116 replies to this topic

[Wally123]

I've just been reading an article on Riccardo Patrese and he mentions the 91 and 92 cars were chalk and cheese in terms of how to drive them, the later model with all its gizmos basically removed for the need of finesse and paved way for brute force. Mansell was a hefty driver with lots of strength and was able to master the car, I wonder if any driver past or present could have beat him that year?

Despite finishing the year 4th in the points table behind eventual champion Senna, runner up Mansell and Senna's McLaren team mate Gerhard Berger, it was clear more was to come from the Williams Renault package and that it would be a serious threat to McLaren Honda for 1992. An intense winter test programme followed and would prove to lay the foundations of the team's most successful campaign yet. While Mansell trained in the sunshine of Clearwater, Florida, Patrese confirms he and Damon Hill weren't so fortunate: "Myself and Damon did all the pre-season testing and because I was setting competitive times, I was very confident of going for the championship that year. The car was superb and for its time, miles ahead of anything. The aerodynamics were outstanding but ultimately, the characteristics of that car didn't suit my driving style as much as they did Nigel's."

With the sport now entering a new age, the age of the 'driver aids', Patrese knew that despite undoubtedly making the car considerably faster than it's predecessor, they hindered his natural driving style. They ultimately, cost him any chance of a shot at the championship.

"The '91 chassis required smoothness out of slow corners, which was my strength and Nigel's weakness," the 56 year-old explains. "As soon as the 'gizmos' came in for '92, especially traction control and active ride suspension, all the 'feel' I needed from a car to enable me to drive fast, was gone. Because Nigel was so much stronger than me in the arms, he could carry more speed through a corner with the FW14B, muscle it around the track more aggressively. That was the fastest way to drive it and that's why he became champion."

[thiscocks]

Would anyone have beaten him? well obviously not- Patrese didnt.

 

Slight sour grapes from Riccardo on this issue to be honest. Its not like Mansell only just beat Patrese and the other competitors, he totally destroyed them. Wasnt he over 2sec quicker in qualifying than 2nd place at Spa? Fully deserved the title and I have no Idea why people keep playing the 'anyone could have won in that car' bullshit.

[Ross Stonefeld]

To me a 2 second gap says it's a bit more than the driver's ability...

[sennafan24]

Despite him having the best car by a mile, I have never begrudged Nige winning the 1992 Championship. It can't have been easy sharing the same era as Senna and Prost. I think his sterling efforts against Piquet legitimised him as a top driver.  

 

Mansell was always very strong. Berger has discussed how Nige could thrive when the car had a full fuel tank. Therefore, the regulations in 1992 suited him, whereas previous regulations had suited smaller drivers (such as Senna and Prost)

 

That being said, I think if Senna had been in Patrese's place, that Mansell would not have been Champion. By the early 90's, Senna's physical fitness was second to none. You only have to look at pictures from the mid-80's to tell the difference. Senna's results in 1992 were clouded by the McLaren's terrible reliability, and the odd spot of bad luck (he did make 2 race ending errors himself that year, but other driver made more). His form was still very strong.

 

Also, Patrese was 3rd ahead of Berger in the 1991 Championship standings.

[SpeedRacer`]

It's true that the cars became very physical because they were so quick, something which suited Mansell at that time. I think he would've beaten any active driver at the time easily (including Prost, if he was around) and even very close with Senna.

[Atreiu]

Senna and Schumacher (rookie or not) certainly. Prost wasn't there, but he made quick work of Mansell in 1990, so he'd be a safe bet too. Hill was only a rookie, but he impressed Williams himself, so he'd have a chance. Maybe Hakkinen, but there's no telling how he'd react to such a dominant car while he was so young.

 

But there would be nothing more exciting than having Alesi in the second FW14B.

 

He could be as fast as any and never lacked bravery, but if you take Mansell's career and do the math for all races he had WDC teammates (66 races in which both started. 33/33 in qualifying, 15 to 14 for the teammates in race wins, 37 to 24 for the teamates in podiums, 282 to 205 for the teammates in points scored), you quickly realize how incredible were the circumstances of 1992.

[FerrariV12]

While Patrese definitely suffered in comparison to Mansell with the changes from '91 to '92, it's not like he was destroying Mansell the previous year. Much was made of the fact he consistently outqualified him in the first few races, although in the races themselves Mansell would just as often be ahead before their cars broke down. USA, Brazil and Canada Mansell was the quicker in the race, at Imola Mansell made a woeful start and was spun out early on before the race really got going, and Patrese was ahead at Monaco before Modena's car deposited a large quantity of oil in front of his car exiting the tunnel with predictable results.

 

Patrese decisively beat Mansell in Mexico, but after that Nigel led the way starting with his three on the bounce from France to Germany that kick started his title challenge.

 

So yeah  I think Mansell would still have had a hard time from a Senna in the other car. Or Prost, although the scale by which he beat Mansell as a teammate is overblown a bit. He did score more than twice the points of Mansell, and was on balance the better of the two, but Mansell had more than twice as many DNFs, and headed Prost at (off the top of my head) Imola, Silverstone and Hungary with nothing to show for it by the end. I think two years later in the FW14B it would have been a much closer run thing and not a gimme for Prost.

 

Schumacher and Alesi I'm not as sure about. I can kind of see Alesi being a Jacques Villeneuve to Mansell's Damon Hill, quick out the blocks and getting quicker but lacking the consistency to get it done. With Schumacher nothing would surprise me, although it's worth mentioning that for many races in, say the final two thirds of that season, he wasn't that far ahead of Martin Brundle in some of the races and very occasionally behind. That probably says more about Brundle than anyone though to be honest.

[maverick69]

Nigel was physically the strongest driver on the grid - no contest.

 

He was also brave beyond belief.

 

So. Given the nature of the FW14B - I'd say that even the likes of Senna would have a hard time beating him...... all things being equal.

 

Mansell for the win.......

[63Corvette]

NO....because Nigel had the best car, BUT, if "it's so good that a monkey could drive it"...............then when Mansel quit, why didn't Frank just hire a monkey for 1993?

[aportinga]

While Patrese definitely suffered in comparison to Mansell with the changes from '91 to '92, it's not like he was destroying Mansell the previous year. Much was made of the fact he consistently outqualified him in the first few races, although in the races themselves Mansell would just as often be ahead before their cars broke down. USA, Brazil and Canada Mansell was the quicker in the race, at Imola Mansell made a woeful start and was spun out early on before the race really got going, and Patrese was ahead at Monaco before Modena's car deposited a large quantity of oil in front of his car exiting the tunnel with predictable results.

 

Patrese decisively beat Mansell in Mexico, but after that Nigel led the way starting with his three on the bounce from France to Germany that kick started his title challenge.

 

So yeah  I think Mansell would still have had a hard time from a Senna in the other car. Or Prost, although the scale by which he beat Mansell as a teammate is overblown a bit. He did score more than twice the points of Mansell, and was on balance the better of the two, but Mansell had more than twice as many DNFs, and headed Prost at (off the top of my head) Imola, Silverstone and Hungary with nothing to show for it by the end. I think two years later in the FW14B it would have been a much closer run thing and not a gimme for Prost.

 

Schumacher and Alesi I'm not as sure about. I can kind of see Alesi being a Jacques Villeneuve to Mansell's Damon Hill, quick out the blocks and getting quicker but lacking the consistency to get it done. With Schumacher nothing would surprise me, although it's worth mentioning that for many races in, say the final two thirds of that season, he wasn't that far ahead of Martin Brundle in some of the races and very occasionally behind. That probably says more about Brundle than anyone though to be honest.

 

This - well stated

[Henri Greuter]

Nigel was physically the strongest driver on the grid - no contest.

 

 

 

Then what happened with him one year later at Indycars when we saw all that drama-drag-queen performances of the totally exhausted winner of oval races, so worn out that yo actually wondered how he could have made it to the end in that condition he appeard to be in the minute after he parked the car?

 

 

On topic, I hate the thought about what Senna could have done with the Williams that year. Mansell any day over Senna for me, that's for sure

 

Henri

[Wally123]

Then what happened with him one year later at Indycars when we saw all that drama-drag-queen performances of the totally exhausted winner of oval races, so worn out that yo actually wondered how he could have made it to the end in that condition he appeard to be in the minute after he parked the car?

It added to the drama, Nige liked to put on a show.
On topic, I hate the thought about what Senna could have done with the Williams that year. Mansell any day over Senna for me, that's for sure

Henri

[DampMongoose]

I may be wrong but being physically strong hasn't much to do with fitness and stamina?  My father-in-law picks up fridges and washing machines and carries them like they're nothing, but in a race over a mile I'd beat him by about 3 quarters of a mile.  Patrese is talking about Nigel being strong in the arms, not fit.  Patrese was probably fitter than Mansell any day of the week.

[sennafan24]

I may be wrong but being physically strong hasn't much to do with fitness and stamina?  My father-in-law picks up fridges and washing machines and carries them like they're nothing, but in a race over a mile I'd beat him by about 3 quarters of a mile.  Patrese is talking about Nigel being strong in the arms, not fit.  Patrese was probably fitter than Mansell any day of the week.

You are correct. In High School, I was a pretty good long distance runner, but my physical strength was non-existent. 

 

However, you can train to achieve both. I would presume the likes of Senna, Mansell and later Schumi, were both strong and fit. 

Edited by sennafan24, 12 August 2015 - 18:41.

[PlatenGlass]

If it was just down to strong arms, why didn't Patrese put in a few more hours at the gym?

Anyway, it's difficult to tell how good Mansell would have been relative to another team-mate. When you're beating your team-mate by that much, it generally says more about them than you. I think Senna would have beaten him. Schumacher maybe too. Obviously he was fairly new to F1 so might have lost a few "rookie" points, but he was still very quick and also destroyed Patrese in 1993 in much the way Mansell did. And Prost as well probably would have done well against him with a good chance of winning. But of those, I've seen nothing to suggest that Mansell would have been favourite against Senna under any circumstances.

But if we're talking about past and present, then a later Schumacher certainly. Also lots of top drivers throughout history including some on the grid now. Unless we're suggesting that Mansell's 1992 was some sort of greatest-of-all-time year. It was a dominant car and he got good use out of it, yes, but so would many others.

[johnmhinds]

If the 1991 Williams suited Patrese more then why did he only win 2 races and Mansell won 5 races that year?

 

The results show Mansell was just a better driver than Patrese.

[Dolph]

Then what happened with him one year later at Indycars when we saw all that drama-drag-queen performances of the totally exhausted winner of oval races, so worn out that yo actually wondered how he could have made it to the end in that condition he appeard to be in the minute after he parked the car?

 

 

On topic, I hate the thought about what Senna could have done with the Williams that year. Mansell any day over Senna for me, that's for sure

 

Henri

 

 

Didn't Mansell suffer from a bad back injury for most of the season!? I believe that could have exhausted him.

[MLC]

If the 1991 Williams suited Patrese more then why did he only win 2 races and Mansell won 5 races that year?

 

The results show Mansell was just a better driver than Patrese.

 

I agree Mansell was better than Patrese, but I think there was a turning point at France. This is the race where Patrese was told (during the red flag period?) to let Mansell win. The wind was lost from his sails after that.

[chunder27]

I think of that era, Piquet, Senna, Prost and maybe Alesi could have won just as well in that car. I think the smoothness of a Boutsen could aslo have done well, but Patrese was a racer and a decent driver and was suddenly propelled to the second best drivers. He had shown none of this in the years before adn only glimpses of it later. So its safe to assume that car was indeed seconds  alap faster than anything else.

 

Do people think Alboreto and Berger would have dominated as Prost/Senna did in 88 if their drives were reversed? I tend to think not as those latter two were special.

 

Nigel was far from special, but he did achieve a lot against good team mates, he out drove Rosberg at the end of 85 and was usually quicker than Piquet in 86 and 87, though Piquet drive with his head a little more and was experienced enough to know you did not have win all the time with such an advantage.

[B Squared]

Then what happened with him one year later at Indycars when we saw all that drama-drag-queen performances of the totally exhausted winner of oval races, so worn out that yo actually wondered how he could have made it to the end in that condition he appeard to be in the minute after he parked the car?

 

 

I believe he vomited in his helmet during his Michigan 500 win; I'd think that's tough on anyone. I also worked Milwaukee (his first oval win) and remember none of what you speak on this occasion.  

 

Drag queen? When did he put on a skirt? Bruce Jenner may have still been doing TV reporting, possibly leading to that confusion.

 

edit: By the way, he broke his back in his early season Phoenix accident. He sure can act!

Edited by B Squared, 12 August 2015 - 19:53.

[Incast]

I agree Mansell was better than Patrese, but I think there was a turning point at France. This is the race where Patrese was told (during the red flag period?) to let Mansell win. The wind was lost from his sails after that.

 

That was 1992. In 1991 Mansell battled Prost for the win at Magny Cours.

 

There is something bizarre about the team orders in 92, it's up there with Austria 2002, but Mansell long had the upper hand before then.

[Silverstone96]

I always wondered what Alesi could have done in that 92 Williams....

[superden]

The car didn't suit my driving style.

The cry of every driver who came second.

[Wally123]

The cry of every driver who came second.

There must be some truth in it that quote tbh.

[George Costanza]

Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher would have beaten him in 1992, if they had roughly equal cars. I'd add Mika as well.

 

If Michael and Nigel in the same team, I'd say given Mike's age in 1992 (youth and not very experienced at that time), and Nigel's experience would have made the difference. Would give the edge to Nigel there.

 

But we'll never know how they would have reacted. But If we put, 1995 Schumacher, I think that would beat Mansell pretty often.

Edited by George Costanza, 12 August 2015 - 22:28.

[George Costanza]

Nigel was physically the strongest driver on the grid - no contest.

 

He was also brave beyond belief.

 

So. Given the nature of the FW14B - I'd say that even the likes of Senna would have a hard time beating him...... all things being equal.

 

Mansell for the win.......

 

Mansell/Senna? I think given that Ayrton gave Alain a very tough time, and Alain beat Nigel rather easily there, I think Ayrton would beat Nigel much as the same margin as Alain did.

Edited by George Costanza, 12 August 2015 - 22:22.

[George Costanza]

I always wondered what Alesi could have done in that 92 Williams....

 

He would have been pretty awesome, but I think Nigel would have beaten him.

[oetzi]

Do people think Alboreto and Berger would have dominated as Prost/Senna did in 88 if their drives were reversed? I tend to think not as those latter two were special.

They were both very good drivers. One of them would have won the championship.

[HP]

There was an article on Autosport years ago (can't find it right now), that gave some understanding why Mansell was so dominant in 92 vs. his team mate.

 

Had nothing to do with arm strength, but with corner entry, active suspension and bravery. On corner entry, they had to trust the car that active suspension would kick in and stabilise the car. For a "feel" driver like Patrese was, that was nothing he could handle well. Mansell however could do it.

 

So who else could have done it? Quite a number of drivers IMO, who are willing to throw the car into a corner and be confident that the active suspension will allow them to carry greater speed through the corner. But in 92 only 2 drivers were hired to drive that Williams, so we never know, who else would have it.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

The only thing I take away from the FW14 was that it was utterly dominant (not by fractions of a second, but at least one whole second a lap) and that Mansell beat his teammate Patrese. Mansell's style and willingness to throw the car into corners made him a compliment to he car's suspension and chassis.

 

I don't rate him that high because in 15 years and 4 different teams he only won one title in a dominant car, while his contemporaries such as Senna, Prost, and Schumacher achieved a lot more. He was good, he was quick, but he wasn't in their class.

[teejay]

He wasnt but there is no true shame in being beaten by Prost and Senna either. 

 

I reckon Senna would have wiped the floor with him personally. 

[Otaku]

I reckon Senna would have wiped the floor with him personally. 

 

 

Agree

[7MGTEsup]

I don't rate him that high because in 15 years and 4 different teams he only won one title in a dominant car, while his contemporaries such as Senna, Prost, and Schumacher achieved a lot more. He was good, he was quick, but he wasn't in their class.

 

I think that is a bit unfair. Nigel was unlucky not to be world champion in 86 and 87. In 1990 Nigel had a lot of DNF's due to mechanical issues which skewed the results a lot in Prosts favour.

[maverick69]

Mansell/Senna? I think given that Ayrton gave Alain a very tough time, and Alain beat Nigel rather easily there, I think Ayrton would beat Nigel much as the same margin as Alain did.

 

Again: I refer to the specific characteristics of the FW14B.

 

Despite all of the various driver aids on the car, you basically had to manhandle it and believe that it would respond.

 

Mansell was physically a very strong driver - with balls like watermelons. Senna and Prost were very slight in comparison (although more naturally talented - granted). 

 

If Mansell was to ever beat those guys - it would defo be in the 14B. And I reckon he would have........ whist moaning a lot.

Edited by maverick69, 13 August 2015 - 09:18.

[PlatenGlass]

If Patrese's problem was the active suspension reducing the feel, there's no evidence that Prost, Senna or Schumacher would have had the same problems. Patrese similarly suffered against Schumacher in 1993. Senna was at his best in 1993 with all the driver aids. Prost didn't have his best season ever but he was still decent enough.

I think people who are saying Mansell would have beaten anyone are reading too much into Patrese's form (again, refer to his 1993 form).

And if it really was down to arm strength do you really think the likes of Prost and Senna would just let that go? It's not just some innate ability you can do nothing about. There's such a thing as the gym...

[JtP2]

I never thought of Mansell as outstandingly brave. Possibly a total lack of imagination would be more accurate, You don't carry out some of Mansell's acts and when they go wrong, climb out the car and complain about what happened unless you never considered the consequences.

[ViMaMo]

There was an article on Autosport years ago (can't find it right now), that gave some understanding why Mansell was so dominant in 92 vs. his team mate.

 

Had nothing to do with arm strength, but with corner entry, active suspension and bravery. On corner entry, they had to trust the car that active suspension would kick in and stabilise the car. For a "feel" driver like Patrese was, that was nothing he could handle well. Mansell however could do it.

 

So who else could have done it? Quite a number of drivers IMO, who are willing to throw the car into a corner and be confident that the active suspension will allow them to carry greater speed through the corner. But in 92 only 2 drivers were hired to drive that Williams, so we never know, who else would have it.

 

Adaptable drivers? Clearly Patrese was not. 

[Collombin]

I don't rate him that high because in 15 years and 4 different teams he only won one title in a dominant car, while his contemporaries such as Senna, Prost, and Schumacher achieved a lot more. He was good, he was quick, but he wasn't in their class.

I completely agree with the conclusion, but not the reasoning behind it. As others have said, he was very unlucky to miss out in 1986 and 1987, but on the other hand 3 WDCs would have put him statistically above many others that had more talent.

[PayasYouRace]

Prost, Senna and Schumacher. These are the only names that I see people mentioning and that's probably damn right. The two greatest drivers of his generation and the greatest of the next. Mansell could easily take it to any of them but probably not often enough to beat them over a season.

[Nathan]

 

Then what happened with him one year later at Indycars when we saw all that drama-drag-queen performances of the totally exhausted winner of oval races, so worn out that yo actually wondered how he could have made it to the end in that condition he appeard to be in the minute after he parked the car?

 

Strength and endurance are two different things.  I have little opinion of Mansell, but being as large/strong as he was, he naturally would use more oxygen and calories doing the same job as someone smaller.  It's why light-weight boxers can slug it out and heavy-weights get gassed.

Edited by Nathan, 13 August 2015 - 15:04.

[beute]

Strength and endurance are two different things.  I have little opinion of Mansell, but being as large/strong as he was, he naturally would use more oxygen and calories doing the same job as someone smaller.  It's why light-weight boxers can slug it out and heavy-weights get gassed.

can this strength thing please stop?

 

F1 drivers are not strong, none of them and it doesnt matter.

It's not really a factor.

[Counterbalance]

can this strength thing please stop?

F1 drivers are not strong, none of them and it doesnt matter.
It's not really a factor.

Not all cars had power steering back then, so yes, strength was most definitely a factor. Especially in the forearms, as anyone who's ever tried karting will know all too well.

[kevins]

https://www.youtube....TW5L5maUM#t=420

 

Sebastian Vettel in Top Gear on Mansell "technique"

Edited by kevins, 13 August 2015 - 16:20.

[John B]

I'd imagine Williams may not have been too upset having a distinct #1 driver, at least until it became clear how dominant that car was. They've lost a few WDCs having relatively equal teammates splitting points.

[PayasYouRace]

Oh and obviously I would have beaten Mansell that year if I hadn't been held back by being 5 years old.

[beute]

Not all cars had power steering back then, so yes, strength was most definitely a factor. Especially in the forearms, as anyone who's ever tried karting will know all too well.

yes and they all have that required strength...

After a certain point It's not a performance factor anymore, having popeye forearms wont make you any faster.

We're talking about a strength level that can easily be reached within 6 to 12 months of training or by simply driving those cars around for a living...

[teejay]

A modern F1 driver is a fit and strong guy - finding the balance between being lean and strong takes a lot. 

 

Often hear Nigel was "strong" but what actual proof is there that he was any stronger than any of the other guys?

 

Seen plenty of footage of Senna training in the off season and he certainly wasn't weak.

Edited by teejay, 14 August 2015 - 01:46.

[aramos]

Of course. I think a common misconception in Formula 1 when a driver gets a dominant car is the 'no one can beat them' fallacy. Nigel only had one real competitor for that title and he was clearly better than him, but re-run the season 20 times over with 20 other drivers in the second car and I'm sure someone would be better. Nigel was a good driver, but he was never great and he was generally behind Piquet, who himself was inferior to both Prost and Senna. I'm sure there are plenty of drivers capable of beating him.

[OO7]

Many years ago I remember doing a qualification comparison between Mansell and Patrese in 1992 with Schumacher and Patrese in 1993.  The gap between Patrese and his two team mates was virtually identical for the majority of the circuits they visited.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

I think that is a bit unfair. Nigel was unlucky not to be world champion in 86 and 87. In 1990 Nigel had a lot of DNF's due to mechanical issues which skewed the results a lot in Prosts favour.

 

 I don't have the luxury of living in a country that idolized the man so passionately. As far as losing out in '86 and '87, it was to drivers who won multiple titles on different teams. They proved they could win, they proved they could beat formidable team mates.