49 replies to this topic

[William Hunt]

On youtube I came accross the excellent and very informative Le Mans '55 documentary that features lentghy interviews with Norman Dewis, John Fitch (such a nice man) and eye witnesses and even a victim.

Le Mans 1955 disaster

Now I never understood three things about the disaster:

- Why didn't the organizers stop the race?

In first instance it was not stopped because of the fear that spectators leaving the area would disrupt the aid to the wounded and that they would block the roads so that ambulances could not reach or leave the area
However the accident happened early in the race and still the race ran it's full distance of 24 hours

- Why didn't Jaguar pull out?

Mercedes (convinced by their driver John Fitch) had proposed Jaguar to pull out together with them, Jaguar dully declined and continued to race as if nothing had happened but 84 people had died

- Why did Mike Hawthorn celebrate his victory and drink champagne?

Hawthorn clearly knew that he had caused the accident, after all he had admitted it to several people right after the accident (he came in 1 lap later distraught and in panic he admited that he was the cause).

In the months and years after the disaster he even put the blame on others (on Levegh or Macklin) and claimed that he was not to blame, in contradiction to what he had said right after the accident

Mike Hawthorn's behaviour was despicable

I can only explain it by assuming that he must have been still in a state of shock that he even drank champagne a day later because the scope of what had happened was known then

I do not understand how he could still live with himself, I think many would have commited suicide from guilt but not Mike: he celebrated and even drank champagne whilst the dead were not even burried

And then there also was the whole Luigi Musso controversy, the wife of Musso blamed Hawthorn for his death although honestly he was totally not to blame for that but it stuck to his image

I would find it hard to imagine that Hawthorn was not eaten up by guilt inside

Now I realize that appalling track safety and the pit entrance were the real causes but it was Hawthorn who clearly caused Macklin to swerve in to Levegh's car. It was a very big driving mistake of Hawthorn (overtaking Macklin just before pitting, then hitting the brakes really hard, Macklin had only 2 options: driving in to the back of the Jaguar or trying to avoid him) that had set the events in motion.

Hawthorn's biography, together with that of Peter Collins, called 'Mon Ami Mate' is a must buy though for Nostalghia F1 lovers.

edit: haven re-read parts of his biography written by Chris Nixon, he was clearly eaten up by guilt

Edited by William Hunt, 24 June 2017 - 21:39.

[Vitesse2]

This was discussed at length when the documentary was first shown, William.

 

http://forums.autosp...disaster-merged

[philippe7]

And of course in this thread

 

http://forums.autosp...2-le-mans-1955/

[William Hunt]

those threads / topics were posted in .... 2010 and 2000 (17 years ago) respectively

[David Lawson]

Could the image in the first post be edited to an address link please. I don't need to look at fatal accident photographs and people that do are welcome to follow a link to them.

 

David

[sabrejet]

The 'search' function works OK for me: saves re-hashing stuff that's been gone over maaaaany times already.

 

But I see Glenn Miller's gone missing. On YooTube it was.

[William Hunt]

I had posted an adress link but apparently that image showed up, I can remove the link altogether if you want

[Tim Murray]

I've now turned it into a link.

[RCH]

Given that there are threads discussing this matter (I probably took part in them myself) I think that for people who do not wish to wade through those threads and are unfamiliar with the incident the original poster's points need to be answered.

 

As has been stated the race continued because the organisers wished to prevent anything getting in the way of rescue operations. I suspect that the full extent of the deaths and injuries would not have been clear for many hours and the organisers would probably have not been particularly keen at that time to emphasise the severity of the accident.

 

Mercedes withdrawal was for political reasons. They were well aware that Germany was still unpopular in France and wouldn't want to be seen to win under such circumstances. Also of course there would be grief within the team and a feeling that perhaps it could happen again with one of the other cars. Jaguar had been asked by the organisers, as had Mercedes, not to withdraw in the immediate aftermath. Given their own view of the reasons later on why should they have withdrawn if Aston Martin, Bristol and everyone else didn't?

 

There are people on these boards far more capable than I to discuss Mike Hawthorn but he comes across as a somewhat complex man. Drinking champagne? Well that was his persona and it's what you did after winning a race. However I have seen a photo of a despondent Mike, sitting on a pile of tyres after the race with all the cares of the world on his shoulders. He was badly affected by the accident and I believe his feelings of guilt stayed with him till the day he died. Maybe he didn't show it, no doubt after thinking about it he realised it wasn't his fault but I think the guilt remained. It is completely wrong to describe his actions as despicable.

[David Lawson]

Thank you very much Tim.

 

David

[ensign14]

Hawthorn clearly knew that he had caused the accident, after all he had admitted it to several people right after the accident (he came in 1 lap later distraught and in panic he admited that he was the cause).

In the months and years after the disaster he even put the blame on others (on Levegh or Macklin) and claimed that he was not to blame, in contradiction to what he had said right after the accident

 

...

Now I realize that appalling track safety and the pit entrance were the real causes but it was Hawthorn who clearly caused Macklin to swerve in to Levegh's car. It was a very big driving mistake of Hawthorn (overtaking Macklin just before pitting, then hitting the brakes really hard, Macklin had only 2 options: driving in to the back of the Jaguar or trying to avoid him) that had set the events in motion.
 

 

I think the accident was depressingly simple.

 

Hawthorn and Fangio were going hammer and tongs.

 

They came up to lap some backmarkers; Levegh for the first time, Macklin for the fifth or sixth.

 

At the same time Levegh was looking to lap Macklin for the fourth or fifth time.

 

Hawthorn was due to come into the pits.

 

Hawthorn, still going pell-mell, and presumably in a rhythm, passed Levegh and Macklin.

 

Hawthorn then slowed for the pits.

 

Macklin turned left to go around the slowing Hawthorn.

 

Levegh tried to go left to go around Macklin but there wasn't enough room.

 

***

 

Is anyone actually to blame there?  Had there been a pit-lane the accident wouldn't have happened; had there been a wider front stretch the accident wouldn't have happened.

 

But because of the track layout then it could have been any three cars in that position and the accident would have happened. 
 

[RCH]

I believe Macklin knew both Mercedes were coming up fast to lap him. He had moved to the right and having been passed by Hawthorn was maybe concentrating a little too much on his mirror and failed to realise the Jaguar was slowing, it has been said that he actually swung out further than necessary to pass Hawthorn. Racing accident which probably wouldn't have happened if the track had been wider. I doubt that anyone would have expected the Merc to have taken off after hitting the back of Macklin's Healey.

[William Hunt]

Fangio claimed that Levegh actually had saved his life by signaling danger to him with his hand just before he hit the Austin Healy of Macklin.

- A question: when did Hawthorn know of his terminal illness (kidney problem), he was said to have maximum 18 months of his life left when he died on the public road at the end of '58.
I am currently re-reading his biography, written by Chris Nixon, and so far have found nothing on his illness

[Tim Murray]

Keep reading, William. The illness is also discussed in the earlier threads you chose to dismiss, for example in the post below and the replies to it from tonyb and Vitesse2:

Hawthorn mentions his kidney problems on P130 of Challenge Me the Race. He had suffered intermittent back pain since the age of 17 and after his 1954 Syracuse crash when he returned to England he told his doctor who sent him to a specialist. All this was going on not long after his father had died in a road accident and the authorities were determined to make Mike do his national service even though they had seen the X rays that confirmed the kidneys problems. Subsequently he was operated on at Guy's Hospital in London by a Mr. Fitzpatrick and thereafter quote: " I was 5 weeks in a nursing home after it and felt rather frail for some time afterwards."

Some people were aware and Roy Salvadori told my late father about it at some now forgotten date. His pallor was noticeable in any colour photographs of the period (I'm fairly certain that I've seen him referred to as Mike 'Snowball' Hawthorn somewhere or other), and it was surely the kidney disease that prompted his retirement rather than the sentiments expressed at the end of Champion Year even allowing for the trauma caused by the death of his chum Peter Collins. Very few professional racing drivers voluntarily retire at 29. However this is conjecture on my part, just my opinion.

It seems that Mike had about 2 years left at the time of his fatal accident as suggested in 'Mon Ami Mate'.

[F1matt]

I remember my Dad telling me he heard that Mike suffered blackouts which is why he retired so young, is that true?

Edited by F1matt, 24 June 2017 - 19:31.

[Vitesse2]

I remember my Dad telling me he heard that Mike suffered blackouts which is why he retired so young, is that true?

I dare say that might be true, given his kidney problems which are discussed in the post Tim linked.

 

Seven years on from the previous discussion, with more sources available, I can add this from a postscript by WA McKenzie (the paper's motoring correspondent) to Mike's obituary in The Daily Telegraph, Friday, January 23, 1959, Issue 32276, p.12, referring to the Le Mans crash:

 

I think that is the only time I ever saw Hawthorn's nerve shaken. He leapt out of his car, jumped across the tarmac and started to run wildly away stating that he would not drive again.

 

He was almost dragged back and with the Mercedes Benz opposite the pits an inferno, he went on to win the race.

[William Hunt]

is it true that he had only 18 months to live because of his kidney problems when he died in his Jaguar (whilst racing the Mercedes of Rob Walker) on a public road?

[William Hunt]

Keep reading, William. The illness is also discussed in the earlier threads you chose to dismiss, for example in the post below and the replies to it from tonyb and Vitesse2:
 

 
I am not dismissing them, I plan to read all of it

[E1pix]

I realize sometimes we discuss things that have been thoroughly covered before, but in my view I'm always open for new threads anyway.

There's so many points of history to cover here, it's impossible to just think of them all and start searching.

To wit, Thanks William.

[doc knutsen]

On youtube I came accross the excellent and very informative Le Mans '55 documentary that features lentghy interviews with Norman Dewis, John Fitch (such a nice man) and eye witnesses and even a victim.

Le Mans 1955 disaster

Now I never understood three things about the disaster:

(snip)


Mike Hawthorn's behaviour was despicable

(snip)

I would find it hard to imagine that Hawthorn was not eaten up by guilt inside

Now I realize that appalling track safety and the pit entrance were the real causes but it was Hawthorn who clearly caused Macklin to swerve in to Levegh's car. It was a very big driving mistake of Hawthorn (overtaking Macklin just before pitting, then hitting the brakes really hard, Macklin had only 2 options: driving in to the back of the Jaguar or trying to avoid him) that had set the events in motion.

Hawthorn's biography, together with that of Peter Collins, called 'Mon Ami Mate' is a must buy though for Nostalghia F1 lovers.

edit: haven re-read parts of his biography written by Chris Nixon, he was clearly eaten up by guilt

 

Do not take all details in "documentaries"  at face value. A couple of threads on this forum have covered this topic in great detail. Look up Paul Frere's discussion on the matter for a more balanced view of the accident, and the roles of the three key players.

Edited by doc knutsen, 25 June 2017 - 12:18.

[nexfast]

Very much in agreement with reading the balanced and detailed opinion of Paul Frère which is printed in English in the book "Jaguar Sports Racing and Works Competition Cars from 1954" by Andrew Whyte. He puts in perspective what was a racing incident with terrible consequences.

[Roger Clark]

What is the evidence that Mike Hawthorn's kidney disease was terminal?

[D-Type]

What is the evidence that Mike Hawthorn's kidney disease was terminal?

I thought there was a reference in Mon Ami - Mate but I can't find it

[Collombin]

I thought there was a reference in Mon Ami - Mate but I can't find it

The reference or the book?

Page 359.

[Roger Clark]

The reference or the book?

Page 359.

Thank you.

[D-Type]

The reference or the book?
 

The reference   

 

But if I'm honest, I have to admit that there are some books I can't find.    ​ 

 

[JoBo]

Excellent documentary, very emotional - and still shocking after all this 62 years! Most saddest moment is the panorama photo in the last 2 minutes!

 

JoBo

[john aston]

'The past is a foreign  country, they do things differently there ' is the most apposite quotation to respond to OP's concerns. See also the Farnborough Air Show crash in 1952; 29 killed and the show went on , after the boy scouts were tasked with helping clear up the mess. If you had gone through a six year war which  affected nearly  everybody in the world , and killed countless millions. only ten years before then a plane crash or a big  crash at a car race was a  far, far , smaller deal than it would be now , in an era where we seem to have a minute's silence every week for events which might be ghastly , but which affect only a tiny percentage of the population . Sh**t happened . .   

[E1pix]

Couldn't have said it better myself, John.

We humans have become a strained mess of delicate doilies.

[Nemo1965]

Couldn't have said it better myself, John.

We humans have become a strained mess of delicate doilies.

 

Perhaps. But I have used the Le Mans-film earlier in a thread about the question: is 'our' love for racing is made possible because the sometimes gruesome results of it (pictures of dead people) are hidden from the public domain out of decency?

 

I remember as a youngster being angry in hindsight about people who wanted to use Le Mans-tragedy as an argument to prohibit motor-racing. But it was only after I was 35, when I had access to internet that I could see the carnage of Le Mans 1955 myself. Most vivid is the pic of the smouldering woman lying dead on the track, next to the burning Mercedes of Levegh... It made me question my love for motor-racing and especially the notion that 'death' kind of 'belongs' to motorsport, as a virtue of some kind.

 

In my view, you can only have a real discussion about the merits of any subject if you ALSO have the guts to confront yourself with the sometimes unpleasant side of that subject. Social media (like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) indeed have created a world in which you feel surrounded by snowflakes and social-justice warriors seemingly hellbent on damning and prohibiting of anything they don't seem to share an love for. But the same social media prevent censorship, however well meant. In this world, you just can't hide the ugly side of truth and in the end, that is good, IMHO.

 

Regarding the documentary: it is excellent, indeed. John Finch has become sort of a hero for me because of it.

[Glengavel]

If I'm at a motor race even as a spectator, I accept a certain element of risk. However, I don't accept an element of risk when I'm tucked up in my bed at night. While I too don't agree with holding a minute's silence for every tragic event that comes along, I certainly don't think of myself as a delicate doily or a snowflake and I reserve the right to get bloody angry when people are dead and homeless because somewhere down the line someone specified/approved/installed sub-standard materials, and all to save money.

 

Apologies for thread drift.

[Mallory Dan]

Couldn't have said it better myself, John.

We humans have become a strained mess of delicate doilies.

Quite correct Eric & John, I fully agree. In another sport, every week at a footy match the players seem to be wearing black armbands, and a minutes' silence before the game. I blame it all on Blair and the Diana effect....

[E1pix]

Further drifting like Jimi Hendrix, with apologies I find it necessary -- as I think our sport is at risk from it.

I have no problem with armbands in honor, nor being confronted with dark realities. I witnessed the death of a Native American midget racer named David Whitehorse right before turning 6, directly in our view, and have lost friends with this passion. I certainly wasn't saying we shouldn't be deeply affected nor angry when things go tragically wrong.

My comment was in reference to society going too far to protect its inhabitants. I miss the days of standing close to the track at my own risk, perhaps after close to 100 credentialed events it's tough being back from the fence.

If one chooses to take risks in life, and jump from perfectly-good airplanes, it's ours to risk after all and nobody else's concern. The day of needing a guide to ascend mountains, another passion of ours, is looming.

What was it Shakespeare said about lawyers?

[john aston]

Careful-  I used to be one.. It's easy to talk about taking your own risks as a competitor, but even then there are, and should be limits. But as a spectator the threshold is much , much higher. It's easy enough to bathe in the reflected drama of a dangerous sport by watching it but telling somebody their kid's dead  because no,  we couldn't be arsed to check the armco or the catch fencing ? Not so much . The old  cop out (legally ineffective for decades btw) of  'motor racing is dangerous ' isn't a get out of jail free card .  ..

[E1pix]

You and my lawyer friends are exempted, of course. Good and bad with everything, but the "ambulance chaser" types need to see the other side of the fence... Er, Armco.

[Jack-the-Lad]

Quite correct Eric & John, I fully agree. In another sport, every week at a footy match the players seem to be wearing black armbands, and a minutes' silence before the game. I blame it all on Blair and the Diana effect....

Acres of flowers, hundreds of teddy bears and candlelight vigils....My cynical self sometimes thinks it's more about the bereaved virtue signalers than it is about a genuine rememberance of those who were lost.

Edited by Jack-the-Lad, 28 June 2017 - 18:27.

[E1pix]

Though I've read and seen plenty on this topic over the decades — enough to feel comfortable in commenting above, anyway — tonight I finally viewed the entire video. Absolutely extraordinary.

 

The panoramic "before and after" transposition near the end is one of the most-powerful visual displays I've ever seen in my lifetime. Shocking and telling both, in equal measures.

 

I can't help but wonder how many similar bullets have been dodged in motor sport… and what the effects would be if 1955 happened in 2017. God willing, we will never find out.

 

 

 

 

Jack, I very much understand your cynicism here, and often feel much the same. But I have a feeling you'll agree we still give benefits of doubts in such sensitive moments — or at least, this is how I convince myself to feel after all thoughts are in. 

[Henri Greuter]

Sadly enough, I wonder if videos and knowledge like this will ever make enough impact.

 

Look what 's been written on the sister forum over the past years. "Cars are too slow" "it looks so slow" "They were faster in 2004"

And look what the rule changes for this year brought.....

 

 

 

EDIT:  This was of course what's been written about F1. As for what the neighbours wrote at Le Mans: "Hope to see Q reord broken"  ENDEDIT

 

 

 

The need for speed and thus the increased chances for launches ending up within a grandstand is still there, almost stronger than ever.

Most worrying scene I see is Indy. Now cars are safer than ever before and there is SAFER wall, the thoughts being expressed that it becomes more safe than ever before to go after that record of Arie at long last.

 

 

But now I'm drifting off, I better shut up.....

 

 

The most recent bullets we dodged at Le Mans  I can think off:  That Audi in the fencing a few years ago with Alan McNish. Anthony davidson in the toyata ttaking off after hitting a Ferrari some years ago was another example of the pistol being loaded all the time....

 

 

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 29 June 2017 - 08:35.

[Glengavel]

 

 

The most recent bullets we dodged at Le Mans  I can think off:  That Audi in the fencing a few years ago with Alan McNish. Anthony davidson in the toyata ttaking off after hitting a Ferrari some years ago was another example of the pistol being loaded all the time....

 

Henri

 

The M-B CLRs in 1999 - three bullets dodged.

[Henri Greuter]

The M-B CLRs in 1999 - three bullets dodged.

 

 

Dutch TV coverage of Le Mans had as a guest Kees van der Grint, the man who was with Bridgestone in those years. He told about those Mercs being designed for a near billiard table flat tracks.....

 

 

I still believe that Merc will do whatever is needed to keep F1 alive to avoid Sportscars becoming the best, if not only viable alternative for a formula with world wide impact.

I doubt that within my life time I will see Mercedes back at Le Mans with any factory supported effort.

Not after '55 and '99 combined....

 

 

 

 

henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 29 June 2017 - 11:40.

[Charlieman]

The most recent bullets we dodged at Le Mans  I can think off:  That Audi in the fencing a few years ago with Alan McNish. Anthony davidson in the toyata ttaking off after hitting a Ferrari some years ago was another example of the pistol being loaded all the time....

 

It's not just Le Mans and sports cars. The other day, I watched video of the Martin Brundle accident at the 1996 Australian GP (old enough for TNF!). Brundle had a dreadful flying accident from which he was unharmed. Looking at the video just now to refresh my memory, I see that if the car had been two metres to the left when it took off, it would have landed in or over the trackside fencing. Nothing in F1 car design has changed which might change or reduce flying accidents of its kind.

 

Designers and rule makers for prototype sports cars have tried to inhibit the capacity for cars to fly following a collision. Is there any evidence that new designs work? How much research knowledge about safety is shared?

[Nemo1965]

It's not just Le Mans and sports cars. The other day, I watched video of the Martin Brundle accident at the 1996 Australian GP (old enough for TNF!). Brundle had a dreadful flying accident from which he was unharmed. Looking at the video just now to refresh my memory, I see that if the car had been two metres to the left when it took off, it would have landed in or over the trackside fencing. Nothing in F1 car design has changed which might change or reduce flying accidents of its kind.

 

Designers and rule makers for prototype sports cars have tried to inhibit the capacity for cars to fly following a collision. Is there any evidence that new designs work? How much research knowledge about safety is shared?

 

Indeed. Watch the Alonso-accident at Australia (2016?). Especially in those situations - one driver braking in an unexpected spot, the other car 'using' that braking car as a ramp... A typical racing incident, like in Le Mans 1955.

Edited by Nemo1965, 29 June 2017 - 13:45.

[Michael Ferner]

So, I will be the one voice of opposition: I thought this was an exceptionally bad film. I will say that I generally don't like those oh-so-popular talking heads documentaries, but this one here was especially terrible. It was trite, sensationalist, misleading and plainly boring. If you value your time, don't waste it watching this film; it has no redeeming features.

In answer to the OP, if you absolutely have to apportion blame, then I'd say it's 75 % Macklin, 25 % Levegh, and the rest Hawthorn's.

[Nemo1965]

What made the documentary good was that it looked at the roles of all the participants, especially the role of Hawthorn and tried to analyze without claiming to have 'solved the case' of who was the big mean villain. Don't forget for a long time Levegh got the blame because he was supposed to be 'too old' for the race (and he was dead, which made him a convenient culprit).

 

I also thought it gave the right amount of attention the real victims: the spectators that died.

 

What I took from the documentary: Hawthorn (and the Brits in general) were hellbent on beating Mercedes (and the Germans in general). Mercedes had the superior car and Hawthorn managed to still make it a race out of it by sheer determination. He could only beat Fangio by driving on the skin of his teeth. He went for his stop, overtook Macklin... and immediately forgot about him, the only thing that mattered was Fangio, half a lap or so behind him. He braked, Macklin had to avoid, crash ensued.

 

It was not a malicious move by Hawthorn, it was not a brake-test, not a Vettel/Schumacher/Senna-chop, it was an error of judgment which happen so many times during sport, especially when athletes are performing to the max of their ability. In the case of Hawthorn and Macklin, they also drove vastly different cars which give all the more chance of a ****-up.

 

A normal racing-incident with catastrophic results, well portrayed. Hawthorn triggered the accident but is not to blame beyond establishing that fact (if that is what it is). 

Edited by Nemo1965, 01 July 2017 - 10:17.

[E1pix]

Agree on all counts, Nemo.

If all the film did was give us an inside look into the minds of those involved, that's enough to make it impacting to me.

[ensign14]

What I took from the documentary: Hawthorn (and the Brits in general) were hellbent on beating Mercedes (and the Germans in general). Mercedes had the superior car and Hawthorn managed to still make it a race out of it by sheer determination. He could only beat Fangio by driving on the skin of his teeth.

 

And when Hawthorn got out of the car he had Ivor Bueb waiting.

 

Fangio had Moss.

 

There was not a snowball's chance in Hades that Jaguar would have won without Mercedes retiring.  Hawthorn was not racing to beat the Germans per se; he was racing because he was a racer.  And when he was on, he was on.  It is one of the tragedies that he so rarely was.

[Nemo1965]

And when Hawthorn got out of the car he had Ivor Bueb waiting.

 

Fangio had Moss.

 

 

 

Ivor who? Forgot about that. Thanks!

[kayemod]

 

Hawthorn was not racing to beat the Germans per se

 

 

From some of the comments that Mike made at various times, I rather suspect that he was...

[RCH]

Never say never when it comes to winning at Le Mans! Stirling Moss has been quoted as saying that the Jaguar couldn't have won because Ivor Bueb was not up to the standard of the other drivers involved. Yet I recall him writing a newspaper article criticising the Le Mans race because it could be won by drivers who were not of the first rank. Much could have happened in the ensuing hours had the Merc stayed in. Fangio and Moss had a 2 lap lead when they withdraw but much of this gained because Fangio was still in his car and racing when the accident happened; Lofty England apparently spent a good deal of time persuading Hawthorn back into the car. Also Bueb had witnessed the whole accident unfolding being ready to take over and was severely shocked, it was presumably a while before both Bueb and Hawthorn were back to being fully able to drive competitively.

[ensign14]

From some of the comments that Mike made at various times, I rather suspect that he was...

 

From his personal perspective on a one-on-one, yes.  But surely he had no hope of winning the race itself.  Unless Merc had serious problems or retired. 

 

What perhaps we overlook is that Hawthorn v Fangio is perhaps JMH's greatest performance.  Maybe second to with Reims '53.