96 replies to this topic

[Eff One 2002]

No better than Coulthard? No better than Hill? Worse than the two aforementioned? WDC? Second to Schuey but gave him more headaches than Hill or Coulthard did? How do you think Mansell would have done had the 1995 Williams lineup been Mansell and Hill? Personally I think he would have beaten Hill had the car suited him since it was very competetive and Mansell had already proven what he can do with a dominant car just 3 years prior. I still think Schuey would have been WDC though. So I'd say 2nd in the WDC for Mansell, 3rd for Hill in an alternate 1995.

[PorcupineTroy]

Wasn't Mansell out of shape at the start of the 1995 season?

[BullHead]

By his (almost) own admission, he was too heavy and slow...

[George Costanza]

Michael would have won it, still.

'95 was the start of prime Michael.

If Williams had say, Jean Alesi or Mika Hakkinen... different story.

[Meanbeakin]

Depends if signing with Williams would've changed Nigel's motivation.

[Wander]

I think he was past it at that point.

[Eff One 2002]

Anyway, back to the topic I'm surprised at the 5 votes that think Mansell would have taken the WDC...

[wj_gibson]

No better than Coulthard? No better than Hill? Worse than the two aforementioned? WDC? Second to Schuey but gave him more headaches than Hill or Coulthard did? How do you think Mansell would have done had the 1995 Williams lineup been Mansell and Hill? Personally I think he would have beaten Hill had the car suited him since it was very competetive and Mansell had already proven what he can do with a dominant car just 3 years prior. I still think Schuey would have been WDC though. So I'd say 2nd in the WDC for Mansell, 3rd for Hill in an alternate 1995.

I recall Nigel Roebuck at the time writing that Frank Williams and Patrick Head considered Mansell to be past his best and Coulthard to be a more promising prospect.

Plus, they doubtless recalled the whole 1992 soap opera all too well.

[ensign14]

Anyway, back to the topic I'm surprised at the 5 votes that think Mansell would have taken the WDC...

A properly motivated Mansell would have won it. Remember he poled at Adelaide the year before. The speed was still there.

[Eff One 2002]

A properly motivated Mansell would have won it. Remember he poled at Adelaide the year before. The speed was still there.

Yup, don't get me wrong I think he could have taken the WDC in 1995 as well as I always rated Mansell very highly and was always a fan, although I still say Schuey would have been more likely to have taken it in the end as he was young and coming into his prime. I just didn't think many others shared that opinion.

[LiJu914]

A properly motivated Mansell would have won it. Remember he poled at Adelaide the year before. The speed was still there.

MSC got a pole this year (in a car that had a smaller advantage - if at all - than the Williams had at the end of 94) , but didn´t make the impression that he was still wdc material in general.

Adelaide was the only highlight of Mansell´s performances in 94 and 95 - otherwise he was always quite clearly behind his teammates Hill and Hakkinen.

So no, he wouldn´t have won and would only have beaten his teammate, if Hill would have made exactly the same amount of mistakes, that he actually did...but not on outright speed.

Edited by LiJu914, 16 December 2012 - 11:30.

[ensign14]

He was making cameo appearances. With a full pre- and in-season testing programme he would have been setting the pace. But again only if motivated - although a winning car, and trying to prove Frank & Patrick wrong, might have been that motivation.

[garoidb]

He was making cameo appearances. With a full pre- and in-season testing programme he would have been setting the pace. But again only if motivated - although a winning car, and trying to prove Frank & Patrick wrong, might have been that motivation.

He could have done well, but it is impossible to speculate about winning the WDC (although I would not be one of those who would rule it out).

Wasn't there a contract dispute around Couthard at the end of 1994, where McLaren wanted to sign him but Williams held a contract. Williams must have known there was a risk, if not a probability or certainty, that Coulthard would leave at the end of 1995. It is regrettable for Nigel, then, that Williams elected not to bring him back for a year.

[PayasYouRace]

I would expect that he would have been beaten by Damon overall but not by much. Perhaps a bit better than DC's season due to his experience. It might have given Williams the WCC, but Schumi was out of touch that year.

[Massa_f1]

I think if he had done all the correct build up to the season, and was in shape and really wanted to fight, he would of give Schumacher a good run. Like it or not that Williams car in 95 was very fast. However Hill and DC had poor seasons.

[santori]

I don't think he'd have matched Hill. But he might still have been good for the team, in that Damon would have gained confidence from beating him and he'd have provided support that the inexperienced Coulthard couldn't.

Damon had the speed in 1995 but probably wasn't ready to lead the team, at least not against someone as relentless as Michael. With Mansell alongside him... well, he probably still wouldn't have won the champiosnhip but I'd guess that it would have been closer.

Edited by santori, 16 December 2012 - 12:23.

[Ross Stonefeld]

He was making cameo appearances. With a full pre- and in-season testing programme he would have been setting the pace. But again only if motivated - although a winning car, and trying to prove Frank & Patrick wrong, might have been that motivation.

That's what doesn't make sense. Did he completely stop caring after Adelaide or something?

[Longtimefan]

in 1995 the Williams was still by far the best car, I think he would have been 2nd to Michael in the championship.
Michael was in top form in 95.

[seahawk]

Impossible to say. Give Nigel a full preparation for the season and full motivation, he might be giving Michael a hard fight, but the question is would Mansell be up to it?

[BetaVersion]

A properly motivated Mansell would have won it. Remember he poled at Adelaide the year before. The speed was still there.

He poled because his car was much faster, in qualifying, than Benetton.

All Mansell got to do was beat Hill once in Q.

[Boing 2]

Motivation? well in 93 he was racing on ovals with a hole ripped in his back muscles that had to be drained before he got in the car, in 94 he had a ferocious race with Alesi at a saturated Suzuka. I think when there's a win on the cards (as there undoubtedly would have been in 95) he would give it everything, he most certainly would have given Schumacher a much harder time wheel to wheel than Hill. The only question mark would have been over his consistency which was always a Schumacher strong point.

[Boing 2]

He poled because his car was much faster, in qualifying, than Benetton.

All Mansell got to do was beat Hill once in Q.

Bearing in mind that Adelaide 94 was one of Hills best drives of the season and that Mansell had been out of the car for 2 years I think that was a bigger achievement than it sounds.

[scheivlak]

Anyway, from what we've seen of him in 1995 he would have been beaten by Coulthard and Hill.

[MansellsMoustache]

IIRC, Adrian Newey was quoted as saying in Maurice Hamilton's book about Williams that if they had signed Mansell for '95 they would have won the championship. I'll double check that when I have the book to hand.

[MansellsMoustache]

Yes, found it - pg 277 to quote Newey "If Nigel had been in the car for the whole of 1995, I believe he would have won the championship. When he made a few guest appearances in 1994 he showed great speed but not the fitness and stamina to carry it through. I'd certainly pushed through the winter of 1994 to have Nigel in the car alongside Damon, but Frank wouldn't have that for whatever reason, so we had David. I have nothing against David of course; he's a great guy. But he wasn't very experienced at that point and he wasn't going to win the championship in 1995, whereas Nigel could have done."

So the guy who actually designed the car thought the man would have won with it. Also this reveals he didn't/doesn't rate Hill all that much.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Not really, I don't think anyone would have put Damon above Mansell in the mid 90s.

[ensign14]

That's what doesn't make sense. Did he completely stop caring after Adelaide or something?

Pretty much, he wanted the Williams drive and McLaren was a poor substitute. Per his autobiog, "my motivation has always been to compete at the highest level - to win and to mount a serious assault on the World Championship. It quickly became apparent that this wasn't going to happen with McLaren."

[garoidb]

So the guy who actually designed the car thought the man would have won with it. Also this reveals he didn't/doesn't rate Hill all that much.

Hill did not drive well enough in 1995. We don't have to speculate about that. We know Hill didn't win.

I gather that Newey was against Hill being dropped in 1996, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he didn't rate Hill that much.

[PayasYouRace]

So the guy who actually designed the car thought the man would have won with it. Also this reveals he didn't/doesn't rate Hill all that much.

Only that he rated Nigel higher. That's Mansell, one of the all time greats and part of the big four of the late 80s/early 90s.

Hill had a bad one in 1995. Sometimes people forget how much he upped his game for 1996.

I for one would have been fascinated to watch Mansell in Red 5 in 1995 (I assume Frank would have entered him in car 5 and Hill in car 6 had that happened).

[wj_gibson]

There may also have been a sense in the team that it owed Hill something for helping pull the team round after Imola, and that signing Mansell as a "big ticket" to partner someone who had run Schumacher to within 1 point in the 1994 standings was not quite the way to do that. I know Williams is not exactly famed for its sentimentality, but on that occasion I think it may well have done so (as would only be expected).

[LiJu914]

He was making cameo appearances. With a full pre- and in-season testing programme he would have been setting the pace. But again only if motivated - although a winning car, and trying to prove Frank & Patrick wrong, might have been that motivation.

Well the "prime Mansell" had - on average - the best material out of all active drivers from the end of 1985 til the end of 1992 - in the end, he got one WDC (in a car, which would´ve made Patrese a WDC, if Mansell would´ve missed). He had bad luck, especially in 1991 - but in the end he only looked really close to winning a WDC, when the car had a significant pace-advantage.

I tend to think that the Williams was the faster car in 95, but imho it was not as superior (in terms of pace) as the Williams´of 86,87,91,92.

So no, i don´t think Mansell would´ve done it.

Edited by LiJu914, 16 December 2012 - 18:36.

[George Costanza]

in 1995 the Williams was still by far the best car, I think he would have been 2nd to Michael in the championship.
Michael was in top form in 95.

Agreed. If Mika was in the '95 Williams, he would have taken the title, IMO, but we'll never know.

[George Costanza]

Well the "prime Mansell" had - on average - the best material out of all active drivers from the end of 1985 til the end of 1992 - in the end, he got one WDC (in a car, which would´ve made Patrese a WDC, if Mansell would´ve missed</b>). He had bad luck, especially in 1991 - but in the end he only looked really close to winning a WDC, when the car had a significant pace-advantage.

I tend to think that the Williams was the faster car in 95, but imho it was not as superior (in terms of pace) as the Williams´of 86,87,91,92.

So no, i don´t think Mansell would´ve done it.

IF Mansell wasn't there, Riccardo would not been WDC, it would have been Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna. (you really think Riccardo would have hold those two off? I like Riccardo but he wasn't WDC material compared to Schu or Senna.

Senna would have won it in the 3rd best car or Schumacher in his 2nd season. Imagine that? Senna beating that mighty Williams FW14B or Schu beating in only first full season of F1. At that point, I am unsure who would have won it in '92.

Edited by George Costanza, 16 December 2012 - 18:56.

[LiJu914]

IF Mansell wasn't there, Riccardo would not been WDC, it would have been Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna. (you really think Riccardo would have hold those two off? I like Riccardo but he wasn't WDC material compared to Schu or Senna.

Senna would have won it in the 3rd best car or Schumacher in his 2nd season. Imagine that? Senna beating that mighty Williams FW14B or Schu beating in only first full season of F1.

Without Mansell Patrese would´ve won 7 out of his 10 race finishes....

[George Costanza]

Without Mansell Patrese would´ve won 7 out of his 10 race finishes....

Yes, that's true, but I don't think Frank Williams would have had Riccardo has his #1 driver.

Maybe Senna would have went to Williams (or even Alain Prost).

Edited by George Costanza, 16 December 2012 - 19:00.

[LiJu914]

Yes, that's true, but I don't think Frank Williams would have had Riccardo has his #1 driver.

Maybe Senna would have went to Williams (or even Alain Prost).

Well, that´s not really the point. It was just a hypothetical scenario (in which nobody replaces Mansell) to underline the pace advantage of the car.

Edited by LiJu914, 16 December 2012 - 19:11.

[santori]

Maybe not Patrese, but I think Thierry Boutsen could well have won the 1992 championship in the Williams. Very underrated driver, Boutsen. The Frentzen of his day: a little vulnerable, perhaps, and given to tinkering but very, very fast.

[George Costanza]

Maybe not Patrese, but I think Thierry Boutsen could well have won the 1992 championship in the Williams. Very underrated driver, Boutsen. The Frentzen of his day: a little vulnerable, perhaps, and given to tinkering but very, very fast.

I agree. He was very fast in Sportscar racing and did very well and I think he would have won in '92.

Edited by George Costanza, 16 December 2012 - 19:29.

[ensign14]

Well the "prime Mansell" had - on average - the best material out of all active drivers from the end of 1985 til the end of 1992 - in the end, he got one WDC (in a car, which would´ve made Patrese a WDC, if Mansell would´ve missed). He had bad luck, especially in 1991 - but in the end he only looked really close to winning a WDC, when the car had a significant pace-advantage.

Well, he didn't have the best material in 1985 and from 1988 to 1991, any system where you can win 6 races to your team-mate's 3 and still be "beaten" by him is so monumentally, cretinously, brain-wrenchingly moronic as not to be taken seriously by anyone with a triple-digit IQ, and the '86 was his had Goodyear not had a batch of iffy rubber, so basically Mansell was the most successful in the world when he had one of the best cars. Which makes him different to approximately zero other drivers.

[Jejking]

No better than Coulthard? No better than Hill? Worse than the two aforementioned? WDC? Second to Schuey but gave him more headaches than Hill or Coulthard did? How do you think Mansell would have done had the 1995 Williams lineup been Mansell and Hill? Personally I think he would have beaten Hill had the car suited him since it was very competetive and Mansell had already proven what he can do with a dominant car just 3 years prior. I still think Schuey would have been WDC though. So I'd say 2nd in the WDC for Mansell, 3rd for Hill in an alternate 1995.

"Just 3 years prior". Are you hearing yourself? 1993 was without Mansell, 1994 too for the greatest part. He didn't have time on his side, like Schumacher had in his comeback. I can't see him beating Hill, Coulthard ,aybe (who was faster but less experienced, more prone to errors).

[LiJu914]

Well, he didn't have the best material in 1985 and from 1988 to 1991

That doesn´t contradict to, what i said.

, any system where you can win 6 races to your team-mate's 3 and still be "beaten" by him is so monumentally, cretinously, brain-wrenchingly moronic as not to be taken seriously by anyone with a triple-digit IQ, .

So you would´ve voted for Bernies´ medal-system? And you would´ve also mourned, if Raikkonen had won in 2003 (1 win) instead of MSC (6 wins), right?

and the '86 was his had Goodyear not had a batch of iffy rubber, so basically Mansell was the most successful in the world when he had one of the best cars. Which makes him different to approximately zero other drivers

Mansell had not considerably worse luck than Prost or Piquet in 86, period. The tyre blower was only dramatic, because it happened in the last race - but over the whole season there weren´t really signifcant differences. I already said on another occasion: If neither Webber nor Vettel would´ve won in 2010, they would´ve been regarded as complete idiots in here. That is basically what both Williams guys failed to do that season (and Vettel would´ve at least had the excuse, that he really was significantly disadvantaged regarding reliability...unlike Mansell).
And btw. being in a team capable of winning the WDC in 86,87,90,91,92 and winning one is hardly "most succesful".

Edited by LiJu914, 16 December 2012 - 20:19.

[garoidb]

Well, he didn't have the best material in 1985 and from 1988 to 1991

The 1990 Ferrari was very competitive and capable of challenging for the WDC.

[PayasYouRace]

Well the "prime Mansell" had - on average - the best material out of all active drivers from the end of 1985 til the end of 1992 - in the end, he got one WDC (in a car, which would´ve made Patrese a WDC, if Mansell would´ve missed). He had bad luck, especially in 1991 - but in the end he only looked really close to winning a WDC, when the car had a significant pace-advantage.

I tend to think that the Williams was the faster car in 95, but imho it was not as superior (in terms of pace) as the Williams´of 86,87,91,92.

So no, i don´t think Mansell would´ve done it.

Shall we test that with average WCC position?

Prost - 1.8
Senna - 1.7
Mansell - 2.4
Piquet - 3.2

Quantitatively your claim doesn't stack up, and I don't think it does qualitatively either. Mansell didn't have any particular advantage in in any year apart from 1992. Next was 1987, and he had all the bad luck that year. He had the measure of Piquet and could have been champion had he not had that Suzuka injury. As for 1986, the Williams was not as far ahead as it was in 1987. The FW11 was new and had great potential, but the mature MP4/2C and superb 98T had serious strengths that year. It wasn't like the following year when the FW11B hit it's peak, the MP4/3 was losing out in the engine race and the 99T wasn't a big enough step forward.

[garoidb]

Quantitatively your claim doesn't stack up, and I don't think it does qualitatively either. Mansell didn't have any particular advantage in in any year apart from 1992. Next was 1987, and he had all the bad luck that year. He had the measure of Piquet and could have been champion had he not had that Suzuka injury. As for 1986, the Williams was not as far ahead as it was in 1987. The FW11 was new and had great potential, but the mature MP4/2C and superb 98T had serious strengths that year. It wasn't like the following year when the FW11B hit it's peak, the MP4/3 was losing out in the engine race and the 99T wasn't a big enough step forward.

Don't forget that Piquet was injured at San Marino after a tyre failure, and missed the race (won by Mansell). Mansell's accident was a driver error. Mansell still needed 12 points from the 18 available to win the WDC (Piquet was into dropping points by then, so only first or second would have increased his total).

[Eff One 2002]

"Just 3 years prior". Are you hearing yourself?

Yeah, I'm hearing myself fine. 3 years prior to 1995, in 1992 Mansell won the WDC. 2 years later he comes back for 4 races in 1994 and in those 4 races, he qualifies 2nd on comeback at Magny Cours, qualifies 3rd at Jerez, (and, admittedly screws up and throws it into the scenery in the race) qualifies and finishes 4th at Suzuka in trecherous conditions where mandy drivers aquaplane off the track after an awesome battle with Jean Alesi's Ferrari and takes pole wins at Adelaide and scored the same number of points from those 4 races as Coulthard amassed in the 8 he competed in. He still had what it took and even though Mansell was 41 in 1995 and didn't have time on his side, given a full season of competition with proper preparation and motivation, Mansell could well have been a serious championship threat had he driven a full season for Williams in 1995.

Edited by Eff One 2002, 16 December 2012 - 20:38.

[Disgrace]

Mansell was already being out-qualified and out-raced by Hill in '94, not to mention the errors in Jerez and in Adelaide at the same corner Michael crashed. He would not have been in serious title contention in my opinion, assuming he would also inherit the unreliability of Coulthard's '95 Williams.

Edited by Disgrace, 16 December 2012 - 20:35.

[LiJu914]

Shall we test that with average WCC position?

Prost - 1.8
Senna - 1.7
Mansell - 2.4
Piquet - 3.2

Not unless you tell me what the meaning of that statistic might be?

From the end of 85 onwards Mansell was in teams capable of winning the WDC in 5 out 7 seasons (won 1).
For Senna it was 4 out 7 (won 3).
For Prost it was 4 out of 6 (won 2).
For Piquet it was 2 out of 6 (won 1).

... I don't think it does qualitatively either. Mansell didn't have any particular advantage in in any year apart from 1992. Next was 1987, and he had all the bad luck that year. He had the measure of Piquet and could have been champion had he not had that Suzuka injury. As for 1986, the Williams was not as far ahead as it was in 1987. The FW11 was new and had great potential, but the mature MP4/2C and superb 98T had serious strengths that year. It wasn't like the following year when the FW11B hit it's peak, the MP4/3 was losing out in the engine race and the 99T wasn't a big enough step forward.

87: Piquet also got injured that year, strangely that never matters for many people...
86: Yeah the Williams in 86 was not quite as good as the car of 87, but it was still clearly the car to have. As we know Rosberg was the teammate of Mansell in 85 and then he joined McLaren, just look at the difference between him and Mansell in 85 and 86...
The Ferrari of 90 was a contender - i don´t see why it should be considered slower than the McLaren. It´s right that Nigel´s DNF-rate was too high to be in the hunt (however he didn´t even finish 3rd or 4th, but 5th)
The FW14 was clearly the fastest car in 91 and Mansell would´ve won, if he hadn´t lost three wins (Canada, Belgium, Portugal) - but if the roles had been reversed (Senna in the Williams, Mansell at McLaren) i´m quite convinced that Williams would´ve won the WDC despite the retirement-rate.

But to be clear:
The main reason, why i don´t rate Mansell that highly (only speaking of WDC´s here, he was of course a great driver), aren´t the championships, that he "lost" - even though i think, the excuse-list is often too long. It´s more his other seasons, why i doubt that he was really special. De Angelis had usually the measure of him, Rosberg wasn´t less succesful in 85, he wasn´t faster than Berger in 89 (Mansell scored more points - but in this case it was Mansell, who had better reliability. On the rare occasion that the Ferrari didn´t break down, they had basically the same results).

Edited by LiJu914, 16 December 2012 - 23:04.

[garoidb]

De Angelis had usually the measure of him, Rosberg wasn´t less succesful in 85, he wasn´t faster than Berger in 89 (Mansell scored more points - but in this case it was Mansell, who had better reliability. On the rare occasion that the Ferrari didn´t break down, they had basically the same results).

In truth, De Angelis was very good. He impressed against Senna too (not saying he beat him (he didn't), but then neither did anyone else, even Prost).

[LiJu914]

In truth, De Angelis was very good.

That doesn´t really change, that being beaten by him for the largest part of the 4 years together, doesn´t put the brightest light on Mansell, does it?

[garoidb]

That doesn´t really change, that being beaten by him for the largest part of the 4 years together, doesn´t put the brightest light on Mansell, does it?

I'm not a huge Mansell fan, but I just wanted to put that point into context. A whole thread could be devoted to Mansell's time at Lotus.