65 replies to this topic

[FGV]

I see a lot of writing about the duel Piquet/Mansell in 1987. In my opinion Piquet was superior and deserved to win the championship. Here are my reasons:

1 - Piquet was more involved in the development of the car FW11B
2 - Piquet was incredibly regular through the season
3 - Piquet had an advantage of 12 points when there were 2 races left

[King Nigel]

There's no need to argue there : Mansell overwhelmed Sotomayor
He was faster during qualifications, won more races, led more laps ... Only reliability and luck made the difference (take a look at the Hungarian GP !).
1987 was part of history. Too bad the fight ended with an accident ...
Let's vote guys

[mikedeering]

Nelson was indeed consistent through the season - despite having the best car on the grid he was invariably outraced by Mansell, Senna, Prost & at the end of year, Berger.

Name one race from 1987 that Nelson dominated. How did Nelson develop the FW11B? The only thing he worked on was the active suspension, and then, showing his team player abilities, wanted to keep it from Mansell just like the diff he discovered at Hungary in 86.

The only time he looked impressive all year was Saturday qualifying at Silverstone and when he passed Mansell in Mexico. Other than that, his performances were generally not great.

On his side, he did miss the Imola race, and I think his accident probably affected him more than he let on - I have read he had trouble sleeping for months afterwards. Also, he didn't make many mistakes - Mansell clashed with Senna at Spa when patience would have won him the race...

People criticised Piquet's performances at Lotus in 1988, but personally I didn't see any difference from his 1987 form - the important factor was that the Lotus 100T was not the dominant car that the Williams FW11B was, which explains why Nelson scored so few points.

[MrAerodynamicist]

My race by race analysis of'87. I've awarded +1 pt for the driver had the better race, or +2 if they were way ahead in both Qual and the Race. I only started watching F1 in '90, so this is from books and such. I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions on individual races

BRAZILIAN
... Mansell outqualified Piquet, but had a scrappy race (plus a puncture) so
... +1 advantage to piquet
... Piquet 1
... Mansell 0

SAN MARINO
... A accident caused by a tyre failure meant Piquet didn't race.
... Ignore
... Piquet 1
... Mansell 0

BELGIAN
... Mansell outqualified Piquet and was ahead until he collided, ultimately putting him out.
... Piquet didn't make sny such mistake.
... +1 to Piquet
... Piquet 2
... Mansell 0

MONACO
... Mansell got pole and lead the race until his car broke.
... +2 to Mansell
... Piquet 2
... Mansell 2

UNITED STATES
... Mansell got pole, Mansell was ahead for much of the race but a poor pitstop and then cramp caused
... him to fade at the end. OTOH Piquet made up for a poor start and finished 2nd.
... +1 to Piquet
... Piquet 3
... Mansell 2

FRANCE
... Mansell got pole, lead until a puncture then passed Piquet to win.
... +2 to Mansell
... Piquet 3
... Mansell 4

BRITAIN
... Piquet got pole and lead, until Mansell came in for tyres, closed thr gap and passed for the win
... +1 to Mansell
... Piquet 3
... Mansell 5

GERMAN
... Mansell got pole and was ahead of Piquet until his engine failed.
... +2 to Mansell
... Piquet 3
... Mansell 7

HUNGARY
... Mansell better Q and always ahead of Piquet until his engine failed
... +2 to Mansell
... Piquet 3
... Mansell 9

AUSTRIAN
... Piquet had the advantage in Q but Mansell had the better race.
... +1 To Mansell
... Piquet 3
... Mansell 10


ITALIAN GP
... Piquet pole, and lead most of race. Mansell crashed out
... +2 Piquet
... Piquet 5
... Mansell 10

PORTUGUESE
... Mansell Q and ahead in race until his car broke
... +2 to Mansell
... Piquet 5
... Mansell 12

SPAIN
... Mansell got pole, and apart from the first lap was always ahead and won, 32 second quicker than Piquet
... +2 to Mansell
... Piquet 5
... Mansell 14


MEXICO
... Mansell pole, Piquet collided with Prost at start Piquet ahead on track but Mansell won on aggregate.
... +1 Mansell
... Piquet 5
... Mansell 15

JAPAN
... Mansell crashed under pressure in practice & missed rest of season
... +1 to Piquet

AUSRTRALIA
... Ignore as Mansell didn't race

FINAL STANDINGS
... Piquet 5
... Mansell 15

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by King Nigel
There's no need to argue there : Mansell overwhelmed Sotomayor
He was faster during qualifications, won more races, led more laps ... Only reliability and luck made the difference (take a look at the Hungarian GP !).
1987 was part of history. Too bad the fight ended with an accident ...
Let's vote guys

So it was just "too bad that it ended with an accident", not "Mansell stuffed it up all by himself by losing it in practice" ??

You speak like "too bad" had nothing to do with Mansell and it was an outside influence.

You fail to mention Mansells stupid passing attempt on Senna lap 1 at Spa which damaged his car, again HIS fault.

Nor did you mention in Detroit that after his (long) pitstop (how much was Mansell involved with the decision to make a pitstop when the other front runners did full race distance ?) Mansell boiled his tyres rotten trying to win the race rather than settling for a comforatble 2nd, his fault.

Nor did you mention at Hockenhiem Mansell played a tactical game, let Prost past and then sat in his slipstream to conserve fuel, result ? Seized motor by way of overheating, his decision and again his fault.

Nor did you mention that at Mexico it was a 2 part race that Mansell and Piquet won 1 each on the track, Mansell winning on overall time and getting the 9 points.

You also didnt mention that Piquet had a huge accident at San Morino and didnt contest that event either.

Nor did you mention in the 13 races contested by both Mansell and Piquet, between the 2 Drivers, Piquet had 9 to Mansell's 4 faster race lap times.

Piquet was better at bringing cars home, did you ever consider for 1 moment that cars break often as a result of the input/mistakes of a Driver ?

Going faster than the next Guy often has a price to be paid and F1 history is full of Drivers who fall into this category.

Championships are NOT about being the fastest Driver on the track, they are about bringing your car home with as many points as you can and they tally up at the end of the year and the Guy who has the most is Champion, not the one who wins the most races or gets the most poles.

The score;

Piquet 3 times World Champion

Mansell 1 time World Champion

There is a reason why its like this.

[Mark Beckman]

By the way to think I am anti-Mansell, you would be wrong, in fact I consider on his best days he was the fastest F1 Driver I have ever seen.

Shame about his bad days though.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
Championships are NOT about being the fastest Driver on the track, they are about bringing your car home with as many points as you can and they tally up at the end of the year and the Guy who has the most is Champion, not the one who wins the most races or gets the most poles.

Aye, but driving like that makes you a boring fart A driver who gives his all is much more exciting and whats more important in life than having fun? As i've said before, I'll forgive the mediocre but never the boring! I see more "honour" in Mansell's six wins & 2nd in the championship, than Piquets championship and two wins.

And of course theres the possibily that Piquet drove so conservatively not because of some genius masterplan, but a lack of talent to push the car to it's limit

[King Nigel]

Hey Mark : "Championships are NOT about being the fastest Driver on the track, they are about bringing your car home with as many points as you can and they tally up at the end of the year and the Guy who has the most is Champion, not the one who wins the most races or gets the most poles." You're a NASCAR fan, aren't you?

[FGV]

Hey King Nigel,
looks like Mark's opinion is by far more documented than yours

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist


1/ whats more important in life than having fun?

2/ I see more "honour" in Mansell's six wins & 2nd in the championship, than Piquets championship and two wins.

3/ And of course theres the possibily that Piquet drove so conservatively not because of some genius masterplan, but a lack of talent to push the car to it's limit

1/ Winning Championships.

2/ Maybe you do but the FIA doesnt agree with you, they "honoured" Piquet with the World Championship.

3/ You failed to see my FACTUAL comment that Piquet out of 13 races had 9 faster race lap times to Mansells 4. You may be impressed by poles positions but I'm not.

1987 Fastest laps comparo;

Brazil
Piquet 1.33.861
Mansell 1.34.602

Belgium
Piquet 1.59.572
Mansell 1.59.651

Monaco
Mansell 1.28.049
Piquet 1.28.642

Detroit
Mansell 1.40.535
Piquet 1.41.196

France
Piquet 1.09.548
Mansell 1.10.405

Britain
Piquet 1.07.596
Mansell 1.07.725

Germany
Mansell 1.45.716
Piquet 1.46.807

Hungary
Piquet 1.30.149
Mansell 1.30.298

Austria
Mansell 1.28.318
Piquet 1.28.356

Italy
Piquet 1.26.858
Mansell 1.27.496

Portugal
Piquet 1.21.191
Mansell 1.22.834

Spain
Piquet 1.27.108
Mansell 1.28.444

Mexico
Piquet 1.19.132
Mansell 1.19.527

So much for your assertion that Piquet was "lack of talent, unable to push to the limit",
how about;
"hmmm, if I push harder I will lose my tyres"
or "if i jump that curb I may get 1/10 but will risk my car"
or "if I push harder I may not finish, 2nd will do for points today its the Championship that matters"

"lack of talent" ??? The Guy was 3 times World Champion and very close 2nd on 2 occasions in 3 different era of car, please do some serious reviewing before posting on emotion.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by King Nigel
Hey Mark : "Championships are NOT about being the fastest Driver on the track, they are about bringing your car home with as many points as you can and they tally up at the end of the year and the Guy who has the most is Champion, not the one who wins the most races or gets the most poles." You're a NASCAR fan, aren't you?

Considering you are a Webmaster of a site dedicated to Nigel Mansell, I would have expected you to employ a far greater foundation for debate.

But then again I see the parallels with Mansell's driving, all attack with no substance and very worn out at the end.

[bock16]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman

"lack of talent" ??? The Guy was 3 times World Champion and very close 2nd on 2 occasions in 3 different era of car, please do some serious reviewing before posting on emotion.

Donmt mean to be a bore or anything but he only finished 2nd once (in 1980). He did finish 3rd twice though (1986, 1990). Of course he was certainly a main contender in 1986 so I'd say he competed closely for 5 titles. One more than Mansell.

I also agree that Imola affected him, Nakajima was closer to him than he should have been and Nannini did very well against him at Benetton if I remember rightly.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman



So it was just "too bad that it ended with an accident", not "Mansell stuffed it up all by himself by losing it in practice" ??

You speak like "too bad" had nothing to do with Mansell and it was an outside influence.

But of course Mark! Don't you remember? Nothing was EVER Noige's fault It was always either:

a the other drivers
or
b the organisers
or
c the mechanics
or
d the team
or
e an Act of God

I put it down to Chaos Theory myself - I expect a butterfly farted in Colombia causing a chain of events which caused Noige's car to mysteriously leap off the track all on its own ....

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
1/ Winning Championships.

There we'll have to disagree, life is about enjoying yourself. If you enjoy yourself while winning thats great, but IMO winning when you're not enjoying yourself is a waste of time. As for us, that we are enjoying watching the racing is what should be important, not trying to solving the impossible puzzle of who was the better driver!

"lack of talent" ??? The Guy was 3 times World Champion and very close 2nd on 2 occasions in 3 different era of car, please do some serious reviewing before posting on emotion. [/B]

My coment was half said in jest and wasn't meant to suggest Piquet had a total lack of talent. Although there is also truth in there - sometimes drivers will be slower because they are conserving their car, and sometimes a driver will be conserving their car because they are slower. Which applies to a driver on any given day is of course something only the driver themselves ever really knows (and few drivers would ever admit to it being the latter!!)

[jk]

Like Jan Magnussens reply when asked how Brabham manages to get more laps out of a full tank in the Panoz: "He just doesn't give as much pedal as i do!"

Anyway, i think Piquet had many problems after Imola... i think it was an incredible archievement. Remeber he finished on the podium 9 times in 10 races... i think that should be enough to win the championship!

[ensign14]

Piquet cruised to the title. If that floats your boat, then fair enough. In 1987, Piquet could only win if Mansell went out. No question, Mansell was faster than Piquet, even before you take into account Piquet being Honda's blue-eyed boy and dodgy engine chips.

[deangelis86]

Originally posted by FGV
I see a lot of writing about the duel Piquet/Mansell in 1987. In my opinion Piquet was superior and deserved to win the championship. Here are my reasons:

1 - Piquet was more involved in the development of the car FW11B

This advantage really should have meant that Piquet should have blow Mansell away on a regular basis. That didn't happen.

2 - Piquet was incredibly regular through the season

Regular through Mansells misfortune more often than not, yes.

3 - Piquet had an advantage of 12 points when there were 2 races left

Which judging by his lacklustre performances in the final 2 races of the season meant nothing.

I am sorry, but any way you look at it PK was very lucky in winning the 1987 WDC - after having had his butt kicked and being sent packing off to Lotus.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by ensign14
Piquet cruised to the title. If that floats your boat, then fair enough. In 1987, Piquet could only win if Mansell went out. No question, Mansell was faster than Piquet, even before you take into account Piquet being Honda's blue-eyed boy and dodgy engine chips.

And Peterson was faster than Andretti (but Andretti won the WC)

And Villenuve was faster than Scheckter (but Scheckter won the WC)

And Senna was faster than Prost (but Prost won the WC)

And Prost was faster than Lauda (but Lauda won the WC)

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find many other examples for you.

Why dont we just all fit into your perfect World and just hand the trophy out to the fastest guy at the start of the year, it would save a lot of hassle.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Or scrap championships... After all, are two seconds really more of an achievement than winning one race? How many 6th places are an equal achievement to coming 2nd once? One teams wins while the one comes second and third - have they both done their jobs equally well?

[Mark Beckman]

[i]Originally posted by deangelis86
[

1/ This advantage really should have meant that Piquet should have blow Mansell away on a regular basis. That didn't happen.

2/ Regular through Mansells misfortune more often than not, yes.

3/ Which judging by his lacklustre performances in the final 2 races of the season meant nothing.

4/ I am sorry, but any way you look at it PK was very lucky in winning the 1987 WDC -

5/ after having had his butt kicked and being sent packing off to Lotus. [/B]

1/ Theres no denying Mansell was faster, its what he did/didnt do with that speed that counts. Speed isnt an ultimate requirement of a World Champion (or even a race winner) and this fact has been proved many times in F1 history.

2/ Umm Mansell caused at least 3 of those "misfortunes" all by himself, Piquet was always in a position thru smart management, often in front of 20-odd others, to take avantage.

3/ Smart man, make sure you get out alive. (besides the fact that his car broke in both races and he was still way clear of Mansell and Senna on points, lucky hey !)

4/ Very few instances in Motor Racing that the word "luck" has any credence, most results are based in and explainable by fact. I'd be sorry if I made that statement too.

5/ I strongly suggest you read some things about that period of time and review this really factually incorrect statement.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
Or scrap championships... After all, are two seconds really more of an achievement than winning one race? How many 6th places are an equal achievement to coming 2nd once? One teams wins while the one comes second and third - have they both done their jobs equally well?

The bottom line is that the criteria is there and has been the same (excepting a gradual increase in 1st place points) since the inception of F1 racing as a Championship and if you cant manage yourself to suit it then you will lose out, the rules are the same for all.

LEARN TO BACK OFF !
LEARN TO FINISH !
LEARN TO EAT HUMBLE PIE !

Even in todays "10 points for first" orientated towards "faster Drivers", Mansell would have still lost anyway;

Piquet 76 points (73)
Mansell 67 points (61)

And it gets worse for the you Nigel Lads, in real terms out of the 11 best races that counted, Mansell only had 2 DNF's meaning the bottom line is that he wrecked himself for the Championship.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
The bottom line is that the criteria is there and has been the same (excepting a gradual increase in 1st place points) since the inception of F1 racing as a Championship and if you cant manage yourself to suit it then you will lose out, the rules are the same for all.

I don't deny any of that. It's just I've come to see championships as little more than a game of statisitcs that doesn't necessarily do as it says on the tin. You rank championship success as the most important thing, which is fine. I just don't.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I hate championships. I want to see racing, not math.

I have a question about Silverstone 1987. Everyone raves about it being a great move, which I am in agreement with; but when Coulthard pulled the same move on Barrichello in the same corner in 2000, in an era where its definately harder to overtake; no one seemed to give it much credit. Why?

[MrAerodynamicist]

When has anyone ever given DC credit for anything? Circumstance I guess. DC & RB as a duo aren't up there with Mansell & Piquet, they weren't fighting for the championship and it wasn't IIRC a last ditch move for the win towards the end of the race.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


The bottom line is that the criteria is there and has been the same (excepting a gradual increase in 1st place points) since the inception of F1 racing as a Championship and if you cant manage yourself to suit it then you will lose out, the rules are the same for all.

LEARN TO BACK OFF !
LEARN TO FINISH !
LEARN TO EAT HUMBLE PIE !

Even in todays "10 points for first" orientated towards "faster Drivers", Mansell would have still lost anyway;

Piquet 76 points (73)
Mansell 67 points (61)

And it gets worse for the you Nigel Lads, in real terms out of the 11 best races that counted, Mansell only had 2 DNF's meaning the bottom line is that he wrecked himself for the Championship.

While I totally agree with all you wrote above, I must add that using the points system of today's, the situation would be even better for Piquet: he had 73 net and 76 gross points in 1987 so he would have had 79 points counting all races and giving 10 points for each win.
Mansell would have remained on 61.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I hate championships. I want to see racing, not math.

I have a question about Silverstone 1987. Everyone raves about it being a great move, which I am in agreement with; but when Coulthard pulled the same move on Barrichello in the same corner in 2000, in an era where its definately harder to overtake; no one seemed to give it much credit. Why?

Because that move from 1987 wasn't great. It was tue to fresh tyres and higher boost. In fact no moves during turbo era were really great, exactly because of that most of them were not on merit by because of fuel/tyre conservation or boost adjusting. Piquet's move on Senna in Hungary in 1986 was the greatest of the time.

Hrvoje

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I have a question about Silverstone 1987. Everyone raves about it being a great move, which I am in agreement with; but when Coulthard pulled the same move on Barrichello in the same corner in 2000, in an era where its definately harder to overtake; no one seemed to give it much credit. Why?

Because Nigel had a handlebar moustache.

[deangelis86]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman

1/ Theres no denying Mansell was faster, its what he did/didnt do with that speed that counts. Speed isnt an ultimate requirement of a World Champion (or even a race winner) and this fact has been proved many times in F1 history.

I am not arguing with you here Mark. I supported one of the most consistent drivers in recent times, (just in case you haven't clicked on my home page link) so I can I please be exempt from your 'speed isn't everything' lecture?.

2/ Umm Mansell caused at least 3 of those "misfortunes" all by himself, Piquet was always in a position thru smart management, often in front of 20-odd others, to take avantage.

I'm sorry, but did Mansell cause a wheel nut to fall off just laps from the end of the Hungarian GP whilst PK was yet again eating his dust?

Nelson Piquet was second best all year round in 1987 in just about every department. Not only was he outraced, he was out-witted also.

3/ Smart man, make sure you get out alive. (besides the fact that his car broke in both races and he was still way clear of Mansell and Senna on points, lucky hey !)

A very lacklustre man more like. I'm sure that Honda were very proud of his performances during both meetings..... (and that includes qualifying).

4/ Very few instances in Motor Racing that the word "luck" has any credence, most results are based in and explainable by fact. I'd be sorry if I made that statement too.

Well, I'm sorry to disagree with you Mark but the fact still remains: If one looks back on WDC's over the last 20 years, the 1987 championship will be remembered as one of the most unconvincing championships ever won by a driver. If you don't like that or disagree with this well acknowledged fact, then you are quite within your rights.

5/ I strongly suggest you read some things about that period of time and review this really factually incorrect statement.

Please spare me your school lecture. This is my opinion and nobody, least of all me, is asking you to agree with it.

[deangelis86]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
And it gets worse for the you Nigel Lads, in real terms out of the 11 best races that counted, Mansell only had 2 DNF's meaning the bottom line is that he wrecked himself for the Championship.

I think you've let yourself down there, Mark. I am certainly not a 'Nigel Lad' - I'm simply pointing out the facts the way I saw them, in 1987 and today in 2002.

This is not a 'Nelson vs Nigel' fanbase argument. This is a simple debate based on performance during the 1987 season.

I agree - Nigel did write his chances off by shooting himself in the foot in 1987, but that is not what the subject of this thread is, is it?

[bock16]

Originally posted by deangelis86


3 - Piquet had an advantage of 12 points when there were 2 races left

Which judging by his lacklustre performances in the final 2 races of the season meant nothing.

I think there's a fairly obvious explanation for Piquet making less effort in the last two races don't you?

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by deangelis86

I agree - Nigel did write his chances off by shooting himself in the foot in 1987, but that is not what the subject of this thread is, is it?

Are we in the same thread ???

THREAD TOPIC.....

Piquet Vs Mansell 1987
"Piquet/Mansell in 1987. In my opinion Piquet was superior and deserved to win the championship. Here are my reasons:

1 - Piquet was more involved in the development of the car FW11B
2 - Piquet was incredibly regular through the season
3 - Piquet had an advantage of 12 points when there were 2 races left "

Cause I know which one I subscribed too.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I hate championships. I want to see racing, not math.

I have a question about Silverstone 1987. Everyone raves about it being a great move, which I am in agreement with; but when Coulthard pulled the same move on Barrichello in the same corner in 2000, in an era where its definately harder to overtake; no one seemed to give it much credit. Why?

No you want to see 10 lap sprints is my guess, F1 is partly about endurance and it always has been.

You must of hated the fuel consumption era.

Not true I have been giving DC great raves about his "born again" Driving this year in another forum.

Not sure what hes been doing the last 5/6 years though.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by deangelis86



2/ Umm Mansell caused at least 3 of those "misfortunes" all by himself, Piquet was always in a position thru smart management, often in front of 20-odd others, to take avantage.

1/ I'm sorry, but did Mansell cause a wheel nut to fall off just laps from the end of the Hungarian GP whilst PK was yet again eating his dust?

2/ Nelson Piquet was second best all year round in 1987 in just about every department. Not only was he outraced, he was out-witted also.


[b]5/ I strongly suggest you read some things about that period of time and review this really factually incorrect statement.

3/ Please spare me your school lecture. This is my opinion and nobody, least of all me, is asking you to agree with it.

1/ The 1987 F1 GP season was based around 16 races in which you only counted your best 11 races and this is a system that allows for mechanical failures to be accounted for and that includes wheel nuts falling off.

In 1987 Nigel Mansell finished 9 times, 2 finishes short of 11 that counted and it is clearly evidenced that at least 2 races Mansell destroyed all by himself without any outside influence such as mechanical failure.

You have also indicated elsewhere that you agree that Mansell shot himself in the foot, your postings are inconsistant.

2/ Is this the same guy that won the Championship ?

3/ Piquet's reasons of going to Lotus is well documented subject and posting factually incorrect opinions on subjects that are well documented is leaving yourself open to critisism and I can only not agree with you because I bothered to educate myself on the matter.

[JohnS]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
Or scrap championships... After all, are two seconds really more of an achievement than winning one race? How many 6th places are an equal achievement to coming 2nd once? One teams wins while the one comes second and third - have they both done their jobs equally well?

There's a quote from the great Denis Jenkinson on another currently active thread, which says:

Originally posted by Anorak Man
Denis Jenkinson listed his Top Ten drivers in 1987 commenting:

"In choosing my Top Ten I have taken into account a driver's all-round ability,
but of greater importance is the way he won races, regardless of championship points.

To my mind, winning is the name of the game, not finishing first,
and a true champion should dominate all the opposition at all times."

I think he agreed with you, Mr Aerodynamicist!

[ensign14]

Originally posted by bock16


I think there's a fairly obvious explanation for Piquet making less effort in the last two races don't you?

Yes, Piquet was more interested in accumulating points than trying to win races. Ergo Mansell in 1987 was faster. QED.

Mark, your examples (tho' I don't agree with the Peterson-Andretti one) prove my point. The World Championship often goes to the luckier driver rather than the better driver. Ask most people who was better, Prost or Lauda, and most will go for Prost, etc. It shows that the title is worthless when it comes to deciding who is the best driver.

[fines]

The question is: "Who was better in 1987?"

In terms of dominant driving, I'd say it was Mansell.

In terms of winning the championship, it was clearly Piquet.

What do you think each of them set out as their goals before the season? Dominating the field, or winning the championship? In an ideal world, surely every racing driver worth his salt would try to do both, but championships are a somewhat difficult matter. The F1 scoring is quite good, if not perfect, but at least it's far better than the CART or NASCAR system. Piquet used his head, which arguably was an unfair advantage because Nigel didn't have that option. But hey, that's life...

[bock16]

Originally posted by bock16
I think there's a fairly obvious explanation for Piquet making less effort in the last two races don't you?

Originally posted by ensign14

Yes, Piquet was more interested in accumulating points than trying to win races. Ergo Mansell in 1987 was faster. QED.

Piquet just loved to accumulate those points!! He still accumulates coordinate points of trucks with his company in Brasil to this day.

Shame he didn't realise that he could accumulate more points BY winning races

[Vrba]

Originally posted by bock16

....Piquet just loved to accumulate those points!! He still accumulates coordinate points of trucks with his company in Brasil to this day.

Shame he didn't realise that he could accumulate more points BY winning races

Well, he won 23 of them and that's more than Mansell until his 1992 season in unbelievably dominant car.

Hrvoje

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by fines
Piquet used his head, which arguably was an unfair advantage because Nigel didn't have that option. But hey, that's life...

[deangelis86]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Beckman

1/ The 1987 F1 GP season was based around 16 races in which you only counted your best 11 races and this is a system that allows for mechanical failures to be accounted for and that includes wheel nuts falling off.

Mark, you are wriggling like a worm on a hook. Your orginal statement was this was it not:

"Umm Mansell caused at least 3 of those "misfortunes" all by himself, Piquet was always in a position thru smart management, often in front of 20-odd others, to take advantage"

To which I put the ball back in your court by giving you the example of the wheel nut falling off during the Hungarian GP not being anything to do with Mansell, contrary to your earlier sweeping statement, best 11 points finishes or not.

In 1987 Nigel Mansell finished 9 times, 2 finishes short of 11 that counted and it is clearly evidenced that at least 2 races Mansell destroyed all by himself without any outside influence such as mechanical failure. You have also indicated elsewhere that you agree that Mansell shot himself in the foot, your postings are inconsistant.

No my postings are not inconsistent, it really is quite simple to understand. Mansell did his level best to fumble the World Championship that year at Suzuka - but that does not make PK a more deserving champion!

The 1987 WDC did not go to the best driver IMHO, and Nigel Mansell did not help his own cause.

Is this the same guy that won the Championship?

Yep, although 'Won' may be too strong a word however. 'Gifted' - now that's a better word.

Piquet's reasons of going to Lotus is well documented subject and posting factually incorrect opinions on subjects that are well documented is leaving yourself open to critisism and I can only not agree with you because I bothered to educate myself on the matter.

Oh really? Well maybe I suggest that you educate yourself in the use of spellcheck then, smartypants.

[bock16]

Originally posted by Vrba


Well, he won 23 of them and that's more than Mansell until his 1992 season in unbelievably dominant car.

Hrvoje

Yes, and it's more than Prost until he won 24

p.s. I was defending Nelson until someone stuck their tongue at me!

[Amir_S]

The championship in 1987 like 1989 and 1997 belong to the more unfair statistics of Formula 1. I guess that's why statistics don't always tell the whole story. In 1987 clearly Nigel Mansell deserved to get his first championship, like Ayrton deserved the championship in 1989 and Michael Schumacher deserved it in 1997. That's my subjective view anyway.

[lukywill]

piquet was Imperial at monza

[deangelis86]

Originally posted by Amir_S
The championship in 1987 like 1989 and 1997 belong to the more unfair statistics of Formula 1. I guess that's why statistics don't always tell the whole story. In 1987 clearly Nigel Mansell deserved to get his first championship, like Ayrton deserved the championship in 1989 and Michael Schumacher deserved it in 1997. That's my subjective view anyway.

It's a subjective view, and it's also happens to be the correct view.

It would seem that Nelson had more off days and luck during 1987 than even I had realised when I delved back into the history books:

France, Paul Ricard :Qualified 4th and destroyed his tyres, necessitating a second stop.

Germany, Hockenheim: Qualifies 4th again, and inherits win thanks to Mansell and Prost retiring

Hungary, Hungaroring: Inherited win from Mansell's wheel nut departure.

Portugal, Race 1: Hit Alboreto and pitted for new nosecone and front tyre - effectively ending his race. Handed a lifeline after race stoppage to finish a distant 3rd in Race 2.

Spain, Jerez: Spun lap 48 whilst in 4th place. Goes off again on lap 67 - finishes 4th.

Piquet certainly did a great job of racking up the points by using intelligence and racecraft, criteria that all potential WDC's must satisfy. However, I am still waiting for someone to put forward a half-decent argument to convince me that Nelson was the best driver of 1987, who thoroughly deserved the Championship.

[mikedeering]

Interesting comments here.

I like the comment about the 1987 pass being due to superior tires and boost. If this was the case, why wasn't Nelson smarter and change his? Piquet has been highlighted here as being intelligent and calculating - well those skills deserted him at Silverstone that Sunday afternoon...particularly when Mansell suckered him into giving up the inside line. Hardly a performance for a multiple World Champion to be proud of...

It wasn't the first or last time Mansell simply drove past Piquet.

Paul Ricard, Silverstone, Austria, Spain. All moves by Mansell on Piquet that season for the lead. When did Piquet pass Mansell for the lead that year?

If overtaking moves were only due to boost back in 1987, why did Nelson not simply blast back Mansell on the next straight??? Very odd. Spain for example was at the end of the first lap - so the cars would have been identical in terms of tires etc. Why was Nelson so much slower than Mansell? He then simply fell away, making 2 mistakes that dropped him outside the top 3. He was beaten by Prost and Johansson in McLaren's that were simply no match for the Williams - why didn't Piquet simply blast past them with the fabled boost button???

As for the last 2 races - Piquet didn't register an appearance in either - irrespective of whether his car failed him. Senna, with the same engine but a chassis that didn't compare to the Williams took 2nd in both races (before being DQ'd in Adelaide). Nelson never looked like getting that high. Look at Schumacher - when he won the WDC last year, and again this year, he has gone on to win the very next race. Why wasn't Nelson motivated? Honda must have been embarrassed by his performance at Suzuka.

Piquet only dominated Mansell at Monza - and that was because he had the active ride system. Even then, he had to rely on Senna botching a pass on a backmarker in order to be gifted the win.

As for the fastest laps issue - Mansell never had to bother setting fastest laps, he never had to chase like Piquet did! Its a bit unfair to count some of the races - Belgium for example neither Mansell or Piquet were in the race long enough to set a meaningful lap time. In Portugal, Mansell retired early, so it was hardly suprising Piquet beat his best lap. Back in 1987, cars started on full tanks, so fastest laps were inevitably set near the end of the race...

In terms of qualifying - where a single fast lap is worth something meaningful, Mansell was in the top 2 at every race he competed in all year...

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman (to Stonefeld)
No you want to see 10 lap sprints is my guess, F1 is partly about endurance and it always has been. You must of hated the fuel consumption era.

Close racing isn't just about racing over short distance, where other issues such as fuel consumption/reliability are much smaller. Jerez '86, after 72 laps Mansell & Senna managed to cross the line side by side. Endurance racing still has the word racing in it. Sure, after 24 hours at Le Mans, cars don't tend to be neck and neck, but that doesn't mean the drivers don't have to drive hard. I simply believe to that if theres still a possibily of a driver improving their position, not to try to do so just because you fear the car might break down (or in the hope that the other car will do so) is a waste of a car. (This of course exckudes cases where via telemtry etc a driver is aware of a problem that is already developing)

[Vrba]

The point is that despite surviving heavy shunt that was not a fault of his own, missing one race and being neglected within his team, Piquet managed to win the title two races before season ended.
Taking those facts into account, it's really hard to say he wasn't a worthy champion in 1987.

Hrvoje

[bock16]

Originally posted by mikedeering

As for the last 2 races - Piquet didn't register an appearance in either - irrespective of whether his car failed him. Senna, with the same engine but a chassis that didn't compare to the Williams took 2nd in both races (before being DQ'd in Adelaide). Nelson never looked like getting that high. Look at Schumacher - when he won the WDC last year, and again this year, he has gone on to win the very next race. Why wasn't Nelson motivated?

As I alluded to earlier, Nelson wasn't motivated in the last 2 races because he had already won the championship. On this point, you and others are criticising his right to the 1987 world championship based on his performaces after it was finished not when it was taking place.

Honda must have been embarrassed by his performance at Suzuka.

Do you really think so? After he won them their first drivers championship at Suzuka that very weekend.

On a lighter note, it was also reported that he didn't do well on the sunday because he was feeling sick with a hangover from the heavy celebrations the night before

[deangelis86]

Originally posted by Vrba
The point is that despite surviving heavy shunt that was not a fault of his own, missing one race and being neglected within his team, Piquet managed to win the title two races before season ended.
Taking those facts into account, it's really hard to say he wasn't a worthy champion in 1987.
Hrvoje

Vrba, it is simply not correct to suggest that Piquet was 'neglected' within Williams.

Nelson was Honda's 'Golden Boy', and he wasn't the one who had to contend with horsepower that seemed to go missing for no apparent reason later on during the season.....

I think the point you are trying to make is that Williams screwed up Piquet's number 1 status by not giving Mansell a crap car 100% of the time.

Nobody is knocking his careful points collection by shrewd and professional driving during 1987 in sometimes difficult circumstances, but this was PK's most unimpressive WDC by far.

[joachimvanwing]

Originally posted by King Nigel
There's no need to argue there : Mansell overwhelmed Sotomayor
He was faster during qualifications, won more races, led more laps ... Only reliability and luck made the difference (take a look at the Hungarian GP !).
1987 was part of history. Too bad the fight ended with an accident ...
Let's vote guys

No doubt Mansell was faster then Piquet. Never the less, Piquet nursed his car home and won more points in the end.
In the same way: Montoya (IMO) is a lot faster then Schumacher, but he'll never be as good, as clever, mindfull, strong headed and consistent as MS has proven to be.