175 replies to this topic

[PlatenGlass]

That's fair enough. But then again if someone argues that Mansell had the disadvantage of weight, at the same time you could argue he had the advantage of upper body strength.

You can't take one physical attribute away and not adjust for anything else. If you take 0.5s off Mansell's laptime due to weight difference, you also have to take away his upper body strength and see, how well could he drive then?

It's also about height through. Presumably Prost had enough strength too but was a lot shorter than Mansell.

I'm surprised actually how much people think this is irrelevant. Do people think that today's F1 where the weight limit includes car and driver is the wrong way of doing it?And sure, you can just define "good" in any way you want but then you have to accept that you're separating it from "skilful" because being short is not a skill. Maybe Mansell wasn't as good as Prost but was arguably still more skilful then.

[sopa]

It's also about height through. Presumably Prost had enough strength too but was a lot shorter than Mansell.

I'm surprised actually how much people think this is irrelevant. Do people think that today's F1 where the weight limit includes car and driver is the wrong way of doing it?And sure, you can just define "good" in any way you want but then you have to accept that you're separating it from "skilful" because being short is not a skill. Maybe Mansell wasn't as good as Prost but was arguably still more skilful then.

 

I would actually ask, how much did the minimum weight rule change in 1995 change anyway? Did it put anyone into a notably better or worse light? Of course as we remember it didn't help Mansell at all...

 

The main one that comes to mind is Katayama, who was very light. Then again it is argued he lost competitiveness due to cancer, so not a clear-cut case either.

Edited by sopa, 22 November 2018 - 17:32.

[PlatenGlass]

I would actually ask, how much did the minimum weight rule change in 1995 change anyway? Did it put anyone into a notably better or worse light? Of course as we remember it didn't help Mansell at all...
 
The main one that comes to mind is Katayama, who was very light. Then again it is argued he lost competitiveness due to cancer, so not a clear-cut case either.

Katayama does come to mind, but it's not something that I've analysed. It could be worth looking into though.

So that I don't do two posts in a row - I think the two main reasons why Mansell isn't seen as a proper great by a lot of people are that 1) he took a while to reach his potential, being overshadowed by De Angelis at Lotus and then Rosberg at Williams until he seemed to find his feet at the end of 1985, and 2) He only won one championship, whereas the other top drivers of the late 80s (Prost, Senna, Piquet) all won at least three.

But I don't think that performances earlier in a driver's career should necessarily influence how their whole career is seen. I think it's about having a decent period of high performance regardless of what happens before or after that period. And arguably he was just unlucky to win one championship. Most of the championships won by the other three were close, and they could have won more or less if chance had gone another way. We all know about what happened in 1986, but in 1987 Mansell was the dominant driver but suffered far worse reliability than Piquet. Also, in 1991 after Senna won the first four races, Mansell actually closed to within 8 points after Germany but suffered from poor reliability and a horrific pitstop in Portugal. So it could have been four.

By the way, despite what I have said, I would still rate Prost overall above him as he was more consistent over his whole career and was rarely out of contention for the title in the whole period from 1981 to 1990. But I'm not sure I see any particular reason to say that Piquet was better than Mansell other than the number of titles, and Piquet was arguably on the luckier side in the championships where he was in contention. When they were team-mates, I would give Mansell the nod regardless of Piquet arguably suffering after his Imola crash. I think Mansell was overall the more effective driver in 1986 anyway.

[sopa]

So that I don't do two posts in a row - I think the two main reasons why Mansell isn't seen as a proper great by a lot of people are that 1) he took a while to reach his potential, being overshadowed by De Angelis at Lotus and then Rosberg at Williams until he seemed to find his feet at the end of 1985, and 2) He only won one championship, whereas the other top drivers of the late 80s (Prost, Senna, Piquet) all won at least three.

 

Depends on the defintion of "proper great". If people are looking at maybe the 5 best of all times, or maybe 10 best of all times, it's understandable, why Mansell isn't fitted in there. And also it's understandable, why Senna and often Prost are viewed as superior to Mansell overall. But I'd say plenty of people think Mansell was at least as good as Piquet if not better, despite titles.

 

By the way, I don't see many people downplaying Mansell due to his early career struggles. If anything, it's getting a bit glossed over. And people prefer to concentrate on what he did in late 80's and early 90's inclucing IndyCar. 

 

On the flipside I see Piquet as one, whose earlier peak periods in Brabham tend to be glossed over somewhat, and people remember his late-career struggles more.

[king_crud]

How was Mansell's reputation in his Lotus days? I only started following F1 in any way from 85

[Collombin]

How was Mansell's reputation in his Lotus days? I only started following F1 in any way from 85

I agreed with Peter Warr, although in hindsight the glimpses of future potential were there. To me he just never seemed convincing.

[boillot]

It seems almost forgotten that Piquet beat Mansell (and Berger and both Williams drivers) in 1990 with a car that was by all accounts inferior to Ferrari.
It’s not just 1986-87 and P. Head’s favouritism.

[sopa]

In Lotus Mansell showed flashes of speed, but he was very inconsistent. Also his team-mate de Angelis was more consistent and younger, so understandable, why the latter seemed like a greater prospect at the time!

 

As to what clicked in Mansell in late 1985. I'm not sure I'd entirely put it on 'confidence' due to winning a race. I don't think one achievement would so magically transform one's performance. And after all, he somehow had to win that race to being with! However, what is possible is that he simply gelled with the Williams team better. Before that he was only driving in Lotus, and for whatever reason he never felt at 'home' there. In Williams he took half a year to settle in, but once done that, he went flying. So kind of Frentzen, just the other way around - HHF hated being at Williams.

Edited by sopa, 23 November 2018 - 11:23.

[absinthedude]

Mansell in his early Lotus days showed promise and determination. But also he seemed even then to have bad luck. Elio was definitely smoother and probably the more confident driver. Once Warr took over upon Chapman's death it was clear that he wanted Mansell out....that Nigel was only there becuase Colin had locked him into a watertight contract. Warr made his now infamous comment "Nigel Mansell will never win a grand prix while I have a hole in my backside".....he must have ended up quite constipated...

 

I well recall when he spun out of a possible win at Monaco in 1984 because it was very wet and he ran over painted white line....people were so critical and said he ought to have controlled it....but if any other driver including multiple WDC's does the same "Oh he touched the white line. That's so unlucky, they are like ice". I've always felt that was unfair criticism of Nigel which is never leveled at any other driver. Those white lines are indeed like ice on wet tracks...but because he's Nigel Mansell and not Sebastian vettel....

 

 

As for what happened after Brands Hatch 1985, I think it was confidence. Nigel himself says that your second win is easier than your first. And then the floodgates opened. Pretty much unexpectedly he matched and even bettered Piquet. Also it's now well known that Keke was not looking forward to Mansell's arrival but ended up getting on with him and they worked well together. After a few years of difficult times at Lotus, Nigel had a car capable of winning and a good working environment. 

Edited by absinthedude, 23 November 2018 - 11:44.

[piket]

Mansell in his early Lotus days showed promise and determination. But also he seemed even then to have bad luck. Elio was definitely smoother and probably the more confident driver. Once Warr took over upon Chapman's death it was clear that he wanted Mansell out....that Nigel was only there becuase Colin had locked him into a watertight contract. Warr made his now infamous comment "Nigel Mansell will never win a grand prix while I have a hole in my backside".....he must have ended up quite constipated...

I well recall when he spun out of a possible win at Monaco in 1984 because it was very wet and he ran over painted white line....people were so critical and said he ought to have controlled it....but if any other driver including multiple WDC's does the same "Oh he touched the white line. That's so unlucky, they are like ice". I've always felt that was unfair criticism of Nigel which is never leveled at any other driver. Those white lines are indeed like ice on wet tracks...but because he's Nigel Mansell and not Sebastian vettel....


As for what happened after Brands Hatch 1985, I think it was confidence. Nigel himself says that your second win is easier than your first. And then the floodgates opened. Pretty much unexpectedly he matched and even bettered Piquet. Also it's now well known that Keke was not looking forward to Mansell's arrival but ended up getting on with him and they worked well together. After a few years of difficult times at Lotus, Nigel had a car capable of winning and a good working environment.

If I recall it proper, what pissed P. Warr of was that Lotus had done something to the car, illegal sort of, and according to him they had by far the best car on the day. He told Nigel not to rush it, just calmly pick them of. Instead Nigel tried to run away from Prost and blew it.

I am sure that toxic situation in Lotus slowed Mansells progress in the sport, because from the very start he showed speed. I recall Kyalami 1981 for example. But also I think that situation was created by Nigels behavior mostly. Warr worked through his career with also very headstrong drivers such as Scheckter and Keke Rosberg and they didn't have problems whatsoever. Williams provided suitable environment, they liked hard chargers and Nigel made a leap in form through 1985 season. Until the first half of the season he was quite underwhelming IMHO, outquallified and outraced by Keke. Then he had a crash in France, soon Keke announced he was leaving and suddenly Nigel outqualified Keke 6 straight times or something like that.

[JtP2]

IIRC, there was 2kg between Prost and Katayama. 20kg between Prost and Mansell. Prost said he never took Bridge at Silverstone flat because he lacked the strength to correct the car. Instead he concentrated on Beckets exit speed and carried the extra speed down the whole of the next straight, not the less than 200yds out of Bridge.

 

Sp if Katayama was too small to be a good F1 driver, how did Prost manage as the second lightest driver?

[ralphrj]

It seems almost forgotten that Piquet beat Mansell (and Berger and both Williams drivers) in 1990 with a car that was by all accounts inferior to Ferrari.
It’s not just 1986-87 and P. Head’s favouritism.

 

I think that says more about the relative reliability of their cars more than their performance.

 

Piquet had 2 DNFs. Mansell had 7 DNFs plus 2 races where he was classified as a finisher but had already retired.

[boillot]

I think that says more about the relative reliability of their cars more than their performance.

 

Piquet had 2 DNFs. Mansell had 7 DNFs plus 2 races where he was classified as a finisher but had already retired.

Yes but Piquet still finished 12 times in points (out of 13 finishes) and 4 times on the podium, with a car that was likely 4th best. It was a brilliant season that Piquet does not get much credit for. He finished 3rd in the WDC with the 4th best car. Many other great drivers never approached this achievement, Mansell included.

[thequadge]

I started watching F1 in 91 and watched Nigel's 91, 92 title win and 93 IndyCar triumph. He was an incredibly brave individual who may not have had the same degree of talent as Prost or Senna but was only a couple of % off and made up for it with more determination. Sometimes that mean't his was an awkward so and so but he delivered, he drove in pain due to injuries for most of his career and still won more races than all bar 6 drivers in the history of the sport. Cruelly robbed in 86 and 87 of a deserved title, finally won the title in 92 in the awesome FW14B despite driving all year with a broken foot sustained in his accident in Australia in 91 (one of the wettest races in the history of the sport), he was then messed about at Williams so quit and went to Indycar and despite nearly dying in a horrific crash at Phoenix and driving most of the year against medical advice pumped full of painkillers, took the title at the first attempt and for a week in September of 1993 became the only man ever to simultaneously be the reigning F1 World Champion and Indycar champion.

 

He was overlooked and messed about at several points in his career despite his clear talent. After Chapman's death, Lotus chief Peter Warr famously said "Mansell will never win a race as long as I have a hole in my a##e". Later Prost manipulated Ferrari against him so he retired. He only returned when Williams couldn't get Prost or Senna but showed he was the Champion level driver with the F1, Indycar double. Should have won more titles (86 for certain, I'm sure he would have beaten Prost at Williams in 93 had he not been messed about) but still an all time great whose some times difficult character is too often used to belittle a great driver.

Edited by thequadge, 24 November 2018 - 00:05.

[thequadge]

In Addition, I would rate Nigel as easily third in the 80's- early 90's era drivers, Senna is top (of all time in my opinion), with Prost close behind, but Nigel is a strong third. Piquet was not a better driver and easily the weakest of the triple champions, got very lucky in his championship years (Prost should have 83 and Nigel was robbed by unreliability in 87) combined with being a wholly unlikable human being (his attacks on Nigel's wife are so contemptible as to disqualify him from any accolade whatsoever and combined with his son's involvement in Crashgate, there is clearly no honour in the Piquet genes at all).

[chrisj]

In Addition, I would rate Nigel as easily third in the 80's- early 90's era drivers, Senna is top (of all time in my opinion), with Prost close behind, but Nigel is a strong third. Piquet was not a better driver and easily the weakest of the triple champions, got very lucky in his championship years (Prost should have 83 and Nigel was robbed by unreliability in 87) combined with being a wholly unlikable human being (his attacks on Nigel's wife are so contemptible as to disqualify him from any accolade whatsoever and combined with his son's involvement in Crashgate, there is clearly no honour in the Piquet genes at all).

Senna (your #1) intentially crashed Prost at full speed with the entire grid behind and Piquet has no honor?

 

Back to Nigel ... a terrific showman who absolutely would go for it, given any opportunity. Deserved more than a single champlonship, and held his own against some all time greats. He's remembered mostly as a Williams driver I guess, but his Ferrari wins are some of my best motorsport memories. 

[lamo]

Yes but Piquet still finished 12 times in points (out of 13 finishes) and 4 times on the podium, with a car that was likely 4th best. It was a brilliant season that Piquet does not get much credit for. He finished 3rd in the WDC with the 4th best car. Many other great drivers never approached this achievement, Mansell included.

You are confusing fastest and best. Mansell and Berger had better cars but Mansell had 9 none finishes in 16 races. Berger had 5.

Piquet was also nowhere in the standings until his 2 lucky wins in the last 2 races. He was even behind Boutsen with 2 races to go, who also had 6 DNFs

Nannini also had 3 podiums to Piqets 2 before he missed the last 2 races.

Edited by lamo, 24 November 2018 - 03:55.

[Andrew Hope]

Regarding how many titles the big four won I feel the same about championships as individual races: they could all be equally amazing but they cannot all be equally first. If Piquet or Prost had 2, and Mansell 2, it does not necessarily mean anything.

I feel I must be constantly vigilant in my own brain and did not thinking of F1 as spec series.

Look at the collective hundreds of thousands of hours of gushing on this forum directed at certain drivers when we all know it's mostly the car.

[ensign14]

My armchair psychology is that Mansell before he became a race-winner was more affable than afterwards, and then returned back to affability post-career.  Because when he was on the way up he still needed to prove himself and needed all the allies he could get.  Especially given Peter Warr was at, well, war with him at Lotus.

 

Once he was winning, it was "proved you all wrong" and he needed the psychological boost of being assured that it was down to him, rather than the team.  Given the calibre of the opposition at the time that's perhaps a logical approach; no good thinking you're a step behind Prost and Senna, as an F1 driver everyone else has to be a wanker.  And, given he was the one winning Brit, all the publicity was about him, so everything he said or did was magnified. 

 

Plus his public persona played differently to the tabloids and the mass support than it did to the specialist media. 

 

Once the career was over the pressure was off.  And he could be secure in a legacy that was better than those of Prost and Senna in one respect; neither of them won the Indycar title.

[BRG]

.... he needed the psychological boost of being assured that it was down to him, rather than the team.

 

I agree with all you say, but it was interesting that Mansell developed that irritating use of the Royal We when speaking of himself.

[Maustinsj]

I agree with all you say, but it was interesting that Mansell developed that irritating use of the Royal We when speaking of himself.

Usually followed by the Royal Flush.

[ensign14]

I agree with all you say, but it was interesting that Mansell developed that irritating use of the Royal We when speaking of himself.

 

Might be a latent Brummagem trait - it's not uncommon in the tongue of Shakespeare.  Often followed by "am"...

[Maustinsj]

Along with using “I’ve” instead of “I’m”.

“I’ve just going down the town”.

[Andrew Hope]

Karl Pilkington refers to his brother as "our kid", so perhaps that entire weirdo island ought to be sunk to the- I mean maybe they just speak like weirdos.

Do we know for sure that Nigel was not saying we in reference to him and his mustache?

[F1matt]

I think we can safely say "we" didn't mean the team.... 

[Grippy]

"Our kid" is short for "our kid brother" which just means younger/youngest brother in parts of the UK, rather than meaning our child.