Le Mans 1955

Ok, here goes,

In some of the more excitable threads in the F1 forum recently, one or two members have raised the spectre of safety and in particular, likened the possible consequences of the tactics of a certain driver, to the Le Mans 1955 disaster. I believe that using such outdated information, as Le Mans 1955 for a current situation is a bit extreme.

However I got to thinking that maybe there was something in the terrible events that shows that, in terms of racing, drivers haven’t changed that much. In my view (and I was born in ’55 so I don’t have first hand knowledge), Mike Hawthorn was unjustly criticised for his part in the events that lead to the death of a number of spectators and of course poor Pierre Levegh. There is however a parallel in that Hawthorn was criticised for overtaking Lance Macklin (Healey) and then immediately braking for his pit, which caused the Healey to swerve into the path of the oncoming Mercedes. Accounts record that with nowhere to go Levegh’s Mercedes rode up the back of the Healey and was launched into the crowd with tragic results.

So where is this leading? Well, Mike H was a racing driver. He was not about to slow his pace and poodle up to his pit behind the substantially slower Healey. This is the same as we see now in F1 when a driver is due to pit but will attempt to overtake everything in his path before pitting. All of which suggest to me that drivers have always been determined individuals and will let nothing stand in their way.

So, putting a contemporary hat on, do you think Hawthorn was wrong to act as he did or do you appreciate how terrible the tragedy was, but put it into its context of being a major racing accident.

I should also point out at this point that the Book Mon Ami Mate (by Chris Nixon) is in my library and provides some interesting insights into this event.

I’d like your thoughts people.

Like you Peter, I've read more accounts of the '55 disaster than I've had hot dinners, and, having not witnessed the incident first-hand, it's really difficult to judge, but, having seen such footage as there is, I tend to agree that Hawthorn was unjustly criticised.

I feel that it was probabably an accident waiting to happen. A desperately unfortunate combination of events with tragic results.

I think we only have to look at the F1 forum here after most GPs. Barrichello was at fault, no, it was down to Ralf, or Montoya was to blame, no, Schumacher was out of order...... And that's after just two GPs.

The fact that it was at Le Mans, where drivers have always had to deal with enormous speed differentials between the slowest and fastest cars, made that split-second decision for Hawthorn all the more difficult.

I can't really see any valid parallel between Le Mans 1955 and current F1. As Aysedasi says, the speed differential at Le Mans was the crucial factor - it's not as if Schumacher is going 100mph faster than Montoya. At Le Mans, the relative skill of drivers has often been a factor too - even today it could be argued that some of the "gentleman racers" at La Sarthe have no business being there. And spectator safety has been vastly improved since 1955 - when was the last time a car flew over catch fencing and landed in a spectator area? Le Mans 1955 was a disaster waiting to happen - crowd close to the course, no protection except straw bales, pits opening directly on to the track ... do I really need to continue?

No but the safety point has been made by me and others. I'm more interested in the thoughts surrounding Hawthorn and his post race treatment.

In reply to 'Vitesse'
At Le mans quite a few cars have gone over the fence, a 911 a few years ago and most people recal the Merc's flying the fence, thankfully without injury.

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
No but the safety point has been made by me and others. I'm more interested in the thoughts surrounding Hawthorn and his post race treatment.
I think that because so many people were killed that there was a need to blame someone. And it is always easier to blame an individual than an organisation. As others had said it was an accident waiting to happen, so the ACO should take some blame as well. In hindsight it was obviously waiting to happen, but then hindsight is always obvious...

As you said it was a racing accident, but a very major one. Having watched a lot of motorsport (no sh*t!), I have seen so many accidents where you first thought is that the driver, marshall, spectator etc. is not going to survive it. The vast majority of times all is okay, Le Mans 1955 was the time when it went horribly wrong.

I can't help thinking that the big surprise in the aftermath of 1955 was that the blame wasn't pinned firmly on Lance Macklin. After all, he was the minnow in the piece, neither a leading works driver like Hawthorn, nor a hometown hero like Levegh.

Seeing him interviewed since the accident, even in recent years, one gets a distinct impression that he is a man haunted by what he became involved in. But I have to say, he was put in an impossible situation. No lapped driver expects the faster man to suddenly require him to hit anchors and change tack, and that's exactly what the Jaguar did to the Austin Healey, with such disastrous consequences.

Blame? Not quite. I'll always class the Le Mans disaster as a ghastly racing accident, but certainly I would cite Mike Hawthorn as more the catalyst of it than I would the other two drivers.

I always try to look at racing incidents from every possible viewpoint.
At Le Mans in 1955 Macklin could do nothing except what he did, likewise Levegh. Only Hawthorn had an option, and he didn't take it.
Coming a little more up to date: in the Malaysian GP, Montoya had the option of going wider. Schumacher had no option available to him which wouldn't cause an accident - either by lifting off, which might have caused a repeat of the Melbourne situation, or by sliding into Montoya.

Hi Dave

Long time no speak.

Agree completely with what you say about Hawthorn.

Disagree completely with what you say about Montoya and Schumacher!

In my book Michael could have backed off; Monty left him enough room but Schuey didn't want to lift. Not the first time Montoya has got Mikey's head in a spin. Remember Austria last year? If you saw a Cadet karter trying to outbrake someone round the outside in a hairpin you'd sit him down and have a chat with him, wouldn't you...

David Tremayne

I pointed out recently that I think it was not so much that Hawthorn braked(slowed) but that Macklin over-reacted to the brake lights on Hawthorns car.
Hawthorn in my opinion did nothing wrong, it was the worst "racing incident" in history.
It was the culmination of a number of things coming together.
The entrance to the pits--changed since-
The earthen bank that spectators were allowed to pinic on- many of the killed were eating a picnic lunch..
The magnesium bodywork of the Mercedes which caught fire and when the rescuers put water on it, it exploded(as burning magnesium does when water is put on it)throwing burning material onto spectators..
The fact that the car broke in half and tossed it's engine into the crowd.
Many different things came together to create the disaster.

mabye this will be of interest... and I make no apology for the size of the image... the sequence goes down the left side first, then down the right...

http://www.bboor.freeserve.co.uk/Website/lemans.jpg

Sort that lot out and see what you reckon...

I add these photos to show the magnesium burning..this is what happens when you put water on burning magnesium.

First time I have seen that sequence, no apology required as it was posted in reply and relevant to a question.

I have an idea who is who but where is the third car in the first photo ? Was it directly behind the car on the left ? Seems like the Healy pulled over for no reason unless I am mistaking the cars.

SL

I've seen a couple of clips of the incident but often only as action clips ie fast, and blurry. I've never really known what happened and this thread has been very insightful.

If you blow up the photos you can see that Hawthorn is way to the right(on the track) and that Macklin has crossed way too far to the left.
I am not about to condem or castigate anyone but I do believe that Macklin over-reacted..most likely to the brake lights on Hawthorns car.

By the way...the shots may have been too big to post but I am glad for the link..thanks to Ray for the shots and thanks to the moderators that rather than delete the whole thing chose to leave the link...;) :)

Since someone here turned me onto it, I offer this...
www.irfanview.com
it makes it easy to re-size material........
With it you could have easily reduced them to 400x400.
I find that if that size when posted is too small to see details one can download it then zoom or play with it seperately.

Originally posted by Nordic
In reply to 'Vitesse'
At Le mans quite a few cars have gone over the fence, a 911 a few years ago and most people recal the Merc's flying the fence, thankfully without injury.

But none of these landed in spectator areas, which was my original point. Jo Bonnier's car reached treetop height in 1972, but this was again in a non-spectator area. Fences in spectator areas are sufficient to provide protection now - except for the unimaginable like the marshal killed by Villeneuve's wheel last year at Melbourne - that wheel went through such a small gap it was totally unforeseeable.

Incredible and awful photos, never seen or heard of them before. They really show the accident unfolding, I guess we all need to remember that in reality the timescale from the first to the last photo is no more than a couple of seconds. I'm with you SL in that I really can't see the Healy in the first photo, I assume it must have been right behind Hawthorn, maybe lost in the black background. I have read many times of Levegh's car taking off but this really shows how it was launched. Poor bugger never stood a chance.

I also think that more than anything else these photos absolve all the drivers from responsibility for the magnitude of the crash. The layout of the track, with the slight kink, the pits, the grass bank and no spectator protection; these are the reasons why seconds later it was such a disaster. Drivers are human, they will make mistakes. Mostly they lose a little time, occassionally they crash, very occassionally with serious consequences. Finally add in the circumstances above and you have 1955.

did you read that the cat that flimed that sequence was among the injured? Spent 3 months in the hospital.

You know, guys, please don't think this sort of thing can't happen again. Maybe it won't be so catastrophic as 1955, but a dozen spectators were killed in the US alone last year. And a couple in England I read about in autosport. and there are others we probably don't hear about. We just haven't had a fast, heavy car land in the right area to cause a really big disaster. It wasn't that long ago we unexpectedly saw a Mercedes sportscar sail right out of the circuit at LeMans going about 200mph. If that had happened at a spectator area, oh my God.

Whenever there are safety discussions, I think it is a good to review the lesson of 1955 and do everything we can to see it doesn't happen again.

Peter, a thought provoking comparison.

Ultimaely, I agree that a racer is a racer is a racer and then or now, drivers will always go for the slight time gain or avoid losing momentum etc. In any sport where split second decisions can lead to a chain of events happening, a slight misjudgement or a hopeful move will envariably lead to situations where the variables end up with a bad situation, fifty years ago or today.

Last month, the whole situation of variables coming together occured during a two day cross-country ski event that I was participating in. At some point during my 30-odd km day through varying types of terrain, I arrived quickly at a corner which turned into a steep downhill and as I always do, I did my best to carry my speed through the corner, but halfway down the hill, there was someone really slow snowplowing like crazy, and a few feet beside, someone walking down holding their skiis. It was too steep for me to stop,too narrow to turn (trees on both sides close) and in the half a second or so of decision time, I rejected the "throw myself down before I got to them" option-risking hurting myself or damaging my equipment, or yelling like crazy and hope that the red sea would part, or at least hold position.
I chose to yell, they parted just enough for me to go through mouthing "oh sh*t, oh sh*t" and off I continued, carrying a big bag of momentum and a heartbeat higher than usual.

Now, I knew that I probably should have slowed down more in the corner before, but the lack of snow around here this winter meant that I hadn't skied enough, wasn't in good enough shape, and over two days worth of skiing, every bit of gained momentum and less energy expended makes a difference. So I made a misjudgement that given a slight difference in timing, could have been a nasty meeting of bodies and minds. I was just plain damn lucky.

So after all this skiing blabbering on, my view of the Lemans incident is that Hawthorn was on a roll, didn't want to lose even a few seconds, and probably misjudged his cutting over to the right and braking. As the others have pointed out, he DID have a choice of what to do, and should have been very aware that given the track design, width and potential difference of speeds of the various cars, this wasn't the time to make such an "unorthodox" pit entry.
My insignificant example was simply to show that despite that, I understand his (perhaps) misjudgement, and as Peter is suggesting, this sort of thing will always happen in Motorsport

PS: In visiting Ayedassi's photo site recently, I was surprised to see that in the '57 Lemans shots, the crowds opposite the pit area were still practically right up against the track. I really would have thought that changes would have been made as a result of '55.

djb

I wonder - after all this time, does it really still make a difference?

Well, in contemporary terms, not much, but it is a major part of the history of our sport and as I wrote originally it's also relevant in terms of the attitude of racing drivers. They've always been committed and this was a case when that commitment may have lead to those terrible events.

First time I have seen this thread...obviously a terrible disastor in the history of motor racing.

If any of you wish to see the accident, try this video - it's about 25mb, so it's fairly big, but I am sure there may be some of you who are curious. Apologies if anyone feels this is out of place.

http://tbk.fameflame.dk/videos/Darkside_Of_Motorsports/Pierre_Levegh_1955_Lemans_Crash.mpg

from tbk.fameflame.dk

I couldn't get the video to load but I've seen footage and stills for years and I think Hawthorn was as far over as he could be,,,just a horrible set of circumstances coming together to create a catastrophy.

A curious footnote to this story - I was reading a 1958 Autosport today, looking for something entirely unrelated, and I came across a photo in the classified ads.

A 1955 Austin Healey, with a whitewashed club-racing number painted on the doors, and with a dreadfully familiar registration plate attached.

When I read the ad copy, it even made reference to the car being Lance Macklin's from the Le Mans race. Now, it was enough of a shock to me to know that the car had actually survived to be rebuilt - but to offer it for sale barely 3 years after the event as an ex '55 car seems extraordinary.

So what became of it after that? The registration was NOJ393 if this is of any help.

Tim,

Good call.

You might have noticed the opinions expressed in the thread concerning the release of the Ayrton Senna Williams in the F1 forum.

Perhaps you could add this to that discussion. I'd be interested to see the reaction.

It was Piere Leveghs car that got the worst wasn't it?

The Healy was merely a launch pad, still surprising to hear that though.

Something that crossed my mind as I watched the "newsreel" video was how the crash was described without much detail, ie all the casualties, and then it was off to the finish and who had won. Now I realize that I am basing this comment on one single news report (and I realize that this could have been heavily edited down) but I am curious as to how the media of the time treated this accident.

Was it news that dominated the media at the time, and created a huge uproar of racing safety etc? I do recall reading that as a result of this, Switzerland banned motorracing, or at least, racing on public roads. I realize that this was only 10 years after the war ended, and the public had just gone through six years of human losses that dwarfed a single racing accident-however terrible.

Part of my interest is how the pit lane/track in front of the sea of people did not seem to change much in the few years following, which seems to indicate that the safety issues were not really considered important enough to change, not in '57 as can be seen on Ayadessi's site photos of the race of that year.

I don't imagine there are many members who would have personal recollections of the event. If there are, it would be interesting to hear of them.

djb

I am pleased that Ray was still able to access my pictures of the Le Mans crash, which of course, came from Mark Khan's book 'Death Race'. (What a dreadful title!)

A racing accident, yes, but I agree with Strad that the images, though very blurred, show that Macklin over-reacted in his haste to avoid running into the back of the Jaguar. Easy for us to say now, but had he simply eased by with a gap of, say, 150-300 mm (remember, his driving position was on that side of the car so he should have been able to judge it pretty accurately) it appears that there would have been plenty of room for the 2 Mercedes to scream by without problems.