Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

Talk:1955 Le Mans disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove ads

Remove ads

car numbers

The picture at the top says that Levegh's car is #20. The diagram which comes next says Levegh (19) and Fangio (20). Going back to the top picture, I see a couple silver SLRs with the numbers 20 and 21 -- no 19.

Austin-Healey tail

Curiounly, the Austin-Healey 100's "long. ramp-like tail" that Levegh's Mercedes rode up on is not apparent on the linked Austin-Healey 100 article. The cars in the article all have short, stubby, rounded tails—nothing like a ramp. A searcrh for the word race in this article yields only a category at the bottom, naming a category that this article had been mistakenly assigned to. Perhaps if the article had included a picture of Hawthorne's racing car... Donfbreed (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people get confused about the tail and the brakes of Macklin's AH-100 because they confuse it with the street version. The comp version (I've read it referred to as both the 100S and the 100R) has a low sloping tail and Dunlop disc brakes just like the Jaguar. So all these stories circulating about the Macklin losing control because of the inferior drum brakes allegedly on his car are a bunch of hooey that gets repeated again and again. Macklin had all the stopping power that Hawthorn had, arguably more effective stopping power because his car was smaller and lighter.75.111.54.141 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's a description of the 100S, the customer racing version that Macklin was driving. It did indeed have disc brakes like the Jag.75.111.54.141 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a picture of Macklin's Healey . However, in the video of the crash it does not appear to me that Levegh's Mercedes rides up the rear deck of the Healey, though that is often asserted and shown in reconstructions. Instead Levegh's right front wheel hits and begins climbing the left SIDE of the Healey, and air pressure under the Mercedes chassis does the rest. Had the "ramp" effect actually occurred the Mercedes would surely have corkscrewed, where in fact it took off like an airplane taking off, i.e. on an angled but largely unrotated and unrotating plane. It landed on its back, not its side.
The article also states, "Fangio... narrowly escaped the heavily damaged Austin-Healey, which was now skidding to the right of the track, across his path. Macklin then hit the pit wall and bounced back to the left, crossing the track again. He struck the barrier near the location of the now burning 300 SLR, causing the death of a spectator..." But there couldn't be any spectators on the track side of the barrier between track and grandstand! That would mean they were ON the track! My understanding is that Macklin hit three people on the PIT side of the track, killing a gendarme. ((addendum: see , 30:19; , 02:19,15:33 - apparently a pit crew member was killed as well, and a 2nd gendarme at least hit)) Also, the Healey doesn't appear to have been heavily damaged until its rear end hit the pit structure at speed... so it wasn't yet heavily damaged at the point when the article says otherwise.(See at 0:20; the rear hatch is popped but the heavy damage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqA6tpoP6Rk at 41:51) has not yet occurred) Also, the point where the Healey hit the barrier (See at 0:25) is PAST the two(?) video photographers who photographed the 300 SLR blowing up, and they were themselves considerably (100 yd?) down the track from the burning Mercedes. So the place Macklin ended up is nowhere "near" that point.
I'll leave it to someone else to find RS for these observations, but if you want the article right, someone should look for that. Andyvphil (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Remove ads

Diagram

Summarize
Perspective
Thumb
Graphical analysis of the 1955 accident

This diagram is simply wrong, please do not reintroduce it to the main page. The available photographic and film evidence (see links on main page) clearly show: 1) Hawthorn moving over well before Macklin moved; 2) that Macklin never moved beyond half-way across the track; 3) Levegh made no attempt to avoid Macklin's car. I agree that the concept of the diagram is useful, but we really shouldn't be introducing disinformation into an encyclopedia. Pyrope 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove it again. Pryope's 2007 comments are largely off-point (and have an obvious pro-Hawthorn slant), but, yes, the diagram has nothing little to do with what happened. Andyvphil (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely it has "something" to do with what happened? It's just that you're sayiug it's wrong! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. I've revised "nothing" to "little". Andyvphil (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Which bits are off point, and if my comments do not give good reason for removing an incorrect diagram (I comment on the sequence of events, as does the diagram) which bits are in error such that you have decided (with no discussion) to remove it again? Pyrope 15:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
So other than refactoring your comment slightly Andyvphil, have you actually anything constructive to say? Pyrope 16:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The diagram is useless because it conflates straightaway with pit/grandstand area, completely misrepresents what happens to Levegh's vehicle (which it misnumbers), etc. Since we agree on its uselessness I'm not sure what to make of your objection to my removing it "with no discussion". It was discussed by you, here, before. Anyway, it's hard to image what discussion could have resulted in its being placed on the page, so it's its restoration that was presumably without discussion.
As to what was off-point, your whole riding your pro-Hawthorn hobby horse into a battle where it's not remotely needed was off-point. FWIW, Levegh had no time or way to avoid Macklin, of whom it is total BS to say that "Macklin never moved beyond half-way across the track". (You think the midline line he crossed ( at 0:43) was shifted to the PIT side of the track??? No way.) The question about when Hawthorn moved in front of Macklin is a red herring -- it's how hard he braked that's the issue with his driving that day. Andyvphil (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
According to Paul Frere's frame-by-frame analysis of the film of the runup to the accident, the answer to the issue of how hard Hawthorn was braking was essentially "not very." Frere even questioned whether Hawthorn was braking at all rather than just downshifting when Macklin came up behind him. Frere proposed that downshifting would present no brake lights to alert Macklin that Hawthorn was decelerating, accounting for Macklin's delay in responding to Hawthorn's move until there was an emergency.75.111.54.141 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I see no point in throwing around any accusations of who is "pro-this" or "anti-that". All we are interested in here, and all the article needs, is to establish the correct sequence of events. One major problem is that we have very limited resources which recorded objectively what actually happened 60 years ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I have little patience for the Wikipedia fetish for avoiding stating the obvious. Is there someone who wants the diagram back? Andyvphil (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally I'd never take a hobby-horse into a battle. Especially when it's over a racetrack. But there we are. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The statement "Macklin never moved beyond half-way across the track" had gone uncontradicted since 2007???? Sheesh. And I've above pointed out some other nonsense, actually in the article, as well. Andyvphil (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at the photos? By the way, a car sitting astride the midline is half way across the track. It is in the middle, simples, no? Macklin certainly did not (as the diagram erroneously shows) come about three quarters of the way toward the left of the track before Levegh hit him. As for the timing of Hawthorn's move being "a red herring", actually this was precisely why I was critical of the diagram in the first place. The diagram shows the cause of the accident as being Hawthorn cutting across in front of Macklin, whereas most recent data and expert opinion does, as you say, place more emphasis on the timing and severity of Hawthorn's braking. Hawthorn was well over and running parallel to the edge of the track before Macklin moved, he was not moving across on him. Finally, as to me being "pro-Hawthorn", where the hell are you getting that from? I made valid criticism of the diagram based on discrepancies between that and the available sources, and I did not do it from any particular standpoint. Some of the criticisms you have reinforced. If you are trying to reinforce you points by making unfounded slurs against people you perceive as being in opposition to you then you are on to a loser. However, taking a quick look at your talk page shows this to be a fairly common tactic of yours that has already earned you an indefinite ban from all BLP articles!! Jeez, try learning something. Pyrope 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Since I'm the one who provided a link to an exact times in the video it's puerile to ask whether I've looked at it. And when Macklin went over the line in the middle of the road he'd moved beyond "half-way across the track". With the kink at the end of the straight coming up, and the 1-meter berm at the very edge of the lane, Macklin moving more than half-way across the track meant Levegh had no way to get by. Whether the MID-LINE of Macklin's car had moved beyond the mid-line of the road is a clever attempt to salvage some veritas for a false statement, but another red herring.
As to the ad hominem part of your response, I was banned from BLP for making the "racist" observation, on a talk page, that someone who'd washed out of one doctoral program but was immediately admitted to a more prestigious one at a university that had recently adopted an affirmative action program had almost certainly benefited from affirmative action. Use of the phrase "washed out" was also deemed "racist", as I was supposedly saying the fellow in question was "dirty". I tested the appeals process but was confirmed in my contempt for Wikipedia governance.
The diagram is absurd, but instead of objecting to the major ways in which it is misleading you chose to argue minutia directly from the narrative at(registration reqd to see full text?). Maybe you had some reason other than the obvious supposition to miss the forest for a few off-point trees, but I stand by my off-hand comment. Andyvphil (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No Andyvphil, I asked about the photos, not the video. It is very clear that you have seen a video, possibly just the one, but there are many other discussions, articles and images taken from other viewpoints out there. If you haven't looked at these then that does rather colour my opinion regarding the worth of your comments. Your interpretation of half way and mine are clearly different, so live with it, but mine is equally valid. If I walk from one side of the road to the other, at which point am I half way? When I am standing on or just behind the yellow line down the middle? The statement I made isn't false, just a different way of looking at things and as it was my way of looking at things you were abusing perhaps you should have thought of that. Since there was no first "red herring" then this cannot be "another", now can it? As for arguing minutiae, my first and most major criticism was and has always been that this diagram misrepresents the fundamental trigger for the sequence of events. Is that a small thing? In doing so (many years ago now) I looked at a lot of the photos and video available at the time, and some of the clearest were those hosted at the www.mike-hawthorn.org.uk site. That is why I pointed them out. I do not and have never had a subscription to that site so I don't know what "narrative" you are talking about, and at the time I made my original 2007 comment you did not need a subscription to view the photos. For someone so touchy about attacks on their own reputation you seem to have little compunction when you yourself abandon the AGF principle and make unfounded attacks or assertions about others (both editors and article subjects) based on nothing more than your own assumptions. This is what got you banned from BLP, and you continued to do it through the subsequent arguments (accusations of a secret society and of other users trolling you at the very least). The diagram is indeed absurd, as is this argument, but your attacks on me were uncalled for, unfounded, and unreasonable. Pyrope 20:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what statement you made. I've quoted it several times since. Here, again: "film evidence... clearly show(sic)... that Macklin never moved beyond half-way across the track..." The middle of the track was presumably the dashed line, and Macklin passed beyond it when the edge of his tire, not his gearshift, passed its middle. In a race you pass the finish line when your nose goes past it, no need to wait for your butt.
I didn't say anything about needing a SUBSCRIPTION to the Hawthorn site. Andyvphil (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
1) "[Y]ou... make unfounded... assertions about others..."
2) "[Y]ou... ma[de] accusations of a secret society..."
LOL! Andyvphil (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I love the sound of barrel scraping in the morning. ;-) Semantic quibbles are the last refuge in an argument, aren't they? Whether registration or subscription or whatever you choose to call it, I have never had any special access to that website beyond what a member of the public gets when they click on the link on our article page. Have you? The middle of the track is indeed presumed to be the dashed line, but then I didn't say "he never went past the middle" did I? A person being half way is a different concept to the location of middle of the track. One is a point in space, the other is a relationship between an object and its surroundings. The finishing line is also a point in space which you can move past, so an analogy there is spurious. See the difference? Macklin did not get more than half way across the track before he was hit, and even the one source of evidence that you keep providing links to shows that. I'll restate the question I asked in the last post: if I walk across a road, would you say that I am half way across when I am standing astride the middle line, or when I am standing so that only the very tip of my big toe has touched that middle line? I tend to think the former. Pyrope 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Mercedes-Benz being driven by Pierre Levegh hit the bank by the grandstand and immediately exploded. Parts of the wreckage were blown into the enclosure, killing scores of mostly-French spectators." Inaccurate, but matches the diagram. Andyvphil (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a point in there somewhere? Perhaps that a 2008 page (check the copyright) that reprints contemporary, 1955, heat-of-the-moment news coverage can't benefit from knowledge, evidence and analysis available after 2008? What are you expecting, exactly? Pyrope 20:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
So, I'll take your nose and press it against the POINT, since you're determined to be otherwise oblivious: "matches the diagram. The diagram shows the Levegh Mercedes clipping Macklin, "hit[ting] the bank by the grandstand[,] and immediately explod[e]. Parts of the wreckage were blown into the enclosure, killing... spectators." You didn't have to wait until 2009 to know this was false. It was known immediately that it was false, that Levegh's Mercedes arrived from an entirely different place and direction and that the spectators were killed by kinetic disintegration debris and not the exploding gas tank. But the diagram matches initial bad reporting. Andyvphil (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
So you want a contemporary news report, made in the middle of the event, to know exactly what happened and what caused what? Right, good luck with that. Never noticed that even modern news reports tend to change over time as more evidence comes to light? The diagram itself shows nothing beyond the initial impact. There is no grandstand. There are no spectators. There is no death in the diagram at all, let alone any indication as to what caused it. Stating that it matches the 1955 news report in the manner you suggest is therefore simply not true. Pyrope 21:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The diagram shows the Mercedes clipped and immediately hitting the barrier and stopping. That's exactly what the story says. And both are wrong in exactly the same way. Your determination to be obtuse is remarkable. Andyvphil (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, not obtuse, but possibly reading a diagram more for what it is. In this diagram, depicting as it does a race between fast moving cars, I think most reasonable people assume that there is some forward motion not indicated but inherent. If not, you are therefore to assume that the whole incident happened in the time it took the Mercedes to travel roughly once through its own length. This might explain some of your worries about the conflation of events on the straight and in front of the grandstand. It is one of this diagram's many failings, granted, but not as significant than the relative positions of the cars. You also claim that the diagram "shows the Mercedes clipped and immediately hitting the barrier and stopping" and " That's exactly what the story says", but actually the story says the "Mercedes, which was travelling at over 150mph (240khm), flipped over and flew through the air and hit the bank". So actually the diagram doesn't match the story at all. Pyrope 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The diagram might be useful if there's a discussion of the response to the accident in the aftermath, as an example of the myth that Hawthorn dived

in front of Macklin in a hurried, las-possible-instant move to the pits. If it is used that way, it should be titled in such a way as to make it clear that it is not accurate.75.111.54.141 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove ads

Switzerland

Citation incorrectly used.

"Here's to You, Mr Hawthorn"

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads