61 replies to this topic

[King Nigel]

Hi there !
I am proud to tell you a brand new version of King Nigel Mansell is now online !
Check it out and feel free to send me your first thoughts about it. Enjoy the web site :

King Nigel Mansell

If you are a fan of Nigel, wherever you are, please send a word to this forum

Edited by King Nigel, 17 February 2012 - 23:55.

[Wellington]

Hello

Really nice site and very good feeling. I always enjoy coming back to this specific era, of which I think Nige is the best symbol, linking the Piquet domination and the Senna kingship.
It is a pleasure to read and look at. Thanks a lot..


Regards

[Gary Davies]

Don't get me wrong ... I loved Mansell's commitment and skill as a driver. I always felt it was so fashionable to criticise his embarrassing boorishness and gaucheness out of the cockpit that many observers remained blinded to his speed and tactical awareness as a racer.

If only he had resolved to be the strong silent type. I remember cringing one time when Nige explained that he pulled 25g's - or some fabulous number - around Silverstone; 2 at Copse, one and a half a Maggotts, 2 at Becketts etc.

Was it not Roebuck who once commented that the best way to enjoy Mansell's enormous talent would be for him to be winched directly from a hovering helicopter into the cockpit before the race and to be similarly whisked away afterwards.

Vanwall.

PS. Congratulations on the site. Very nicely done.

[man]

What i find interesting is how Nigel's reputation picked up over the years. For example in the early 1980's nobody would have thought he would be in the top 20 of all time greats which we constatly see in various F1 magazines. Elio De Angelis got the better of him at Lotus and yet nobody mentions him in terms of greatness. Did Nigel improve with age? When was he at his peak?

[Maldwyn]

He improved as the machinery beneath him improved and he gained a couple of wins at the end of 1985. This boosted his own confidence, and the teams confidence in him which all culminated in the 1992 title which was his peak.

[leegle]

I think he reached his peak sooner than that and that he learned a lot of 'press on' from Rosberg. He sure seamed to be on top of the game in 1986.

[italia]

Originally posted by man
Elio De Angelis got the better of him at Lotus and yet nobody mentions him in terms of greatness.

Another tragic example of "what if".
In 1984 he was "the best of the rest" after Lauda and Prost.
In 1985 He was fourth in the championship, only 5 points behind his teammate Senna. And won the GP of San Marino lapping the COMPLETE field. (Ok, after Senna ran out of fuel two laps before the end and Prost was disqualified, but he was there in the end)
Especially his consistency was remarkable.

Sorry to go off topic, but Elio wa one of my favorite drivers.

[hook]

I was a big Nigel fan until I met him and shared a table at the INDY 500 back in 1994...man that he was crying... and complaining and crying and complaining and...

[Haddock]

Elio De Angelis was a good number two, but nothing more. He did give Senna a good run in the 1985 championship, but he was rarely actually faster than him. He finished a lot more races...due probably to a combination of greater mechanical sympathy and better luck.

He was outpaced by Patrese in the awful lowline 86 Brabham (spot the family resemblance between that car and Murray's later, much more successful McLaren MP4/4) and to be honest, looked like he'd lost the commitment and motivation to do the job after a year of being outpaced by Senna at Lotus. Which makes it all the sadder that he didn't get out of the sport alive.

As for Mansell, I believe the quote about the helicopter and the winch actually originally came from Patrick Head. As everyone else has said...a great driver but if only he'd kept his mouth shut a bit more.....

[Kpy]

Originally posted by Haddock


As for Mansell, I believe the quote about the helicopter and the winch actually originally came from Patrick Head. As everyone else has said...a great driver but if only he'd kept his mouth shut a bit more.....

Quite right it wad Patrick Head.
Mansell could be a tiger in the car - he was very brave and pulled some spectacular moves. But he let himself down completely in his last few drives with McLaren when he just threw the toys out of the pram. He also made a fool of himself in two "celebrity" drives at Donington and then put the blame on someone else.
For Mansell victory had to come as a result of his fight against incredible odds (carrying the car on his back) as I remember once at Silverstone when he won but claimed the car had been stuck in fourth or fifth for the final four laps, whilst the telemetry and those of us who were there and had ears knew otherwise. If he failed it was never his fault, as with the "white line" he probably never touched whilst leading at Monaco, or the engine dying in Canada when he let the revs die too low whilst waving to the crowd as he led the final lap. I remember spectating at the old Club corner at Silverstone when he and Prost were both at Ferrari, he claimed that Ferrari had given Prost a better spec engine as Prost was quicker on the straight, but a stopwatch soon revealed that Prost's exit speed from the corner was quicker than Mansell's as the latter held too tight a line and Prost really let the car flow through the corner. I think it was after that race that he threw not just the toys out of the pram,but his dummy as well, announcing his "retirement".
Maybe a great driver, and maybe other greats have their personality flaws, but I can have no respect for the yob who once punched his step-mother to the ground for the simple reason that he couldn't bear the fact that his father had married again after the death of Nigel's mother. I believe that was the end of his relationshop with his father.

[man]

Nigel most certainly was not at his peak in 1992, it just so happened that he happened to be driving the FW14B, one of the best Grand Prix cars ever made. I think the 1992 had a far greater advantage of the competition than the MP4/4 for example.

I would say Nigel was at his peak in 1989 when he was very relaxed and enjoying life at the Scuderia. I agree, Nigel's strength and determination came from the fact that he believed the whole world was against him (an unfashionable Brummie against drivers from exotic locations, fighting against the odds). The moaning and complaining was a key factor to his driving. Its how he found that little extra "fight" without which, such overtakings like the famous Berger/Peratalda/Mexico 1990 move would not have been possible.

[fines]

Originally posted by Haddock
Elio De Angelis was a good number two, but nothing more. He did give Senna a good run in the 1985 championship, but he was rarely actually faster than him. He finished a lot more races...due probably to a combination of greater mechanical sympathy and better luck.

He was outpaced by Patrese in the awful lowline 86 Brabham (spot the family resemblance between that car and Murray's later, much more successful McLaren MP4/4) and to be honest, looked like he'd lost the commitment and motivation to do the job after a year of being outpaced by Senna at Lotus. Which makes it all the sadder that he didn't get out of the sport alive.

As for Mansell, I believe the quote about the helicopter and the winch actually originally came from Patrick Head. As everyone else has said...a great driver but if only he'd kept his mouth shut a bit more.....

One can't leave that uncommented, since Gordon Murray had absolutely nothing to do with the design of the MP4/4. It was a team effort led by Steve Nichols, and Murray wasn't even part of the team.

As for the comments about de Angelis, umh... :

[David J Jones]

Colin Chapman - a man noted for being able to pick out talent - chose Mansell but unfortunately died soon afterwards.

As far as the comments about the Nigel drone - yes it is unfortunate. Howevewr I also find the Brundle / Blundell droning just as irritating but I accept it. At least Nigel won GP's though!

I am biased though being a British West Midlander...........

[man]

Murray was a part of McLaren then, but you are correct in saying that Nichols designed the MP4/4. Murray quite f1 because of the demanding nature his job involved. I seem to remember him writing in a magazine some time later, complaing about the various trips he had to make to Japan to visit the Honda people.

[deangelis86]

Elio de Angelis had long since proven his ability in F1 by 1985/86, and needed no introduction to anyone.

In response to the post regarding Elio's lack of speed when compared to Senna, agreed - Elio was 2nd best for much of the year. But no moreso that Berger was by Senna in 1991 for example, and by that I mean that he also had his moments to shine during the season.

Outqualified Senna in Brazil. Took Pole in Canada, and was also on Pole after Fridays session at the first Belgian GP that was cancelled. Was never far behind Ayrton until Lotus decided to shift 100% of their attentions to Senna in the latter half of /85. Led the Championship until the half way point.

Certainly not humbled. Okay so on the whole Elio overshadowed Nige at Lotus, but one must remember that Nige did have the Lotus Management against him in the form of one Peter Warr.

With regard to Elio's motivation for the 1986 season, on the contrary. Take a look at my website and you will discover that his hunger was very strong for success after his disappointing end at Lotus. Indeed he managed to finish the first 1986 race in 8th for Brabham, despite losing 3 gears and a wheel.......

There was virtually nothing to choose between Elio and Riccardo for the short time they were team-mates. True, Patrese had managed better grid positions than Elio but we are talking about very small margins indeed here. It must be remembered that for Patrese even the BT55 was probably an improvement over driving uncompetitive Alfa-Romeos for 84/85....

By contrast for Elio, it must have been a real shock to the system after having driven arguably one of best cars on the grid since the latter half of 1983......

Oh, and back on topic. Dave Bernard's site is a great tribute to 'Our Nige'.....despite comments regarding his personality. Who cares? Once the guy stepped into an F1 car he was simply awesome on occasion....

[troyf1]

Nice to see a good web site on Mansell. I have to admit he was probably the reason I started keeping up with F1. My first F1 raced I watched was the 1986 British Grand Prix on ESPN and watching Nigel and Nelson go at it was pretty exciting. Needless to say after that I was hooked. Say what you will about Nigel but he kept things exciting and was in my opinion part of what made the era of he Nelson, Ayrton and Alain so great.

[holiday]

Alain Prost on Mansell (Interview with Murray Walker - F1 racing 1.6.2001) when asked about his opinion on his team-mates.

Quick, very quickly. He could get down to a time straight off. A huge ability to drive the car in difficult conditions. Not a good team-mate, no team spirit. Not very efficient – the opposite of Niki. Not a team player, not interested in set-up. He was good when he had the best car, but not when he had do develop it. Not impressive

(Never forgot how he spoiled Prost's title chances with that stupid move at the start in Portugal 1990...******)

In rearsight, his career resembles somewhat that of Hakkinen insofar as both were the late starters among the Greats of the last 20 years


holiday
PS: Nigel on Nigel: http://www.autosport...series=5&type=f

[italia]

Thank you deangelis86 for defending Elio. Great site by the way!
Haddock just looked at some statistics, he's born in 78 so hasn't seen him drive at all, and draws his conclusions without knowing the complete picture. Hope he, and many others, are more cautious next time.
As for Mansell, an example that early results don't mean a everything. Some people need just a little time to warm up!

[holiday]

Originally posted by italia
Thank you deangelis86 for defending Elio. Great site by the way!
Haddock just looked at some statistics, he's born in 78 so hasn't seen him drive at all, and draws his conclusions without knowing the complete picture. Hope he, and many others, are more cautious next time.

But he does sound convincing, doesn't he?

[Kpy]

By chance there's a piece by Nigel Roebuck about Mansell and Mario Andretti's opinion of him in "ask Nigel Dec 5 on www.autosport.com

[Haddock]

Can't let this one slide entirely.

italia, you're right in that I didn't see much of De Angelis' career, but I *did* see him race.
The first Grand Prix I went to was the 1985 European Grand Prix at Brands Hatch. I'd been watching grands prix from a very early age. I suppose my take on De Angelis is influenced more by what I have read from the likes of Roebuck et al than what I actually saw at the time though.

As for the McLaren MP4/4, mea culpa.

[deangelis86]

Hi Haddock,

I don't think that in your first post regarding Elio you said anything that I thought was unfair or inaccurate.

De Angelis didn't always push the car as hard as others, more often relying on a smooth technique. He had more mechanical sympathy than a lot of other drivers, and a finish in the points usually made him happy. It was these values that when added together made him a potential WC.

However, a really consistant cutting edge was lacking from Elio which otherwise would have made him one of the greats - which he freely admitted.

In response to the MP4/BT55 debate, yes it's design was taken from the BT55 despite the fact that it was credited to Steve Nicholls. Gordon Murray joined McLaren for the 1987 season, and his influence on the design was widely acknowledged in F1 circles.

[Haddock]

I guess I was overstating it to say that De Angelis was no more than a natural number 2 driver. But I guess what I meant was that for a top team of that era he would be no more than a number 2 driver. Senna (once he had gained the experience he lacked at the start of 1985), Prost, Piquet and perhaps even Mansell once his confidence had been boosted by the wins for Williams at the end of 1985, would all have been better bets for a number one driver.

His smooth technique and his ability to seemingly always get the 1985 Lotus to the finish did put him in contention for the title for a while, but I don't think he had the sheer ability of the aforementioned four...at least not by that time

[deangelis86]

Hmm, ability never in doubt - commitment questionable..... :

[King Nigel]

What a fool ! I thought it was a Nigel Mansell topic ...

[deangelis86]

Whooops! Sorry David, you are quite right of course...

Anyone like to comment further on our Nige?

[Maldwyn]

Only that David has produced an excellent site

[Don Capps]

Let the Record that I didn't -- and don't -- think very much of Nigel Mansell. Indeed, I couldn't even remember what year he was the WDC -- 1992, as I was reminded. The Nigel Roebuck piece says a great bit about The Other Nigel. It got to a point where I couldn't stand him. I must confess that I didn't shed many tears when that tire blew in the Oz....

His 1994 season only cemented my (low) opinion of Mansell. The 1992 and 1993 seasons were largely strokes of great fortune (...which only adds more credence to the adage that it pays more to be lucky than good...). In 1994, Mansell just flat quit trying. The sad part is that Mansell led to the departure of Mario Andretti from CART racing.

Sorry, but Mansell is just one of those folks I just never could like for any number of reasons. That is simply the way it is sometimes. It might astonish some of The Regulars here, but I probably "like" Mansell even less than I do Ayrton Senna or Michael Schumacher -- which is really saying something.

[deangelis86]

I personally don't agree that Mansell's WDC in 1992 was down to good fortune or luck, it was a well deserved reward for years of perseverance.

If we are thinking of WDC's that relied more on luck or good fortune, then look no further than Damon Hill....or even Mansell's team mate Piquet in 1987.

Yes Mansell was very annoying at times, but as a driver I don't think the majority of people on this forum would remember him as being lucky or having good fortune.

Just my 10cents worth, of course!

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by deangelis86
I personally don't agree that Mansell's WDC in 1992 was down to good fortune or luck, it was a well deserved reward for years of perseverance.

Whatever.

[mikedeering]

You make your own luck IMO - suggetsed Mansell was luckey in 92 is akin to suggesting Fangio was lucky in the fifties for always joining the team with the best cars...

[Maldwyn]

Nigel joined Williams after the team had spent two years developing the Renault engine into a winning package as Patrese and Boutsen had proved. Mansell, having announced his retirement at the British GP in 1990 was very willing to be persuaded to come back knowing that Williams had such a strong package in place.

He went into a similar situation at Newman-Haas in 1993. The Lola was the car to have, having been developed by the Andrettis (more Michael?) into a winning proposition.

In both cases Mansell knew he was putting himself into a winning situation and he exploited that very effectively. Not quite the same as being lucky...fortunate maybe

[fines]

Originally posted by Don Capps
I probably "like" Mansell even less than I do Ayrton Senna or Michael Schumacher -- which is really saying something.

My words, exactly!!! Although I have to admit that all three were excellent drivers... :yawn:

[mikedeering]

Originally posted by Maldwyn
Nigel joined Williams after the team had spent two years developing the Renault engine into a winning package as Patrese and Boutsen had proved. Mansell, having announced his retirement at the British GP in 1990 was very willing to be persuaded to come back knowing that Williams had such a strong package in place.

He went into a similar situation at Newman-Haas in 1993. The Lola was the car to have, having been developed by the Andrettis (more Michael?) into a winning proposition.

In both cases Mansell knew he was putting himself into a winning situation and he exploited that very effectively. Not quite the same as being lucky...fortunate maybe

Was the Williams really a good package to have going into 1991? Based on 1990 form, I would suggest not. The team started off Ok, but gradually fell down the order. When Mansell signed for Williams, form suggested McLaren, Ferrari & Benetton would outperform Williams in 1991.

OK, Williams had Newey, but his reputation was not what it is now. He had designed a nice looking car for March, but other than that, his F1 experience was limited. Benetton had come on strong throughout 1990 (closing with 2 wins - 1 fortunate, 1 less so), and had John Barnard (Then still viewed as the one of the best designers) working on the 91 machine. Nannini turned down a Ferrari drive for 1991 since he saw real potential in the Benetton.

So to say Mansell lucked into the best car on the grid is stretching things somewhat...

Williams were in such a state in mid 1990 that they were desperate to land a decent driver capable of developing the car - Patrese & Boutsen weren't up to the task...it was this desperation that forced them to give into Nigel's ridiculous demands, that just seemed to get worse and worse between then and the end of his career!

As for 1993, I think Nigel could have driven for a number of CART teams and won - the cars are much closer in terms of competitiveness than F1. He won partly due to having a decent car-engine-team package, partly due to a lack of decent competition and partly due to his driving skills. As for 1994 - I agree, Mansell clearly gave up when he saw the Penskes were uncatchable, and for that he deservedly lost a lot of respect.

[holiday]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Benetton had come on strong throughout 1990 (closing with 2 wins - 1 fortunate, 1 less so), and had John Barnard (Then still viewed as the one of the best designers) working on the 91 machine.

JB had designed the '90 Ferrari. I guess, he was still there in '91, since there existed a Barnard-clause in Prost's contract. However, right now I haven't bothered with checking this.

Williams were in such a state in mid 1990 that they were desperate to land a decent driver capable of developing the car - Patrese & Boutsen weren't up to the task...

Hmmm, the presumed Williams profile didn't fit at all with that of Mansell , did it?
Good ole Nigel wasn't exactly know for his painstakingly meticulous way of analyzing telemetry, was he?


holiday
There remains the question of the "equal cars"...

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Was the Williams really a good package to have going into 1991?

I think so. Both Patrese (2) and Boutsen (3) won races with the new Renault engine in 1989/90 and Renault's rapid progress, after re-entering the sport, made clear their intent. The Boutsen/Patrese partnership were consistent points scorers throughout 1990 with both drivers scoring points in the final three races of the year. The team were clearly on an upward curve.

Originally posted by mikedeering
Williams were in such a state in mid 1990 that they were desperate to land a decent driver capable of developing the car - Patrese & Boutsen weren't up to the task...

Hardly. The team had returned to the top of the podium quickly after an abysmal 1988. However, FW recognised the need for a topline driver and Mansell was available after "retiring". While Boutsen was discarded after not producing the results expected (see also Frentzen) Patrese was an invaluable part of the team, a fact recognised by Mansell ("If he maintains this form Riccardo is going to beat everyone.") and Frank Williams ("Why do we keep Patrese? Because he's bloody good"). His commitment to testing and development contributed enormously to Mansell's title and don't forget he outqualified Mansell in the first seven races, and gained the first podium (2nd to Senna in Brazil) and win (Mexico) for the team in 1991.

[mikedeering]

JB had designed the '90 Ferrari. I guess, he was still there in '91, since there existed a Barnard-clause in Prost's contract. However, right now I haven't bothered with checking this.

Barnard left Ferrari during 1989 - the 641 used in 1990 was based on his 640 design with additional input from Steve Nichols, who was poached from McLaren at the end of 1989. John Barnard was responsible for the Benetton B191. I haven't bothered checking this, but I am sure of it.

Hmmm, the presumed Williams profile didn't fit at all with that of Mansell , did it?
Good ole Nigel wasn't exactly know for his painstakingly meticulous way of analyzing telemetry, was he?

I never said he was - I stated Williams needed a top line driver. But that said, I believe Williams were impressed with Nigel's feedback on the FW16 in 1994.

I think so. Both Patrese (2) and Boutsen (3) won races with the new Renault engine in 1989/90 and Renault's rapid progress, after re-entering the sport, made clear their intent. The Boutsen/Patrese partnership were consistent points scorers throughout 1990 with both drivers scoring points in the final three races of the year. The team were clearly on an upward curve.

Patrese won only once in 1989-90 - at Imola. This was after Senna and Mansell had retired, and Berger was hampered in a cockpit still far too small for him at that stage of the season. Prost I believe had engine problems, which explained his under par performance in taking 4th.

Boutsen won at Canada and Australia in 1989 only after Senna had retired. Only in Hungary 1990 did a Williams actually lead from the start of the race. The tight nature of the Hungaroring meant no one could get past Boutsen - the train of cars following him throughout the race suggested the Williams race pace was not that of Ferrari, McLaren or Benetton, if only they could get past.

That Williams were regular point scorers does not indicate race pace - in Japan for example, Senna, Prost and Berger were out by the start of lap 2, Mansell retired at half distance, leaving Piquet and Moreno to take a 1-2 for Benetton. Aguri Suzuki took third for Lola/Larrousse. So in a rcae where the four fastest cars retired, Williams could still not get on the podium. And this was the penultimate race of 1990!

Hardly. The team had returned to the top of the podium quickly after an abysmal 1988. However, FW recognised the need for a topline driver and Mansell was available after "retiring". While Boutsen was discarded after not producing the results expected (see also Frentzen) Patrese was an invaluable part of the team, a fact recognised by Mansell ("If he maintains this form Riccardo is going to beat everyone.") and Frank Williams ("Why do we keep Patrese? Because he's bloody good"). His commitment to testing and development contributed enormously to Mansell's title and don't forget he outqualified Mansell in the first seven races, and gained the first podium (2nd to Senna in Brazil) and win (Mexico) for the team in 1991.

Mansell was running ahead of Patrese in Brazil, but his car expired... Mansell would have won in Canada, but his car expired...Mexico was a good performance from Riccardo, but after that it was all Mansell in 1991-92. Patrese was well beaten - over 2 seconds slower in qualifying at Silverstone for example.

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Mexico was a good performance from Riccardo, but after that it was all Mansell in 1991-92.

Patrese's performance in those first seven races was impressive and it remains a fact that he got the most out of the Williams and was quicker. holiday's point about "equal cars" is significant and a comment Riccardo Patrese made to me at the start of the 1992 season is telling: "If the material I had was exactly the same I could win races."
Certainly from the mid-point of the 1991 season Nigel Mansell took the initiative. As he had signed for Williams solely to secure the WDC I doubt if he was too keen on being beaten by his team-mate.
Perhaps the single most impressive lap of 1991 was Patrese's to secure pole in Portugal. He did so after his own car failed meaning he had to use Nigel's spare car (Mansell always had first call on the spare) to secure the fastest lap right at the end of the session with a gap of 0.6s over his "team leader" in 4th. "If the material I had was exactly the same I could win races."...
I guess that you would say this was another race that Mansell should have won. Maybe. But the fact remains that Riccardo won the race just as he had out perfomed Mansell at the beginning of 1991.

[holiday]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Barnard left Ferrari during 1989 - the 641 used in 1990 was based on his 640 design with additional input from Steve Nichols, who was poached from McLaren at the end of 1989. John Barnard was responsible for the Benetton B191. I haven't bothered checking this, but I am sure of it.

You are right, JB went to benetton after the '89 season.
It must have been a Nichols clause in Prost's contract.

I never said he was - I stated Williams needed a top line driver. But that said, I believe Williams were impressed with Nigel's feedback on the FW16 in 1994.

Just let me be picky.;) You spoke of Mansell as "a decent driver capable of developing the car" and that "Patrese & Boutsen weren't up to the task".
Mansell wasn't never even near of being a devolopment driver. In fact, quite the contrary.
Patrese however, was well known (and appreciated by FW) for his development skills.


Here you are committing the same mistakes as in our Prost-Senna discussion if I dare to say so:

Mansell would have won in Canada, but his car expired...

We all know why...

Mansell was running ahead of Patrese in Brazil, but his car expired...

race description:
By lap fifty-nine rain had been falling on the track enough to make the surface quite treacherous. Mansell was seemingly caught out and spun his FW14. Mansell claimed that the spin was a result of a gear selection problem. It was a commonly held opinion at the time that this was not entirely true. If it was the gear box’s fault Mansell exacted his revenge by trashing it, as well as the rest of the transmission and his tyres as he was too aggressive as he “power spin” his Williams around to face the correct direction. He had to retire a few yards down the track as his Williams pathetically coasted to a halt.


The pilot drives the car and the car is being driven by the pilot. It's one unit. You can separate them in thought, but not in reality! There ARE drivers which wear down material much sooner than others. That aspect has to be factored in every evaluation, otherwise you may be speaking of anything, but not of MOTORsport!

Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when their clutch being replaced every 12.000 kilometers or so...

[holiday]

Originally posted by Maldwyn
holiday's point about "equal cars" is significant and a comment Riccardo Patrese made to me at the start of the 1992 season is telling: "If the material I had was exactly the same I could win races."

I am afraid I was a bit misleading there.
This was meant as a reference to some prior discussion between mikedeering and me about Honda's role in the battle between Prost and Senna. I pointed out that there are strong reasons to believe that Honda prefered Senna up to a point where it was justified that one can speak of Prost getting clearly inferior material.

Regarding to Patrese and Mansell at Williams, I remember that once - after RP raising suspicions about inferior material - NM and RP were in fact changing their cars! NM in Patrese's car and RP in Mansell's car: Mansell - according to his own account - actually was lapping one second faster than Patrese.

As a person I found Patrese always a really nice bloke.
Mansell too will be remembered as a personality, though..uh..rather differently.

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by holiday
I am afraid I was a bit misleading there.

Apologies if I misunderstood but the issue of equal cars/status is an important one and the situation at McLaren could be said to have been repeated in some ways at Williams. Although Williams were at pains to say there was no number one (Sheridan Thynne was insistent on this point) there can be little doubt that Mansell was given priority. For example, he always had first call on the spare car. In many ways this was understandable given his record, his salary and his status, never mind his own demands on the team, however Patrese's competitiveness, particularly at the beginning of 1991, further strengthened his stature within Williams. As it turned out Mansell & Patrese were the perfect combination.

Originally posted by holiday
Mansell - according to his own account - actually was lapping one second faster than Patrese.

But he would say that wouldn't he After being outpaced in the first seven races of '91 it was Mansell who asked that Patrese test his car to "help him find some speed".

[Gary C]

Yes indeed, nice website! Some great pictures. I always loved Nigel in a race car, right up to his two years in Indycars. Wasn't it Milwaukee where he lapped EVERYONE in the field?? Amazing! The thing I liked most about him though, was that he was a real RACER.
Just one thing about the site : on the first page, where we have the opportunity to view the site in either French or English, why do we have an American flag? At the risk of offending our American friends (and heaven knows, I have enough of them), shouldn't it really be a Union Jack??? After all, it's the English language, not the American!! Other than that, great job!

[mikedeering]

You are right, JB went to benetton after the '89 season.
It must have been a Nichols clause in Prost's contract.

Sorry who is right???

Just let me be picky. You spoke of Mansell as "a decent driver capable of developing the car" and that "Patrese & Boutsen weren't up to the task".
Mansell wasn't never even near of being a devolopment driver. In fact, quite the contrary.
Patrese however, was well known (and appreciated by FW) for his development skills.

If Patrese was so great, why did Williams, most uncharacteristically, give in to all of Mansell's demands in order to sign him for 91?

Here you are committing the same mistakes as in our Prost-Senna discussion if I dare to say so:

That's just plain arrogance - you should state something like "we have a difference of opinion similar to our Prost-Senna discussion."


race description:
By lap fifty-nine rain had been falling on the track enough to make the surface quite treacherous. Mansell was seemingly caught out and spun his FW14. Mansell claimed that the spin was a result of a gear selection problem. It was a commonly held opinion at the time that this was not entirely true. If it was the gear box’s fault Mansell exacted his revenge by trashing it, as well as the rest of the transmission and his tyres as he was too aggressive as he “power spin” his Williams around to face the correct direction. He had to retire a few yards down the track as his Williams pathetically coasted to a halt.

Do we have a source on that description? I don't doubt it's authenticity, but the manner of it suggests it was hardly written by a pro-Mansell fan...

There ARE drivers which wear down material much sooner than others. That aspect has to be factored in every evaluation, otherwise you may be speaking of anything, but not of MOTORsport!

The car should always be able to withstand the punishment of the driver - didn't Enzo Ferrari say something along those lines...

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by mikedeering
If Patrese was so great, why did Williams, most uncharacteristically, give in to all of Mansell's demands in order to sign him for 91

It was clear that Williams & Renault wanted a top line name to lead their championship challenge and Nigel was available (unlike Prost and Senna) having apparently "retired". He was also a multiple GP winner and a proven championship challenger at Williams in 1986/7 and it was felt that he was the man to complete the team that would challenge for the title having already prepared the ground in 1989/90.
Frank Williams felt that Patrese was "the best partner you could have for another driver" which is why he, and not Boutsen, was retained to partner Mansell. From the start of the 1991 season Riccardo said "there was no number one or number two. Of course the team had a lot of respect for Nigel but inside the team we were completely equal."

[mikedeering]

Hey, I never said Riccardo was bad guy! I agree he was an excellent number 2, and from what I saw, as a person he was far easier to get along with than Mansell. I entered this debate on whether Mansell lucked into the best car and was therefore underserving of his 92 Title. I disputed this - as my earlier post states, Williams were not exactly looking like contenders in 1990, and that Mansell contributed in part to the rise of the team in 91. That is exactly why Frank signed him. He was the best driver available.

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Hey, I never said Riccardo was bad guy!

I don't recall suggesting that you did. My points have merely been raised in response to questions/points you have raised:
Was the Williams really a good package to have going into 1991?
Williams were in such a state in mid 1990
Mexico was a good performance from Riccardo, but after that it was all Mansell in 1991-92.
If Patrese was so great, why did Williams...give in to all of Mansell's demands?

Originally posted by mikedeering
...I entered this debate on whether Mansell lucked into the best car and was therefore underserving of his 92 Title. I disputed this

The discussion has moved on from there a little

[mikedeering]

Nice Patrese web site Maldwyn. I particularly enjoyed Hamilton's reports from Autocourse 1984 and 1985! Although Hamilton's assessment at the time was spot on, it does prove it's always dangerous to write some one off!

[Maldwyn]

Thanks Good to see that Hamilton was proved so wrong
Patrese's natural talent didn't have much of a chance to shine in that Euroracing Alfa did it.

[Haddock]

Nobody and nothing really did shine in the Euroracing Alfa, as I remember.

I might be wrong, but didn't Euroracing go on to team up with Walter Brun to form EuroBrun. or was that someone else.

The 1988 EuroBrun bears a distinct similarity to the 1985 Alfa, though that may be no more than coincidence

And three years down the line was even more desperately uncompetitive

[Maldwyn]

Andrea de Cesaris put in some good performances during 1983 for the Marlboro Alfa team, qualifying 3rd in Belgium & Germany and finishing 2nd in Germany & South Africa.
Having been promised good things by the team for 1984/5 Cheever & Patrese languished in the lower regions of the midfield and suffered appalling reliability