Alf Bottoms Luxembourg GP 1951

[taylov]

Can anyone shed any light on the fatal accident which took the life of Alf Bottoms in practice for the 1951 Luxembourg Grand Prix?

Alf had a successful speedway career post-war at Rye House, Wembley at then as captain at Southampton in 1948. He raced in 500cc cars in 1950 and 1951, and in his last year was very successful in his JBS-Norton.

My copy of Autosport for May 11, 1951 details the Grand Prix at Luxembourg (3 May) and briefly reports that "The event was marred considerably by the inexplicable accident to Alf Bottoms, who was fatally injured when his JBS overshot the hairpin in practice, and collided with a parked car on an emergency escape-road".

This seemed straight-forward until a recent letter to "Motor Sport" mentioned that the incident may have been triggered by a spectator walking across the track. All this reminds me of the loss of the great Albeto Ascari at Monza in 1955.

Does anyone know more?

[David McKinney]

The spectator story sounds like what cockneys call pony.
Motor Sport June 1951 says the accident happened when Bottoms was...”running at full throttle up an escape road at a hairpin bend and under a parked car. It is possible his shoe (he had not put on his racing footwear on this occasion) got jammed in the pedals or, of course, he may have collapsed over the wheel.”
I can't see how a spectator could have triggered that...

[Ol'_Motorhead]

Not I - before my time! Checked out several North American magazines from 1951 but sadly found no report on the race.|| Interesting report on the '51 Siracusa GP though. Seems Alfa Romeo decided to run the race non-stop and fitted 92.5 gallon fuel tanks (400+ litres) to two of their four cars with one J.M. Fangio in one of the four. No wonder there were so many injuries and fatalities back then! I don't even want to think what might have resulted from a opening lap shunt.

[fines]

Scusi?

There were no Alfa Romeos at the Siracusa GP in 1951!

[Ol'_Motorhead]

Fines, you're right! I mis-read the article. I stand corrected - again! In Road & Track (July,'51) the article was about the GP but what I read was at the end of the piece and the author was describing that Alfa's former engineer, Colombo had returned and they were going to run the four cars (type 160's?) in '52 with the forementioned fuel capacity. It also mentioned the type 512, 12 cylinder opposed engine. Wow, you guys do know your history - right on!

[Vitesse]

Definitely not type 160. That was the type number for an unraced GP car projected for 1940.

Alfa created a wonderful smokescreen with the 512 - a 158/512 hybrid test rig had killed Marinoni on an Autostrada, but development continued until 1943, when the cars were walled up in the famous cheese factory. This "Italian Auto Union" never actually raced and, by most accounts, would probably not have been competitive in post-war F1. But it was there as a threat for when the 158 and 159 were finally defeated ..... except they weren't until 1951, and Alfa withdrew at the end of that year, the Alfettas having finally reached the end of development. Smoke and mirrors ....

[Vitesse]

Originally posted by Ol'_Motorhead
I don't even want to think what might have resulted from a opening lap shunt.

Have a look at pictures of the 1950 Monaco GP - there was a multiple collision at the tunnel exit: in the aftermath of it you can see a sea of petrol on the track

There's also a funny story about Gonzalez ....

[Ol'_Motorhead]

Quote:

"Definitely not type 160. That was the type number for an unraced GP car projected for 1940."

I'm out of my league here but I'll quote the article. BTW, it's from Road & Track JUNE,'51, not July, as I posted earlier - oops, another typo!

"In any case, it is certain that, in the coming season (1952), Alfa Romeo will participate with a team of at least four cars (probably called type 160). Drivers will be Dr. G. Farina, F. Bonetto, C. Sanesi and J.M. Fangio."

It would appear the author (Corrado Millanta) was speculating as to what the factory would designate the type.

[Vitesse]

Whoops! The 1940 car I was referring to was the 162. The 160 was a project for the 2.5 litre F1 - powered by a flat 12 engine, with the driver behind the rear axle. Two engines were built, but it appears the car never got off the drawing board, although it's possible a test rig in this configuration was run at Monza.

Again, probably smoke and mirrors from Alfa, since I don't think (even at that stage) they intended continuing into 1952: the 158/159 series were reaching the end of development - this was a basically fifteen-year-old design in its eighth season of racing - and producing a new car for the last two years of a Formula would not have been all that sensible. They would have run the risk of damaging the reputation built up by the Alfettas, so they withdrew - the Ferrari 375 had finally proved that a properly sorted normally-aspirated 4.5 litre could defeat a supercharged 1.5 litre - and going down that road would have been pointless for Alfa, since the new F1 was just 2.5 litres. Ferrari had an engine ready in the new 500 F2 car, but Alfa did not.

[Ol'_Motorhead]

... although it's possible a test rig in this configuration was run at Monza

You're correct about that too. The article states - "The type 512 was originally built in 1939 as a rear-engined car, and has never participated in a race. The car 512, in tests at Monza was very fast, but demonstrated that it was too hard to handle, as the driver was too far in the front."

I'm not sure if this means the car was tested in '39 or '51. Cheers!

[Vitesse]

Hang on, you're confusing the two! The 512 was tested during the war, mainly by Carlo Pintacuda, but I don't think it was ever run in serious testing again after the 158s had proved they were still the class of the field from 1946-48 and again in 1950-51. Interesting that the article admits the 512 was a failure, though - the general (if uninformed) opinion at the time was "Once the 158s get beaten, they'll bring out the 512s".

The Monza "test rig" I was referring to was a preliminary set-up for the aborted 160: as it was to be front-engined, but with the driver sitting BEHIND the REAR wheels, I think you can understand why it was unlikely to work!