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

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

 

Incentive-based pay.

Piquet was driving to save his career when Schumacher joined Benetton as Tom Walkinshaw made it clear he wanted Piquet out and Brundle in when he saw that a rookie with almost no cockpit time had beaten Piquet fairly comprehensively. Piquet had wasted the time of Lotus rather than te other way around as the lap times prove and those cars should have produced much better results with more competent drivers at the time. His performances against a rookie Schumacher were nothing to write home about but certainly there was more urgency a he was fighting for his career.

Incentive-based pay.

 

Could be. Isn't Vettel on something like that?

 

So, what is the relevance of the Lotus years? All his race wins and world championships were won for other teams, and no one is claiming that the Lotus years contribute anything at all to his track record.  The same is largely true of Mansell, as was pointed out earlier in the thread.

Could be. Isn't Vettel on something like that?

 

So, what is the relevance of the Lotus years? All his race wins and world championships were won for other teams, and no one is claiming that the Lotus years contribute anything at all to his track record.  The same is largely true of Mansell, as was pointed out earlier in the thread.

Indeed, the more apt comparison might be to Mansell's time at McLaren.

Piquet was driving to save his career when Schumacher joined Benetton as Tom Walkinshaw made it clear he wanted Piquet out and Brundle in when he saw that a rookie with almost no cockpit time had beaten Piquet fairly comprehensively. Piquet had wasted the time of Lotus rather than te other way around as the lap times prove and those cars should have produced much better results with more competent drivers at the time. His performances against a rookie Schumacher were nothing to write home about but certainly there was more urgency a he was fighting for his career.

  

Driving to save his career at 39 years of age? He had a full career that ended at the right time. Do you think rookie Schumacher was slow? If so, it is an interesting opinion.

There have been numerous occasions where it has been implied Piquet had the ability but couldn't be bothered because the car wasn't up to it. The evidence suggests otherwise - as Senna's time alongside Nakajima and Alesi's time alongside Nakajima indicates - with a proper driver, the Lotus could have achieved a lot more. This is all in the context of the thread starters initial question. Nobody is denying Nelson was a talented driver - the discussion is about why he is tended to be considered less than others.

Could be. Isn't Vettel on something like that?

So, what is the relevance of the Lotus years? All his race wins and world championships were won for other teams, and no one is claiming that the Lotus years contribute anything at all to his track record. The same is largely true of Mansell, as was pointed out earlier in the thread.

Driving to save his career at 39 years of age? He had a full career that ended at the right time. Do you think rookie Schumacher was slow? If so, it is an interesting opinion.

He was on record saying in Adelaide he wanted to continue for 1992 and was disappointed about Benettons decision not to keep him.

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? 

 

"In 1987, Mansell had already lost the WDC by the time he missed the Australian GP."

 

Mansell was still in contention after winning in Mexico (two races before Aus GP) and it was in Japan where the WDC was decided, due to Mansell's non-participation because of injuries sustained in a practice crash. Which meant he also missed the final race, Australia. But it was Japan which settled it due to Mansell's injury.

 

"He lost the WDC by more than a GP win (by 12 points)."

 

The final points totals of the two was as it was in Mexico, as Mansell missed the last two GPs through injuries and Piquet didn't score in neither Japan nor Australia. So, being only 12 points behind with two races left (as was the case after Mexico) Mansell had every chance of winning the 1987 WDC. As it turned out, Piquet had two car failures in the last two races, which makes it all the more possible that Mansell, if not for injury, could well have ended up as 1987 WDC.

 

"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."

 

Er, Mansell only had nine points finishes in the 1987 season. That's exactly the point! He missed two races through injury and had four race retirements. Piquet missed one through injury and had two race retirements.

 

In short, it's nothing to do with "excuses" but everything do with the "fact" that Mansell, through no fault of his own, had three fewer points finishes than Piquet. Even then, Piquet beat Mansell by only 12 points.

 

You can also factor in that Piquet inherited back-to-back wins from Mansell in Germany and Hungary after Mansell had car failures when leading both. Those two races alone would have secured the WDC for Mansell, irrespective of missing the last two races through injury.

 

"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."

 

The point is, in comparison to Mansell, is that a similar age Piquet struggled to beat a rookie (as incredible as that rookie turned out to be i.e Schumi) whereas Mansell was a "rookie" Champion of Indy Cars.

 

I'd say that's one of the main reasons why many don't associate Piquet with "legend" status.

 

"How did Mansell do against Hakkinen?"

They had TWO races together...

Er, Mansell only had nine points finishes in the 1987 season. That's exactly the point! He missed two races through injury and had four race retirements. Piquet missed one through injury and had two race retirements.

 

In short, it's nothing to do with "excuses" but everything do with the "fact" that Mansell, through no fault of his own, had three fewer points finishes than Piquet. Even then, Piquet beat Mansell by only 12 points.

 

You can also factor in that Piquet inherited back-to-back wins from Mansell in Germany and Hungary after Mansell had car failures when leading both. Those two races alone would have secured the WDC for Mansell, irrespective of missing the last two races through injury.

 The thing that always struck me about the 1987 season was the Piquet won the championship not by winning races, but by finishing in second place a lot of times.  He scored no less than seven second-place finishes during that season - a triumph of consistency over Mansell's win total, which was twice as high.

 

http://statsf1.com/en/1987.aspx

 

 

The final points totals of the two was as it was in Mexico, as Mansell missed the last two GPs through injuries and Piquet didn't score in neither Japan nor Australia. So, being only 12 points behind with two races left (as was the case after Mexico) Mansell had every chance of winning the 1987 WDC. As it turned out, Piquet had two car failures in the last two races, which makes it all the more possible that Mansell, if not for injury, could well have ended up as 1987 WDC.

 

 

The point is, in comparison to Mansell, is that a similar age Piquet struggled to beat a rookie (as incredible as that rookie turned out to be i.e Schumi) whereas Mansell was a "rookie" Champion of Indy Cars.

 

Or Mansell could have crashed his car with mistakes like he did in Japan, or he could have had 2 car failures... it's irrelevant...

 

young Schumacher was already a great driver... look at his 92 season compared to his teammate. 

"In 1987, Mansell had already lost the WDC by the time he missed the Australian GP."

 

Mansell was still in contention after winning in Mexico (two races before Aus GP) and it was in Japan where the WDC was decided, due to Mansell's non-participation because of injuries sustained in a practice crash. Which meant he also missed the final race, Australia. But it was Japan which settled it due to Mansell's injury.

 

Piquet had missed the San Marino GP through no fault of his own (also injuries sustained in a practice crash). I view that as equalising Mansell's non-start in Japan, at which point the WDC was decided.

 

 

Possible, but a long shot. It would be a major stretch to say, as some do, that the crash cost him the WDC. As I said above, it only cancelled Piquet's missing the San Marino GP, from which Mansell gained 9 points.

2 points to remember about 1987:

 

1) Piquet was (at best) half-fit for most of the season. Insomnia, headaches and problems with depth-perception as a result of the Imola crash

2) Bearing this in mind, Nelson deliberately raced for points rather than wins. Safety-first. Not the most exciting, but effective. He maximised his chances by racing within the confines of what was possible for him at the time. Yet he could still turn it on at times, such as at Silverstone & Monza.

 

Perhaps we should be asking why Mansell struggled so much against a team-mate suffering the effects of a brain trauma for much of the season.

 

Perhaps we should be asking why Mansell struggled so much against a team-mate suffering the effects of a brain trauma for much of the season.

 

We don't really know how much the Imola crash affected Nelson (though it does beg the question of what his excuse was for being outdriven in 1986 too), but it's ludicrous to say that Mansell STRUGGLED against Piquet in 1987. He dominated him, mitigating circumstances or not.

We don't really know how much the Imola crash affected Nelson (though it does beg the question of what his excuse was for being outdriven in 1986 too), but it's ludicrous to say that Mansell STRUGGLED against Piquet in 1987. He dominated him, mitigating circumstances or not.

 

That's what Piquet said earlier about the Imola crash. 

 

He admits Mansell should have won in '87 and he in '86. 

 

 

Piquet joined Mansell at Williams in 1986. “We have a good year together,” said Piquet. “Sometimes his car breaks down, sometimes my car break down. But I think I deserve more wins in ’86 and he deserve more wins in ’87.”

“’86 I have my car stop twice, engine failure and other things,” he added. “And ’87 I have this accident in Imola.”

Piquet said the crash affected him more badly than he admitted at the time: “I was no good anymore. I lost a lost of deepness in my view. I could not tell because if I tell people take me out of the [car]. And I was driving behind all the time.”

He kept quiet about his injuries through the season and won the championship when Mansell was injured in a crash at the penultimate race: “I talk at the end of the year,” said Piquet.

“Every two weeks I was going to the hospital in Milan. And I was improving, improving but in the first months I lost more than 80% of deepness. I have to look at the numberplate to brake. I was very good to drive behind somebody but I could not drive in front! And that was ’87.”

“But I ’86 was, like I said, I think if everything was good I should win ’86 and Nigel should win ’87.”

Piquet admitted he felt he never fully recovered from the crash, despite remaining in F1 until 1991. “It finished motor racing for me. I went for the money afterwards.”

We don't really know how much the Imola crash affected Nelson (though it does beg the question of what his excuse was for being outdriven in 1986 too), but it's ludicrous to say that Mansell STRUGGLED against Piquet in 1987. He dominated him, mitigating circumstances or not.

I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Remind me which driver apparently dominated, and which one ended up as champion? If you give different names, then it's pretty ludicrous to say that the World Champion was "dominated".

 

Nelson's own analysis is probably pretty fair. He was taken aback after Brazil 86 by Mansell's pace and the unwillingness of Williams to adhere to what Nelson believed to be the terms of his contract. He pulled himself together by Brands and was unlucky not to end 1986 as champion. In 87 he shouldn't have had a hope after Imola, but consistency (as well as some impressive turns of speed) made him an unlikely champion.

The thing about 1986, is if Nelson didn't get pulled into the pit because of Mansell's tire exploding, he likely wins that race and may have been a 4-time champion if 1987 played out in the same manner. I believe had he had one more lap, he would have retaken P1 from Prost. He cut the gap by over 10 seconds in 2 laps, so all he needed was one more lap to catch Prost. 

He gave BMW their only F1 title so he will always be a Legend to me...

The thing about 1986, is if Nelson didn't get pulled into the pit because of Mansell's tire exploding, he likely wins that race and may have been a 4-time champion if 1987 played out in the same manner. I believe had he had one more lap, he would have retaken P1 from Prost. He cut the gap by over 10 seconds in 2 laps, so all he needed was one more lap to catch Prost. 

 

 

Fair point. Had he been WDC in '86 and '87, I wonder if Nelson would of retired rather than 'driving for the money' from '88? Plus would Honda have ended their relationship with Williams?

 

I believe Nelson has always been very fair about being called in after Mansell exploding - he could of moaned and groaned but I don't think I have ever heard him complain. I take it that Patrick Head made the decision to bring Nelson in rather than giving him the option to stay out? I'll have to dig out my Autocourse...

The thing about 1986, is if Nelson didn't get pulled into the pit because of Mansell's tire exploding, he likely wins that race and may have been a 4-time champion if 1987 played out in the same manner. I believe had he had one more lap, he would have retaken P1 from Prost. He cut the gap by over 10 seconds in 2 laps, so all he needed was one more lap to catch Prost. 

 

Prost was very worried about his fuel read-out and backed off considerably in the last few laps, going just fast enough to get to the finish in front of Piquet. If the race had been one lap longer he would have gone slightly quicker, and so would have either still finished in front or run out of fuel.

Fair point. Had he been WDC in '86 and '87, I wonder if Nelson would of retired rather than 'driving for the money' from '88? Plus would Honda have ended their relationship with Williams?

 

I believe Nelson has always been very fair about being called in after Mansell exploding - he could of moaned and groaned but I don't think I have ever heard him complain. I take it that Patrick Head made the decision to bring Nelson in rather than giving him the option to stay out? I'll have to dig out my Autocourse..

 

Don't take this personally Hogstar, I'm not having a go at you, but I think in both content and grammar, this is the most RC thread ever to have appeared on TNF.

Fair point. Had he been WDC in '86 and '87, I wonder if Nelson would of retired rather than 'driving for the money' from '88? Plus would Honda have ended their relationship with Williams?

 

I believe Nelson has always been very fair about being called in after Mansell exploding - he could of moaned and groaned but I don't think I have ever heard him complain. I take it that Patrick Head made the decision to bring Nelson in rather than giving him the option to stay out? I'll have to dig out my Autocourse...

 

That's a good what if, had Nelson won a double then. It's hard to say if Honda would have ended the relationship or not as I understood they were extremely unhappy with the lack of orders that allowed the season to finish on the note that it did. Perhaps they would have been mollified had Nelson still won the title and stuck around beyond 1987. Of Prost's 4 titles, he never should have even had the opportunity to win in 1986 in my opinion. 

 

Prost was very worried about his fuel read-out and backed off considerably in the last few laps, going just fast enough to get to the finish in front of Piquet. If the race had been one lap longer he would have gone slightly quicker, and so would have either still finished in front or run out of fuel.

 

Good point. One more lap would have been really interesting to see play out as Prost may have still held on to the win, but if Nelson was all over his gearbox with more than half a lap to go, I have to think he would have likely gone for some audacious overtake that may, or may not have been successful?

What I am wondering is: how would Elio de Angelis have done had he moved to Williams (in the seat that either Mansell or Piquet occipied) instead of to Brabham.... I had always rated de Angelis higher as Mansell.

What I am wondering is: how would Elio de Angelis have done had he moved to Williams (in the seat that either Mansell or Piquet occipied) instead of to Brabham.... I had always rated de Angelis higher as Mansell.

 

That's a tough one. I think say had the pairing been Nelson and Elio, Nelson would have won the title easily. But Elio probably would have finished 2nd as the Williams was the best car on the grid that season. He probably would have won a race or two, but what went on with Nigel and Nelson never would have happened certainly. Had it been Elio and Nigel, I think Nigel may have eked out the title, but there's something that has me thinking Elio might have made it very close, if not possibly winning the title. Regardless of who he would have been paired with, he would have finished 2nd in the standings at the minimum in 1986. 

What I am wondering is: how would Elio de Angelis have done had he moved to Williams (in the seat that either Mansell or Piquet occipied) instead of to Brabham.... I had always rated de Angelis higher as Mansell.

 I always that Elio was very good.  Elio usually outshined Mansell at Lotus, but he was fundamentally more cautious in his instincts. Mansell had that rash impulsiveness that often got him into trouble, but also created opportunities for himself.  

 

What-If Mansell and De Angelis had been at Williams together?   One major difference is that unlike at Lotus, there would not have been any Peter Warr with his finger on the scales in favor of de Angelis.   Williams was much more hands-off in managing their drivers.

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 might not think much of Nelson's character, or lack thereof, but I would never fault his talent behind the wheel and completely agree he should be rated with the best.

Prost was very worried about his fuel read-out and backed off considerably in the last few laps, going just fast enough to get to the finish in front of Piquet. If the race had been one lap longer he would have gone slightly quicker, and so would have either still finished in front or run out of fuel.

 

 

One more lap would have been really interesting to see play out as Prost may have still held on to the win, but if Nelson was all over his gearbox with more than half a lap to go, I have to think he would have likely gone for some audacious overtake that may, or may not have been successful?

Didn't Prost's car splutter coming out of the final corner and finally run out of fuel just after the finishing line?

 

Unfortunately, Nelson didn't help himself by having a spin earlier in the race - had he not done that, he would have been right behind Prost for the last lap and (with the extra power from the Honda engine) would almost certainly have been able to pass Prost to win. But Prost was a very worthy winner in 1986, even if he had some fortune in the final race. He drove superbly all season, making the most of his inferior machinery.

What-If Mansell and De Angelis had been at Williams together?   One major difference is that unlike at Lotus, there would not have been any Peter Warr with his finger on the scales in favor of de Angelis.   Williams was much more hands-off in managing their drivers.

 

Going little bit off topic here (since this post is not about Piquet anymore) but.... I have read Nigel Mansell's biography a couple of years ago (an entertaining read) and the least you could say that he was very critical of Peter Warr. But I only read one side of the story and that is Nigel's opinion. Mansell seemed to blame Warr for everything that went wrong to him at Lotus and even more: as an excuse for every time that de Angelis beat him. I don't think that's fair to Elio who imho was a better driver as Mansell, certainly when they were teammates. Wasn't Mansell just using Warr as a scapegoat, as an excuse that he got beaten by his teammate?

Edited by William Hunt, 19 September 2013 - 14:40.

I think the truly sad part in Nelson's career, apart from that Imola crash, was staying with Brabham for two too many seasons, when the purpose-built TAG-, Ferrari and Honda-engines came on song,

BMW's old iron-block four-banger was nowhere.

Edited by Rasputin, 20 September 2013 - 19:42.

I think the truly sad part in Nelson's career, apart from that Imola crash, was staying with Brabham for two too many seasons, when the purpose-built TAG-, Ferrari and Honda-engines came on song,

BMW's old iron-block four-banger was nowhere.

 

1985 was certainly wasted, but that was largely down to Bernie signing with Pirelli. The BMW engine was quite competitive with Benetton in 1986. 

Probably also didn't help signing the hopeless Hesnault alongside him.  Had they had Surer from the start Brabham would have been much better off.

¿Tal palo, tal estía?

 

http://www.nationals...ivity-training/

1985 was certainly wasted

 

True but in 1984 the Brabham was not that uncompetitive. Off course Piquet would have been better off in a McLaren that year.

 

 

" a woman motorsports journalist ranked Piquet at the top of the boor list among all racing drivers."

 

Oi !!!  

Oi !!!   

I think we need to see the whole list before we can pass judgment Barry.

I think the truly sad part in Nelson's career, apart from that Imola crash, was staying with Brabham for two too many seasons, when the purpose-built TAG-, Ferrari and Honda-engines came on song,

BMW's old iron-block four-banger was nowhere.

 

In 1984 the problem was Bosch's EMU. Apparently, it worked brilliantly in testing but then they managed to blow it up. When they pieced it back together it was mapped incorrectly (unbeknown to BMW) and this caused the horrendous reliability during that year. Had this not happened, Nelson would probably have won the championship by a country mile as the Brabham had a cosiderable pace advantage over the McLaren.

 

As garoidb said, 1985 was down to the rock-hard Pirelli tyres. Had 10 of that years races been held on the surface of the sun then Nelson would have won that year's championship also.

In 1984 the problem was Bosch's EMU. Apparently, it worked brilliantly in testing but then they managed to blow it up. When they pieced it back together it was mapped incorrectly (unbeknown to BMW) and this caused the horrendous reliability during that year. Had this not happened, Nelson would probably have won the championship by a country mile as the Brabham had a cosiderable pace advantage over the McLaren.

 

As garoidb said, 1985 was down to the rock-hard Pirelli tyres. Had 10 of that years races been held on the surface of the sun then Nelson would have won that year's championship also.

 

As for 1984, even with beter reliability, I have my doubts if Nelson would have had a chance against the McLaren TAGs that year. The fuel efficiency of the McLaren's that year, the first year of fuel consumption restriction applied in F1, the TAG was absolutely a class in its own that year and I doubt if BMW could match that with a single big turbo on a fourbanger.

 

 

More on topic: one of the reasons why Piquet is no legend for me is because of his personality. Nowadays we take the selfishness of drivers much more for granted then in the past but Piquet was for me one of the drivers who started the trend of utter selfishness with the tem being centered around him, even if that came at the expense of the chances to do well in the constructor championship by insisitng on lap-dog kind of teammates. About his behaviour in private live, out of the track and the kind of behaviour towards teammates that came close to his capabilities....

A lot of moaning we saw in later years about the behavour of MS and Senna (at least within racing), you can see some of that already within the career of Piquet as well.

 

Henri

As for 1984, even with beter reliability, I have my doubts if Nelson would have had a chance against the McLaren TAGs that year. The fuel efficiency of the McLaren's that year, the first year of fuel consumption restriction applied in F1, the TAG was absolutely a class in its own that year and I doubt if BMW could match that with a single big turbo on a fourbanger.

 

 

More on topic: one of the reasons why Piquet is no legend for me is because of his personality. Nowadays we take the selfishness of drivers much more for granted then in the past but Piquet was for me one of the drivers who started the trend of utter selfishness with the tem being centered around him, even if that came at the expense of the chances to do well in the constructor championship by insisitng on lap-dog kind of teammates. About his behaviour in private live, out of the track and the kind of behaviour towards teammates that came close to his capabilities....

A lot of moaning we saw in later years about the behavour of MS and Senna (at least within racing), you can see some of that already within the career of Piquet as well.

 

Henri

 

I think a lot of subjective dislike does come into this, and perhaps legend status is more about personality rather than driving for some people. It seems off to me. It is stranger still to disqualify him from being a legend by saying that he had traits in common with Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher. By the way, he was far from being the first driver to be firm number one in a team, or to be utterly selfish, and to suggest that reveals an underlying lack of objectivity. 

Edited by garoidb, 05 October 2013 - 10:59.

I think a lot of subjective dislike does come into this, and perhaps legend status is more about personality rather than driving for some people. It seems off to me. It is stranger still to disqualify him from being a legend by saying that he had traits in common with Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher. By the way, he was far from being the first driver to be firm number one in a team, or to be utterly selfish, and to suggest that reveals an underlying lack of objectivity. 

 

I really don't care what he did off-track, the important thing for me is that Nelson's on-track behaviour hardly ever attracted any criticism, not something that could ever have been said about Senna and Schumacher, and given the way Mansell and a few others felt about him, that says a great deal for me. Nelson is the featured driver in next month's Motor Sport, and I'm sure their assessment will be more accurate and objective than some of the comments on this thread have been.

I really don't care what he did off-track, the important thing for me is that Nelson's on-track behaviour hardly ever attracted any criticism, not something that could ever have been said about Senna and Schumacher, and given the way Mansell and a few others felt about him, that says a great deal for me. Nelson is the featured driver in next month's Motor Sport, and I'm sure their assessment will be more accurate and objective than some of the comments on this thread have been.

 

I must indeed admit that you are entirely correct about Piquet rarely acting controversially on track. In that respect he was a fair driver who can be rated very high.

But for me, there are other stories I've read about him and his manner of living that I have difficulties to appreciate him.

But should I be able to ignore those, and rate him  purely as a driver on track, behind the wheel he was nowhere near as controversial as some others I mentioned myself in this thread and then I might have had more respect for him then I have right now.

 

 

Henri

I think a lot of subjective dislike does come into this, and perhaps legend status is more about personality rather than driving for some people. It seems off to me. It is stranger still to disqualify him from being a legend by saying that he had traits in common with Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher. By the way, he was far from being the first driver to be firm number one in a team, or to be utterly selfish, and to suggest that reveals an underlying lack of objectivity. 

 

Sorry but for me it is also important how a driver acts outside the cockpit and deals with his team and teammates. I have understood he was very popular with the Brabham crew but the kind of jokes he did and made are not my kind of humor.

Neither the kind of comments he made on other drivers in order to destabilize them in all kind of mind games.

I do realize that makes Piquet a legend for some out here.

You can ignore everything else because of being a tremendous driver, successfull and all. But for me that is not possible.

Maybe I am too old and my background being too focussed on morals and respect to others you deal with.

And yes, I know, there were other undisputed number one drivers in the teams they drove for. Like Rosemeyer, Caracciola, Ascari, Fangio, Jimmy Clark, Mario Andretti, Alan Jones. But I can't recall  right now out of the top of my head any other driver who was so infuriated about not been given preferential treatment within a top team that he left that team for a good bunch of money to go to a lesser team and get a lap dog team mate he had not to fear for. Like he had in his brabham years.

 

Henri

Sorry but for me it is also important how a driver acts outside the cockpit and deals with his team and teammates. I have understood he was very popular with the Brabham crew but the kind of jokes he did and made are not my kind of humor.

Neither the kind of comments he made on other drivers in order to destabilize them in all kind of mind games.

I do realize that makes Piquet a legend for some out here.

You can ignore everything else because of being a tremendous driver, successfull and all. But for me that is not possible.

Maybe I am too old and my background being too focussed on morals and respect to others you deal with.

And yes, I know, there were other undisputed number one drivers in the teams they drove for. Like Rosemeyer, Caracciola, Ascari, Fangio, Jimmy Clark, Mario Andretti, Alan Jones. But I can't recall  right now out of the top of my head any other driver who was so infuriated about not been given preferential treatment within a top team that he left that team for a good bunch of money to go to a lesser team and get a lap dog team mate he had not to fear for. Like he had in his brabham years.

 

Henri

 

You are effectively saying that you don't like him, which is fine. As you also acknowledge, a lot of people who worked with him, but were not in competition with him, seem to have a different view to yours. It is a matter of personal taste (but you are going too far with your reference to morals). 

 

Nakajima was at Lotus because Honda wanted him there, not because Piquet did. I have never read any suggestion that he had a veto over team-mates at any team. Can you imagine Bernie Ecclestone agreeing to that?  Despite this, it is common to try to smear him by referencing some of his weaker team-mates. 

 

On the other hand, having a No. 1 driver was quite a common approach for teams who believed they had a possibility to win the WDC. Brabham, Williams, Lotus and Ferrari all did it at various times. McLaren were the main exception among top teams. So, like many of the names you mentioned in your post, Piquet signed to be a No. 1 driver. The amount of money he was paid is not really relevant, but I suspect that he was well paid at Williams too. 

 

Regarding the Lotus move, Piquet went there believing they would continue with their active suspension programme, but they did not.  The move made plenty of sense at the time, and the relative positions of McLaren Honda versus Lotus Honda in 1988 was not fully foreseeable. Hindsight is 20:20.  

Edited by garoidb, 05 October 2013 - 16:16.

And yes, I know, there were other undisputed number one drivers in the teams they drove for. Like Rosemeyer, Caracciola, Ascari, Fangio, Jimmy Clark, Mario Andretti, Alan Jones. But I can't recall  right now out of the top of my head any other driver who was so infuriated about not been given preferential treatment within a top team that he left that team for a good bunch of money to go to a lesser team and get a lap dog team mate he had not to fear for. Like he had in his brabham years.

 

Henri

 

 

Henri, if you dislike Nelson Piquet because he picked his nose and farted a lot, you're perfectly entitled to do so, though I detect in your posts a good deal of admiration for him as a driver. You're not going to get away with that slur though, Nelson had a firm deal with Frank Williams regarding what you call "preferential treatment", whether written into his contract or done on a handshake doesn't matter, they had an agreement concerning things like spare cars, and after Frank disappeared temporarily from the scene, others in the Williams team refused to honour it. Nelson probably lost a championship through that, but I'd say that Williams lost a great deal more.

More on topic: one of the reasons why Piquet is no legend for me is because of his personality. Nowadays we take the selfishness of drivers much more for granted then in the past but Piquet was for me one of the drivers who started the trend of utter selfishness with the tem being centered around him, even if that came at the expense of the chances to do well in the constructor championship by insisitng on lap-dog kind of teammates.

 

How much of that though was Nelson and how much of that was Bernie being penny wise?  He threw away maybe half-a-dozen titles for Brabham by taking paydrivers, rubbish tyres and hopeless engines when going with the more expensive choice would have been decisive.  (I also seem to recall that Piquet was on a comparative pittance at Brabham.)

 

As a sort of aside to that, I wonder whether the idiotic situation where whichever Fabi was free that weekend drove the no. 2 Brabham in 1984 was Bernie's reward for Teo defecting from the Kyalami hotel in 1982.  I maintain that he had the wrong brother in the car for most of the year though.

Edited by ensign14, 05 October 2013 - 19:31.

I read this the other day: http://www.motorspor...leaves-brabham/

It gives an interesting insight into Nelsons relatively low pay at Brabham that Ensign alluded to and also the better side of Nelsons straight-speaking nature. 

I read this the other day: http://www.motorspor...leaves-brabham/

It gives an interesting insight into Nelsons relatively low pay at Brabham that Ensign alluded to and also the better side of Nelsons straight-speaking nature. 

 

Top man, which is what I've been trying to say all along. Don't believe what you read, unless it's written by Nigel Roebuck of course.

Great article, thanks for pointing it out!

 

Henri, if you dislike Nelson Piquet because he picked his nose and farted a lot, you're perfectly entitled to do so, though I detect in your posts a good deal of admiration for him as a driver. You're not going to get away with that slur though, Nelson had a firm deal with Frank Williams regarding what you call "preferential treatment", whether written into his contract or done on a handshake doesn't matter, they had an agreement concerning things like spare cars, and after Frank disappeared temporarily from the scene, others in the Williams team refused to honour it. Nelson probably lost a championship through that, but I'd say that Williams lost a great deal more.

Kayemod,

Glad to see that you noticed that at least as a driver only, I do rate Piquet.
His move on Senna at Hungary 1986 is for me one of the most memorable overtakings I've seen, a great move.
With hindsight: since I did't care for him anymore, I never gave much thought about his Indy exploits and the results are not impressing that much on first sight too. But with hindsight I must admit nowadays that his return in 1993, one year after his horrible crash, that was a show of guts and determination for which he perheps deserves more praise than he gets nowadays. Pity for him that Nigel once again stole his thunder that year. But Nelson definitelely showed guts that year and had it not been for a multitude of reasons that worked against the car he drove, his showing could have been at least as impressive as up til the moment of his crash the year before.
That's a credit I can give Nelson without any hesitation.
Then,
I have looked up the stories about his move to Williams and after reading all of that I think that I must have the guts to say that I agree with you because what you wrote is right. The only thing I could add to it that perhaps it was easier for Nelson to get the preferred status since it was known that Nigel would stay on and at that time when the contract was signed (Summer '85), Nigel hat yet to win his first GP and had yet to appear at the scene as the formidable driver we remember him for since late 1985 on. Nigel's rise to sudden stardom was certainly a not anticipated event to happen within Williams and I have my suspicions about what that caused with certain team members within Team William who were in control now Frank was not there.
I could make more comments to that but I doubt if that would be sensible to do.

BTW: for the sake of the 1988 championship, I had rather seen Williams-Honda with drivers Piquet and Mansell taking on McLaren then the Williams and Lotus team we got eventually. I doubt if they would have been capable of taking on McLaren that year given the all dominant McLaren of that year but for sure it would have been a better season for Willimas, Piquete and Mansell then the one they eventually had.

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 October 2013 - 11:14.

 

 

Anybody who's a three-time WDC is a legend in my book, it's really a highly subjective matter of who's a "legend" and what qualfies somebody to be one.  

 

 

Until these last few seasons, I'd have said the same. 

Interesting article about Piquet in the latest MotorSport mag, written by Mike Doodson.  

 

He starts by admitting to being a fan of Nelson.  If so, I would not want Doodson writing about me if he wasn't my fan!  Serial cheating at Brabham (admittedly others were as bad or worse) and the whole Senna sexuality business (whether true or not) make me like Nelson less and less.  I note that Doodson omits to mention at all the business about insulting Roseanne Mansell.  

Interesting article about Piquet in the latest MotorSport mag, written by Mike Doodson.  

 

He starts by admitting to being a fan of Nelson.  If so, I would not want Doodson writing about me if he wasn't my fan!  Serial cheating at Brabham (admittedly others were as bad or worse) and the whole Senna sexuality business (whether true or not) make me like Nelson less and less.  I note that Doodson omits to mention at all the business about insulting Roseanne Mansell.  

 

To be honest, I don't  believe you have to be a fan of someone or a team te zijn to be able to write a decent publication about someone. You can even dislike or worse the subject. But as long as you can be objective and ignore becoming too personal within the story, it is still possible to create a decent writing. It is difficult (I know that from personal experience) but it can be done and sometimes the result is surprisingly good because the `I like him\them\it` smell isn't there and a neutral, objective article is often more educating and appears to be more trusted then when you kno the writer liked the subject.

For example, how often is Nigel Roebuck accused for being biased when writing about Gilles Villeneuve and/or Alain Prost?

 

Henri