Why is Nelson Piquet not really considered a 'legend'?

Guess it all depends on the criteria for legend, as far as I'm concerned Nelson Sr. was a bloody good driver.

 Prost was the much smarter driver which is the main reason why he is still alive and Senna is not. Anyway, back on the main subject...

Pfft ..What an absolute load of nonsense that is on many levels.

Shame these threads have to devolve this way...the anti-Senna cranks really cannot help themselves these days...

I must agree on the above. Senna could be a danger to himself and others around him and I remember thinking that many years before he got killed. That has kind of been forgotten in history of F1. Prost was the much smarter driver which is the main reason why he is still alive and Senna is not. Anyway, back on the main subject...

 

Piquet. I would give the main reason he is not legendary in my eyes is that in his Brabham years, it was a one car team. I don't mean to be unfair to Patrese, who I rated highly, but the whole team was based around him every step of the way and the Number Two seat at Brabham was the oddest seat in F1. Rebaque, Zuniho, The Fabi Brothers, Surer, Hesnault... It was a token effort for the second car. Had Piquet had higher quality team mates instead of Bernie's rent - a - drivers, then maybe history would look at Nelson differently.

 

When all said and done, you don't win the 3 WDC's without being very good, but Prost and Senna were always held in higher regard. Personally after his Imola accident he wasn't quite the same, though the same could be said of Berger and several others. Having a 'big one' can make a driver look at the world slightly differently... 

All fair enough points, and perfectly reasonable. However, what about Jim Clark? Until 1967 he didn't have any absolutely top-notch team-mates either (with the greatest of respect to Innes Ireland, etc), yet no-one would think of using this as the basis for claiming that Clark was anything less than sublime. BTW, I'm not comparing Piquet to the incomparable Clark - just applying the same argument to both. In the one season where Piquet had a top-quality team-mate at Brabham (Lauda in 1979), they finished 1 point apart in the championship and in qualifying Lauda edged Piquet 7-6. Not bad for a rookie, although if the Alfa engine hadn't been so horribly unreliable I'm sure Niki would have won the points battle more convincingly.

Once they started and Prost took advantage of the better grip into the first corner, Senna believed his predetermined action of neutralising Prost (Both non scoring equals Senna as Champion so reversing the previous the "Wrong" of 1989) was the only right thing to do.   

 

How can deliberately crashing into another driver be the only "right" thing to do? This isn't stock car or banger racing - it's Formula 1, where the object of the exercise is to drive as fast as possible within the confines of the circuit whilst avoiding contact with your rivals. Senna's actions were borne of malice, revenge and petulance. But unfortunately, this was Senna all over; for all the childish pretentions of "racing purity", he was always a grubby little street fighter who sacrificed his morals and endangered his own and (unforgivably) others lives.

It is on topic. Nelson won the race (and the next one)    . 

Absolutely! GP500 in Adelaide and almost chopping the nose off Mansell on the final lap is a particularly fond memory.   But with reference to the above, they left each other 1/4 of an inch of room and so avoided contact.

To me Suzuka 1990, the most despicable act in the history of racing, forever branded Senna as a driver of low on track morals and one who was not worthy of any respect.

I very much disagree with you. To me, Suzuka 1989 was the most despicable act in the history of racing and that incident branded Prost as a driver of low on track morals who was not worthy of any respect.

Suzuka 1990 was just a reaction on Suzuka 1989 and to be very honest: I think Prost is just as much in fault in the 1990 incident, maybe even more. He knew Senna wasn't going to back down and if you look closely: who is closing the door on whom? It is Prost who closes the door on Senna.

I don't think this is the appropriate thread to discuss Suzuka 1989 and 1990 yet aghain.

I don't think this is the appropriate thread to discuss Suzuka 1989 and 1990 yet aghain.

You are right but even if '89-'90 is such a long time ago now, emotions can still boil up pretty high, also with me.

Maybe it was one off and cack handed but Senna would have seen that simply as a move that stole the championship for Prost that year..so the next time it happened, Senna would not allow himslf to loose it again.

I'm not going to make any further comment on Suzuka 89/90, but on a loosely related topic it is interesting that Nelson & Senna never had a collision on-track (unless anyone can enlighten me?). There were certainly plenty of opportunities, but for once Senna appeared to think that discretion was the better part of valour where Nelson was concerned.

Nelson Piquet - the only driver ever to out-psyche Ayrton Senna?  

Nelson Piquet - the only driver ever to out-psyche Ayrton Senna?  

No, I think Mansell managed that as well by not backing down to him; eg. at Estoril when they were wheel to wheel on the main straight.  Senna jinked towards Mansell in his usual intimidatory fashion, and Mansell simply returned the compliment.  When push came to shove, Senna gave way and never tried any of this games on 'Our Noige' again. Other drivers should have done the same instead of giving in to Senna's bully boy tactics.

How do posters feel Piquet would of fared against Prost if McLaren had of not be persuaded to take Senna instead of him for '88? 

Piquet against Prost would of been very interesting and very close, though I think Prost would of had the edge but not by much. A season or two earlier, then maybe Nelson. 

No, I think Mansell managed that as well by not backing down to him; eg. at Estoril when they were wheel to wheel on the main straight.  Senna jinked towards Mansell in his usual intimidatory fashion, and Mansell simply returned the compliment.  When push came to shove, Senna gave way and never tried any of this games on 'Our Noige' again. Other drivers should have done the same instead of giving in to Senna's bully boy tactics.

There were other incidents between Mansell and Senna - Brazil 1986, Spa 1987, you could  add Canada 1992 - where Mansell tried to show Senna he wouldn't be intimidated, but Mansell did not come out on top in those encounters.      I can't think of many incidents where Piquet took comparable risks.

Edited by Emery0323, 13 September 2013 - 18:58.

Prost's was a one-off cack-handed block at little more than walking pace.  Senna hit Prost so hard that they both went through the sand trap and into the tyre wall.  Right in front of a full field of F1 cars. 

True, absolutely no excuse. I'd have had Senna charged with attempted murder for that, and that's after I'd banned him for life, There's no possible comparison with what Prost did the year before, and no possible excuse or mitigation, a firing squad would have been justified, and that's afer drawing and quartering the over-rated bastard.

How do posters feel Piquet would of fared against Prost if McLaren had of not be persuaded to take Senna instead of him for '88? 

 

Piquet against Prost would of been very interesting and very close, though I think Prost would of had the edge but not by much. A season or two earlier, then maybe Nelson. 

The two apprentices of Niki Lauda! I think Piquet could conceivably have pulled off a season like Niki in 1984 but over a longer period Prost would shade it. 

How do posters feel Piquet would of fared against Prost if McLaren had of not be persuaded to take Senna instead of him for '88? 

 

Piquet against Prost would of been very interesting and very close, though I think Prost would of had the edge but not by much. A season or two earlier, then maybe Nelson. 

Until Imola 87 - Nelson. After Imola - Alain. During the 80's, Prost was the one driver (as a Nelson fan) who I always feared.

True, absolutely no excuse. I'd have had Senna charged with attempted murder for that, and that's after I'd banned him for life, There's no possible comparison with what Prost did the year before, and no possible excuse or mitigation, a firing squad would have been justified, and that's afer drawing and quartering the over-rated bastard.

Rob, why don't you get off the fence and tell us what you really think?!?!

Prost crashed into Senna in 89-then Senna crashed into Prost the following year. That's about all that the 2 incidents have in common. In context, and seriousness, there is absolutely no comparison.

Until Imola 87 - Nelson. After Imola - Alain. During the 80's, Prost was the one driver (as a Nelson fan) who I always feared.

I'd like to think that too, although I would be more comfortable pitching 1984 Piquet against Prost at his peak. Prost is a couple of years younger than Piquet and had success later. I would argue that Piquet was the best from 1982* (and thereabouts from 1980) with Prost an equal by 1985 and ahead after Imola 1987, and Senna matching Prost in 1988 and edging clear after 1990. 

* I'm leaving Villeneuve out of it, since he was not focused on the WDC and the others were.

As a Williams and especially Jones/Rosberg fan, Piquet was one I always feared and the Piquet/Murray axis was arguably the best in F1 of that era. Piquet was very quick and Murray was very innovative and er, rule bending...

Prost crashed into Senna in 89-then Senna crashed into Prost the following year. That's about all that the 2 incidents have in common. In context, and seriousness, there is absolutely no comparison.

Actually, Senna crashed into Prost in both incidents!

Nelson is probably the only driver to ever get yelled at by De Cesaris. Such an unfortunate day for Andrea.

I lost all respect for Nelson after what he said about Nigel's wife, that was uncalled for.

But I still think more of him than Senna.

I lost all respect for Nelson after what he said about Nigel's wife, that was uncalled for.

 

 

a bad taste joke (and he loves that), but if that's the most important thing he has done in your opinion...

If Nigel can seat by his side for a 40min interview in 2013 ...

Nelson is probably the only driver to ever get yelled at by De Cesaris. Such an unfortunate day for Andrea.

There was an incident in 1983 when de Cesaris rolled Patrese's head around inside the Brabham cockpit.  Although I submit Andrea was more a yellee than a yeller.

 

 

I lost all respect for Nelson after what he said about Nigel's wife, that was uncalled for.

 

 

Nelson is probably the only driver to ever get yelled at by De Cesaris. Such an unfortunate day for Andrea.

 

I lost all respect for Nelson after what he said about Nigel's wife, that was uncalled for.

 

But I still think more of him than Senna.

For what it's worth, Nelson has always claimed that he was mis-quoted in that Playboy article.

There was an incident in 1983 when de Cesaris rolled Patrese's head around inside the Brabham cockpit.  Although I submit Andrea was more a yellee than a yeller.

I was referring to the '89 Monaco incident.

For what it's worth, Nelson has always claimed that he was mis-quoted in that Playboy article.

Yes. Not sure I believe it however. I think he realized afterwards that it had not gone over well and tried to back out of it. There had been back and forth between Nige and Nelson, but I thought that was a bit over the top.

Yes. Not sure I believe it however. I think he realized afterwards that it had not gone over well and tried to back out of it. There had been back and forth between Nige and Nelson, but I thought that was a bit over the top.

The episode as described in Di Spires' I Just Made the Tea doesn't allow much room for conjecture: Piquet's response was pretty close to "I calls 'em the way I sees 'em, let the chips fall where they might". If he tried to back out of it, it would have been a rare patch of dishonesty on his usual, the way she tells about him.

The episode as described in Di Spires' I Just Made the Tea doesn't allow much room for conjecture: Piquet's response was pretty close to "I calls 'em the way I sees 'em, let the chips fall where they might". If he tried to back out of it, it would have been a rare patch of dishonesty on his usual, the way she tells about him.

You're probably right (good book isn't it?), but Nelson still insists he didn't say quite what the magazine attributed to him.

The episode as described in Di Spires' I Just Made the Tea doesn't allow much room for conjecture: Piquet's response was pretty close to "I calls 'em the way I sees 'em, let the chips fall where they might". If he tried to back out of it, it would have been a rare patch of dishonesty on his usual, the way she tells about him.

You're probably right (good book isn't it?), but Nelson still insists he didn't say quite what the magazine attributed to him.

Actually, Senna crashed into Prost in both incidents!

Well, yes - but Prost was a wee bit naughty in 89 by moving across far earlier than he should have for the corner. Having said that of course, it was classic Senna - "I'm putting my car here regardless of whether it causes an accident or not. If you don't want an accident, let me through".

a bad taste joke (and he loves that), but if that's the most important thing he has done in your opinion...

 

If Nigel can seat by his side for a 40min interview in 2013 ...

Interesting interview and good to see Piquet and Mansell together again! Piquet's mentions that when he was asked 'Who was better, you or Senna?' he says 'I'm alive'...

Well, yes - but Prost was a wee bit naughty in 89 by moving across far earlier than he should have for the corner. Having said that of course, it was classic Senna - "I'm putting my car here regardless of whether it causes an accident or not. If you don't want an accident, let me through".

And one bit of mitigation for Prost was what Senna did to him at Estoril...

No, I think Mansell managed that as well by not backing down to him; eg. at Estoril when they were wheel to wheel on the main straight.  Senna jinked towards Mansell in his usual intimidatory fashion, and Mansell simply returned the compliment.  When push came to shove, Senna gave way and never tried any of this games on 'Our Noige' again. Other drivers should have done the same instead of giving in to Senna's bully boy tactics.

Wasn't this Barcelona 1991?

I do remember Senna and Mansell not giving way to each other at all in Estoril in 1989 ending in a collision at turn 1.

Senna not giving way wasn't of course very smart with Nigel already being blackflagged. 

By all accounts - around 1983-1985 Nelson was considered to be one of the if not the most complete driver in F1. However, despite how hard he may have felt done by Frank Williams, the truth is that he suprised everyone by the whole series of mistakes he made before and after his accident at Imola for the Williams team. I recall him cracking under pressure at various times during the two seasons such as at Ricard, Estoril and Adelaide in 1986 not to mention the fact that he was generally out-paced by a driver (Nige) who was himself out-paced by Keke Rosberg, De Angelis, Prost and matched by Berger. Nelson's performances at Lotus were woeful  (see difference to Nakajima and Nakajima vs/Senna/Modena/Alesi) and Nannini who in retrospect was a good solid number 2 driver was as quick if not quicker. Things didn't look any better alongside Moreno and Schumacher which is why he was booted out of Benetton and replaced by Brundle.

Personality wise, he is obviously Marmite. There is no doubt he built a good relationship with mechanics and various drivers who he didn't feel threatend by.  Gerhard Berger once implied that Nelson was a bit of a tasteless and repulsive character. I tend to agree with the Austrian.

How do posters feel Piquet would of fared against Prost if McLaren had of not be persuaded to take Senna instead of him for '88? 

 

Piquet against Prost would of been very interesting and very close, though I think Prost would of had the edge but not by much. A season or two earlier, then maybe Nelson. 

It would have been pretty ugly and not in Nelson's favour. One only needs to compare Piquet vs Mansell in 1986 and Mansell vs Prost in 1990 or Piquet vs Nakajima in '88/'89 and Nakajima vs Senna in '87; Nakajima vs Alesi/Modena in '90/'91 and Alesi vs Prost in '91. Mansell vs Patrese in '88, Patrese vs Piquet in '82/'83.... All the evidence every single time from every single angle suggests Nelson taking a bit of a battering. There was a reason why people thought Britatore was nuts to take Piquet for '90 and also why Piquet got so much stick from James Hunt from 1986 onwards.

There was a reason why people thought Britatore was nuts to take Piquet for '90 and also why Piquet got so much stick from James Hunt from 1986 onwards.

Whilst in 1984 Hunt stated on more than one occasion that Piquet was the best driver (a view shared by many, myself included).

If he had retired at the end of 1984 or even 1985 I suspect he would be much closer to the "legend" status referred to in the OP.

The Lotus chassis was never the best, even in its Renault days and Nelson admitted he drove for the money from 1988. I was under the impression that Lotus had one grade down from the engines that were used by McLaren? Even if this wasn't the case, it wouldn't of touched the McLaren in anybody's hands.

I don't and didn't really love or hate Nelson, but F1 was certainly better for him being in it. 

By all accounts - around 1983-1985 Nelson was considered to be one of the if not the most complete driver in F1. However, despite how hard he may have felt done by Frank Williams, the truth is that he suprised everyone by the whole series of mistakes he made before and after his accident at Imola for the Williams team. I recall him cracking under pressure at various times during the two seasons such as at Ricard, Estoril and Adelaide in 1986 not to mention the fact that he was generally out-paced by a driver (Nige) who was himself out-paced by Keke Rosberg, De Angelis, Prost and matched by Berger. Nelson's performances at Lotus were woeful  (see difference to Nakajima and Nakajima vs/Senna/Modena/Alesi) and Nannini who in retrospect was a good solid number 2 driver was as quick if not quicker. Things didn't look any better alongside Moreno and Schumacher which is why he was booted out of Benetton and replaced by Brundle.

Mansell was outqualifying Rosberg regularly by the end of 1985, so I'm not sure that Nigel was out-paced by him. I will check the qualifying statistics between Nigel and both Elio and Alain when I have time, but I don't think he was completely destroyed by either of them. I'm not too worried about the Lotus/Nakajima situation - Piquet clearly did not lay it on the line too much when there was no chance to win. He was in a different position to Senna, who was at a different stage of his career. I would be interested to know more about Piquet being booted out of Benetton for Brundle. If true, it was a bit of a mistake, as Nelson was winning races (at about the same rate as Schumacher managed in 1992 and 1993).

Edited by garoidb, 16 September 2013 - 19:41.

Mansell-De Angelis was an interesting one, Mansell did well in 1981 as a rookie, less well in 1982 thanks to a broken wrist, Mansell a lot better in 1983. But he emphatically did not have the team behind him in 1984; the team manager had pretty much declared Warr.

Perhaps though Elio is the under-rated one; he monstered Andretti in 1980.

I believe Elio de Angelis ranks as one of, if not the most underrated driver of the 1980s. He had quite a bit of talent, but sadly he had only one proper win. San Marino 1985 while a win, was a cluster**** of a race since Prost was declared winner till that weigh-in. Even Elio failed the weigh-in. His victory in Austria, holding off the charging Keke Rosberg was one of the most incredible displays of driving ability as there was no doubt Rosberg was going to catch him. It was just a matter of if he would do it before the race ended. He was the only teammate that I felt matched Senna without turning the entire thing into a circus as happened with Prost-Senna. A gentleman to no end, and the last of that sort of racer. I loved his helmet design too.

There were other incidents between Mansell and Senna - Brazil 1986, Spa 1987, you could  add Canada 1992 - where Mansell tried to show Senna he wouldn't be intimidated, but Mansell did not come out on top in those encounters.      I can't think of many incidents where Piquet took comparable risks.

Brazil 1986 was Mansell's fault entirely. He was too impatient to get by Senna going into turn 2 I believe it was? Senna did nothing extraordinary, or dirty for that matter there, as Mansell made contact with Senna's left rear tire in a typical bout of stupidity. I always viewed it as just one more thing in a long line of idiot mistakes that really started showing with Monaco 1984. Nelson had the right game plan that race as it was obvious that the race setup of the JPS Lotus was not strong enough to hold off the Williams-Honda of either Mansell, or Piquet. Piquet just waited to overtake on the long back straight. Mansell could have done the same thing had he bothered planning ahead. 

Anyway, Nelson is severely underrated in my opinion...and undeservedly so. He remains the only triple world champion who essentially occupies a footnote in F1 history without much fanfare. I always wondered if part of it was down to his driving style in some respects. He always looked quite at ease behind the wheel...so much to the point, one could be forgiven in thinking those Brabham-BMW's didn't really have over 1000BHP in qualifying. One of the smoothest drivers behind the wheel of any car, which was a stark contrast to the other Brazilian. People tend to take more note when a car is dancing around the track. PIrelli also did him no favors with their rubbish tires for the 1985 campaign. Had they had Goodyears, 1985 may have been a different story altogether. But alas, we'll never know. Had Nelson snatched one more title, there's a possibility he might be remembered differently.

I do have to say, that seeing him sitting on the rear wing of the Brabham at Goodwood this year was a nice sight. He may have grown older, but he exhibited the same care-free spirit that won over millions 3 decades ago.

Piquet and Mansell obviously raced together for two years. The first they were even in qualifying (8-8) and Mansell had just one more point (70-69) at the end. The second, in qualifying Mansell was ahead 10-3, but Piquet had his violent accident at Imola the second race of the year which it has been reported slowed him down quite a bit. Nevertheless, Piquet won the championship (73-61) just the same."

 

You've not mentioned that Mansell missed two races in 1987 to Piquet's one, and had four retirements to Piquet's two. Net effect means, Mansell had six non-points scoring finishes to Piquet's three.

Also, when Mansell beat Piquet in 1986, Prost pipped them both to the WDC (tyre blowout Australia 1986 for Mansell) but when Piquet beat Mansell (despite three more race finishes) he got the WDC. Which bumps Piquet's statistics, but I don't see how it necessarily makes him any more worthy as a "legend" of F1. 

Added to that, Piquet was a hot-head and supposedly an annoying and irritating man. Also from a wealthy background. Yet the first time he came up against a top level teammate - Mansell - he was beaten. All the while expecting favourable no.1 status and treatment from Williams.

You can also look at the end of his career in F1 - it ended on a bit of whimper. At similar/same age Mansell at last because a WDC breaking many records along the way and the following year became Indy Car's first rookie Champion. I've always had Piquet very much as fourth of the four big names of the mid 80s-early 90s.

You've not mentioned that Mansell missed two races in 1987 to Piquet's one, and had four retirements to Piquet's two. Net effect means, Mansell had six non-points scoring finishes to Piquet's three.

 

Also, when Mansell beat Piquet in 1986, Prost pipped them both to the WDC (tyre blowout Australia 1986 for Mansell) but when Piquet beat Mansell (despite three more race finishes) he got the WDC. Which bumps Piquet's statistics, but I don't see how it necessarily makes him any more worthy as a "legend" of F1. 

 

Added to that, Piquet was a hot-head and supposedly an annoying and irritating man. Also from a wealthy background. Yet the first time he came up against a top level teammate - Mansell - he was beaten. All the while expecting favourable no.1 status and treatment from Williams.

 

You can also look at the end of his career in F1 - it ended on a bit of whimper. At similar/same age Mansell at last because a WDC breaking many records along the way and the following year became Indy Car's first rookie Champion. I've always had Piquet very much as fourth of the four big names of the mid 80s-early 90s.

In 1987, Mansell had already lost the WDC by the time he missed the Australian GP. He lost the WDC by more than a GP win (by 12 points) even though Piquet had to drop points. Only the best 11 (of 16) races counted towards the WDC points, so having two more non-finishes due to reliability is not a great excuse. 

Piquet's career did not finish with a whimper. He was third in the WDC in 1990, won three races in 1990, 1991 and was not blown away by Schumacher. How did Mansell do against Hakkinen? 

Edited by garoidb, 17 September 2013 - 07:42.

The Lotus chassis was never the best, even in its Renault days and Nelson admitted he drove for the money from 1988. I was under the impression that Lotus had one grade down from the engines that were used by McLaren? Even if this wasn't the case, it wouldn't of touched the McLaren in anybody's hands.

 

I don't and didn't really love or hate Nelson, but F1 was certainly better for him being in it. 

Looking at the laptimes of Nakajima vs Senna and Nakajima vs Piquet - it really makes for shocking reading! The Piquet apologists at the time often mentioned the fact that he had no desire to drive his arse off for a midfield position having won the WDC three times already. There must surely be an element of truth there. However, the numbers suggest Senna in the Lotus Honda 100T would have been very competitive. It therefore confirms the idea that Piquet wouldn't have even had the slightest of chances to have bothered Prost in a McLaren.

In Brazil Piquet was 1 second quicker than Nakajima in qualifying. In 1987 Senna was 3.8 seconds quicker Nakajima. This suggests Senna in a Lotus 100T would have comfortably beaten his own pole time of 1988.

In San Marino Piquet was 1.1 seconds quicker than Nakajima in qualifying. In 1987 Senna was 3.7 seconds quicker than Nakajima.  This suggests Senna in a 100T would have beaten Prost for second on the grid for the 1988 race.

In Mexico Piquet was 1.3 seconds quicker than Nakajima in qualifying. In 1987 Senna was 3.2 seconds quicker than Nakajima. This suggests Senna in a 100T would have been on pole and quicker than his own McLaren time.

And so the trend continues throughout the whole season. A gigantic difference in quality between Senna in 1987 and Piquet in 1988 and 1989 for the Lotus team.  The 100T was nowhere near as bad as Piquet made it look. Certainly, Nakajima would have improved but as James Hunt used to say, there is no way the Japanese driver could have improved that much. Regarding Honda - Lotus and McLaren had identical engines and in fact used to draw straws regarding who would have which engine.

Looking at the laptimes of Nakajima vs Senna and Nakajima vs Piquet - it really makes for shocking reading! The Piquet apologists at the time often mentioned the fact that he had no desire to drive his arse off for a midfield position having won the WDC three times already. There must surely be an element of truth there. However, the numbers suggest Senna in the Lotus Honda 100T would have been very competitive. It therefore confirms the idea that Piquet wouldn't have even had the slightest of chances to have bothered Prost in a McLaren.

 

In Brazil Piquet was 1 second quicker than Nakajima in qualifying. In 1987 Senna was 3.8 seconds quicker Nakajima. This suggests Senna in a Lotus 100T would have comfortably beaten his own pole time of 1988.

 

In San Marino Piquet was 1.1 seconds quicker than Nakajima in qualifying. In 1987 Senna was 3.7 seconds quicker than Nakajima.  This suggests Senna in a 100T would have beaten Prost for second on the grid for the 1988 race.

 

In Mexico Piquet was 1.3 seconds quicker than Nakajima in qualifying. In 1987 Senna was 3.2 seconds quicker than Nakajima. This suggests Senna in a 100T would have been on pole and quicker than his own McLaren time.

 

And so the trend continues throughout the whole season. A gigantic difference in quality between Senna in 1987 and Piquet in 1988 and 1989 for the Lotus team.  The 100T was nowhere near as bad as Piquet made it look. Certainly, Nakajima would have improved but as James Hunt used to say, there is no way the Japanese driver could have improved that much. Regarding Honda - Lotus and McLaren had identical engines and in fact used to draw straws regarding who would have which engine.

No offence but I wouldn't call regularly being a second quicker than Nakajima as 'shocking'. Definitely he had gone off the boil big time by 88 and no doubt that he wasn't anywhere near as quick as Senna - certainly not over a single lap. However its still sounds like a comfortable gap to me. Perhaps Lotus were able to offer more support to Nakajima in 88 then they had in 87?

Also its interesting that regarding his own smooth style he choose Button as one of his favourite drivers from today.

Like a lot of others on here I'm not a massive fan of the man though from his incident with Reutemann to his involvement in the aftergate of 'Crashgate'. The interview was nice though.

No offence but I wouldn't call regularly being a second quicker than Nakajima as 'shocking'. Definitely he had gone off the boil big time by 88 and no doubt that he wasn't anywhere near as quick as Senna - certainly not over a single lap. However its still sounds like a comfortable gap to me. Perhaps Lotus were able to offer more support to Nakajima in 88 then they had in 87?

 

Also its interesting that regarding his own smooth style he choose Button as one of his favourite drivers from today.

 

Like a lot of others on here I'm not a massive fan of the man though from his incident with Reutemann to his involvement in the aftergate of 'Crashgate'. The interview was nice though.

Yeah, no-one is saying that his performance in 1988 and 1989 was enough to make him a legend, At the same time, it is not consistent with his form for the rest of his career. 

No offence but I wouldn't call regularly being a second quicker than Nakajima as 'shocking'. Definitely he had gone off the boil big time by 88 and no doubt that he wasn't anywhere near as quick as Senna - certainly not over a single lap. However its still sounds like a comfortable gap to me. Perhaps Lotus were able to offer more support to Nakajima in 88 then they had in 87?

 

Also its interesting that regarding his own smooth style he choose Button as one of his favourite drivers from today.

 

Like a lot of others on here I'm not a massive fan of the man though from his incident with Reutemann to his involvement in the aftergate of 'Crashgate'. The interview was nice though.

What was the problem with his involvement in Crashgate?

What was the problem with his involvement in Crashgate?

I don't want to drag this thread any further in that direction, just to say his involvement could be lacking in tact but that's similar to some other incidents his comments about Mansell & Senna etc. 

 All the while expecting favourable no.1 status and treatment from Williams.

 

To be fair to Nelson, something that a few on this thread aren't being, he did have a pretty firm agreement/contract with Frank to that effect, and Sir Frank still thinks the World of Nelson to this day. Maybe he has been tactless at times, but it's only really forum-followers who have only selective media reporting that want to stick a knife into Nelson Piquet, his racing record says all that needs to be said for me, he was undeniably one of the greats for much of his career.

I don't want to drag this thread any further in that direction, just to say his involvement could be lacking in tact but that's similar to some other incidents his comments about Mansell & Senna etc. 

Well to be fair, I don't think what he did was the worst thing ever. Flavio should have known better than to do something that would have brought out the ire of Nelson Sr given the ammunition Sr had. It is what it is though. 

To be fair to Nelson, something that a few on this thread aren't being, he did have a pretty firm agreement/contract with Frank to that effect, and Sir Frank still thinks the World of Nelson to this day. Maybe he has been tactless at times, but it's only really forum-followers who have only selective media reporting that want to stick a knife into Nelson Piquet, his racing record says all that needs to be said for me, he was undeniably one of the greats for much of his career.

This is the main thing I think that gets ignored. Nelson should have been treated as a true number 1 when he went to Williams for 1986 and had that in his contract. Letting he and Nigel slug it out for that entire season was an incredibly bad idea as it was what cost Williams the Honda engines. While there are things Nelson has said over the years I did not particularly care for, he was still a hell of a driver. I miss drivers who had that kind of a personality, especially since they're PR creations most of the time now. I do think were it not for that Imola accident, his later career would have had a completely different look to it as he was making decisions based solely on finances. Not that there is anything wrong with doing that, but I wish he had not wasted his time at Lotus. If he had at least been with Benetton for 1992, that would have been rather interesting to see him against Schumacher for a full season. 

More on Nelson's on track performance: The Lotus 101 it seems would have been a regular contender for top 6 qualifying if a driver of the calibre of Jean Alesi had been at the wheel. This assumption is based on the qualifying difference between Nakajima and his teammates (Piquet & Alesi) for the 1989 - 1990 seasons. The Frenchman also tended to perform better in races than qualifying in relation to his teammates. The Lotus it seems wasn't so bad after all for the two seasons Piquet was there for. Alesi's advantage over the Japanese was dramatically superior than the Brazilians advantage over the Japanese.

How do you explain the fact that Schumacher did not blow him away in 1991?