What is it with economy cars? Why do the people responsible for these automotive blasphemies believe that we, the buying public, want some god-awful buggy that resembles a childs toy? I write this because Riversimple are unveiling a hydrogen powered car in Britain. Like the all-electirc Gee-Whiz, it's an exremely compact two seater rather like a distorted Smart Car. Back in America, or California at least, they have hydrogen powered cars on sale already. Theirs are similar to everyday petrol cars and although not quite a vehicle to raise the pulse rate, it does at least avoid embarrasing its owner.

But no. Britain must have tiny town cars designed for the responsible urban commuter that are disastrously ugly and impracticle. You know, I used to drive a five door Nissan Cherry. No, don't laugh, I bought it secondhand at a considerable discount. For all its faults, the little car was reliable, practical, and actually a sharper car to drive than the dull smoothed out contemporary vehicles we're expected to believe are fun cars to drive. And, I should point out, faster than the modern alternative. I notice that the man behind Riversimples new vehicle is a former racing driver. Times have certainly changed.

I've always thought it's a bit ironic that planners have moaned that increasing car ownership was reducing the average speed of travel to walking pace, because we now have cars designed to do exactly that anyway.

The Tragedy Of Competition

I was watching a documentary recently about the disastrous accident during the 1955 Le Man 24 hour race. For those who can bear to see it, here's a link to footage of the event....

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=39422

The race had turned into grudge match between Jaguar and Mercedes teams. Mike hawthorn, a Jaguar driver, is deliberately baiting the superior Mercedes cars and both teams are racing right on ragged edge. Approaching the slight curve before the audience enclosures, Hawthorn decides to 'pit' his car. In these days the circuit had no seperate pit lane. Cars were serviced by the side of the track, and there were no run-off's.

Lance Macklin, who was just overtaken by Hawthorn, cuts the inside of the corner to avoid a collison, bringing up dirt. His car is unsettled at high speed, and to avoid crashing into the side of the track or indeed into Hawthorns Jaguar which was braking ahead of him, swerves left back across the tarmac. Levegh, a fifty year old driver of a Mercedes, is traveling much faster and coming past the Austin Healey on the outside. As Macklin swerves across, Levegh clips the back of his car. The Mercedes flips into the air, crashes against the side of the road, explodes, and sends wreckage hurtling into the crowd, including the engine block. Between 80 to 120 were killed, another 100 spectators injured.

The program fixed the blame on Macklin for swerving, and pointed out that Levegh was older than the average driver and must have had slower reflexes. I've thought about this. When Macklin avoids a collision with Mike hawthorns Jaguar, his attention is fixed on keeping his car under control and avoiding a crash. At a hundred miles an hour or more, in a 1950's car without aerodynamic aids, or even seatbelts, I can imagine he was fully occupied. Why then, would he take the time to glance at his mirror? He wouldn't have had the time. This wasn't a sunday drive to the local supermarket. Macklin was trying to keep a car on the ragged edge from becoming an accident.

Then again, Levegh was travelling much faster on the outside of the curve. At a hundred and fifty miles an hour, any avoiding action would have sent him wider, and thus an accident would have occurred anyway. Without doubt, his reaction time was slower than the situation demanded. I think though that given how quickly the situation developed, a tragedy was bound to happen. The speed they were all going at precluded any heroic avoidance.

Human beings have an innate desire to attach blame. We want someone to be responsible, to accept the punishment for their transgressions. The documentary was entirely devoted to who was to blame for the tragedy. Was it Hawthorn, braking hard in front of a car he'd just overtaken? Was it Macklin, trying to avoid a collision with Hawthorn and retain control of speeding Austin Healey? Or was it Levegh himself, driving beyond his ability in what was for its time an extremely fast car?

By now I suspect most you have already decided. In our modern view, speed was responsible. Perhaps, in the final analysis, the uncomfortable truth was that the accident was due to single minded determination to win by all concerned. Success involves risk, either by pushing the laws of physics in a race, or by commercial ventures such as the Riversimple hydrogen car. That's the price you pay for competition, or indeed conflict. After all, isn't sport ritualised confrontation?