speeds which was not the general idea of an endurance race. Extremely fast cars sharing the same circuit at the same time with slower cars, experienced drivers with less experienced drivers, a cramped road of a merely 9m wide at the pits and all the ingredients for something to happen are lurking.

"What happens when a Jag or Merc racing each other at 280 km/h, with a Ferrari breathing into their necks, have to pass a little Nardi Bisiluro or other on a small road where cars have no (or useless) rear-view mirrors? Will Fangio say "After you my dear Mr Hawthorn?" Or would Mr. Hawthorn think; "ha, there's my friend Lance... I'll gently stay behind him until I'm at the pits and the Old Man can pass gently"... That's not the way it goes and that's not the way a racing driver thinks. He's there to win and to do his "risky" job. That is it. One can not blame them afterwards for acting accordingly.

Only one comment that "bothered" me was that Mike Hawthorn shouldn't have smiled; shouldn't have been drinking Champagne and shouldn't have requested to drive the last lap towards victory... (his team mate Bueb should have done it).

Even if I understand this reaction, it must be said that he was not the only one laughing and whatever the race, whatever the conditions, he was the winner. The race has not been stopped, it went on and ended like any other race, with a winner drinking champagne, pictures taken and the national anthem being played.

End of story.

It is odd, but what wasn't during this "Le Mans 1955"... 10 years after WW2, were death and loss were common to so many.

[AMICALEMANS]

just a word :

Fitch and Moss seems to say that Hawthorn is guilty...

He passed Macklin then brake just in front of him.... Macklin did not have efficient brake and he made a line change. Then Levegh hit Macklin....

a simple accident....

[Chezrome]

Is there any evidence that Hawthorn was 'braking hard' as there would be no reason to do so at a routine pit stop?

Far too many people are expressing opinions on a very emotional subject without fully understanding the times and circumstances involved, if you were not alive in 1955 you can not possibly make a proper judgement.

I just do not understand this morbid desire to pick over the deaths of so many people, at such a remove. I know it is not going to happen, but I wish the subject would go away.

I just don't agree with this standpoint. If someone has a genuine interest in the history of motorsport, why is re-thinking and overseeing an accident that has influenced the discussion about motorracing for most of the 20th century, 'morbid'? Has anyone on this thread asked, licking their lips: 'And what were the most horrifying injuries amongst the deaths?' Please do tell me what points in this thread were morbid? Isn't the tone of questions important in cases like that, not the subject itself?

Furthermore, ever since I expressed my interest in motorracing, since I was about five, or six, for thirty years or so people have been saying to me: 'Oh motorracing should be banned. In 1955 in Le Mans...' Etcetera.

I always found those standpoints ridiculous. However, by virtue of the internet I was finally able to see footage of the 1955 accidents - yes, gruesome pictures included - and I changed my mind somewhat. I can't really see a fault in the reasoning of the Swiss government at the time to prohibit motorracing. Not that I agree, but I can't see a fault in the reasoning they used. It was a gruesome accident that puts a very pointy finger at a very sore spot.

Secondly, I've read many, many articles and books that put the blame on the accident at the hands of the 'too old' Pierre Levegh. I know now that was very unfair and incorrect - thanks to the internet in general and this 'morbid' thread specificly.

Edited by Chezrome, 14 April 2011 - 15:23.

[Bauble]

I just don't agree with this standpoint. If someone has a genuine interest in the history of motorsport...

I had hoped this subject would fade away.

For me and many others the incident is not 'history', I witnessed the crash, and lived with the consequences, and it is the finger pointing that raises my blood pressure. NOBODY really knows what went wrong, only the obvious result.
It happened, and that is all there is to say.

[Chezrome]

I just don't agree with this standpoint. If someone has a genuine interest in the history of motorsport...

I had hoped this subject would fade away.

For me and many others the incident is not 'history', I witnessed the crash, and lived with the consequences, and it is the finger pointing that raises my blood pressure. NOBODY really knows what went wrong, only the obvious result.
It happened, and that is all there is to say.

I pay my respects for the consequences you bear by witnessing this crash. Ofcourse you are granted by me and all others the right not to discuss it or not to witness the discussion. However, you are not granted the right to silence others or to call them 'morbid' when there is no obvious indication their intentions have that background. As far as I've seen in this thread there is little fingerpointing and much intelligent discussion about the possible causes of the accident, including a lengthy and interesting debate on brake distances on the several cars...

Considering the fact that you witnessed the crash, I gather you are about twenty years older than I am (I was born in 1965). In the Racing Comments thread there is now a discussion about Aerton Senna's death, an event that is for racefans of my generation as paramount as the crash in 1955 was for your generation. Ofcourse, my first reaction to such a thread is: 'Why is this neccesary?' Then I stop myself. I am 45 now, and a whole new generation of motorsportfans are now delphing into the past of this sport. They have the right to discuss, even to question the conclusions we 'oldsters' have drawn. I've even read the thread and I've got to say that although some views are idiotic, paranoid and very mich tinfoil hat, there are some views that give a refreshing light on the matter that, for a long while, was a open and shut case for me.

[Bauble]

I pay my respects for the consequences you bear by witnessing this crash. Ofcourse you are granted by me and all others the right not to discuss it or not to witness the discussion. However, you are not granted the right to silence others or to call them 'morbid' when there is no obvious indication their intentions have that background. As far as I've seen in this thread there is little fingerpointing and much intelligent discussion about the possible causes of the accident, including a lengthy and interesting debate on brake distances on the several cars...

Considering the fact that you witnessed the crash, I gather you are about twenty years older than I am (I was born in 1965). In the Racing Comments thread there is now a discussion about Aerton Senna's death, an event that is for racefans of my generation as paramount as the crash in 1955 was for your generation. Ofcourse, my first reaction to such a thread is: 'Why is this neccesary?' Then I stop myself. I am 45 now, and a whole new generation of motorsportfans are now delphing into the past of this sport. They have the right to discuss, even to question the conclusions we 'oldsters' have drawn. I've even read the thread and I've got to say that although some views are idiotic, paranoid and very mich tinfoil hat, there are some views that give a refreshing light on the matter that, for a long while, was a open and shut case for me.

Go ahead discuss, and analyse all you want, perectly normal, but as I said, don't try to apportion blame to people long dead who can not defend themselves.

I do not wish to sound querelous, however, the arguments have raged on ever since 1955, and the result is always the same! A terrible tradgedy, at least 55 spectators killed and a brave and respected driver dead. Study circumstances, draw conclusions, lay no blame.

Kind regards,

Bauble (74 years fast approaching)

[Chezrome]

Go ahead discuss, and analyse all you want, perectly normal, but as I said, don't try to apportion blame to people long dead who can not defend themselves.

I do not wish to sound querelous, however, the arguments have raged on ever since 1955, and the result is always the same! A terrible tradgedy, at least 55 spectators killed and a brave and respected driver dead. Study circumstances, draw conclusions, lay no blame.

Kind regards,

Bauble (74 years fast approaching)

So I was ten years off!

Kind regards off

Jerome

[AAA-Eagle]

Yesterday evening there was a program on ARTE about this tragic accident.

For those who want to watch this documentary, please follow the link: 24 heurs du Mans 1955 - La course de la mort . It's in German.

[D-Type]

My apolgies for reopening this hackneyed topic, but I'm revisiting this thread as I noticed something when re-reading "Mon Ami Mate" that may be relevant.
On page 128-129 there is a photo of the pits after the accident showing Hawthorn in the pits, Levagh's car burning on the bank etc.  But what it also shows, which I have never noticed before, is  Kling in the Mercedes pit, captioned as "Karl Kling brings his Mercedes in for attention to a broken throttle linkage".  Now, my question is did he follow Hawthorn in, or was he already in the pits before the accident? 

The significance is, if the latter is the case, then Hawthorn could not have gone to the right of Macklin and made a gentle approach to the pits as that route was obstructed by Kling's car and he had to  take the course he did, overtaking Macklin then cutting across his nose.

[JoBo]

My apolgies for reopening this hackneyed topic, but I'm revisiting this thread as I noticed something when re-reading "Mon Ami Mate" that may be relevant.
On page 128-129 there is a photo of the pits after the accident showing Hawthorn in the pits, Levagh's car burning on the bank etc.  But what it also shows, which I have never noticed before, is  Kling in the Mercedes pit, captioned as "Karl Kling brings his Mercedes in for attention to a broken throttle linkage".  Now, my question is did he follow Hawthorn in, or was he already in the pits before the accident? 

The significance is, if the latter is the case, then Hawthorn could not have gone to the right of Macklin and made a gentle approach to the pits as that route was obstructed by Kling's car and he had to  take the course he did, overtaking Macklin then cutting across his nose.

 

Can you show the pic here? When Hawthorn`s car is seen in the photo but the caption refers to Kling then -in my humble opinion- the Mercedes came in AFTER the Jaguar was already in the pits. Hawthorn was the hero in this book and why should the caption ignore him in this photo if he had been pitting AFTTER Kling?

 

JoBo

[Doug Nye]

I rather suspect you will find that Hawthorn was sufficiently far from the pits when he pulled in front of Macklin not really to be concerned by the presence - or otherwise - of a car parked in the pit lane which he could possibly need to pass before coming to rest. But then I have not yet checked the relative positions of the Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar pits... which ones lay 'upstream' of the other?

 

DCN

[Tim Murray]

The person who wrote the report in Motor Sport (presumably DSJ, although his initials don’t appear at the end of the report) was near Tertre Rouge in the period leading up to the accident, and wrote:

At 6 p.m. ... the pace was so terrific that there were only five other cars on the same lap as the leaders, these being, in order, Castellotti, Kling, Levegh, Rolt and Walters; Beauman and the rest being overtaken. The 2-litre Maserati was just managing to keep in front of the 2-litre Gordini, while the Porsches were going indecently fast and the Bristols were making no attempt to hurry or be hurried. At 6.20 p.m. changes of driver and refuelling began, and Marzotto took over from Castellotti and Poore from Parnell, while the two leaders, still only a second or two apart, were about to lap the other two Mercedes-Benz. The note at 6.30 p.m. reads that Hawthorn had dropped back a long way from Fangio, while Hill had taken over from Maglioli, and Kling had come round on his own, Levegh being missing. Suddenly, on the far side of the course, an ominous column of black smoke could be seen rising, obviously coming from the pit area, but no word was given of what had happened and even while walking back to the pit area there was little knowledge that a major catastrophe had taken place.

In his memoirs Alfred Neubauer wrote that as Hawthorn approached the pits for his stop he had the three Mercedes behind him.

It would appear therefore that Kling and Levegh had been running fairly close to each other, and that Kling’s unscheduled stop with the throttle problem didn’t take place until after the accident had occurred.

[funformula]

I rather suspect you will find that Hawthorn was sufficiently far from the pits when he pulled in front of Macklin not really to be concerned by the presence - or otherwise - of a car parked in the pit lane which he could possibly need to pass before coming to rest. But then I have not yet checked the relative positions of the Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar pits... which ones lay 'upstream' of the other?

 

DCN

 

It´s hard to see it at the picture below, but it seems that (in racing direction) the Jaguar pits came first, followed by the Salmson, Lockheed and Shell pits and then the Mercedes pit.

https://shop.simonle...1st-20129-p.asp

[D-Type]

In the photo I'm referring to, the Mercedes is behind the Jaguar.  So, based on that photo Kling must be coming in to the pits. 

[Catalina Park]

In photos of the accident the Kling Mercedes doesn't show up in the pits till after the accident happens. His pit was nearly alongside where the Macklin Austin Healey stopped on the track. This forced the cars to run between the pitted Mercedes and the crashed Healey. 

I did see a photo taken before the crash of Kling leading Macklin. 

[RCH]

If Kling was shown ahead of Macklin then surely he was ahead of the accident? I seem to recall seeing a photo or film of a Merc sitting in the pits close to where Macklin ended up. Kling must have pitted on the following lap which on the face of it, given the proximity of the crashed Austin-Healey, seems an odd thing to do.