149 replies to this topic

[DogEarred]

Catherine Zeta Jones & her husband......


How would the poor man feel, saying that? Isn't that a bit like saying Prince Phillip and his wife?....

But I'm sure he ain't no filmstar, anyway...

[kayemod]

Catherine Zeta Jones & her husband......

In Wales where they were, Catherine Zeta Jones is local girl made good. Her husband is just some obscure American actor, what's his name again?

[Tony Matthews]

Mr Jones

[P.Dron]

Mr Danielovitch.

[Giraffe]

There is a quirky old secondhand bookshop in central Birmingham that has had the Nigel Mansell book in the window for months & months. Every other book in the window has long gone & been replaced in the meantime, probably several times over but the Mansell book ha resolutely stayed put. If it is still there tomorrow, I resolve to purchase it!

"Mansell" by Terence O'Rorke published 1992, now liberated from said bookshop window after 8 months in situ for the princely sum of two quid.

Edited by Giraffe, 17 August 2011 - 17:02.

[kayemod]

"Mansell" by Terence O'Rorke published 1992, now liberated from said bookshop window after 8 months in situ for the princely sum of two quid.

Can you discern faint whingeing when you put the book to your ear?

[Giraffe]

Can you discern faint whingeing when you put the book to your ear?

No Rob, but having given it a quick scan, I think I should have left it in the shop window.

[kayemod]

No Rob, but having given it a quick scan, I think I should have left it in the shop window.

It hasn't started to demand extra hotel rooms has it?

[Giraffe]

It hasn't started to demand extra hotel rooms has it?

No, but it can't stand up and keeps collapsing.....

[Zippel]

Did he? I have never heard of it. Is there a link for this?

The only place I can think where its mentioned is Mansell's autobiography, which is not exactly the most unbiased of places.

But Prost did voice the same concerns in 1989, citation lap times at Monza that year as proof of Honda's potential favouritism.

[Henri Greuter]

The only place I can think where its mentioned is Mansell's autobiography, which is not exactly the most unbiased of places.

But Prost did voice the same concerns in 1989, citation lap times at Monza that year as proof of Honda's potential favouritism.

Now you can have some doubts about that accusation too, given the situation between Prost and his teammate that year and around that time of the year ......

On the other hand, I have read comments that Honda had indeed two favorite drivers, both Brazilians: Piquet and Senna. And a third one: Nakajima who had to be parked as teammate to any of those Brazilians. So that left only one driver of choise for one of the two teams supported by Honda. Which happened to be Williams chosen driver: Nigel Mansell.
And given what happened in 1988 when both Brazilian drivers changed teams, it pretty much looks like as if both brought a Honda deal to their new teams.
Or in the case of Lotus: retain the Hondas they had due do Senna's presence the past year and keep Nakajima as well.
Nakajima being a lap dog kind of driver Piquet preferred to have as a teammate, an ideal situation for Piquet.


Henri

[DogEarred]

Who knows exactly why certain people don't get on?
For example, why did Neville Chamberlain get on so well with Hitler whilst Winston Churchill didn't?...
Wht did that nice Mr. Richard M. Nixon not get on with the affable Ho Chi Min?...

As for Nigel, obviously, basically a good chap with his charity & police work etc. but even in his Formula Ford days there were signs of 'racing driver rage' resorting to minor fisticuffs after causing a particular collision. His wife wasn't afraid to open her mouth either.

[Giraffe]

Who knows exactly why certain people don't get on?

Piquet has subsequently proven that he doesn't get on with almost everyone. He is however a triple World Champion which must be some comfort to him.

[Catalina Park]

"Mansell" by Terence O'Rorke published 1992, now liberated from said bookshop window after 8 months in situ for the princely sum of two quid.

No Rob, but having given it a quick scan, I think I should have left it in the shop window.

You might have to give him back his two quid.

[jcbc3]

My problem wouldn't be the two quid, but rather the wasted couple of hours of your life

[DogEarred]

Piquet has subsequently proven that he doesn't get on with almost everyone. He is however a triple World Champion which must be some comfort to him.

As most people mature, they often admit to, and regret earlier behaviour. Most of us appreciate the fact that they do & modify their opinions accordingly. I wonder if he is going through this process? I'd rather have the comfort of human appreciation than the trophies, ultimately.

[Arjan de Roos]

During practice of the Dutch GP of 1983 I watched Mansell as he stood at the guardrail waiting between practices. He looked quite lonely and pensive over his racing fortunes. At that moment he had scored barely 6 points. I was wondering where he would go. His career did not look as if he was heading for the top. He certainly didnt looked a likely future champion or national hero.
The story of the mortgage was a popular one and even repeated by the speaker. This strengthened his image as a man wanting to reach the top at all costs, but he looked set to lose this battle. Piquet at that time was already a champion. So to say: there was already a generation gap.

[simonlewisbooks]

On the other hand, I have read comments that Honda had indeed two favorite drivers, both Brazilians: Piquet and Senna. And a third one: Nakajima who had to be parked as teammate to any of those Brazilians. So that left only one driver of choise for one of the two teams supported by Honda. Which happened to be Williams chosen driver: Nigel Mansell.
And given what happened in 1988 when both Brazilian drivers changed teams, it pretty much looks like as if both brought a Honda deal to their new teams.
Or in the case of Lotus: retain the Hondas they had due do Senna's presence the past year and keep Nakajima as well.
Nakajima being a lap dog kind of driver Piquet preferred to have as a teammate, an ideal situation for Piquet.


Henri

I remember it being mentioned in magazines at the time - Piquet apparently did a demo run at Suzuka as a promotional exercise for the forthcoming Japanese GP (the first one since 77?)was at his charming comical best and went down a storm with adoring fans, becoming a major star in Japan overnight and thus a darling of track-owner Honda. From that point on he was 'their man' . When the upsart Mansell proved more than a match for the double world champion it didn't fit the game plan at all.
There was that infamous situation at Monza (87) when only Piquet's car was fitted with some trick active diff', or some-such, which was demonstrably faster than the set up on Mansell's car and which heartily hacked off Mansell who(with justification as the quicker driver) claimed it was favoritism.

Nelson wasn't exactly winning the title from the front in 1987 - Nigel Roebuck's brilliant comment in AUTOSPORT summed it up "At this rate the world championship will win Nelson Piquet"

Having been "won by the world championship" Nelson leaves for Lotus and so do the Honda engines....

[Henri Greuter]

I remember it being mentioned in magazines at the time - Piquet apparently did a demo run at Suzuka as a promotional exercise for the forthcoming Japanese GP (the first one since 77?)was at his charming comical best and went down a storm with adoring fans, becoming a major star in Japan overnight and thus a darling of track-owner Honda. From that point on he was 'their man' . When the upsart Mansell proved more than a match for the double world champion it didn't fit the game plan at all.
There was that infamous situation at Monza (87) when only Piquet's car was fitted with some trick active diff', or some-such, which was demonstrably faster than the set up on Mansell's car and which heartily hacked off Mansell who(with justification as the quicker driver) claimed it was favoritism.

Nelson wasn't exactly winning the title from the front in 1987 - Nigel Roebuck's brilliant comment in AUTOSPORT summed it up "At this rate the world championship will win Nelson Piquet"

Having been "won by the world championship" Nelson leaves for Lotus and so do the Honda engines....

Now must I come up to Piquet's defence for once.

Whatever you can say about Nelson, he was willing to test and help develop new technology in order to gain an advantage. His support for the BMW turbo in its early races etc. is an approval of that.
From what I have understood, Nelsdon also saw the potiential of the priciple of active suspension as Williams had made and was willing to test it. Unlike Mansell who, in the Lotus years had been the guinee pig to use the earliest versions ('82/83) of `Active`and got scared by it and thus refused to have anything to do with it from then on, even at Williams.

I am defintely not a fan of Piquet and don't agree with a number of things he did over the years. But the `active` thing at Monza '87 he had and Mansell dit not have was very much Mansell's own doing and caused by his own behaviour. I can't blame Piquet for using it after making it work while his teammate refused to cooperate. Mansell blew that one himself.

Henri

[Peter Morley]

garoidb - Just another example of Mansell's paranoia. According to my 1988 FIA yearbook, Mansell started moaning about "down on power" engines at the Italian GP. It is no coincidence that this was the race where Piquet used the Williams active ride suspension for the first time, which allowed him to run a much more efficient aerodynamic setup. This (rather than any pie-in-the-sky demented fairy story from Mansell's la-la land of invented excuses) explains the difference in speed.

IIRC at one time a team (Lotus?) were so fed up with NM whining about his team mate having a better engine that the team showed him all of the engines and said chose the one that you want and fitted it in his car, of course when he got out of the car he immediately complained that his engine was down on power...

Wouldn't a better title for this thread be something along the lines of "Why did anyone like Mansell"?

[Giraffe]

Wouldn't a better title for this thread be something along the lines of "Did anyone like Mansell"?

[Allan Lupton]

Wouldn't a better title for this thread be something along the lines of "Why did anyone like Mansell"?

Yes it would.
The obvious answer to the original question is "why single Piquet out?" as the feeling was pretty widespread, and not helped by Muddly Talker's assumption that if we were British we all automatically loved "Nijull Mansull"

[arttidesco]

Or maybe a better title still would be did anyone like Piquet or Mansell, histrionics of both drivers aside of the two I much preferred Mansell.

[garoidb]

Now must I come up to Piquet's defence for once.

Whatever you can say about Nelson, he was willing to test and help develop new technology in order to gain an advantage. His support for the BMW turbo in its early races etc. is an approval of that.
From what I have understood, Nelsdon also saw the potiential of the priciple of active suspension as Williams had made and was willing to test it. Unlike Mansell who, in the Lotus years had been the guinee pig to use the earliest versions ('82/83) of `Active`and got scared by it and thus refused to have anything to do with it from then on, even at Williams.

I agree. If a world championship capable driver has a particular ability to test, develop and set up a car, and is competing with his team-mate for the world championship in the best car, why should he have to help his team mate. This situation comes up frequently. For example, many people think Ronnie Peterson was faster than Mario Andretti but could not set up or give good development feedback on the Lotus. This situation was recognised and dealt with by agreement, but it does not seem fair to me to require sharing of set-ups and data when a WDC is at stake and one driver is better in this area than the other as I think Piquet was versus Mansell.

[stuartbrs]

Lewis Hamilton reminds me of Mansell.. one of the best entertainers behind the wheel but unfortunately not so good behind a microphone..

[jcbc3]

Lewis Hamilton reminds me of Mansell.. one of the best entertainers behind the wheel but unfortunately not so good behind a microphone..

I semi agree with you. And I'm a Hamilton fan. Well, I still think Mansell was worse.

[KWSN - DSM]

I semi agree with you. And I'm a Hamilton fan. Well, I still think Mansell was worse.

I while not a fan of Hamilton, recognize him as at worst the second best driver in the world right now, closely matched by Alonso whom I also consider at worst the second best driver in the world right now. Those two are as close to the complete package racing wise, and are able to inspire their teams through their ruthless demands for perfection.

Both on occasion comes across as muppets, when talking to the media, but to be fair most of the posters here (myself included), would do that as well. As it is in life, so is it in the sectarian part which is F1, not all is as it seems to be.

In pure driving both Hamilton and Alonso repeatedly show why they are so highly respected, and they never take a day of. Alonso have managed himself much better at Ferrari than I thought he would, he have toed to company line, he has delivered above and beyond what the car was really capable of. Hamilton is driven as few other drivers, and I can not fault him for that.

The knowledge and wisdom I have gained over the years, make me more appreciative of the drivers, and I will let them say the stupid stuff, and pay less attention to it moving forward.

[kayemod]

I while not a fan of Hamilton...

I think this about as good an example as we could hope to see of what's commonly referred to as "thread drift".

[KWSN - DSM]

I think this about as good an example as we could hope to see of what's commonly referred to as "thread drift".

Ahhh drifting, used to be part of F1, not sadly missing.

Both Mansel and Piquet Sr was masters at it.

[jcbc3]

oh yes!

[David Beard]

Ahhh drifting, used to be part of F1, not sadly missing.

You've not been watching properly. A lot more sideways stuff of late...

[KWSN - DSM]

You've not been watching properly. A lot more sideways stuff of late...

Not as what Piquet just showed above.

[Michael Ferner]

oh yes!

Ahhh... much more dramatic than I remembered it... ... and look how fair Senna was back in those days, he even touched the kerbs to avoid running into Piquet... a couple years later, he would've happily accepted the invitation to punt him off.

[stuartbrs]

Ahhh... much more dramatic than I remembered it... ... and look how fair Senna was back in those days, he even touched the kerbs to avoid running into Piquet... a couple years later, he would've happily accepted the invitation to punt him off.

Ive always thought Piquet just missed his braking point and Senna had brain fade and decided to avoid an accident for once... I certainly dont think Piquet planned it.

[garoidb]

Ive always thought Piquet just missed his braking point and Senna had brain fade and decided to avoid an accident for once... I certainly dont think Piquet planned it.

He braked right on the limit. I doubt he intended to slide but he controlled it - that is the point.

[stuartbrs]

He braked right on the limit. I doubt he intended to slide but he controlled it - that is the point.

Yes I agree with that. All I`m saying is it wasnt planned, its one of those moves you see a thousand times on Kart tracks and Club days all over the planet.. Its not any indication of other wordly greatness.

[garoidb]

Yes I agree with that. All I`m saying is it wasnt planned, its one of those moves you see a thousand times on Kart tracks and Club days all over the planet.. Its not any indication of other wordly greatness.

Well, he was on the absolute limit, isn't that the point. A lot of times, a sliding car means a driver made a mistake but in this case it he was not over the limit and effected a critical, race-winning, overtaking manouver.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Ive always thought Piquet just missed his braking point and Senna had brain fade and decided to avoid an accident for once... I certainly dont think Piquet planned it.

You need to remember that Piquet had made exactly the same move on the previous lap, but on that occasion slid wide and thus Senna regained the lead. Next lap round, Piquet nailed him.

Absolutely, definitely planned and perfectly executed - even the "great" Senna could do nothing (and didn't dare crash into Piquet as he had done/would do with so many others).

[GrumpyOldMan]

There was that infamous situation at Monza (87) when only Piquet's car was fitted with some trick active diff', or some-such, which was demonstrably faster than the set up on Mansell's car and which heartily hacked off Mansell who(with justification as the quicker driver) claimed it was favoritism.

Time to put another couple of myths to bed:

1) Re above - Piquet & Mansell both had access to the Active-Ride suspension. However, Mansell had tested it briefly in the very early stages of its development (having scared himself stiff with Lotus' version a few years previously - so much for the "big cojones" he is often credited with). Mansell didn't like it, couldn't adapt to it and couldn't see the potential. Piquet was the one who worked tirelessly with the Williams team to develop and refine it to the stage where it was ready to race. That's why Piquet had the advantage at Monza - he had the ability to see the potential of a technological development, and wasn't afraid of new technology (unlike his Luddite team-mate). Oddly enough, Mansell insisted on having the AR suspension at the very next race...

2) A few people have mentioned Piquet's money. It is a fact that his father was well-off, but Nelson started racing in direct contravention of his father's wishes (hence the change in his name from the family "Souto-Maior" to his mother's maiden name of "Piquet". Even then he disguised his identity further by starting his career by deliberately mis-spelling as "Piket"). He received little or no support (beyond a very modest monthly allowance) from his family, and used to travel from race to race in a converted VW camper van (itself cobbled together from 2 wrecks). In contrast, Mansell obviously had access to some money with which to buy a house, which he then re-mortgaged to free up some funds. So you could easily argue that Mansell actually had it EASIER than Piquet when climbing to the top, although you'd never guess it from the flying moustache's opt-repeated tales of deprivation and woe.

I'm damn sure that both of the above would have hacked me off - spending hundreds of hours developing a new part of the car, and then have to watch it being provided "gratis" to a lazy team-mate who couldn't be bothered to share the testing. And then having someone who had been given every advantage in their early career complain ceaselessly about how hard they'd had it, when Piquet had had a far, far harder climb to the top!

[arttidesco]

As I understood it our Nige was not gifted his house but was working in some engineering the company to pay the mortgage in the first place ?

Either way at the end of the day what matters is Piquet, Mansell, Prost and Senna got to the top entertained us and were obviously all friends ... really

[GrumpyOldMan]

As I understood it our Nige was not gifted his house but was working in some engineering the company to pay the mortgage in the first place ?

Either way at the end of the day what matters is Piquet, Mansell, Prost and Senna got to the top entertained us and were obviously all friends ... really

Keep your friends close...

[BRG]

2) A few people have mentioned Piquet's money. It is a fact that his father was well-off, but Nelson started racing in direct contravention of his father's wishes (hence the change in his name from the family "Souto-Maior" to his mother's maiden name of "Piquet". Even then he disguised his identity further by starting his career by deliberately mis-spelling as "Piket"). He received little or no support (beyond a very modest monthly allowance) from his family, and used to travel from race to race in a converted VW camper van (itself cobbled together from 2 wrecks). In contrast, Mansell obviously had access to some money with which to buy a house, which he then re-mortgaged to free up some funds. So you could easily argue that Mansell actually had it EASIER than Piquet when climbing to the top, although you'd never guess it from the flying moustache's opt-repeated tales of deprivation and woe.

Well, congratulations on a piece of stunning historical revisionsim. To conclude that 'poor little rich boy' Piquet was in fact less well off than working class Mansell takes some doing.

Can I direct you to your own words? " He (NP) received .... a very modest monthly allowance from his family." A trustafarian in today's parlance. Compare and contrast with Mansell working at Lucas (IIRC) for his living, as well probably as Rosanne also working, from which incomes they bought their own house, subsequently re-mortgaged.

I am pretty sure that I know which one had the tougher time and it wasn't the clean shaven one. Having said all of which, I have little time for either off the track.

Edited by BRG, 20 August 2011 - 16:12.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Well, congratulations on a piece of stunning historical revisionsim. To conclude that 'poor little rich boy' Piquet was in fact less well off than working class Mansell takes some doing.

Can I direct you to your own words? " He (NP) received .... a very modest monthly allowance from his family." A trustafarian in today's parlance. Compare and contrast with Mansell working at Lucas (IIRC) for his living, as well probably as Rosanne also working, from which incomes they bought their own house, subsequently re-mortgaged.

I am pretty sure that I know which one had the tougher time and it wasn't the clean shaven one. Having said all of which, I have little time for either off the track.

Mansell had a house to re-mortgage. Piquet didn't. It would be normal to conclude that someone who can afford a house is somewhat richer than one who can't. To reach any other conclusion is in itself a feat of historical revisionism of which YOU can be proud.

Nelson obviously had the "safety net" of a well-to-do family if his career didn't work out - I'm not denying that. But it is simply incorrect to say that he had family money backing his career whereas Mansell didn't. It is equally incorrect to portray Mansell as some kind of motor-racing Oliver Twist.

It is a shame that Mansell likes to gild the lily as regards his "struggle", because he didn't have it easy and DID have to work hard to reach the top. But as with everything surrounding Mansell, let's not let the facts get in the way of "accepted wisdom", eh? He's hardly the first or only driver to make some sacrifices on the way to F1. Lauda racked up some horrendous debts, for example. Yet most drivers don't dwell on it - Mansell on the other hand seems to revel in it. And some people are only too quick to jump on the bandwagon...

The truth is probably somewhere in between. Nelson built his career by himself, without the backing of his family or their money. Equally, he was never going to be left destitute if he failed. Mansell staked everything on his career being a success, but he at least had some funds with which to back himself to begin with.

[BRG]

The truth is probably somewhere in between. Nelson built his career by himself, without the backing of his family or their money. Equally, he was never going to be left destitute if he failed. Mansell staked everything on his career being a success, but he at least had some funds with which to back himself to begin with.

You missed out the last few words "although he would have been destitute and homeless if he failed."

Piquet's 'modest' monthly allowance would probably have bought him a house if he had chosen to use it that way. But he didn't have to as his family probably had several houses that he could use. Plus all his family connections were worth a lot. When he came to UK for F3, he had a fully sponsored Ralt that was the class of the field. As I recall, Mansell had the ridiculous Dolomite engined March run on a shoestring.

[garoidb]

You missed out the last few words "although he would have been destitute and homeless if he failed."

Piquet's 'modest' monthly allowance would probably have bought him a house if he had chosen to use it that way. But he didn't have to as his family probably had several houses that he could use. Plus all his family connections were worth a lot. When he came to UK for F3, he had a fully sponsored Ralt that was the class of the field. As I recall, Mansell had the ridiculous Dolomite engined March run on a shoestring.

Lots of probablys there. Did he definitely have a living allowance from his family? I have no idea myself, but I don't think it should just be assumed given that the family did not want him to pursue motorsport.

Also, I think it is too strong to say that Mansell would have been destitute and homeless if he failed. Homeless in the sense of not owning a house, perhaps, but living on the streets (with engineering qualifications and a wife who worked)? How many racing drivers have ended up that way?

Edit: I see that it was not you who raised the monthly allowance. Apologies. I would still be interested to learn its approximate value.

Edited by garoidb, 21 August 2011 - 19:40.

[GrumpyOldMan]

You missed out the last few words "although he would have been destitute and homeless if he failed."

Piquet's 'modest' monthly allowance would probably have bought him a house if he had chosen to use it that way. But he didn't have to as his family probably had several houses that he could use. Plus all his family connections were worth a lot. When he came to UK for F3, he had a fully sponsored Ralt that was the class of the field. As I recall, Mansell had the ridiculous Dolomite engined March run on a shoestring.

I said that Mansell staked "everything" on his career being a success. I thought this would have inferred what was left unsaid - that he would have lost his job & house if he failed.

I have no information on Piquet's modest monthly allowance. However, rather than indulge in speculation, I would try to quantify its relative value by pointing out (again) Piquet's living quarters in his VW van. Had he been in receipt of an adequate amount, I'm sure he would have tired of "roughing it" longe before he moved to Europe. True - he had a sponsored March when he arrived in Europe, but the sponsorship was gained as a result of his various Brazilian/South American series wins. It is not unusual for a young driver to gain sponsors when they win races.

As I pointed out in my previous post, I think that BOTH drivers had it hard when working their way up to F1 but only one of them seems to make an issue of it. I see no value in trying to play one driver's hardships off against the other's, lest we end up in a Monthy Python "4 Yorkshireman" scenario.

[D-Type]

When Senna arrived on the scene, how did Mansell and Piquet react?

Mansell made it plain to Senna both on and off track that he would not be intimidated. Piquet made insinuations in the press about Senna's sexuality.

I don't know what that tells us.

[GrumpyOldMan]

When Senna arrived on the scene, how did Mansell and Piquet react?

Mansell made it plain to Senna both on and off track that he would not be intimidated. Piquet made insinuations in the press about Senna's sexuality.

I don't know what that tells us.

You mean Mansell took time out from his rapidly sinking (at the time) career with Lotus to find a Brazilian nobody in an uncompetitive car in 1984 to make plain he wouldn't be intimidated by him?

What a sublime future talent-spotter he is. Obviously another of his many talents he has hidden under a bushel...

Or did he "make it plain to Senna on & off the track that he would not be intimidated" during one of their numerous accidents together? 1985 Kyalami, 1986 Rio, 1987 Spa are the first 3 that spring to mind, so obviously Senna took this to heart and kept well out of Mansell's way!

If you want to know who was intimidated, look back at how many times Senna drove into Mansell & Prost (and vice-versa). Then look at how many times he drove into Piquet. Better yet, check out the French GP of 1988, when Piquet brilliantly out-psyched Senna (unfortunately, whilst being lapped ) to help Prost close the gap enough to allow him to overtake (in a superb manoeuvre) shortly afterwards and win the race.

As for Piquet's remarks, were they part of the imfamous off-the-record comments published by Playboy in 87? Or something else? I read allusions to this, but have never seen the actual comments. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to exactly what was said and when?

[Tim Murray]

The relationship between Piquet and Senna was discussed in this earlier thread:

Piquet & Senna

The Brazilian interviews are mentioned, but there's no concrete evidence as to what was said.

[GrumpyOldMan]

The relationship between Piquet and Senna was discussed in this earlier thread:

Piquet & Senna

The Brazilian interviews are mentioned, but there's no concrete evidence as to what was said.

Thank you, Tim. I was in a bit of a rush to go to work this morning so didn't have time to search the forums. Much obliged for the pointer.