Pages:

Click on one of the following images to open up the page:

Page 1 - Introduction - Explanatory Notes etc.

Page 2 - The Cast (In Alphabetical Order)

Page 3 - Preparations

Page 4 - Practice and Qualifications

Page 5 - The Race I: Before The Crash

Page 6 - The Crash

Page 7 - The Race II: After The Crash

Page 8 - Conclusion

Page 9 - Credits And Bibliography

THE FASTLANE :: Features :: Le Mans 1955 Tribute :: Page 8

8. Conclusion

I find the following questions particularly relevant to this accident:

1 ) How could it happen?

If you choose to view the accident as an isolated incident, and only that, then there is no doubt about the original cause. The crash happened as a result of a chain of events, starting with the Hawthorn overtaking of Macklin, approaching the pits. From then on, everything followed a logical pattern. Had Hawthorn not passed Macklin in what has later been (wrongly?) described as a stubborn refusal out of national pride by Hawthorn to let an approaching Fangio lap him before his pitstop, then of course nothing of such tragic proportions would ever have occurred. The chain consists of 3 links, Hawthorn--->Macklin--->Levegh--->the spectators. Circumstance put the cars there, and it would be unfair and wrong to place any blame on any specific driver. If on the other hand a more profound understanding of the accident is the goal, then it is necessary to look at the physical circumstances of the race. Since the beginning of the 24 Hour classic in 1923, average speeds had almost doubled, and the circuit was more or less unchanged. The warning alarm had been sounded the previous year, when Tony Rolt pointed out the potential danger of the narrowing in of the track on the approach to the pit straight. It would never have posed a problem in, say, 1934, but this was 1955, with all the implications of modern motor racing power and technology. Similarly, the protective barriers on the spectator side of the straight were rather crude and definitely not designed to alleviate any "flying car"-crashes, or even the possibility of accident wreckage taking flight, and causing deaths among the crowd. That speed should be the true reason for the crash, as some of the involved persons later claimed, is only half the truth. Of course the speed was crucial, but it would have been rendered null and void with for instance a three lane pit straight, or indeed, a chicane, as opposed to the kink, situated somewhere on the stretch leading from Maison Blanche to the pits. Thus, the conclusion must be that a combination of random circumstances at the worst imaginable point on the track caused the crash. In fact, remove any of the circumstances, and you would have avoided the accident altogether. As Xen once said to me, the crash was inevitable - unavoidable under the circumstances - and bound to have happened sooner or later.

2 ) Who was to blame?

The criminal investigation into the accident revolved around there being one specific person responsible, the mystery Mr. X mentioned earlier. There is no doubt that that person was Hawthorn. What exonerates him from any culpability is the fact that he was - fast. A bit of a contradiction in terms, but that is my firm belief. Put yourself in his car, and imagine the thing for yourself. He's coming up towards this slow car, overtakes, and then heads for the pits, keeping to the right of the track, and slowing. Had he dallied behind Macklin, he could have posed a similar risk when overtaking later, with Levegh and Fangio bearing down on him, anyway. He simply seized an opportunity. Besides, shouldn't Macklin have realised what Hawthorn was doing? As a backmarker in such a race, all attention should at all times be to directed towards situations when faster cars were overtaking. Macklin wasn't a wealthy privateer dilettante, he was a wealthy EXPERIENCED sports car racing driver, and as such should have checked both Hawthorn's behaviour, and the rear view mirror, for potential cars coming from behind. What he did was to turn abrupty to the left, which suggests that Hawthorn either was braking violently, or that he was at the time not concentrating fully on the situation at hand. And what of Levegh himself. Should he have anticipated the situation as Macklin should, or not? The reason they had such a short time in which to react, is in my opinion the fact that Hawthorn's brake lights didn't show, because he was changing gears down, before applying the brakes. Otherwise it is too illogical that all these drivers behind him didn't observe what sort of situation was in the making. A "once in a million" situation was what happened, and the result was - utterly tragic. As for the A.C.O., the organisation had lived up to the current racing regulations to the full. There was no way they could be held legally responsible, but then there is always the moral responsibility. The fact that they asked Shell to make the questionnaire about safety the previous year, suggests that they must have felt some need for a clearer idea of what sort of improvements could be made. The fact that they didn't, despite serious and constructive response from Tony Rolt, in my book makes them partially morally responsible. The following public uproar pointed the finger at motor racing as a far too dangerous sport. That argument of course was, and still is populistic and unintelligent in the extreme. Everybody knew that motorsport was dangerous. The drivers died all the time, back then. The only difference was that this time around, if I may be allowed the indelicacy, the audience got a taste of speed's ultimate price. I believe this is what prompted Macklin to make his infamous comment about the spectators coming to see an accident "getting themselves a good one". There is no excuse for such cynicism, but it still gives an indication of how the state of affairs was in that era. Christopher Hilton in his book about the crash talks about the "end of innocence" of motor racing, and that is exactly what it was. It was the day when ordinary people realised that it wasn't just fun and games, it had the potential to become deadly serious. For everyone. To me, the Le Mans accident of 1955 is and will forever be the most important moment in racing history.

3 ) Should the race have been stopped?

This is a question which is easily answered. It should definitely not have been. It would have blocked ambulance traffic to and from the track, and only have resulted in further death and suffering among the victims. This demand was made in the heat of the aftermath, and persisted for some time afterwards, but anyone with half a brain would have realised that it would only have led to more casualties. Ironically, had Levegh for instance crashed and killed himself and noone else, then everyone would probably have insisted that the race be continued. Thus, the limit of public tolerance somehow seems to only have been reached when "innocent spectators" were involved. That is the cross that the men of motor racing had to bear in those days, and practically ever since. If a driver died, tough luck sonny, the race must go on. If spectators died, "we couldn't possibly go on".

4 ) Should Mercedes really have withdrawn?

Mercedes and Porsche were at the time shining examples of the German Wirtschaftswunder - the swift rebuilding of the nation, and rehabilitation of their position in motorsport, after the war. They had great respect, but I am not sure what would have happened if they had carried on. I'm glad they made the decision, but objectively, what would have been wrong with their carrying on? Of course, the whole WW2 story would have resurfaced with a vengeance, "German Car Kills Innocent French Spectators", and more along those lines. Moss couldn't see any point in withdrawing, Denis "Jenks" Jenkinson downright insisted that they didn't, Neubauer was understandably adverse to the idea of throwing away his life's work, and even though what I suppose must be described as common sense prevailed, it would have been interesting to see developments, if Mercedes had gone on, towards a hollow victory which instead befell the Jaguar team, which was far more directly at the root cause of the accident in the first place. That Mercedes-Benz made that brave and noble decision shows how great they really were. They were arguably the greatest racing team in all of motorsport history, and here they were, completely without blame, caught in the worst catastrophe the sport had ever seen, and still they did the honourable, respectable thing. The right thing. It was symbolic of the nature of motor racing, especially in a "then" context. Dangerous and unforgiving.

5 ) Shouldn't Jaguar also have withdrawn?

This is where I get a bit angry. I believe they definitely should, and I even believe they should have done so immediately after the accident. They had Hawthorn in tears, coming in after his extra lap, half-admitting his responsibility for the accident, and apologizing to Macklin in the Paddock. Bueb almost lost his bottle when he saw what the accident had caused, saying it was suicide to get in the car, and it is close to downright mental cruelty to send those two brave lads out on the track after they'd realised what had happened. This army-style British bulldog discipline of Lofty England's would have been admirable in a wartime scenario, but in a situation like this, I find it inexcusable. Jaguar's behaviour over the 24 hours scandalous, not only by today's hindsighted standards, but also from a simple and basically timeless humanitarian point of view. The British racing press's attempts to ignore facing the tragedy - the lack of mention of the accident in magazines like Autosport adding further scandal. Not just insensitive but downright cruel. The stern attitude of Lofty England is what won 2nd World War, but hardly applicable in peacetime under tragic circumstances. Hawthorn and Bueb were looking for an excuse, which he provided by giving a direct team order, thus in a sense taking the responsibility. Noone can take the victory away from Jaguar, but then again, I don't suppose anyone would have wanted to.

6 ) Was Macklin Right?

Macklin said a horrible thing about this crash. He in so many words insinuated that spectators only went to motor racing events to gawp at accidents, and the possible thrill of watching someone die, like the ancient Romans at the Coliseum. Many a time has motorsport been compared to bloody gladiator fights, and technically the earliest staged races in the history of mankind could be said to be those of real horse-powered chariots, at said venue. Even if one or two morbidly curious spectators were to attend the odd race, Macklin's statement must be dismissed. Racing drivers are heroes, and people support them whole-heartedly, and only a very small and metally ill minority derives any pleasure from seeing a fatal crash. This is a dark side to human nature, and fortunately it is not the predominant one.

7 ) Is Motor Racing Safe?

This is what it really all comes down to, isn't it. The answer is no, of course not. Frail humanity making sport of the formidable powers of science and nature cannot by definition be safe. Not completely, not at all times. There is a price to be paid, sometimes, and that day 50 years ago, the price was extraordinarily heavy. We must conclude that in our day and age, though fatal accidents still occur, the safety precautions and measures are as high as can possibly be expected, and still developing. The fact that we learn from bad experiences, and react accordingly, is what seperates us from the 1950s, when death was a common feature on race day.

8 ) Should Motor Racing Be 100% Safe?

This is the trickiest question. Much of the drama and excitement of motor racing comes down to crashes - the "thrill of the shunt", if not of the hunt. Motor racing would be worthless entertainment without this dimension, and I guess this is the fundamental reason that crasherama exists in the first place. The "Jim Clark"-style races, with someone leading from pole position to checkered flag, however aesthetically satisfying, simply aren't quite as exciting. Would that there could be found a perfect balance, in which accidents could happen, but no lives ever be lost. That must be the final conclusion.

---

Zadoc-Kahn and Macklin revisiting the scene of the crash during the official investigation into the accident:



Official inquiry dictated by authorities, and held by M. Zadoc-Kahn.

This inquest was a complete farce because people had selective memory and generally half confused and contradicting views on how the thing happened. Pointless to go through, nothing came out of it anyway, no responsibility nor blame was placed. The whole thing had happened so fast that it was impossible to say what had happened. People standing close by the victims in front of the grandstands for example, for a while hadn't noticed anything because the crowd was so tightly packed. The accident was over in a matter of seconds, and happened suddenly, unexpectedly. The accident was correctly described by many who had seen it as a chain of events. That it happened how, and where it did was just a matter of chance, but the fact that the physical circumstances (the high speed, the narrowness of the pit straight, the inadequate protection of spectators) were there, makes it impossible to exonerate the ACO. Zadoc-Kahn even had problems getting hold of the people involved, as Fangio, Macklin and Bueb were elsewhere. Homicide by negligence against "driver X", most likely Hawthorn. Name would be revealed if accusations stuck. The Public Prosecutor concluded that race safety regulations had been observed to the full, and that no blame could be placed on any of the drivers. To sum up: accidental death and noone to blame for the accident. (10th November 1956).

---

Some consequences of the crash:

Mercedes-Benz withdrew their 2 other Le Mans entries, and later also withdrew from all racing activities, and didn't reappear until 1987. They did however finish the 1955 season, both in Formula One and the WSC, and the announcement was made at the Italian F1 GP at Monza, the last race in the season, which was won by Fangio. Mercedes-Benz won both the F1 Driver's and Constructor's Championship (unofficially - the title wasn't instated until 1959) in what would have been a fabulous season, had the crash not occurred (wins in the Mille Miglia, Ulster TT and Targa Florio races gave Mercedes-Benz the WSC-title, as well). The 300SLRs also appeared in the post-Le Mans Swedish non-Championship sportscar race at Kristiansstad, which Fangio won. The individual WSC-title, had there been one, would have been awared to Stirling Moss, having won 3 rounds with Mercedes-Benz. Incidentally, he shared a factory Austin-Healy 100-S with Macklin in the 12 Hours of Sebring, though not the exact same car as the one involved in the crash.

**

(Moss driving the Austin Healey 100-S at Sebring)

The 1955 Targa Florio was the team's last appearance. The legendary Alfred Neubauer resigned along with his team.

The Circuit de la Sarthe was reconstructed, especially around the pit area. The race was held again as early as the following year, with new features such as a broader finishing straight, higher banks and a pit lane, resurfacing of the track between Maison Blanche and Tertre Rouge, and an escape road at Arnage.

Fuel consumption regulations were introduced at Le Mans for 1956 to slow the cars, but they actually gave an advantage to the 3.4-liter Jaguar inline six-cylinder, and the privateer Ecurie Ecosse D-Type from Scotland won after the factory cars ran into trouble:

- http://www.europeancarweb.com/features/0412ec_jaguardtype/index1.html

The maximum duration of a driver's stint in a Le Mans race was for the 1956 edition reduced from 18 to 14 hours, to avoid driver fatigue.

Automobile Club Suisse cancelled the Prix de Bern, and all closed-track racing, and in fact Switzerland effectively banned all closed-track racing, and has only quite recently lifted this ban:

Quote:

After that deadly race, Switzerland outlawed automobile racing. Now it seems they may allow auto racing again. According to reports in the Motorsport Aktuell, a member of the Nationalrat, the Swiss national parliament, has initiated a bill to lift the ban on motor racing in Switzerland in the hope that the Formula One circus may return there in the future.

As a curiosity, the 1982 Swiss F1 GP was held at Dijon in France.

Italy at first joined in banning motorsport, but then soon revoked the ban, pointing out the fact that the Le Mans tragedy was one of a kind and would never happen again. In inglorious retrospect those were famous last words, as 2 years later during the Mille Miglia, something very similar in fact did*.

France of course immediately (temporarily) banned all motorsport, until track safety could be made up to date. As a result of this, smaller French circuits such as Orléans and Perpignan were closed down because of insufficient safety. The French GsP were cancelled, as were smaller events like the Amiens and Touquet-Paris-Plage rallies. There was a French cabinet meeting during which the opposition demanded to know why race wasn't stopped after the crash.

New FIA rules demanding considerably improved safety also meant that the F1 tracks Pedrables and Reims were out. Le Mans was for the same reason dropped for the 1956 WSC.

The VI. Carrera Panamericana was scheduled for the WSC in November of '55, but was abolished by the Mexican president after the Le Mans tragedy. Significantly, it WAS NOT because of the tragic events of the 1954 V. Carrera Panamericana (the infamous "Death Race"), as has otherwise been the popular misconception. The classic road race would reappear in the 80s as a vintage event.

The 5th round of the WSC: the 1000km of the Nürburgring, was also cancelled, narrowing the schedule down from 8 to 6 rounds.

AAA withdrew from Indy racing, and USAC took over.

The Dutch F1 GP at Zandvoort was held the following week, but the French GP, which was the round after that, was cancelled, and the British GP moved forward in its place. The later German, Swiss, and Spanish GsP were also cancelled, and thus the Italian GP became the final round of a season narrowed down from 11 to 7 rounds. The French and German GsP (Monaco, Reims and the Nürburgring) would return the following year, but the Dutch GP didn't reappear in the schedule until 1958. The Spanish GP wasn't to occur again before 1968. Directors of Zandvoort put catch fencing on track. Mercedes had refused to race unless safety was improved. Merc performed safety tests at Zandy, and then raced.

That the German GP was cancelled could also be seen as a strategic move by the organisers who had lost a sum of money on a previous event, and thus didn't want to add to that by having a race so soon after Le Mans, which people would in all likelihood shun.

Lance Macklin's involvement in the fatal crash at Dundrod in the later Round 5 of the WSC: the Ulster TT, made him quit racing, for good. Most likely he would have carried on after that, had he not also been part of the previous Le Mans-tragedy.

Panhard, like Mercedes-Benz, withdrew from racing at the end of the season:

Quote:

In 1955, Pierre Chancel ran with a Panhard VM5 engine designed by the engineering firm Pierre Durand. Panhard officially stopped the races after an accident at Le Mans in June 1955 and Monopole became the official coach builder and recovered the 2 VM5 and Riffard which would be used as car laboratory to Pierre Chancel. Seen well to Panhard and LP, Pierre Chancel, thanks to the race, would develop or adapt various techniques like the hydraulic correction of the play to the valves, the cylinder head with double camshaft at the head, the engine with detachable cylinder head, etc...

Briggs Cunningham wrote:

"I don't believe that the accident had anything to do with my decision to stop building cars," Briggs said years later, "but I don't think that Phil Walters ever raced again. And I can't say that I blame him."

Quote:

Jaguar had cut up Mike Hawthorn's 1955 Le Mans winner, using many of its parts to rebuild other crashed D-Types of its own or customers. That was a terrible shame, and wouldn't it have been nice to have kept even one of its most beautiful Long Nose 1955 or 1956 works D-Types, especially one which had been driven by favourite son, Mike Hawthorn?

Continue to Page 9...

TheFastlane Productions Ltd. © 2005 • Disclaimer • Terms Of Use