Nigel Mansell is a Legend!

[Andy Harrison]

Video of Team Mansell racing in the LMS series

http://www.grid1.tv/videos/featured/the-mansells

Come on Nigel!!!

[Rollo]

Nigel looks wrong without the moustache.

I think that they should put the moustache on the car somewhere. As far as I know, there's only been one car with a moustache on it and that was called "Geoff - the Hammerhead Eagle iThrust".

[Saint Devote]

Nigel a legend? Well we know that :-]

And I also recall the Nigel Haters. Back then there was no Internet but there were those who constantly attacked and criticized him.

And they too were proven wrong over and again. They never learnt - they're still too dumb!!!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nige was special. A Legend? ya...I think so...

[Daniel]

rofl henners. It is that obvious isn't it?

[Mark]

And I also recall the Nigel Haters. Back then there was no Internet but there were those who constantly attacked and criticized him.


Of course. For any personality such as him, there are the detractors, as well as the fans. Cheif among the detractors are everyone who worked for McLaren in 1995 :p

[MrJan]

Not watched the video but from what I understand he's one of the biggest bellends going. He used to own a golf course down my way and not a single person I know has a kind word to say about him, apparently very arrogant and not a particularly nice chap.

I personally lost respect for him when I found out that he would throw people off the golf course whenever he felt like having a round on his own. Fair enough that it's his course but don't chuck people off when they're in the middle of a game.

[Sonic]

Nigel is a racing Legend - fact. End of story. Bosh!

[Garry Walker]

Nigel a legend? Well we know that :-]

And I also recall the Nigel Haters. Back then there was no Internet but there were those who constantly attacked and criticized him.

And they too were proven wrong over and again. They never learnt - they're still too dumb!!!!

Of course Henners is right, but I cannot resist.

Mansell was one of the most overrated drivers of all time, most of the time he was beaten by his teammates and a better driver would have taken at least 4 titles with the cars he had. Aside from that, he was a massive prick and a crybaby. :D

[Sonic]

Of course Henners is right, but I cannot resist.

Mansell was one of the most overrated drivers of all time, most of the time he was beaten by his teammates and a better driver would have taken at least 4 titles with the cars he had. Aside from that, he was a massive prick and a crybaby. :D

LOL :D

[goodf1fun]

Nigel looks wrong without the moustache.

I think that they should put the moustache on the car somewhere. As far as I know, there's only been one car with a moustache on it and that was called "Geoff - the Hammerhead Eagle iThrust".



put the moustache on the car ahhahahahahahaha LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[V12]

Of course Henners is right, but I cannot resist.

Mansell was one of the most overrated drivers of all time, most of the time he was beaten by his teammates and a better driver would have taken at least 4 titles with the cars he had. Aside from that, he was a massive prick and a crybaby. :D

Even if every word of the above is true, he's still an absolute legend in my eyes. I base this on absolutely no logic or reasoning, that's just the way it is and I'm not in the slightest bit ashamed :D

[Daniel]

Not watched the video but from what I understand he's one of the biggest bellends going. He used to own a golf course down my way and not a single person I know has a kind word to say about him, apparently very arrogant and not a particularly nice chap.

I personally lost respect for him when I found out that he would throw people off the golf course whenever he felt like having a round on his own. Fair enough that it's his course but don't chuck people off when they're in the middle of a game.

Bah! You're just some young whippersnapper! What would you know? You just know a few people who know nigel. Nigel is the pervian jellybean eating snake of the F1 world and if you don't know what that means then I hope all of your hair falls out.

As Hitlers one testicle once said "I like cheese"

[Saint Devote]

Of course Henners is right, but I cannot resist.

Mansell was one of the most overrated drivers of all time, most of the time he was beaten by his teammates and a better driver would have taken at least 4 titles with the cars he had. Aside from that, he was a massive prick and a crybaby. :D

Never mind titles - Stirling Moss never won a single title and was considered by Fangio to be his toughest opponent.

Nigel is only fourth on the alltime winners list, behind Schumacher, Prost and Senna at 31 grands prix and 32 pole positions - versus the pole position god Senna's total of 41 or that other slow coach Prost with 33 pole positions!

Of course Schumacher makes them all look weeny so whence Nigel?

Mansell? Underachievers like him should NOT be allowed in F1 :rolleyes:

Thus spake Gaaaaaarwee....!

Now back to rational programming.

[slorydn1]

Nigel was/is a legend in F1, and open wheel racing in general...'nuff said :D

[SGWilko]

I don't care much for how he runs his Country Golf Club. As an F1 fan, all I cared about was that, when in an F1 car, be it the Williams Judd in '88, the Lotus in '82 or the Ferrari in '89-'90, he gave 100% and probably had bigger balls than Buster Gonad.

I also had admiration for the way he won the Indy series in '94 as a rookie.

Quite what happened in '95 I don't know, but that was a big dissapointment.

[ShiftingGears]

While Mansell was never the best driver on the grid, he was easily one of the most exciting. Cause his popularity isn't explained by his personality ;)

[ShiftingGears]

Never mind titles - Stirling Moss never won a single title and was considered by Fangio to be his toughest opponent.

I consider Moss to have been the best driver on the F1 grid during the period between Fangio's retirement until Moss' retirement.

[SGWilko]

While Mansell was never the best driver on the grid, he was easily one of the most exciting. Cause his popularity isn't explained by his personality ;)

Quite, what with him coming from Birmbinggggggham and all that.

Quite, what with him coming from Birmbinggggggham and all that.

That's Brummist.

[Mark]

Quite what happened in '95 I don't know, but that was a big dissapointment.

Since he won the 1994 Australian Grand Prix you can't say he was over the hill in the space of a few months. Lots of things went wrong at McLaren, not least because he simply didn't get on with the McLaren management. And that the 1995 McLaren was probably one of the worst cars McLaren have ever come out with!

[ShiftingGears]

Since he won the 1994 Australian Grand Prix you can't say he was over the hill in the space of a few months.

Whilst he did have a very good pole lap, he was over 30 seconds behind Hill and Schumacher less than halfway through the race. He won by virtue of being the only Benneton/Williams driver running, rather than by being fast.


Lots of things went wrong at McLaren, not least because he simply didn't get on with the McLaren management. And that the 1995 McLaren was probably one of the worst cars McLaren have ever come out with!

Agreed.

[Garry Walker]

Never mind titles - Stirling Moss never won a single title and was considered by Fangio to be his toughest opponent.

Nigel is only fourth on the alltime winners list, behind Schumacher, Prost and Senna at 31 grands prix and 32 pole positions - versus the pole position god Senna's total of 41 or that other slow coach Prost with 33 pole positions!

Of course Schumacher makes them all look weeny so whence Nigel?

Mansell? Underachievers like him should NOT be allowed in F1 :rolleyes:

Thus spake Gaaaaaarwee....!

Now back to rational programming.

Considering the top cars he had (like in years 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, even in 1994) it is given that he should have won a huge amount of races. It says a lot that with even such cars he only won one title.

[SGWilko]

Considering the top cars he had (like in years 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, even in 1994) it is given that he should have won a huge amount of races. It says a lot that with even such cars he only won one title.

Same goes for his teammates driving the same machinery....

In 86, 88, 89 90, & 91 his teammate did not win the championship either.

Errrrrrrr, in '94, if he'd won the championship that would have been very clever - ho only drove 4 races.

[Garry Walker]

Same goes for his teammates driving the same machinery....

In 86, 88, 89 90, & 91 his teammate did not win the championship either.

Errrrrrrr, in '94, if he'd won the championship that would have been very clever - ho only drove 4 races.

In 1986 he and Piquet lost because Prost was a much much better driver than them. Williams as a car was much better than what Prost had.
I did not mention 1988 or 1989.
In 1990 Prost was fighting for the title, while Mansell was nowhere. Sennas brilliance kept the Ferrari from winning.
in 1991, Patrese was beating Mansell for the first part of the season, but then Mansell started beating him. Considering that this is the same guy a few years later kept getting lapped by Schumi in the same car and Mansell struggled against him, that doesnt speak well for Mansell.

[SGWilko]

In 1986 he and Piquet lost because Prost was a much much better driver than them. Williams as a car was much better than what Prost had.
I did not mention 1988 or 1989.
In 1990 Prost was fighting for the title, while Mansell was nowhere. Sennas brilliance kept the Ferrari from winning.
in 1991, Patrese was beating Mansell for the first part of the season, but then Mansell started beating him. Considering that this is the same guy a few years later kept getting lapped by Schumi in the same car and Mansell struggled against him, that doesnt speak well for Mansell.

For the most part, 1991 was written off due to the unreliability of both the semi auto 'box and the still developing active ride.

Until 2010, Schumi's teammates generally had two hopes - one was Bob......

I think in '89 the Ferrari was a top car, shame the reliability could not keep up with the rest of the car - too many times the alternator belt went west rendering the solenoids on the semi auto 'box useless. SIlly how such an insignificant part can ruin a race car reputation - and such a beautiful car too.....

[Saint Devote]

Considering the top cars he had (like in years 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, even in 1994) it is given that he should have won a huge amount of races. It says a lot that with even such cars he only won one title.

You just hate Mansell. I am on the side of Chapman and Williams who recognized Nigel was a very special individual.

And again, your fixation on titles rather than race wins is convenient - albeit that doing so axiomatically places Stirling Moss in the same category you do Mansell.

You are very wrong in this matter. For every argument you level against Nigel [and Jenson I might add] also erodes the status of other drivers that are recognized greats.

You may overlook this little abstract contradiction in order to attack using concretes. But it is illogical.

[Rollo]

In 1986 he and Piquet lost because Prost was a much much better driver than them. Williams as a car was much better than what Prost had.

Mansell would have won the title in 1986 if that tyre hadn't blown itself to pieces 19 laps from home.
Ironically, if Piquet hadn't pitted, then Prost wouldn't have past him and then Piquet would have been on 72 points to Prost's 69.

Prost won the 1986 title because of 14mm of rubber.

[ShiftingGears]

Mansell would have won the title in 1986 if that tyre hadn't blown itself to pieces 19 laps from home.
Ironically, if Piquet hadn't pitted, then Prost wouldn't have past him and then Piquet would have been on 72 points to Prost's 69.

Prost won the 1986 title because of 14mm of rubber.

Prost won because he put himself in a position to win the title going into the last race, with an inferior car.

[Sonic]

Prost won because he put himself in a position to win the title going into the last race, with an inferior car.

I don't believe Prost had a mega strong team mate stealing points off him. If only Mansell or PK had been in that Williams with a weak team mate yo back them up the championship would have been settled well before oz.

Certainly Nige was bested in the early part of '91, but do bear in mind Patrese was the incumbent in that team at the time and it only took Mansell half a season to beat him, and by 1992 - by the time he really understood how to maximise the active ride - he totally wiped the floor with him to the tune of seconds per lap!

Even if you take away the 9 wins he scored in that dominant FW14B his record is still an impressive 22 wins. The man is a Leg End - end of story.

[SGWilko]

To be fair Garry there are some huge factors relating to some of the years you have mentioned. In 86 he suffered that tyre delamination whilst on his way to a certain championship win. These days the tyre manufacturer would be blamed for such an incident like in Indy 2005. Nobody blamed Toyota and Ralf for throwing away the race for everyone else. I don't see why Mansell should be held accountable for something out of his control.

In 90 Mansell was in a Ferrari which Prost described as a dog, and although the car could be fast, it was dreadfully unreliable to say the least. In 91 the Williams was arguably the fastest car on the grid but again an unreliable gearbox contributed to him retiring from a third of the races that season.

Nigel was by no means the best driver of his generation, but he was a driver who was fast and could never be described as a quitter. An exciting racer to watch combined with his arrogant personality made him one of the greats of his time IMO. He has got 31 race wins to his name and that eclipses some triple and even 5 times WDC's. Whenever a great like Senna is discussed, there always seems to be a mention of Monaco 1992, or Silverstone 1991 so he is a big name from that era and also one of the most unluckiest IMO. :)

Amen.

Shame about the B&B Henners, eh? ;)

[Sonic]

Henners = spot on!

He wasn't the greatest of his generation - but what a generation?! PK, Prost, Senna; triple or better WDC's. To get even 15 wins in an era like that would be impressive, but 31! And involved in (at least) 3 close championship fights - one of which deservedly went his way.

[Sonic]

Indeed bro, we'll have no problem at the Premier Inn so mark my words. I'll bring the Babycham if you bring the chocolate spread.. :p

Gross! But LOL

[scaliwag]

Never mind titles - Stirling Moss never won a single title and was considered by Fangio to be his toughest opponent.

Nigel is only fourth on the alltime winners list, behind Schumacher, Prost and Senna at 31 grands prix and 32 pole positions - versus the pole position god Senna's total of 41 or that other slow coach Prost with 33 pole positions!

Of course Schumacher makes them all look weeny so whence Nigel?

Mansell? Underachievers like him should NOT be allowed in F1 :rolleyes:

Thus spake Gaaaaaarwee....!



Now back to rational programming.



Saint.
What many racing fans don't know ( I suspect you do) is the bad publicity Nigel received was directly due to two overriding reasons, (1) he came from the wrong side of the tracks, he had to finance his early career himself, he raced and won with second hand out of date cars, he even had to take a second mortgage on his house to continue his career, he was unlike nearly every other F1 driver of his time he was working class and had a midlands accent, he was seen by his contemporaries as a below stairs upstart with ambition above his place.

(2) Nigel like many working class people needed to financially capitalize on his ability, as his star began to rise in F1 he was approached by several Journalists offering their services as his publicity agent, two of which were hacks on the times and telegraph, Nigel refused their offer, from then on Nigel was attacked at every turn by those who he had rebuffed.

Saint, if you have the time and inclination to research either or both of those papers during Nigel's time at the top you will find that neither paper ever wrote anything good regarding him, in fact I well remember one of said papers condemning him (after he won a race for Williams) for having a dull boring midlands accent, I admit Nigel didn't have the light touch of Senna, or the financial ability of Prost to purchase a seat in the best car, but what he did have was determination, drive, and above all the will to win whatever the odds, it's no wonder Ferarri fans refered to him as "the lion"

Regards scaliwag.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Gilles Villeneuve carved a similar path en route to F1. It's no wonder that the tifosi regarded Mansell as his natural successor at Ferrari.

[ArrowsFA1]

...he was unlike nearly every other F1 driver of his time...
I would hazard a guess that quite a few drivers didn't have an easy road to F1. Ok, Nigel was no Elio, but nor was he the exception when it came to making sacrifices for his motorsport career; it's just that this story has been built up by and around Mansell until it has reach historical proportions.

I can almost see Nigel being interviewed now: "No-one ever in F1 history had it harder." :p

Still, there's no doubt he made the very most of the ability he had.

[jens]

The discussion, arguments and ratings of Mansell remind a bit of that from the G.Villeneuve thread. And considering their "spectacularity", rather unsurprisingly. For instance in terms of performance Berger at least matched Mansell in 1989. A year later both of them got beaten by their new team-mates (Senna and Prost) in quite a similar fashion. But despite all that, how many people really rate Berger as an equivalent to Mansell? So again the rightful question can be asked - who is really over-/underrated?

In 90 Mansell was in a Ferrari which Prost described as a dog, and although the car could be fast, it was dreadfully unreliable to say the least.

Prost described the 1991 641 Ferrari as a dog, not the 1990 640 with which Prost won 5 GP's and Mansell only 1.

Prost blew Mansell away.

[Garry Walker]

You just hate Mansell. I am on the side of Chapman and Williams who recognized Nigel was a very special individual.I dont actually hate him. I just think he is overrated by a huge amount these days and before are forgetting to look at the facts that for most part of his career he was not any better than the many teammates he had.



And again, your fixation on titles rather than race wins is convenient - albeit that doing so axiomatically places Stirling Moss in the same category you do Mansell.

You are very wrong in this matter. For every argument you level against Nigel [and Jenson I might add] also erodes the status of other drivers that are recognized greats.

You may overlook this little abstract contradiction in order to attack using concretes. But it is illogical.
I dont care how many titles Mansell had or how many wins. My point is that he struggled against many of his teammates. But yes, titles are the most important things in F1. If you have the best car, you should win the title. Mansell had that for 3-4 years and only took 1 title.


I don't believe Prost had a mega strong team mate stealing points off him. If only Mansell or PK had been in that Williams with a weak team mate yo back them up the championship would have been settled well before oz. Who was Alain Prosts teammate? Keke Rosberg - a world champion. The same guy who in the year before beat Nigel Mansell in EQUAL cars (both in points and in Qualifying). That Rosberg was humiliated by Prost and shone against Mansell shows one thing, but I will let you decide what it is.
Still believe in your argument?



Certainly Nige was bested in the early part of '91, but do bear in mind Patrese was the incumbent in that team at the time and it only took Mansell half a season to beat him, and by 1992 - by the time he really understood how to maximise the active ride - he totally wiped the floor with him to the tune of seconds per lap! Patrese hated the car in 1992. He had no confidence in it at all. He himself has said so. That said, Patrese was not a very good driver. Schumacher kept lapping him in 1993.



Even if you take away the 9 wins he scored in that dominant FW14B his record is still an impressive 22 wins. The man is a Leg End - end of story.
With his cars, he should have 3-4 titles and many more race wins. I maintain that. Prost or Senna would have. If he hadnt lucked into the crazygood williams in 1992 with a nobody as teammate (and instead had had Schumacher, Senna or Prost), then we would be talking about nigel mansell - 0 times world champion.


To be fair Garry there are some huge factors relating to some of the years you have mentioned. In 86 he suffered that tyre delamination whilst on his way to a certain championship win. These days the tyre manufacturer would be blamed for such an incident like in Indy 2005. Nobody blamed Toyota and Ralf for throwing away the race for everyone else. I don't see why Mansell should be held accountable for something out of his control.What an awful example. The michelin tyres were never suitable for the conditions, the ones Mansell had were. You didnt see everyone else having tyre explosions at Adelaide, did you?
His teammate realized that he needed to pit to change them or they will explode, Mansell didnt. That the tyres failed after a long hard race and he didnt change them is the fault of one man - Nigel Mansell.



In 90 Mansell was in a Ferrari which Prost described as a dog, and although the car could be fast, it was dreadfully unreliable to say the least. Prost called the 1991 car dog, the car itself in 1990 was excellent and on many occasions, the best and fastest car in the field.



In 91 the Williams was arguably the fastest car on the grid but again an unreliable gearbox contributed to him retiring from a third of the races that season.16 races, 3 gearbox failures (the one in canada I am not sure was a gearbox failure, they say Mansell himself dropped the revs and let the car die. So it could be 16 races and 2 gearbox failures. Funnily, these were the only car problems he had during the year, besides a retirement in Spa due to electronics. So 3 retirements due to car problems out of 16 races. Not that bad for a car that enjoyed a massive speed advantage.



Nigel was by no means the best driver of his generation, but he was a driver who was fast and could never be described as a quitter. An exciting racer to watch combined with his arrogant personality made him one of the greats of his time IMO. He has got 31 race wins to his name and that eclipses some triple and even 5 times WDC's. Whenever a great like Senna is discussed, there always seems to be a mention of Monaco 1992, or Silverstone 1991 so he is a big name from that era and also one of the most unluckiest IMO. :) Mansell was one of the luckiest drivers of all time. He had awesome cars throughout his career, but on many occasions he did nothing with them.
Fact1 - Mansells all time qualifying record is 92:97 (so he lost to his teammate in Q more times than he beat his teammate in Q)
The only teammates out of the 10 he had that he had a positive Q record against were Patrese and Piquet (of course, it took the Imola crash after which Piquet was never the same for that to happen).
He finished behind his teammate more than he finished in front of his teammate.
Those are not good facts for Mansells greatness. As a driver of his generation, I would not rate him any better than Rosberg, Piquet, Berger, De Angelis. The opposite in fact.


Mansell would have won the title in 1986 if that tyre hadn't blown itself to pieces 19 laps from home.
Ironically, if Piquet hadn't pitted, then Prost wouldn't have past him and then Piquet would have been on 72 points to Prost's 69.

Prost won the 1986 title because of 14mm of rubber.
Prost won the title because in an inferior car he took it to the williams guys all year long.
Mansells tyre did not last - it was only one mans problem. His. He used it too much and destroyed it.


The discussion, arguments and ratings of Mansell remind a bit of that from the G.Villeneuve thread. And considering their "spectacularity", rather unsurprisingly. For instance in terms of performance Berger at least matched Mansell in 1989. A year later both of them got beaten by their new team-mates (Senna and Prost) in quite a similar fashion. But despite all that, how many people really rate Berger as an equivalent to Mansell? So again the rightful question can be asked - who is really over-/underrated?

excellent post.

[Saint Devote]

You cant get away from the facts regardless of anyone's opinion.

Nigel is the fourth highest ever race winner in F1.

He was afraid of nobody and overtook people in places where overtaking was supposedly impossible, winning the races.

He was the measure of all the drivers of his day.

He was one of the toughest and drove in his championship year with a broken foot.

He did not withdraw from a race when he was being soaked and burnt by exposure to fuel.

Colin Chapman and Frank Williams recognized his ability.

No. Nigel is a legend and it is the little bitter people that squeal against this giant of a racing driver.

We LOVED Nigel racing that Red 5 and he loved the fans back.

Sucks to be those who did not enjoy that time. Indeed.

And as for the usual ignorant comments about driving the Williams FW14b - is it the unique violin that makes the violinist or the person?

To use any instrument or drive any racing car requires the person that can use it. It is a false argument therefore.

Once again Garry, you argue concretes and are defeated by your abstracts. Confusion ought to be your name - philosphically speaking of course.

[Rollo]

Prost won the title because in an inferior car he took it to the williams guys all year long.
Mansells tyre did not last - it was only one mans problem. His. He used it too much and destroyed it.


One one? Really? Perhaps you know more about this than I do.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr436.html
On lap 63 the battle became one for the lead, when Rosberg suffered a right rear tire failure. Mansell was on course for the title when two laps later his left rear tire exploded at 180mph. Nigel managed to avoid hitting anything by his championship hopes were over. Williams had no choice but to call Piquet to the pits and so Prost went into the lead.

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Australian_Grand_Prix
Fearing the same happening to the second car, Williams called Piquet to the pits and Prost took the lead.

To summarise:
Lap 63: Rosberg retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 64: Mansell retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 65: Piquet pits to change tyres. - Why is that?

Adelaide was an abrasive street circuit. If Mansell's tyre hadn't blown he would have been World Champion. Prost wasn't catching him towards the latter stages of the race.

[Sonic]

One one? Really? Perhaps you know more about this than I do.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr436.html
On lap 63 the battle became one for the lead, when Rosberg suffered a right rear tire failure. Mansell was on course for the title when two laps later his left rear tire exploded at 180mph. Nigel managed to avoid hitting anything by his championship hopes were over. Williams had no choice but to call Piquet to the pits and so Prost went into the lead.

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Australian_Grand_Prix
Fearing the same happening to the second car, Williams called Piquet to the pits and Prost took the lead.

To summarise:
Lap 63: Rosberg retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 64: Mansell retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 65: Piquet pits to change tyres. - Why is that?

Adelaide was an abrasive street circuit. If Mansell's tyre hadn't blown he would have been World Champion. Prost wasn't catching him towards the latter stages of the race.

Thansk Rollo! I was just about to post something similar. Mansell didn't loose the '86 title, it was lost for him. He was also in the hunt in '87 before that shunt wrecked his back. So but for circumstances we could be talking about, Nigel Mansell, 3 times WDC! :D the number of wins in his career could have easily seen him achieve that.

[ArrowsFA1]

Certainly Nige was bested in the early part of '91, but do bear in mind Patrese was the incumbent in that team at the time and it only took Mansell half a season to beat him...
Nigel himself said the only reason he reversed his retirement decision was because Renault and Williams offered him everything he wanted and needed to become world champion. He made demands that he didn't expect them to meet but they did, so he came out of retirement and had everything just as he wanted it.

And yet in the first six races he was comfortably outscored by Patrese, including Riccardo's win in Mexico. In the first seven races he was outqualified by Patrese everytime, often by a decent margin. But then Mansell went on a roll of three successive wins and won the second half of the season. Quite why there was such a turnaround I don't know. Was it just down to Nigel getting comfortable in the team, and the car?

We do, however, now know what happened in 1992.


...and by 1992 - by the time he really understood how to maximise the active ride - he totally wiped the floor with him to the tune of seconds per lap!
Agreed. He did. Mansell absolutely made the most of the FW14B, whereas Patrese did not. One of the reasons was that some of the drivers input (or feel) was replaced by the computer. Mansell, a more physical than feel kind of driver, trusted the car more than his team-mate, who lost speed and time as a result, particularly through the corners where the active ride was so effective.

However, there was far more to it than just that, as Motorsport uncovered in 2002, and as Maurice Hamilton wrote about more recently in his book "Williams". You can read the Motorsport article here (http://riccardopatrese.net/weblog/?page_id=727). Riccardo wasn't aware of what Mansell and his engineer were doing at the time, and Adrian Newey admits that he and Patrick Head were slow to realise it.

It's the main reason I don't hold Mansell in as high esteem as many here. He didn't need to talk a load of rubbish in team debriefs designed to fool Riccardo. He would have won, and deserved to win, the title in 1992 anyway.

Some will argue that the ends justify the means, and the results support that view to some extent, but when I read "he totally wiped the floor with him" I think the whole picture needs to be seen to explain, at least in some way, why.

[Garry Walker]

You cant get away from the facts regardless of anyone's opinion.

Nigel is the fourth highest ever race winner in F1.

He was afraid of nobody and overtook people in places where overtaking was supposedly impossible, winning the races.

He was the measure of all the drivers of his day.

He was one of the toughest and drove in his championship year with a broken foot.

He did not withdraw from a race when he was being soaked and burnt by exposure to fuel.

Colin Chapman and Frank Williams recognized his ability.

No. Nigel is a legend and it is the little bitter people that squeal against this giant of a racing driver.

I have never disagreed that Mansell was one of the toughest SOBs to ever race in F1, was very brave and exciting to watch. Never have I disagreed with those points. What I have said is that he never was that impressive speedwise against his teammates, something you or any other mansell fan have managed to address in their post or argue against.
Thanks for proving my point :)


One one? Really? Perhaps you know more about this than I do.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr436.html
On lap 63 the battle became one for the lead, when Rosberg suffered a right rear tire failure. Mansell was on course for the title when two laps later his left rear tire exploded at 180mph. Nigel managed to avoid hitting anything by his championship hopes were over. Williams had no choice but to call Piquet to the pits and so Prost went into the lead. Yes, I know that Rosbergs tyre failed too, but how does it change what I said - "It was only one mans problem - his." Maybe I did not express myself well enough, so I will try to do it now. That his tyre failed, was not the fault of anyone else besides himself. Same for Rosberg. He had used it too much, if I remember correctly then Piquet was told to pit by Williams for fear of a failure too, but his tyres were found to be in a much better condition than Mansells. Infact, he probably would have managed to do the whole race on them.



Adelaide was an abrasive street circuit. If Mansell's tyre hadn't blown he would have been World Champion. Prost wasn't catching him towards the latter stages of the race.Oh really? You must know better than facts and me then.

On lap 50 Prost was 8,5 seconds behind Mansell. On lap 58, the gap was 1,5 seconds. The next lap it was already under 1 second and it stayed that way till Mansells tyre blew. Prost had much better tyres and was going to overtake him soon anyway. Mansells tyres were never going to last the whole race with his driving style on that track. But of course, his ego did not allow him to pit.

So if we exclude Mansell from the list of people at fault for the tyre failing, whose fault was it then?



Thansk Rollo! I was just about to post something similar. Mansell didn't loose the '86 title, it was lost for him. He was also in the hunt in '87 before that shunt wrecked his back. So but for circumstances we could be talking about, Nigel Mansell, 3 times WDC! :D the number of wins in his career could have easily seen him achieve that.

He was 12 points behind Piquet in 1987 before he crashed at Japan, with two races to go. Unlikely that he would have won the title.

Mansell did indeed lose the 1986 title all by himself, the tyre failed because he had overused it.

BTW: Care to retract this statement of yours, which I so nicely dismantled?
I don't believe Prost had a mega strong team mate stealing points off him. If only Mansell or PK had been in that Williams with a weak team mate yo back them up the championship would have been settled well before oz.




Thats not quite what happened. There was a segment on this very incident before one of the GP's in 2008 where Patrick Head was interviewed and he gave his memories on that very incident. Rosberg had a right rear tyre failure on his Mclaren and Williams put the call out to Mansell asking him to pit on that lap. It was literally seconds after recieving the call that Mansell's tyre exploded. I don't quite see the logic that it was the fault of one man, being Nigel Mansell. Drivers up and down the grid were pitting as a precaution after Rosberg's incident, and Mansell was extremely unlucky IMO. It was very similar to Indy 2005 in the respect that two drivers recieved blown tyres and others reported excessive wear. :)

How was Mansell unlucky? He abused the tyres too much, they were never going to last the whole race with his style. Whose fault was it then if not his? Both he and Rosberg abused the tyres too much and that is why they failed. Simple as that.

To compare this to indy is idiotic, at indy the tyres were clearly not suitable for the conditions and were going to blow up after 10 laps. At Adelaide people were able to do almost the whole race on one set of tyres, some took better care of their tyres and were able to do the whole race on them, some pitted early, some abused their tyres like crazy and retired due to that. Not luck involved, Mansells tyres were NEVER going to last the whole race.

[SGWilko]

On lap 50 Prost was 8,5 seconds behind Mansell. On lap 58, the gap was 1,5 seconds. The next lap it was already under 1 second and it stayed that way till Mansells tyre blew.

You might want to watch a clip of the tyre blow online to see just where Prost was. 1 second behind he most certainly was not.

[V12]

On lap 50 Prost was 8,5 seconds behind Mansell. On lap 58, the gap was 1,5 seconds. The next lap it was already under 1 second and it stayed that way till Mansells tyre blew. Prost had much better tyres and was going to overtake him soon anyway. Mansells tyres were never going to last the whole race with his driving style on that track. But of course, his ego did not allow him to pit.

Not sure it changes any arguments but wasn't Prost AHEAD of Mansell at the time? I thought the order was Piquet, Prost, Mansell, then a big gap to Johansson in fourth when Mansell's tyre went pop. Third was good enough for the title no matter what happened ahead of him. After Mansell's tyre blew Piquet was brought in, and Prost deservedly (I'm not disputing that) won the race and the title.

From what I remember of things said and written about the race, Mansell could have pitted or dramatically eased off and still finished third that day because Johansson's Ferrari was so far behind. I believe the information from Goodyear who supplied all the top teams apart from Benetton was that the tyres were looking OK, it was only what happened to Rosberg and Mansell in quick succession that informed them otherwise.

[Garry Walker]

You might want to watch a clip of the tyre blow online to see just where Prost was. 1 second behind he most certainly was not.

On lap 62 he was 0,5 seconds behind Mansell. The next lap Mansells tyre blew.

In fact, looking at that clip, was it not Prost leading Mansell already before Mansells tyre blew up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IvGwoNrv8

[SGWilko]

On lap 62 he was 0,5 seconds behind Mansell. The next lap Mansells tyre blew.

In fact, looking at that clip, was it not Prost leading Mansell already before Mansells tyre blew up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IvGwoNrv8

You tell me - you had him behind me old mucker.....

You can't go charging in lambasting others about facts when yours are.....


.....poorly researched and dubious.

Have a great weekend.

[Garry Walker]

Not sure it changes any arguments but wasn't Prost AHEAD of Mansell at the time? I thought the order was Piquet, Prost, Mansell, then a big gap to Johansson in fourth when Mansell's tyre went pop. Third was good enough for the title no matter what happened ahead of him. After Mansell's tyre blew Piquet was brought in, and Prost deservedly (I'm not disputing that) won the race and the title.

From what I remember of things said and written about the race, Mansell could have pitted or dramatically eased off and still finished third that day because Johansson's Ferrari was so far behind. I believe the information from Goodyear who supplied all the top teams apart from Benetton was that the tyres were looking OK, it was only what happened to Rosberg and Mansell in quick succession that informed them otherwise.
Actually yes. you are right on most counts.
If Mansell had pitted, he would still finished third and taken the title by virtue of 1 more win compared to Prost.
But as I remember, the goodyear mechanics had inspected the tyres of Prost who picked up a puncture in the early stages of the race and concluded from looking at those that doing the whole race on them would be okay. But of course, Prost took care of his tyres in an extraordinary way.

[V12]

I've had a look at the Forix lapchart for Mansell and he was in third place from lap 44-ish until his tyre blew, I am guessing then that Prost passed him on the same lap Rosberg retired.

Either way, my point was that Mansell wasn't racing Prost that day.

[Garry Walker]

You tell me - you had him behind me old mucker.....

You can't go charging in lambasting others about facts when yours are.....


.....poorly researched and dubious.


I dont have the time to recheck everything, there is so much crap that I have to dismantle :D

[SGWilko]

I dont have the time to recheck everything, there is so much crap that I have to dismantle :D

No need to re-check. QC in the first instance should suffice.

Unless you are training to become a journalist, then just talk bollocks all day long..... :p

[Sonic]

Gary:

No, I'd rather not retract my statement as it still stands. Your position, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Rosberg was a strong team mate and Prost simply mullered him?

That being the case it does not "nicely dismantle" my point. Which is;

Had Prost's team mate been able to hustle the car round as fast, therefore taking away points from the frenchman, it would be very unlikely that Alain could have scored enough to stay in the championship fight to the end - its just simple maths. So regardless of whether Rosberg beat Mansell in '85, Nigel was not fighting Keke in '86 - he was up against his team mate and Prost held onto the coat tails because he didn't loose points in an inter team rivalry like PK and Mansell did.

Also, I should like to point you that 12 points behind with two races to go in '87 was still well in contention - Kimi proved that in 2007.

If Mansell had pitted, he would still finished third and taken the title by virtue of 1 more win compared to Prost.
But as I remember, the goodyear mechanics had inspected the tyres of Prost who picked up a puncture in the early stages of the race and concluded from looking at those that doing the whole race on them would be okay. But of course, Prost took care of his tyres in an extraordinary way.

Add to that - Rosberg deliberately set out as a "hare", to force Piquet to chase him (because he needed to win to take the title), which forced Mansell to go offensive and chase Piquet. Result was all three destroying their tyres. Even without a puncture early on, Prost would have won....by a bigger margin.

Inspired and genius team tactics and kudos to Rosberg for being willing to help his team-mate in what was his last GP.

[GJD]

I've had a look at the Forix lapchart for Mansell and he was in third place from lap 44-ish until his tyre blew, I am guessing then that Prost passed him on the same lap Rosberg retired.

Either way, my point was that Mansell wasn't racing Prost that day.

I should like to take some issue with the assertion that Mansell was not racing Prost.

After Prost's visit to the pits for new tyres on lap 32, he began a furious chase after Rosberg, Mansell and Piquet. On his fresh tyres he closed on Mansell and Piquet up ahead who Mansell had allowed to pass.

I live in Adelaide and I was present at that race. I still recall Mansell driving with noticeable restraint during the middle part of the race.

However, the threat he increasingly faced during those 25 or so laps after Prost left the pits with his new tyres was that Rosberg appeared to be untouchable at the front, Piquet was swapping fastest laps with Prost in his attempts to get to grips with Rosberg and Prost was getting closer and closer, threatening to relegate him to 4th. Mansell needed 3rd and he could not bank on either Rosberg or Piquet failing to finish 1st or 2nd.

By the end of lap 57 Prost was right with Mansell. If not before, he was undoubtedly racing Prost by now.

Rosberg's tyre let go on lap 63 and during that same lap Prost finally passed Mansell.

One might say that Mansell could have eased off at that point but the point would be moot. According to Christopher Hilton's biography on Mansell, the Goodyear man (Barry Griffin) saw Rosberg's tyre failure on a TV monitor and immediately set off to the Williams pits intending to tell them to bring both cars in.

Mansell's tyre exploded on his 64th lap.

In a previous post, you said that "Mansell could have pitted or dramatically eased off and still finished third..."

My point is that the situation vis a vis holding onto 3rd changed so dramatically in the space of one lap that he not was provided with any opportunity to do as you suggest.

As a slightly ironic aside, I noticed, in reminding myself of all this, that Piquet had spun to a halt on lap 23 trying to fend off Prost, immediately donutted through 369 degrees to chase after Prost who'd nipped by, and drove like the wind in pursuit of Prost initially, and then to keep Prost at bay after Prost fitted new tyres. If either williams driver was setting himself up for a tyre disaster it was Piquet!