63 replies to this topic

[Mal9444]

I realise that with this question I am truly displaying my ignorance - but anyway...

I have just acquired a white metal 1:43rd scale kit of a merc 300 slr. It is, of course, silver (sort of).

Were the Mercs painted silver, or were the silver bodies simply the magnesium allow body panels left unpainted but brightly polished?

Thanks.

[A E Anderson]

Originally posted by Mal9444
I realise that with this question I am truly displaying my ignorance - but anyway...

I have just acquired a white metal 1:43rd scale kit of a merc 300 slr. It is, of course, silver (sort of).

Were the Mercs painted silver, or were the silver bodies simply the magnesium allow body panels left unpainted but brightly polished?

Thanks.

All the pictures of 300SLR's I have seen show the cars to have been painted metallic silver.

Art

[Mal9444]

Lordy - that was quick!.

Thank you

[Allan Lupton]

Originally posted by A E Anderson


All the pictures of 300SLR's I have seen show the cars to have been painted metallic silver.

Art

Both W196 and W196S (300SLR) were painted.

[Mal9444]

Thanks again. The only colour photo of a 300 slr I have is this Martyn Wrainwright shot, taken in 1955 at Dundrod.





All the other pictures I have seen are black-and-whites. I have the Ludvigsen book but the only colour shot is of the restored 722 on the front cover, and that is obviously taken at the Goodwood festival of Speed - it is not a period picture. Does anyone know of a source on the web where I could find more colour shots of the 300 slr?

[D-Type]

I thought they were originally bare metal and when they began to look scruffy, D-B painted them silver. But I could be mistaken ...

But I am certain they were never painted white.

[Mal9444]

I have three Maisto 1:18 300 SLRs, all of which display the interior trim of the cockpit as blue, including the cockpit floor and the mini-bulkead that keeps the passenger's feet from entangling with the driver's and prodding the accelerator at the wrong moment. Perhaps not surprisingly, my Maisto 1:18 W196 single seater shows essentially the same colour scheme. The assembly instructions for the 1:43 scale kit I am building say the cockpit etc should be gunmetal (dark grey). By co-incidence I was in that model shop just off Charing Cross Road yesterday, and they had a superb Autoart 1:12 W196 of Moss's Aintree car and this also shows the cokpit area as dark grey. (BTW - this is the first scale so-called model of the '55 British Grand Prix winner that, correctly, shows the car as being possessed of outboard front brakes - most models I have seen including my own, being just rip-off re-paints of an earlier model of Fangio's car, have incorrect inboard brakes - but even this otherwise excellent Autoart still has the, incorrect, four-spoke steering wheel on the Moss car.)

Can anyone advise me as to the correct colour for the cockpit interior of a 300 SLR/ W196S in original 1955 colour scheme?

Thanks.

(BTW, D-type - I am sure you are quite correct in your certainty. Only Dinky ever painted them white - presumably because officially white was the German racing colour, and no one at Binns Road knew - or perhaps just cared - any better.)

[Rob G]

Originally posted by Mal9444
I have three Maisto 1:18 300 SLRs, all of which display the interior trim of the cockpit as blue, including the cockpit floor and the mini-bulkead that keeps the passenger's feet from entangling with the driver's and prodding the accelerator at the wrong moment. Perhaps not surprisingly, my Maisto 1:18 W196 single seater shows essentially the same colour scheme. The assembly instructions for the 1:43 scale kit I am building say the cockpit etc should be gunmetal (dark grey). By co-incidence I was in that model shop just off Charing Cross Road yesterday, and they had a superb Autoart 1:12 W196 of Moss's Aintree car and this also shows the cokpit area as dark grey. (BTW - this is the first scale so-called model of the '55 British Grand Prix winner that, correctly, shows the car as being possessed of outboard front brakes - most models I have seen including my own, being just rip-off re-paints of an earlier model of Fangio's car, have incorrect inboard brakes - but even this otherwise excellent Autoart still has the, incorrect, four-spoke steering wheel on the Moss car.)

Can anyone advise me as to the correct colour for the cockpit interior of a 300 SLR/ W196S in original 1955 colour scheme?

Thanks.

Well, I took these pictures of this W196 at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway museum, but it's a 1954 model. I don't know if this helps you at all.

[bradbury west]

Malcolm, e mail me and I will send a scan of a hi res photo of the Schlumpf MB at the Festival. It may help, as perhaps the car has not been restored.

There is also the little handbook of race team paint colour codes on Barry Boor's legendary BRM paint colour thread, Maserati gun metal grey or something. It may give a clue or a link to the MB colours. Otherwise contact MB Tradition, via Milton Keynes I suppose. That is how I ended up with an exploded diagram of the rear susp of the type 540. All I wanted was a picture of the springs. They were very helpful and came back in ten mins with the info on the fax. Brilliant.

Roger Lund.

Edited by bradbury west, 02 February 2014 - 23:46.

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by Rob G

Well, I took these pictures of this W196 at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway museum, but it's a 1954 model. I don't know if this helps you at all.

Nice pictures - thank you.
What you see here is the 1955 edition of the W196 streamliner.
1. The 1954 model had the Mercedes star emblem painted above the front air intake while the 1955 edition had the star emblem exchanged with a chrome-plated part.
2. The 1954 model had the engine air intake through the center radiator grill, while the 1955 edition had a separate engine air intake at the right side of the hood, improving air flow.
3. The engine hood was lower on the 1955 model but was now bulging in the center.
4. The car shown appears to be the one raced by Stirling Moss at the 1955 Italian Grand Prix. This was the only W196 that ever carried the #16 start number.

[Rob G]

Thanks, Hans. I saw the date 1954 on the sign in front of the car and simply assumed that it was the year of this particular car. Thanks for setting the record straight.

[Mal9444]

I'm immensely grateful for your help and interest, guys. Those pictures, Rob, are stunning and of great help. Looks like the gunmetal grey was the choice. But in addition, they confirm for me that I should be using the metallic silver (as advised by Art in an earlier post) as opposed to plain silver (as used on my Crescent Streamliner, for instance), as well as some other colours on detailing.

The kit is the one by SMTS and the only Moss Mercedes model that I've ever come across that has the correct three-spoke steering wheel.

While I have your attention - can anyone tell me where the other 300 slrs went? At least seven were built. One (005, IIRC) was destroyed in the Le Mans crash. 004, the car I am assembling and better known as 722, is in the museum in Mille Miglia configuration - but Google and web searches give me no further information as to the fate or location of the others. Ludvigsen's book, which I have, is frustratingly silent on the subject. They were such iconic cars they cannot, surely, have simply been scrapped - or maybe that's exactly what happened, D-B wanting to maintain the mythological status and thus not permitting them to fall into 'ordinary' hands.

[Roger Clark]

Michael Riedner's book on the W196 said that there were 10:

0001 Donated to Ford Museum, Dearborn
0002 Daimler-Benz Museum
0003 Deutches Museum Munich
0004 Daimler-Benz Museum
0005 Schlumpff Museum
0006 Destroyed at Le Mans
0007 Coupe, Daimler-Benz Museum
0008 Coupe, Daimler-Benz Museum
0009 not completed
0010 Daimler-Benz museum (Lightweight)

[Allan Lupton]

DSJ writing the Profile No. 54 in about 1966 listed:
0001/54 Ford Museum, Dearborn
0002/55 D-B museum, Stuttgart
0003/55 Deutsches Museum, Munich
0004/55 Retained by D-B
0005/55 On loan to Schlumpf Museum
0006/55 Destroyed (Le Mans)
0007/55 D-B museum, Stuttgart(Coupé body)
0008/55 Retained by D-B (Coupé body)
0009/55 Not completed
0010/55 Lightweight development car, D-B museum, Stuttgart

Edited to add:I see Roger Clark beat me to it, but I don't know the date of his reference

[Roger Clark]

Michael Riedner's book was published in 1986.

[D-Type]

Another interior pic here

[Allan Lupton]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
Michael Riedner's book was published in 1986.

Thanks. 20 years newer than my ref. but still 20 years ago. Wonder whether some of them have moved on since.

[Fr@nk]

I think Mercedes cars before WWII are ot painted, but they were "silver" instead than white, the national colour of Germany.
For this reason people called them "silver arrows".
German engineers decided that to spare in weigth for their cars, I think also Auto Union took the same way.
I'm speaking about Caracciola's car of 30's.
I think also the early models of 300 SL were unpainted, bur certainly not all of them.
In the photo showing in this thread it seems that 300 SLR (Rennwagen) is painted, but , for example, the 300SL winner of the third edition of the Carrera Panamericana Mexico(1952- Kling-Klenk) I think was unpainted.

Fr@nk

[Mal9444]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
Michael Riedner's book on the W196 said that there were 10:

0001 Donated to Ford Museum, Dearborn
0002 Daimler-Benz Museum
0003 Deutches Museum Munich
0004 Daimler-Benz Museum
0005 Schlumpff Museum
0006 Destroyed at Le Mans
0007 Coupe, Daimler-Benz Museum
0008 Coupe, Daimler-Benz Museum
0009 not completed
0010 Daimler-Benz museum (Lightweight)

Thanks to Roger and Allan. They got to 10, presumably, for homologation purposes -wasn't there a rule you had to have 10 of a model to stop calling it a prototype? Or did that not matter to them given the limited number of events in which the cars entered? Presumably the coupes listed as 07 and 08 are the Uhlenhaut cars, while 0010 is the '1956' model pictured in Doug's June posting after his visit to the Stuttgart museum. (Incidentally, just tried to revisit that thread - the picture links seem to be down.)

So that makes six, not seven as I originally thought, competition 300slrs and all bar the Le mans car still in existence. (I wonder did 0001 ever actually race?) Interesting that none has ever been in private hands (I am assuming the Ford and Schlumpff Musuem cars are on some sort of loan arrangement) so presumably we are unlikely ever to see one or more brought out and onto the historic circuit. Presumably, again, the thinking is that it is better to preserve the myth than to risk it. It is extraordinary to think that the marque took part in only six races in total - yet it won five of those six and would surely have won the other had it not been withdrawn while comfortably in the lead. Has any other racing car even come close to such total domination, or can claim such a record? Perhaps, I guess, in the modern era of F1 with Ferrari and Williams in their 'unbeatable' seasons, but that's a wholly different ball game.

And the individual car I am doing has a no less astonishing record with Moss in the seat: four races completed, three wins and a second (to Fangio, under team orders).

[doc knutsen]

Originally posted by Mal9444

(snip)
Presumably, again, the thinking is that it is better to preserve the myth than to risk it. It is extraordinary to think that the marque took part in only six races in total - yet it won five of those six and would surely have won the other had it not been withdrawn while comfortably in the lead.

The Le Mans withdrawal may have been a bit of myth building in itself. Remember, when the cars were withdrawn, there was more than half of the race yet to run (more than twelve hours of racing) and how long would the drum brakes have lasted, despite the aid of the air brake? Also, the leading car was reported to suffer clutch trouble ("Motor Racing" magazine reported this, in addition to people who were there) so it is by no means a foregone conclusion that it would still have been running strongly more than twelve hours later.

[Mal9444]

Well of course, Doc, it's always the case with 'ifs', isn't it? If this hadn't happened, then that would... and I seem to recall seeing you posit this theory before, on some other thread.

I've had the chance to talk to Moss himself about it, and he has told me that the cars were running sweetly with no signs of trouble. I mean no disrespect to Motor Racing magazine but I wonder where they got the clutch trouble story - I've never seen it anywhere else, though am the first to admit my knowledge and research is nothing like as deep as most of you guys. Perhaps they got it from the same source that started the fuel additive theory. Chris Nixon quotes Fangio as saying 'I was very disappointed because we would have had a very easy victory. The car was going better and better'.

Moss and Fangio were three laps ahead of Hawthorn and Bueb (in the D-type) when the cars were pulled, and under no pressure. Mercedes had in 003 that weekend simply the two best drivers in the world. In the D-type, Jaguar had JMH, who certainly had shone for them in the first two hours but who could be notably erratic, and Ivor Bueb who without doubt did a great job for them but who had limited experience of long-distance racing (Chris Nixon in Mon Ami Mate actually says 'absolutely no experience of long distance racing'). Fangio had certainly had to race Hawthorn in the first two hours. When Moss took over he was able to cruise away from Ivor such that by 10pm the Mercedes was two laps ahead of the Jag. Moss was lapping as quickly as had Hawthorn and Fangio (around 4min 10sec - 4min 13, including at least one at 4min 08sec) while Bueb was 12 to 15 seconds a lap slower. Neither of the Jag drivers had been able to make the slightest impression on the Mercedes lead since settling down again after the crash - indeed, the reverse is the case.

By10pm the three Jags were 2nd, 3rd and 4th - but Kling and Simon had moved up to 5th, having been 13th at the time of the crash. (John Fitch, Levegh's co-driver though of course he did not get to drive, is quoted in Christopher Hilton's book Le Mans '55 as saying that he and Levegh and Kling/ Simon were under team orders to take things easy in the first part of the race and save themselves and the cars for the later stages.) It was actually a works Jaguar that broke first, the Dewis/ Beaumont car.

By the time the team withdrew, the Merc was three laps ahead, Moss having lapped Bueb three times, and the Kling/Simon car was up to fourth.

As to the drum brakes not lasting - all the evidence is that the air brake had provided the complete answer to Jaguar's discs, at least on that circuit. Moss records that at White House, for example, they didn't use the drums at all, relying solely on the air brake. 'We just flipped the air brake up at 170 mph and sailed through at 150 without touching the pedal...' (Chris Nixon, Mon Ami Mate).

Surely the Mille Miglia, not to mention the subsequent TT and Targa Florio, demonstrated that the Merc 300slr was a thoroughly reliable, not to say practically unbreakable, car?

While nothing can be taken for granted in motor racing, I would suggest to you that all the available evidence from that race and others in 1955 is that had the MB team not been withdrawn the 300slrs would have cruised to a fairly comfortable win, probably 1-2, without breaking down while in fact what happened was that two of the three works Jaguars suffered mechanical failure and retired while the third coasted to a win once the pressure was off and its only serious rival was out of the race. (The second Jag actually failed - Rolt/ Hamilton car, gearbox siezed - after the Mercs retired and the pressure was already off.)

So when it comes to speculation, is it not more likely that if the Mercs had stayed in the race all three Jags would have broken, just trying to keep up?

You say that 'The Le Mans withdrawal might have been a bit of myth building itself...'

Are you suggesting that the withdrawal was cynical opportunism? I hope not, and would ask for your evidence if you are. The exchanges between the team at the track and the directors in Stuttgart are fairly well documented and probably the most detailed account is in Hilton's book. The order to withdraw actually reached the MB pit a 9.30pm, but was not immediately carried out. Instead, Artur Keser, the DB head of publicity, put in an impassioned plea on behalf of Neubauer and the rest of the team to be allowed to continue racing, pointing out that the remainig cars were running well and the team likely to win. The reason for the withdrawal surely lies in the question that Dr Fritz Koenecke, D-B's president, put to Keser when the latter finally got to talk to him, at about midnight. 'What will you do at 4 o'clock tomorrow at the end of the race and, whatever you do, what will it look like?'

Neubauer wanted to go on until 0400, half distance, by which time he reckoned that the Kling/ Simon car, now lapping quicker than the Jags, would have by that time overhauled them and that Merc would be 1-2 and so could withdraw from a position of strength. He was over-ruled and the team withdrew at 0140. Lofty England is reported as having briefed his drivers 'now you can take it easy' (Hilton, p133).

So Doc - I agree it is not a foregone conclusion that the Mercs would have been running strongly more than 12 hours later; but I think one has to come up with some evidence before one suggests they would not.

Kind Regards

[doc knutsen]

Well, opinions do differ...it would not be much fun discussing the sport otherwise, would it?
Le Mans is very different. While Moss may claim that "we would have had a very easy victory", history proves that things do not go according to plan at la Sarthe. How much of a lead did Levegh have with two hours to go in 1952? Indeed, who was in second place in 1990...with 23 hours 30 minutes gone? The SRL was unproven over a 24 hour race, while Jaguar had run basically the same mechanical components reliably in 1953, 1954 and the year in question.

While Bueb would be no match for Moss, Le Mans is not always a race won by the fastest car.
Bueb's first stint averaged about 2 seconds a lap slower than Hamilton, and exactly the same as both Beauman and Dewis. And those were doing identical lap times, at a strategic pre-planned speed. At midnight, there were two laps between the Fangio/Moss M-B, and the Hawthorn/Bueb Jaguar. The Kling/Simon M-B was two laps down on the Jaguar (so they had lost a further lap since the accident, which had occurred just after Hawthorn had lapped it for the first time) and the Beauman/Dewis and Rolt/Hamilton Jaguars were on the same lap as the second Mercedes-Benz. It was not a Jaguar that "broke" first, it was Beauman outbraking himself and getting it stuck in the sand at Arnage, almost finishing digging it out and re-joining, when an errant Lotus pushed him back in, permanently.

The quotes about the delay for Mercedes-Benz to withdraw their two remaining cars more than 7 hours after the accident are interesting. According to Gregor Grant's report from the M-B press conference, Dr. Koenecke gave the reasons for the cars' late withdrawal as "the risk of creating a panic, had the cars been withdrawn earlier."

The clutch episode was first related to me when I was a teenager, by renowned Norwegian racing car engineer and designer Greger Strøm, who attended the race. While discussing the merits of Fangio with him a number of years later (I was only seven in 1955, and did not attend the race), he casually mentioned to me that "Fangio would never have won that race anyway, because his clutch was playing up with 14 hours of the race to run." I questioned my father, also a racing car builder in the Forties and Fifities, and who also attended Le Mans in 1955, and he explained the same thing: For about an hour around midnight, a car had audible clutch problems, and it took him some time to find out that it was in fact the leading Mercedes, its clutch straining on up-changes.
I did a bit of research on it, and indeed "Motor Racing" magazine said, in its race report: "The leading car was reported to be in some trouble with its clutch, which is certainly small for a car with such a potent engine". So, presumably others had registered the same thing.

So, I would suggest that a Mercedes-Benz victory was by no means a foregone conclusion. Certainly, Daimler-Benz played the "invincibility" card well at that time, to the extent that several decades later, in the early Nineties when M-B bought Ilmor and made its F1 comeback with Peter Sauber, a couple of our specialist magazines predicted the demise of F1 now that the mighty M-B were set to return, and expected them to annihilate the established teams from the start. So, though I do not have any evidence to support my perceived cynicism.... I will admit to a bit of a modest chuckle or two back in 1999, after the fiasco of the flying M-Bs at Le Mans, when their lead driver Bernd Schneider was quoted as saying those disastrous cars were not Mercedes but AMGs....cynic, moi?

As you have probably realised by now, I am very impressed by what the small team from Coventry managed to do at la Sarthe in the Fifties. Up against pure-bred racing cars from M-B, Ferrari and Maserati, they did so well using what was in reality slightly modified production model running gear, engines, transmissions and that big, heavy live rear axle. Compared to the sophisticated technology of the 300SLR, it should have been no match. But as it turned out, it did provide real opposition, and as somebody whose heart is in sports car racing, I am very grateful to those who designed, built and drove those wonderful dark green racing cars.

Kind regards,
Fredrik

[David Beard]

Great stuff, Malcolm & Fredrik

[Mal9444]

Well, I did say that my knowledge and research were nothing compared to some of you guys - and Doc you quite possibly prove my point. Certainly, all my knowledge is second-hand. I saw the 300 slrs only once in real life, at Dundrod - and there's no doubt that there Jaguar with only one works car entered gave them a real run for their money. Merc won only because of the genius of Moss - and Jaguar failed to come second, ahead even of Fangio, only because a tired Mike Hawthorn made at the very end of the race a gear changing error coming into some fast curves near where I was standing, over-revved the car and it poked an important part of the machinery out through the side of the engine. And Jaguar did not send any cars to Targa Florio.

As other posts of mine aver, I share your admiration for Jaguars, the C-type and D-type especially and your point about what they achieved using modified production parts is well-made - though one could hardly call the D-type a 'bitsa', could one?

Just picking up one other point you make: having done a stint as a press officer, albeit in yacht racing rather than motor racing, myself I wouldn't put too much historical weight on statements made at post-event press conferences. None of the protagonists (and I'm afraid especially not Lofty England) come out too well when one examines the statements made and put out immediately after that weekend. Each seems much too concerned with protecting the public image of their own concerns than with anything else.

Reverting to my question that began this thread (should anyone still be in the slightest bit interested) I have now had the chance to ask The Great Man Himself (SCM: my interest in the 300 slr is not so much inspired by the car itself, rather my admiration for its greatest exponent) and today got this reply:

I SEEM TO REMEMBER THAT THE SLR MIGHT HAVE HAD A PIECE OF MID BLUE MATERIAL ON THE LEFT BULKHEAD BY JENKS FEET. GOODNESS KNOWS WHY, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THERE.

Earlier in the thread, D Type referred me to a TNF thread run in 2003 concerning primarily the so-called Mercedes-Benz tartan, in which the question was raised, but not answered, as to whether there really were different checks for different drivers - or whether that was a later marketing ploy used in the production cars. It appears it is no myth. SCM answers:

AS FAR AS THE CHECKS ARE CONCERNED, WE DID HAVE DIFFERENT ONES AND MINE WAS BLUE, JUAN'S WAS A SORT OF MAROON/RED, KARL'S PROBABLY GREEN (MINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GREEN FOR ENGLAND!) AND HANS I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER, BUT A SORT OF PUTTY/CREAM IS LIKELY.

I'll post that last answer in the appropriate thread as well, just in case anyone is interested.

Should I get a Moss check lining for my anorak, do you think? :

[Paul Parker]

There is no question that Bueb was merely a steady back up for Hawthorn at Le Mans 1955, indeed Jaguar lacked a suitably quick partner for him given Titterington's indisposition as a result of his Ecurie Ecosse Nurburgring shunt. Desmond was almost as quick as MH, and Tony Rolt who was quicker than Ivor the driver always drove with Hamilton.

As for SLR reliability the dodgy clutch rumour was never proven, ditto the brakes and it is worth noting that the SLRs were limited to 7000 rpm at Le Mans (giving 276 bhp, a similar output to the works '55 long nose D type, circa 270 bhp) as distinct from their usual 7500 rpm that gave 302 bhp. The reality I believe is that had MB continued then the Jaguar would have been more likely to break given Hawthorn's driving style, especially as he had no back up with the other two cars out with gearbox failure and a minor accident.

Notwithstanding this Moss was just as fast if not faster than JMF in a two seater anyway so Jaguar would have been dependent on a breakdown to win. Finally as I understand it MB withdrew as a gesture in deference to French feelings to the massive loss of life, as well as being all too aware of Levegh's traumatic lost '52 victory at the Sarthe and the WW2 activities within the locale. Their withdrawal in fact created problems for Jaguar who were asked to continue by the race organisers to maintain some semblance of normality. In practice this led to accusations of callousness against Jaguar by the French press and created further problems for Hawthorn.

Really Jaguar's 1955 Le Mans victory was entirely undeserved and made exponentially worse by the tragic circumstances. The 300SLR was almost unbeatable and unbreakable in 1955 (look at the caning the Moss/Collins car survived in winning the Targa Florio). Additionally it was the fifth consecutive time that Coventry had come to Le Mans with an unraced car, either brand new as in 1951 (C type) and 1954 (D type), or as a development version as in 1952 (disastrous aerodynamic changes), 1953 (new rear suspension, Webers, still not fully sorted disc brakes etc.) and 1955 (long nose version with wide angle 35/40 cylinder head only briefly raced at Silverstone in an original short nose car I seem to recall and a variety of other mods including an all new steel frame replacing the original magnesium alloy structure etc.) and they were lucky to get away with it.

Yes Jaguar's Le Mans (and Reims race efforts) were certainly outstanding but they should be viewed in the light of the Italian oppositions' constantly changing models with all their attendant problems and the relative fragility of the underpowered Aston Martins. These factors were still in play right up to the end of 1957.

In fact Jaguar could have done even more if Lyons had been prepared to fund it more adequately and had not persisted in using such an antiquated rear suspension. Of course they did try a De Dion rear end but did not persevere with it, giving up when it developed driveshaft coupling problems. Another failed effort was a 5 speed gearbox that had faulty syncromesh in 2nd or 3rd gear and would jump out of selection (can't be more precise as this is from memory years ago).

In stark contrast MB were going to race a lightweight development SLR from 1956 onwards had they not withdrawn from racing, although it must be admitted that the straight 8 engine layout, itself an anachronism, would eventually have hindered further development. This however is in the realms of the what if department and is best left alone.

[Alan Cox]

There is some great stuff in the above posts for the interested bystander. Thank you Fredrik, Malcolm and Paul

[Mal9444]

'Of course they did try a De Dion rear end but did not persevere with it, giving up when it developed driveshaft coupling problems.'

Paul: they tried the De Dion axle at Dundrod in September of that year, fitted in the Le Mans winning car 744RW - but it gave trouble and remarkably was not as stable (if that's the word) on that very twisty, undulating public road circuit as they hoped. In fact, it made the handling worse. The car was also using a lot of oil. So instead they ran the spare car (XKD404) with live rear axle. There seems a fair degree of unanimty of sources (you recall I was there, aged 11 at the time, so as you can imagine was completely at the centre of Lofty England's tactics and strategy meetings! He didn't make a move without consulting me. ) that the oil consumption problem was what determined LE on the two hour - two hour - two hour stint strategy of Hawthorn -Titterington- Hawthorn in the race that with hindsight is blamed by some observers for the Jaguar defeat. (In fairness not just hindsight - it was said by albeit Ulster-based Titterington-fan observers straight away, immediately after the race.)

Titterington was without a doubt just as quick as JMH that day (he was a very good driver - one of that breed of the time who put family and common sense before his own love of racing, and so retired early and before he killed himself and widowed his wife - a bit like Tony Brooks - and of course knew the circuit intimately) while Fitch (co-driving Moss) was no match for either of them. When Des took over he pulled 12 to 15 seconds a lap on Fitch and IIRC the Merc actually dropped to third, until Moss took over again, after Fitch had a very short stint. So in the middle of the race, the Jag actually had a fairly comfortable lead. Moss could make only a couple of seconds a lap on Titterington when he got back in the car, and even after all these years (and my own tender years at the the time) I can vividly remember the excitement of the crowd at the local boy holding off the great Stirling Moss. He got a huge cheer every time he went past. IMO Titterington's drive for Jaguar that day was every bit as stunning as Hawthorn's, and Moss really only began to make inroads into the Jaguar lead when Mike took over. Much as I am a Moss man through and through, I would have to support the contention that had England split the race fifty-fifty between Hawthorn and Titterington Moss might not have been able on his own to overcome the disadvantage of having Fitch with him rather than Fangio, and Jaguar might have won. And of course it was driver error (Hawthorn's fluffed gear change) that took the Jag out, not unreliability.

I recall this so vividly because I was, even then and at that stage, a huge Moss fan, and I feared very greatly that my man was not going to win, while my Father and my brother both wanted the Jag to win. (My Dad had been in the RAF during the war only a decade before, and wasn't what you'd describe as a big fan of anything German: my man Moss was driving the silver car, and I didn't much care who had built it!) My anxiety was palpable, and I can feel it still - and I guess that is what really motivates a motor racing fan - at least this one, who is not especially technically minded.

I agree with you on your Le Mans analysis completely - but also with Doc and others on how closely matched, albeit with differing strengths and weaknesses, the two marques were. It seemed to me then, and now, that what let the British marque down (if let down it was) was that usual British attitude of muddling through without sufficient resource. What sustained the German marque was the opposite: an almost profligate investment of resource and back-up, at every stage from design through testing to race preparation and support. Look at the Merc preparation for Mille Miglia and compare it with Jaguar's. Ditto Dundrod: Merc took, I think, five cars to Dundrod and entered four (they included a non-entered 300 sl coupe, in which Fangio drove Kling to show him the circuit - Fangio knew Dundrod very well, having driven Lancias, Ferraris and even the BRM V16 there - until Lofty complained). Jaguar took two with the intention of racing just one, plus giving works support to Beaumont's (I think - I'm writing this without my reference sources in front of me) private entry (it crashed before my very eyes on lap two).

So going back to Le Mans, I still think - despite Doc's more intimate and better information on the clutch question - that on balance of probablity the Mercs would have won had they not withdrawn.

I also think (and of course my hero disagrees) that they were right to retire. Koenecke read the situation entirely correctly. Just ten years after the war, with one of their cars having killed 80-plus French people, this was a no-win situation for them no matter where the cars finished. Kesser's statement about not wishing to create panic by withdrawing early can be disregarded as mere PR obfuscation.

Whether Jaguar should have retired is a moot point. I suggest that Lofty was right not to retire. It wasn't his car that had done the killing (and let's not forget that the Mercedes driver, a Frenchman and indeed French hero, had also died). The matter of blame for the accident would run and run (I tend to support Chis Nixon's conclusion - it was a racing accident, pure and simple, and no one person should be blamed).

And is not Doc right about one thing, certainly? Here we are, fifty years on, still discussing what might have been.

[doc knutsen]

Originally posted by Paul Parker
(snip)

As for SLR reliability the dodgy clutch rumour was never proven, ditto the brakes and it is worth noting that the SLRs were limited to 7000 rpm at Le Mans (giving 276 bhp, a similar output to the works '55 long nose D type, circa 270 bhp) as distinct from their usual 7500 rpm that gave 302 bhp. The reality I believe is that had MB continued then the Jaguar would have been more likely to break given Hawthorn's driving style, especially as he had no back up with the other two cars out with gearbox failure and a minor accident.

Notwithstanding this Moss was just as fast if not faster than JMF in a two seater anyway so Jaguar would have been dependent on a breakdown to win. Finally as I understand it MB withdrew as a gesture in deference to French feelings to the massive loss of life, as well as being all too aware of Levegh's traumatic lost '52 victory at the Sarthe and the WW2 activities within the locale. Their withdrawal in fact created problems for Jaguar who were asked to continue by the race organisers to maintain some semblance of normality. In practice this led to accusations of callousness against Jaguar by the French press and created further problems for Hawthorn.

Really Jaguar's 1955 Le Mans victory was entirely undeserved and made exponentially worse by the tragic circumstances. The 300SLR was almost unbeatable and unbreakable in 1955 (look at the caning the Moss/Collins car survived in winning the Targa Florio). Additionally it was the fifth consecutive time that Coventry had come to Le Mans with an unraced car, either brand new as in 1951 (C type) and 1954 (D type), or as a development version as in 1952 (disastrous aerodynamic changes), 1953 (new rear suspension, Webers, still not fully sorted disc brakes etc.) and 1955 (long nose version with wide angle 35/40 cylinder head only briefly raced at Silverstone in an original short nose car I seem to recall and a variety of other mods including an all new steel frame replacing the original magnesium alloy structure etc.) and they were lucky to get away with it.

Yes Jaguar's Le Mans (and Reims race efforts) were certainly outstanding but they should be viewed in the light of the Italian oppositions' constantly changing models with all their attendant problems and the relative fragility of the underpowered Aston Martins. These factors were still in play right up to the end of 1957.

In fact Jaguar could have done even more if Lyons had been prepared to fund it more adequately and had not persisted in using such an antiquated rear suspension. Of course they did try a De Dion rear end but did not persevere with it, giving up when it developed driveshaft coupling problems. Another failed effort was a 5 speed gearbox that had faulty syncromesh in 2nd or 3rd gear and would jump out of selection (can't be more precise as this is from memory years ago).

In stark contrast MB were going to race a lightweight development SLR from 1956 onwards had they not withdrawn from racing, although it must be admitted that the straight 8 engine layout, itself an anachronism, would eventually have hindered further development. This however is in the realms of the what if department and is best left alone.

Well of course the "dodgy clutch rumour" was never proven, how could it be? By M-B calling a press conferance, saying "boy, we were lucky to retire our cars just before the clutch expired"? As for the brakes, M-B saw fit to install a cockpit plunger to squirt engine oil into any of the drums that would seize in the heat of the battle, hardly a sign of confidence and technological superiority in my opinion.

The information that Jaguar were specifically asked by the ACO to keep racing is an interesting one, and certainly one that is new to me. Do you have a quote for that? And, don't forget, Mike Hawthorn was cleared completely in the official French inquest after the race.

I am truly astounded by your comments that the 1955 Jaguar victory was "entirely undeserved". Despite the loss of Hawthorn's partner Titterington who was injured and whose replacement was a a Le Mans rookie, and the tragic loss in a road accident while en route for Le Mans of the Lyons' only son, John Michael, the team rose to the challenge. They matched the efforts of Mercedes-Benz, Ferrari and Maserati, coming through to well earned win after M-B, for whatever reason, decided to withdraw their two remaining cars. Like I said in my initial posting, the race was less than half run. And while Jaguars had an excellent reliability record over the 24Heures, the M-B had not run a race of this type and length before. The SLR might have run on to the finish at the same speed, or it might have broken down, nobody will ever know. Don't forget, the Hawthorn/Bueb car came away from Le Mans with ouright victory at a record speed for the 24Heures, also with the ouright lap record of 4.06.6. Entirely undeserved victory? I think not.

I am also surprised by your comments that Jaguar were "lucky to get away with it", allegedly racing new and untried cars for five consecutive years. The three-year C-type campaign were surely a prime example of logical development of a sound basic design, employing the lessons learnt in 1951 and, particularly, the hurried efforts of 1952, to come back with a further refined car and totally dominate the race the following year. Nobody comes to Le Mans with last year's car and expects to win! The 1953 works C-types had gone through a weight-saving programme, they had a rubber fuel bladder for safety (another first for Browns Lane) and triple Webers for more power and a fatter torque curve. Plus, of course, they raced with disc brakes. These might have been "not fully sorted", but they proved both reliable and gave a critical performance advantage. The Jaguars, of course, finished first, second and fourth, hardly a sign of taking chances with new and unproven designs.

As for the D-type campaign, on its debut at Le Mans it finished second, having lost a lot of time with a blocked fuel filter. The basic design of the car, with its ground-breaking monocoque chassis and aerodynamic Sayer bodywork, was obviously right for the job, as proved in 1955,56 and 57 (when the D-types finished first, second, third, fourth and sixth) and the modifications for 1955 were relatively modest, and all aimed at more power and higher straight line speed. A longer nose and more complete fairing-in of the cockpit and tail fin reduced the drag, and a revised cylinder head allowed better breathing, thus liberating more power. The structural revisions were logical in that the car was going into production: The front sub-frame was now fabricated from steel tube, and bolted to the main bulkhead, rather than being a light-alloy structure welded-in as on the 1954 cars. A mild frontal shunt in one of the 1954 cars could easily damage the whole structure of the chassis, whereas the 1955 and onwards model would merely require the un-bolting of the subframe from the monocoque "tub". This was hardly unproven technology that might jeopardize the racing programme, merely sound and practical development in view of experience gained in racing.

Finally, the blame for the oppositions' problems - "fragile and underpowered Aston-Martins and the constanty changing models of the Italians" could hardly be placed at Jaguar's door, could it? Jaguars, in the Fifties, had one main aim: To win at Le Mans. At this, they were supremely successful, with a record matched by none of their contemporaries.

I must now ask to be excused - I am building a replica C-type to 1953 specifications, and aim to have it on the road by the summer of 2007. I had better get on with it!;)

Kind regards,Fredrik

[Graham Gauld]

Sorry been out of touch for three weeks. Reference the 300SLRs and Dundrod. I too was there and subsequently had long talks with Desmond Titterington about the race. In Desmond's view the 300SLR's had the D type nailed on the exit from the hairpin. Its acceleration and grip away from there was crucial and far superior to the Jaguar. He said it was demoralising to do all the work on the twisty bits and then watch Stirling just pull away by yards from the hairpin. He was also of the opinion that Mike Hawthorn was still suffering from the Le Mans race, was not at his best at Dundrod and that Lofty perhaps kept Mike in the cockpit too long as Desmond was the uncrowned king of Dundrod.

[Mal9444]

Originally posted by Graham Gauld
In Desmond's view the 300SLR's had the D type nailed on the exit from the hairpin. Its acceleration and grip away from there was crucial and far superior to the Jaguar. He said it was demoralising to do all the work on the twisty bits and then watch Stirling just pull away by yards from the hairpin.

IRS versus live rear axle, presumably. It seems generally agreed (Moss himself says as much in, IIRC - I don't have my usual sources with me here at work - Doug's book) that the D-type's handling on circuits as bumpy and twisty as Dundrod left much to be desired. Given the performance of the car that day, this says much for the abilities of the two drivers. (BTW, the driver of the other D-type was Bob Berry, not Beaumont as mistakenly said by me earlier in this thread.)

Originally posted by Graham Gauld
He was also of the opinion that Mike Hawthorn was still suffering from the Le Mans race, was not at his best at Dundrod and that Lofty perhaps kept Mike in the cockpit too long as Desmond was the uncrowned king of Dundrod.

This is repeated in Mon Ami Mate (IIRC by virtue of Chris Nixon getting it from the same source - i.e. D Titterington), while tiredness and lack of concentration by Hawthorn were blamed for the undoubted driver error that cost Jaguar second-place and the chance to split the Mercs. Popular belief in Ulster at the time and since (at least among those who still recall the race) certainly was that if only Titterington had been left in the car - or at least given more to do - Jaguar might have won.

Presumably, Graham, if we agree that Titters was the uncrowned king of Dundrod, we also agree that Moss was the undisputed Monarch (though, ironically, it is John Michael Hawthorn who still holds the all-time lap record for a car on that circuit).

[Paul Parker]

I did quite a lot of digging about the Le Mans tragedy some years ago for my book Jaguar at Le Mans and this was one of the details (organisers asking Jaguar to continue) that emerged but I cannot now remember from where. I also interviewed Angela Hamilton who had remarkable recall about the terrible events of this race and the death of

As for the rest I stand by my opinion regarding Jaguar's modus operandi. They were lucky to win with cars that had so little racing preparation, especially in 1951/2 and 1954. They also won Le Mans 1955 by default as their main opposition withdrew so the Hawthorn/Bueb D type no longer had to be driven flat out to keep up which is undoubtedly what would have happened and I doubt the car would have survived it, especially as it had not even been fully run in beforehand after practice problems necessitated a new engine (sources amongst others Hawthorns Challenge Me the Race). Yes Hawthorn did the demon lap but then he was capable of extreme speed when fit and the D was reputedly good for 185-90 on Mulsanne in the single screen mode but I doubt it would/could have survived this pace for very long. The Mercs by contrast had shown themselves to be unburstable and with a two lap lead could have backed off and still gained given Bueb's relative lack of pace. No of course it was not Jaguar's fault that the opposition was inconsistent and constantly changing specs (specifically Ferrari). It was in fact their very good fortune.

I knew about the de Dion travails but for reasons of space decided not to go into more detail otherwise the thread would have been even longer. In any case the handling of the D type to a certain degree is dominated by the very heavy engine/gearbox and if you have a grippy rear end then the front end takes over. Nevertheless they did not try hard enough whilst the excessive oil consumption of the car was an added complication. I presume we have all seen the '55 TT film and indeed the lack of traction displayed by the Jaguar is truly dreadful.

Anyway this was how it worked out and I'm sorry to be so controversial, in fact I'll add some more. They only just won in '56 with the Ecosse car having a nearly burnt out n0.5 (i think) Piston (source Stan Sproat) and in 1957 it was simply a case of last man standing with most of the real opposition out very early on. Combined with the fuel injection problems that Ecosse suffered with their 3.8 D during practice I still say Jaguar were very lucky regardless of all else.

[doc knutsen]

(reply to posting by Paul Parker)

"They were lucky to win with cars that had so little racing preparation, especially in 1951/2 and 1954"
Yes, that would have been very lucky indeed, had it in fact happened. In 1952, all three team cars were out within two hours of the start, two with overheating and one with a piece of timing chain tensioner sticking the oil pressure relief valve open. In 1954, the Rolt/Hamilton car finished second, behind the Gonzales/Trintignant 4.9 litre Ferrari.

The facts speak for themselves. The D-type finished the 1955 race without missing a beat, at record average speed, despite a large part of the Sunday being wet. D-types won the 12 hours at Rheims three years running, as well as their three consecutive Le Mans victories. None of the races the 300SLRs ran were even as long as Rheims , which itself was only half the duration, the strain and the fatigue on man and machine of the Sarthe marathon. That the Mercedes would have been able to finish trouble-free at Le Mans remains pure speculation.

To suggest that five victories, and one second place, at the Le Mans 24 Heures in seven races is down to luck, is hardly "controversial." To me, it simply suggests a certain lack of awareness of the amount of effort and preparation, on a number of levels, that it takes to win the 24Heures even once - never mind five times in seven years.

[D-Type]

Going back to the original question. On reflection they must have been painted rather than polished bare metal. Given the bodywork modifications that Moss or his co-drivers inflicted on the winning cars in the MM, Targa and TT, I suspect that Mercedes would not have replaced all the dented panels, they would have at beaten out at least some of the lightly damaged ones. If these had been self-coloured they would have shown up in the photos so they must have been painted.

And when playing 'what-if?' remember to take Moss's burst tyre in the TT into account.

[doc knutsen]

Originally posted by D-Type
Going back to the original question. On reflection they must have been painted rather than polished bare metal. Given the bodywork modifications that Moss or his co-drivers inflicted on the winning cars in the MM, Targa and TT, I suspect that Mercedes would not have replaced all the dented panels, they would have at beaten out at least some of the lightly damaged ones. If these had been self-coloured they would have shown up in the photos so they must have been painted.

They were indeed painted. My father used to keep a souvernir from the 1955 Le Mans disaster, a little bit of 300SLR silver paint off the Levegh car, about the size of a £1 coin, which ended up along with parts of the wrecked Mercedes close to where he had pitched his tent. He probably still has it - but at age 88, may not remember where.

[Graham Gauld]

Paul need not be apologetic for suggesting Jaguar and specifically Ecurie Ecosse were lucky to win Le Mans, David Murray was always grateful for the luck that gave the team their wins but since when did luck NOT play a significant part in motor racing history. The list of "lucky " wins, when analysed, is endless.

[Allan Lupton]

Originally posted by Paul Parker
I knew about the de Dion travails but for reasons of space decided not to go into more detail otherwise the thread would have been even longer. In any case the handling of the D type to a certain degree is dominated by the very heavy engine/gearbox and if you have a grippy rear end then the front end takes over.

I think that at the time we understood that the intention at the Jaguar was to win at Le Mans. To do that, even by the early 1950s, you could count on there being a relatively smooth track surface and fast corners so fancy rear suspension was not as necessary as at (say) Nürburgring (or Dundrod).
Reims, being a very similar circuit to Le Mans, was a reasonable place to expect the D type to work - and it did.

[Fr@nk]

Back to the original question.
I live in a town near the Mille Miglia's course so I asked to my father's friend (he's an old man, but with a brilliant mind too...) if the Moss's Mercedes (winner of 1955 edition) was painted in silver or if was not it.
He answered that in this year he was in Bologna, near the last pit before the Bologna-Brescia straight leg, and he could see the winner's 300 SLR from neighbor and it was (in his opinion) unpainted .
He also told me that "a little man with a huge beard, who was sitting side of Moss, seemed a bit dazed" - .
He was Jenks, and :

1- knowing the road between Florence and Bologna;
2- what fantastic drive Sir Stirling performed that day.

the fact was comprehensible.

Bye

[Mal9444]

Originally posted by Fr@nk
Back to the original question.
He also told me that "a little man with a huge beard, who was sitting side of Moss, seemed a bit dazed" - .

The little man with the huge beard caused a great deal of interest and created not a few legends. I read somewhere, but now cannot remember where, that one such legend in Italy was that Moss had been accompanied (and kept safe) on his epic drive by a priest, who sat placidly beside him for the entire trip and read to him from the Bible. I suppose in one sense of both nouns that's not so far from the truth.

BTW - I am now fairly sure that the answer to my original question was that they were painted metallic silver. I certainly hope so - that's what I've to my model.

[Paul Parker]

Alas the Jaguar topic did take over the original query, for which I am partly responsible so apologies again.

However I would like to add some more words about this question of luck and Jaguar specifically. Firstly of course Jaguar's 5 Le Mans victories proved that they had the car(s) to do it but not in 1955 on merit. Hawthorn/Bueb were mismatched, on their own and two laps down when MB pulled out.

Let's take a look at the individual years thus:
1951 Brand new car unraced. Two retired out three (the copper oil pipe in the sumps had fractured due to vibration leading to loss of oil pressure and bearing failure/conrod breakage, and thereafter were replaced by steel) and the third car survived. Very lucky indeed. The only serious opposition came from 6 cycle wing mudguard Talbot Lagos (converted single seaters) that were easily outpaced.
1952 Over reaction to Moss's MM comments about the speed of the 300SLs led FRWE to sanction untested and quite radical body changes. This led to the overheating and the cars had to be left on course until practice was over before the race (there being no means of retrieving them then) and of course in the race two failed with head gasket failures (one had the new untried header tank mounted on the bulkhead, the other two had been changed back to the standard arrangement with standard C type rad and integral header tank). Nevertheless the Rolt/Hamilton car (that had been converted back) expired and whilst the Moss/Walker car retired for the aforementioned mechanical reasons it is a moot point whether it would have survived the race given the fate of the Rolt/Hamilton car. Additionally the long nose, long tail configuration caused aerodynamic instability at speed as noted by 'Lofty', and Moss was also demanding disc brakes as well (three sets were flown in but the pre-race chaos caused by the overheating problems precluded their fitting). This time they suffered the consequences but it was all unnecesssary.
1953 Lighter, developed cars with Webers, new rear suspension, bag tanks and disc brakes. This was the most convincing Jaguar victory of the five in period. They had the speed and stamina to outrace and outlast the very strong opposition. However and this applies equally to any cars that compete at Le Mans, they had not raced the cars in this spec. The reality is that Le Mans places a fantastic strain on cars as it is long and very fast and the machines are running at or near maximum revs in top several times a lap (unlike the piddly British tracks in period) where sustained high speed running was impossible. Any number of things could have failed. You cannot under-estimate the effect of this and whilst it does reflect well upon Jaguar they again took the risk of racing an untried car in a 24 hour high speed race. They were in my opinion very lucky.
1954 The new D types were supposed to race at the Daily Express Silverstone but were not ready. Amazingly, by today's standards, William Lyons actually wrote a letter to Desmond Scannell of the BRDC apologising for their failure to attend. The cars were behind schedule and once again Jaguar were going to race at Le Mans, this time with a totally new and radically different car, albeit with the XK engine (but much modified, dry sump etc.) and a new gearbox. Yes one finished 2nd, but the other two retired as might be expected, the Moss/Walker car with brake failure after being delayed with clogged fuel filters (grotty Le Mans supplied fuel) and the other with gearbox failure (only top gear left). Yet again an untried and this time wholly new car, they were very luck indeed.
1955 As with 1953, an evolved car with a wide angle head engine, chassis changes, refined bodywork and other detail differences. Again unraced, although Hawthorn had driven the old XKC 404 at Silverstone using the wide angle head motor for the first time, but the car suffered a burst top hose and dropped from 1st to 4th. Nevertheless the overall package was untested in racing conditions and here they were again at Le Mans where they would be subjecting the car to near aeroplane speeds for hours on end. We've already commented upon the race itself but it is worthy of note that the Rolt/Hamilton car lost 1st and 2nd gears due to an oil seal failure (possibly caused by the sustained extreme velocities and resultant operating strains) whilst Beauman crashed the third car. Once again I must highlight the fact that unproven specifications do not respond well to high speed 24 hour races, for instance read Horsmann's new book Racing in the Rain. In fact I think that the wet weather probably saved Jaguar's bacon as the speed and heat were greatly reduced and in tandem the strain on the car.
1956 Jaguar had no serious opposition due to the daft new rules and even after the fuel injection problems and losing two cars the second string Ecurie Ecosse car was strong enough to fend off a works Aston DB3S despite it being driven by Moss/Collins. It should be noted here however that the Aston was suffering from gearbox maladies and the DB3S was a comparatively feeble car (3 litres, 236 bhp) for high speed circuits like Le Mans. Even so the no.5 piston and combustion chamber on the Ecosse D type were nearly burnt out despite the fact that Stan Sproat had already lowered the compression ratio in deference to the grotty fuel supplies. The engine only just made it to the end of the race. Lucky again.
1957 The winning car developed a cracked fuel line (shades of '56) and blocked filter during practice causing a misfire. Once again this was an untried combination in racing conditions, the 3.8 litre engine and the Lucas fuel injection. Ultimately Stan Sproat sorted out the problems in conjuction with the Lucas technician. The race was as I have already said a case of the opposition (that was leagues faster in practice and briefly the race) falling apart. By the time Brooks crashed the Aston DBR1/300 and the Gendebien/Trintignant Ferrari Testa Rossa had failed the only remaining threat to Jaguar's domination was the Lewis-Evans/Severi Ferrari that had endured various dramas of its own. The Jags had minor glitches plus the holed exhaust system on the Hamilton/Gregory car but otherwise they were able to cruise most of the race at a comfortable pace and were not put under any real pressure for most of it. This was a case of the opposition failing rather than Jaguar winning solely on merit.

As I have said already nobody is denying Jaguar their triumphs but they were lucky (imo) in several respects as detailed. You certainly could not go about it like this today.

Briefly back to the de Dion rear end attempt and the wayward handling. The Jaguar XK engine with the cast iron block and gearbox accounted for approx. 30% of the weight of the car. Thus circuits that had camber changes, inclines, dips, left/right combinations etc., were very tricky for C types, D types et al. Weight transference was a big problem as was changing direction and the heavy engine out the front quickly knackered the feeble period shock absorbers, 1950s film shows the cars wallowing all over the place. If you drive one at speed you are very aware of the mass out front and racing one around the 'Ring or Dundrod must have been scary. As for DT v MH, they should have kept Titterington in the car during the wet periods as he was quicker but let's not forget that Mike set the fastest lap (in perpetuity) of 4m 42 sec. in the dry, a fantastic effort with that ridiculous rear suspension (the rear track on the D type is 50 inches, never mind the crudity of the axle itself).

Anyway it was not my intention to offend anybody, just to offer what I believe to be a realistic perspective on events.

[Mal9444]

Paul. Don't apologise - I for one have been fascinated by this discussion, and learned a great deal.

You've probably sold another copy of your book as well, assuming it's still available. I feel a detour via St Martin's Court coming on as I plan my walk to Waterloo tomorrow.

[Paul Parker]

Thank you Mal9444 for your kind comments.

It was definitely not my intention to promote the book that is now some 6 years old and not on the shelves currently, rather I would not want anybody to think that I was talking hypothetically.

I have driven all the XK engined racing variants over the years (C types, D types including ex-works and Ecosse, short nose and a long nose recreation built from D type parts, plus the two British low drag E types, Listers including a race, the 1959 Tojeiro (tricky stuff! 'Whizzo' is a genius) and the Phil Scragg hillclimb HWM (a fabulous car to drive). Also assorted C type replicas (some good, some bloody dreadful) and several Lynx D types including their original demonstrator SAL 57 that was superb.

If Motor Books can't get the book then try Haynes directly at Sparkford, near Yeovil, can't remember the number sorry!

[Fr@nk]

Really Jenks created the Motorsport.
If now we read about races of fifty years ago I'think it's only for Jenks great skill !!!!

I will ask about the priest, but I never heard about it ...but I think Jenks would be glad to have a Bible during the race....

;)

[doc knutsen]

Originally posted by Graham Gauld
Paul need not be apologetic for suggesting Jaguar and specifically Ecurie Ecosse were lucky to win Le Mans, David Murray was always grateful for the luck that gave the team their wins but since when did luck NOT play a significant part in motor racing history. The list of "lucky " wins, when analysed, is endless.

Indeed, a prime example being the only M-B win at Le Mans in the Fifties. Levegh, with the ancient Talbot, enjoyed a solid lead with only a little over an hour to go.
A measure of luck is most certainly needed in such a gruelling race, but it also takes an excellent design, thorough testing and impeccable preparation. Then you need well thought-out strategy and first-class drivers - drivers who can be consistently quick for a long time, yet be mechanically sympathetic.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Fr@nk

...but I think Jenks would be glad to have a Bible during the race....

;)

I wouldn't have thought so. The Bible wasn't exactly Jenks' cup of tea, I understand....

[Mal9444]

he was, however, very glad to have Fangio's little pills - if only because of the possible side effects - or so I have read.

[bradbury west]

[i]Originally posted by David Beard
I wouldn't have thought so. The Bible wasn't exactly Jenks' cup of tea, I understand.... [/B]

That reminds me of Canon Webber's wonderful address at Jenks' funeral

It is a pity that copyright prevents the posting of Maurice Hamilton's letter to his father, recounting the events at Jenks' funeral, which was printed in the BRDC jenks A Passion for Motorsport.

BTW, in the same book, Mr Roebuck states that you always knew that if an article carried D S J at the end of it, then you knew that it would be right. It always worked for me too, but I suppose that it is all just a question of having heroes, especially in one's formative years.

Roger Lund.

[Fr@nk]

Hi friends,
I hope I haven't made some mistakes with my poor english...
I have respect for the holy Bible and for Mr Jenks too...

Bye

[Mal9444]

I have already expressed my thanks for the serious erudition aroused by my fairly naive original question – may I take a moment more of your collective time to introduce the stars of our show: Merc 300slr 004 and Jag D-type XKD506 (OK, ok: Le Mans was 003 v 505).



I am not a serious model collector, much less builder (indeed, the Merc is my first attempt since I was at school to build any sort of model, and my first ever attempt at a white metal kit model) but having had my interest in these wonderful cars rekindled by the Goodwood Revival and my senses somewhat stunned by Barry Boor’s amazing collection of 1:43rd scale models I decided it might be fun to pass the winter months when I don’t go boating by assembling a collection of the cars that I saw at Dundrod. And that’s when I discovered how apparently forgotten – certainly by the producers of 1:43rd scale sports-racing cars - that great race was.

The D-type is a re-paint of one of the easily obtained models of 774RW in Le Mans-winning mode (and let’s not start THAT again ;) ) with the windscreen removed and modified to represent the damage inflicted, as far as I can work out, by Mike Hawthorn as he jumped into the car at the start, and with the incorrect three-spoke steering wheel replaced by a four-spoker, as used by JMH. The Merc is all my own work – but with more than a little help from SMTS.

[doc knutsen]

Malcolm, while speaking of Dundrod, have you any idea for a source of pictures from that circuit?
While being a student at Queen's in Belfast in the early Seventies I drove around the area, but found very few references to the actual roads that made up the circuit. I would think that the actual roads used had not changed much in the fifteen-odd years that had passed....I found it pretty amazing that anybody could have driven that kind of car, on primitive tyres and with ditto brakes, at those speeds on narrow country roads. I would love to find some pictures of the actual track. Anybody able to help?

[Mal9444]

Aha Doc – so you’re a Queen’s man too, are you…

Martyn Wainwright’s book 1950s Motorsport in Colour has an excellent selection of colour shots of the ’54 TT and a few from the ’55 TT, but they are virtually all taken at the hairpin. (He explains why in the prologue – something to do needing the cars to be going slowly, because of the film he was using.) This is still available (I bought a copy from Motor Books in London only a few weeks ago) and have seen it on Amazon. Go here for a direct lead: http://www.dundrodtt.com/gallery.htm. both to Martyn’s book and pictures and a map of the circuit.

I think Graham who posted earlier in this thread probably has some as well, but do not believe he has published a collection. Otherwise, you have stumbled upon the paucity of information about the race that I have found.

The circuit is still there, the roads practically as they were in 1955 (and of course the circuit is still used for motor bikes). There is even a racesim simulation available of it, but for some bizarre reason the cars used appear to me (I don’t do racesims so have seen only the publicity material for it, found on the web) to be Formula Juniors circa 1965. I was back in Northern Ireland this time last year and for old-time sakes drove up the Springfield Road out of Belfast to see if I could find and recognise any of the circuit itself. I was just wondering if I’d come the right way when suddenly, there was the hairpin. Having established one’s bearings the circuit is very easy to find, and follow, provided you know what you are looking for, the apex boards and straw bales being of course long gone. The only big change is at Leathemstown: the 90-degree right-hander (actually a T-junction) remains, but the old and much-loved Leathemstown Bridge with its sweeping left-and-right S-bend going up to Tullyrusk and the top of the Deer’s Leap has been by-passed, the road being straightened. I stopped and searched for the bridge and that little bit of road, but could find no sign thereof. The hairpin itself remains as it was, but has been emasculated by the provision of a cross-cut road and new junction just up from the old 345-degree corner. This is what is now used by the bikes.

If you follow this link it will give you a laugh, jog your memory and maybe bring back some happy memories. It will also fill you with awe at the thought of doing it in under four-and-a-half minutes in a 1950s 3-litre sports car, with or without independent rear suspension.

And Doc - don’t forget the old motto. Pro Tanto Quid Retribuamus (never pay a pound when you can claim a discount).