
Tragedy at Phillip Island
#1
Posted 24 February 2002 - 01:10
Richard Flack(?) driving the last P25 BRM in the world had died in a horrific accident during a historic meet at the Phillip Island circuit. Apparently coming out of Siberia Corner he clipped another car he was passing his BRM was then launched into a series of flips eventual coming to a stop broken into 3 pieces and on fire.
More details on this sad episode later.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 24 February 2002 - 01:33
This actually occured yesterday. The drivers name was David Flack and the name of the event was the Shannons Phillip Island Classic.
#3
Posted 24 February 2002 - 01:40


#4
Posted 24 February 2002 - 02:07

Does anyone have any information on Spencers' history in racing or any information regarding him?
(edited name on 24/02)
#5
Posted 24 February 2002 - 02:27


Very sad
#6
Posted 24 February 2002 - 02:54

#7
Posted 24 February 2002 - 04:52
Originally posted by Wolf
![]()
huh? what's with the smiley?

#8
Posted 24 February 2002 - 07:24

#9
Posted 24 February 2002 - 07:26
His passing leaves a huge hole in the historic racing world.
#10
Posted 24 February 2002 - 08:26
#11
Posted 24 February 2002 - 08:50
DCN
#12
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:15

#13
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:21
All I've heard was from Ray over a very crackly mobile phone connection.
#14
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:26

#15
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:56

#16
Posted 24 February 2002 - 10:50

Bernd, i am also confused about the name of the driver. Over the PA, i'm sure they said his name was David Flack, but as you know it's sometimes hard to hear everything from the PA. In the program, they have a write up about the P25, and the driver is mentioned as David Flack. On the entry list, the name is written as Spencer Flack. I'm still not quite sure what his real name is. Perhaps his full name is David Spencer Flack? Surely someone here can enlighten us.
#17
Posted 24 February 2002 - 11:02
#18
Posted 24 February 2002 - 12:09

#19
Posted 24 February 2002 - 17:18
Advertisement
#20
Posted 25 February 2002 - 04:15


Am I wrong or is the poor Spencer Flack only the second driver to lost his life at the wheel of a BRM (the only one I can remember is Seppi) ?
#21
Posted 25 February 2002 - 10:35

#22
Posted 25 February 2002 - 10:36
DCN
#23
Posted 25 February 2002 - 14:34


Peter
#24
Posted 25 February 2002 - 16:01
There's no doubt the P25 in question was the sole genuine survivor, but how sure are we that it was the Bonnier Zandvoort winner? Reason I ask is that I was once told that when the factory were tearing the P25s apart to make P48s, someone thought, "Oops, better keep one to mark our first F1 championship GP win - um, that one there will do." The suggestion being that no-one really knew whether the 'saved' car was the Zandvoort winner or not.
Perhaps some BRM historian in our mnidst might be able to confirm or deny. (I can see good reason for both sides of the story being put about).
#25
Posted 25 February 2002 - 17:32

#26
Posted 25 February 2002 - 19:21
I don't think the story really stood up to scrutiny when I double-checked it. But a good mischievous mechanic's story nonetheless, one of millions...
Even if the car's identity had been in REAL doubt - and it was certainly '258' in my mind* - there is no doubt that Spencer's car was the sole BRM-built genuine survivor of the type - as (I fear) the magnesium fire at Phillip Island has so sickeningly confirmed.
And I emphasise it should be 'Type 25' NOT 'P'25 as has become normal useage...and as I have written myself before I learned the error of my ways...for which, again, I apologise to all.
Karl - whose serious work I so hugely admire, having prefaced my very first letter to him long ago with the words "if a cat can look at a King...", which I really meant - deserves the credit for pointing out to us all, way back when, that 'W163' was a misnomer for the 'W154' Mercedes-Benz fitted with 'M163' engine under the marque's 1939 bodyform.
Well in my minor way I'm preaching Type 25 instead of P25 where BRMs are concerned.
This is because BRM Project 25 was, strictly speaking, the basic 2 1/2-litre 4-cyl engine project.
The 2 1/2-litre chassis as originated in 1954-55 was the Project 27.
The first five cars built used semi-monocoque stressed-skin panelled centre sections. They were nicknamed 'The Over-Stressed Skin Specials' by the team. They were then replaced by an evolutionary multi-tubular chassis structure with all-detachable body panels - apart from the spoon-shaped semi-stressed undertray - which retained the Project 27 internal classification, though v. different from the original design under that number.
The cars - assembled from P25 engine and P27 chassis frame - should properly be referred to as the 'Type 25'.
In period, they were known by most people as neither P25, nor P27, nor PS, PT, PTFE nor Type anything...they were just 'the BRM' or 'the 4-cylinder BRM' or 'the 2 1/2-litre BRM'.
Fans like us just didn't develop anoraksia nervosa over type numbers then.
I think I was one of the very first ever to quote 'BT' Brabham type designations in print, in an F2 review in 'Motor Racing' magazine, I think in 1964. Until that time Lotus digital model numbers or '250F' were about the only ones that were at all familiar...check the magazine record to see... Coopers tended to be described as 'Lowline' or '1959-type'....the internal model classifications T43, T51, T53, T53P were first exposed, publicised and then adopted by 'us' years after the cars were current.
*I first saw '258' on display in the Montagu Motor Museum at Beaulieu around 1960-61, with a perspex engine cover permitting sight of the works beneath. When I examined it thoroughly prior to its sale by Christie's in 1981 the only chassis identity was '27/3' lightly stamped low down into one frame tube in the cockpit. Think about it - new Type 27 multi-tubular spaceframe chassis number '3'. '251' to '255' had been stressed-skin cars, so '256', '257' and '258' were the first, second and third tube-frame versions...i.e. '27/3'. Magnesium alloy - elektron - body. Lovely jubbly... but not, I fear, any more...
I hope this clarifies some of these matters.
DCN
#27
Posted 25 February 2002 - 19:27

#28
Posted 25 February 2002 - 19:48
I hasten to make clear my source was not you - and I would certainly hope I wouldn't spill the beans if it had been a "between mates" sort of story. But I am equally certain the person who told me would have heard it from you (or vice versa?) as he has raced BRMs in historic events - and also the Vanwall. With me?
Fascinating about the model designation - dammit! You've no idea how many records I've got to change! Can we still call the V16 the P15? And what about later cars - P48? P261? P153? Surely they're OK?
I certainly remember the days when reports never carried type references - especially the Coopers, which were MkI this or MkIII that. No-one ever referred to the 500 range by anything other than Mark numbers as long as they were racing. The first 'T' list I saw was in Autosport in nineteen-um (sixty something?), which might well be when it was drawn up (It's a long time since I've read the Nye Cooper book...) But I believe it's perfectly legitimate for us to apply them retrospectively.
#29
Posted 25 February 2002 - 21:25
I absolutely agree with you - it is alright to be pernickety about these type numbers etc in retrospect, so that at least today we all KNOW which specific car we mean. Look at all these damned F3 Dallars around our knees today - how else could we differentiate last year's from this year's from 1998s etc etc.
The BRM 'Type' necessity only arises in the P25 engine/P27 frame combination - the P48 used the P25 engine, but in rear-mounting form, but if you want to be REALLY esoteric you'd call the BRM P48 with strut-type rear suspension and 3 disc brakes the 'Mark I' rear-engined car, and then the wishbone rear suspension 4-brake P48 the 'Mark II' - and then there's a 'Mark III' which emerged in 1961 with wishbone rear suspension, 4-brakes, Climax engine, smaller tube chassis etc and was then re-classified in the paper trail as the P57. ... Still with me?
Make that car smaller - fit tailor-made fuel bags instead of re-using the old P48 mouldings - as had the interim P57-Climax - stick a V8 in the stern - and hey presto P578...and so on.
It's easier to go P48 Marks I and II, P57-Climax, P578, P61 monocoque, P261, etc etc etc.
DCN
#30
Posted 25 February 2002 - 22:02
However if we realize how fast these old cars (even though they all are very well prepared) are being driven, and I do exactely the same, it is surprising that we have so few really very bad accidents.
Nigel Corner got close at Goodwood but luckily survided, probably because he was thrown out.
Sad that Spencer didn't have this luck.
In certain Historic classes (not the '50s or '60s GP cars) I believe that the risks are getting rather high, especially in the Grand Prix classes of the '70s and '80s where there are a number of very well qualified drivers running together with completely unqualified drivers.
These cars were very dangerous then and are only marginally less dangerous now.
I think there must be a new grading of competition licences for these cars.
#31
Posted 25 February 2002 - 22:30
Tony Rudd is hurt by the news - for this is the first time a driver has ever died in one of 'his' cars...the Lotus 78 was not his...nor was the BRM P160...
S--- happens...
DCN
#32
Posted 25 February 2002 - 22:32

I offer my condolences to friends and family. Very sad news indeed.
#33
Posted 25 February 2002 - 23:10
When I heard of this terrible event, my thoughts immediately went to Nigel Corner, and also to the terrifying shunt that befell Black Jack at Goodwood a couple of years ago. While I believe fervently that these historic racing cars should be raced, as was intended from their genesis, I think you are right - the historic racing authorities need to set their house in order, before the forces of political correctness do it for them.
#34
Posted 26 February 2002 - 00:38
They were not going slow in the race either, the bloke in the 49 did a 1.20 lap which is pretty bloody quick.
#35
Posted 26 February 2002 - 10:26
Virtually all British-made 3-litre Formula 1 cars well into the 1980s were tested at some stage at Goodwood. Often several ran there simultaneously....without serious problems. Freddy March, the Duke of Richmond & Gordon who had conceived and opened the circuit in 1948 - and whose decision finally closed it in 1966 - had simply lost interest.
Although he expressed safety concerns about the circuit relative to the rising power and speed of major-league cars, his concerns were more for spectator protection than anything else. It was not so much 3-litre F1 which concerned him - as 6-litre Group 7 sports-racing cars with the aerodynamic effects which could influence their flight....
While we promote the circuit as being unchanged since its heyday - which in strict circuit terms, i.e. the line and lie of the asphalt, it certainly is - Goodwood in fact was remodelled enormously, but subtly, before it was re-opened. Everywhere banks were moved back and or re-aligned or re-faced. It looks much the same - but its 'sameness' is in part an illusion, as is so much of what we present there.
Black Jack's accident - which at first sight looked really bad - occurred at a spot where we have no record whatsoever of any previous racing car impact, at any time, during the circuit's history.
Ever the charger, our hero saw an opportunity to pass Jackie Oliver's Lotus 49 - OK, Lotus 49 replica (it's just received FIA Historic paper recognition, can you credit that????) - exiting St Mary's ess bend. He put two McLaren wheels on the grass on the right-side verge, his left-rear wheel clipped the rear of Ollie's right-front, and Sir Jack's M5A then spun across the Lotus's nose - tagging its left-front wheel on the way - before spinning backwards into the left-side bank...
Sir Jack sustained internal bruising and chipped vertebrae. Two months later, in the Adelaide Classic Rally, he misread - or didn't see - or ignored - metre-square fluorescent yellow 'Double Caution' signs at the roadside on a special stage straight leading up to a blind crest, on which the road turned 90-right. His Aston Martin DB4GT rammed a tree head on, pushed the rad back into the engine and the engine into the cabin space between the occupants. One year later, on the same stage, Win Percy made the same mistake in a 7-litre Cobra replica, and struck the next-door tree. Sir Jack thought this was utterly hilarious, 'Brabham Corner' having become 'Percy's Corner' - "Great!", he said, "That really takes the pressure off me!".
Free men make a choice every time they climb into a competition car - they also choose where they drive and who they run against - and how hard they press the pedals, and when. I fervently support such liberty, and as long as innocent, unwitting bystanders are protected (from us) to the nth degree - the informed decision of whether or not to put ourselves at risk, is surely a free man's right????
DCN
#36
Posted 26 February 2002 - 11:06
Your glory of Goodwood book is superb Doug. My congratulations to Lawrence, Taylor & your good self for a superlative work.
#37
Posted 26 February 2002 - 12:02
When he retired from flying Warbirds he took up motor racing with the same enthusiasm and total dedication he had previously shown to flying.
I have lost many friends and acquaintances to dangerous sports but Spencer’s is the hardest of all to take.
#38
Posted 26 February 2002 - 22:30
The enlarged gravel traps were in the right places and certainly worked.
My point about qualified/unqualified drivers is that there are lots of fast competent Historic drivers who at some circuit would go all out at 98% just because of safety, and there are drivers often with less ability who will go 102%. It may work and it may not, mostly depending on the type of car and how you are protected in a crash.
I agree with Doug Nye that there is no question about changing the looks of these beautiful early cars with rollbars etc, we just need drivers that can handle them efficiently and safely and maybe sometimes a bit less agressive than we see at some of the races.
Spencer Flack was certainly a good driver, but this time his luck ran out and it may happen to the best of us!
#39
Posted 27 February 2002 - 06:15
Thanks for correcting my RAF/Red Arrows reference. The name thing was of course an attempt to understand why he should have been described in the programme as David
Hans
I completely agree with your earlier posting about tightening up licensing. We've all seen examples of atrocious driving in historic events. The trouble is, organisers naturally want to encourage interesting cars to their meetings, and I suspect they cross their fingers and hope nothing goes wrong. And most times it doesn't.
I hasten to add that I'm not suggesting this was a factor in the Philip Island tragedy.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 27 February 2002 - 13:10
Grant was formerly Nigel Mansell's personal engineer with Williams (c 1986-8) and was racing the ex-Derek Jolly Lotus 15 with a 2-litre Climax FPF. He is, of course, one of the younger brothers of Beban Gibson, killed at Bathurst in 1969, and I think the fastest of those brothers... if not of the whole family.
I asked him if he was 'going to give it a bootful' and he replied, "I was right behind the fatal accident yesterday..."
That was the first I heard of it. He told me that the car was that badly broken up etc.
Since then I've learned that the car from the cockpit forward is very much repairable. The corners were all torn off, but the chassis and engine essentially undamaged (Ian Tate told me this, he was pretty much running the meeting and has years of experience in fixing race cars both in a hurry and over a long term).
The accident occured coming out of Siberia, with the Lister moving to the centre of the circuit to pass a car on the right, Flack went further left to pass the Lister and found another car right in his path.
I'm delighted to report that Grant did get stuck into it in the main ten lapper on Sunday, chasing down Paul Samuels' 2.5 litre Lotus 15 (complete with A-series diff) and setting fastest lap or the race... until fuel pressure problems slowed him.
#41
Posted 13 July 2002 - 10:01
Originally posted by David McKinney
Getting a bit OT
There's no doubt the P25 in question was the sole genuine survivor, but how sure are we that it was the Bonnier Zandvoort winner? Reason I ask is that I was once told that when the factory were tearing the P25s apart to make P48s, someone thought, "Oops, better keep one to mark our first F1 championship GP win - um, that one there will do." The suggestion being that no-one really knew whether the 'saved' car was the Zandvoort winner or not.
Perhaps some BRM historian in our mnidst might be able to confirm or deny. (I can see good reason for both sides of the story being put about).
Corner’s BRM: the real story
It appears that the information we received regarding Neil Corner’s BRM P25 last week was rather misleading, and the car is not quite all that it seems. In fact Bonnier’s Dutch GP-winning car was dismantled at the end of 1959 along with the other works cars to be cannibalised for the rear-engined P48 of the following year.
However, the Donington Collection has acquired one of these P48s, and with the aid of that and other sundry components has reconstructed no fewer than three P25s during the winter. These semi-genuine, semi-replica models have new chassis frames and bodies but can boast of entirely original mechanical parts, so they are at any rate as “genuine” as you could now get.
The car that Corner will drive in historic races this summer carries the same chassis number as Bonnier’s successful model with BRM’s blessing. However, that is the only part that could be guaranteed to be from the victor of Zandvoort. The Donington Collection still owns it and are loaning it to Corner so that it can once again be seen in its true enviroment.
Published in Track Topics – Motoring News – April 4, 1974
#42
Posted 13 July 2002 - 10:25
I would like to applaude--to congratulate--the man...(whatever his name)...for a life LIVED, even if one lost.
so...
...
Christopher Snow
#43
Posted 27 December 2004 - 01:50
If so, who were the owner and driver at that point in time (as I don't tend to buy programmes)?
I'm only asking as I'm afraid I don't know enough about the historic scene to be aware if there are Type 25 replicas around.
#44
Posted 27 December 2004 - 02:42
Free men make a choice every time they climb into a competition car - they also choose where they drive and who they run against - and how hard they press the pedals, and when. I fervently support such liberty, and as long as innocent, unwitting bystanders are protected (from us) to the nth degree - the informed decision of whether or not to put ourselves at risk, is surely a free man's right????
Could not say it any better. And that goes for slower gentlemen drivers too. They have the same rights, same responsibilities and encounter the same risks from the ones who have to win at all cost because it is in their blood, either the old guard reliving their younger days or younger ones who just are very competitive in their own right. It is just very sad when something like this happens, but not at all unexpected when one sees the kind of competitiveness is shown in vintage racing today.
T54

#45
Posted 27 December 2004 - 07:07
It was one of those in the BRM tribute, owned at the time by Hon Amschel RothschildOriginally posted by Twin Window
Am I correct in thinking that the Type 25 involved in this tragic tale was the same one I saw at the Coy's meeting at Silverstone in 1999 - the BRM tribute event?
If so, who were the owner and driver at that point in time
#46
Posted 19 January 2009 - 04:56
Coming across this topic has compelled me to post however as I was present at Phillip Island on this dreadful day, watching the exit of turn 12 as the cars accelerated out and onto the not-inconsiderable straight.
All I would like to say is that Mr. Flack's BRM was being driven superbly, and was a joy to behold. For me, watching this car drift gracefully from the apex tucked in close behind a competitor to start that lap was something I will never forget.
Please excuse me for adding to a long-dormant thread.
Regards
Jason
#47
Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:56
I too, was present at Phillip Island that fateful Saturday back in 2002, but my impression was somewhat different to yours Jason.
I was near the end of the main straight and I was concerned that both the BRM and the Lister Corvette were being "over-driven" under the circumstances.
Phillip Island is a full-blown GP circuit and both cars were very quick motor cars being driven, it must be said with the greatest respect, by amateur drivers.
Add the fact that, due to the thin nature of historic fields in Australia, there were some pretty "average" performing cars and drivers in the event, I felt real trepidation as I saw both the Lister and BRM enter the Southern Loop knowing they were soon to encounter slower cars. I also had the impression that the two local Lotus XV's were deliberately hanging back from the two fiercely-duelling leading cars - which I am now convinced was for obvious reasons.
I believe that Historic Race Regulations in Victoria were changed as a result of the Flack accident to ensure less aggressive driving in lapping slower cars..but I am not sure of the details.
Derek
#48
Posted 19 January 2009 - 10:43
'Drivers of faster cars are expected to abide by a code of conduct whereby they do not seek to improve their position in the race during the lapping of slower cars. Similarly, drivers of cars being lapped must not seek to improve their position in the race when being lapped.'