Nigel Mansell is a Legend!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

14th April 2010, 12:26
Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Quite what happened in '95 I don't know, but that was a big dissapointment.

Since he won the 1994 Australian Grand Prix you can't say he was over the hill in the space of a few months. Lots of things went wrong at McLaren, not least because he simply didn't get on with the McLaren management. And that the 1995 McLaren was probably one of the worst cars McLaren have ever come out with!
14th April 2010, 13:00
ShiftingGears

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Since he won the 1994 Australian Grand Prix you can't say he was over the hill in the space of a few months.

Whilst he did have a very good pole lap, he was over 30 seconds behind Hill and Schumacher less than halfway through the race. He won by virtue of being the only Benneton/Williams driver running, rather than by being fast.

Quote:

Lots of things went wrong at McLaren, not least because he simply didn't get on with the McLaren management. And that the 1995 McLaren was probably one of the worst cars McLaren have ever come out with!

Agreed.
14th April 2010, 16:29
Garry Walker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

Never mind titles - Stirling Moss never won a single title and was considered by Fangio to be his toughest opponent.

Nigel is only fourth on the alltime winners list, behind Schumacher, Prost and Senna at 31 grands prix and 32 pole positions - versus the pole position god Senna's total of 41 or that other slow coach Prost with 33 pole positions!

Of course Schumacher makes them all look weeny so whence Nigel?

Mansell? Underachievers like him should NOT be allowed in F1 :rolleyes:

Thus spake Gaaaaaarwee....!

Now back to rational programming.

Considering the top cars he had (like in years 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, even in 1994) it is given that he should have won a huge amount of races. It says a lot that with even such cars he only won one title.
14th April 2010, 16:39
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Considering the top cars he had (like in years 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, even in 1994) it is given that he should have won a huge amount of races. It says a lot that with even such cars he only won one title.

Same goes for his teammates driving the same machinery....

In 86, 88, 89 90, & 91 his teammate did not win the championship either.

Errrrrrrr, in '94, if he'd won the championship that would have been very clever - ho only drove 4 races.
14th April 2010, 16:46
Garry Walker

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Same goes for his teammates driving the same machinery....

In 86, 88, 89 90, & 91 his teammate did not win the championship either.

Errrrrrrr, in '94, if he'd won the championship that would have been very clever - ho only drove 4 races.

In 1986 he and Piquet lost because Prost was a much much better driver than them. Williams as a car was much better than what Prost had.
I did not mention 1988 or 1989.
In 1990 Prost was fighting for the title, while Mansell was nowhere. Sennas brilliance kept the Ferrari from winning.
in 1991, Patrese was beating Mansell for the first part of the season, but then Mansell started beating him. Considering that this is the same guy a few years later kept getting lapped by Schumi in the same car and Mansell struggled against him, that doesnt speak well for Mansell.
14th April 2010, 17:07
SGWilko

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

In 1986 he and Piquet lost because Prost was a much much better driver than them. Williams as a car was much better than what Prost had.
I did not mention 1988 or 1989.
In 1990 Prost was fighting for the title, while Mansell was nowhere. Sennas brilliance kept the Ferrari from winning.
in 1991, Patrese was beating Mansell for the first part of the season, but then Mansell started beating him. Considering that this is the same guy a few years later kept getting lapped by Schumi in the same car and Mansell struggled against him, that doesnt speak well for Mansell.

For the most part, 1991 was written off due to the unreliability of both the semi auto 'box and the still developing active ride.

Until 2010, Schumi's teammates generally had two hopes - one was Bob......

I think in '89 the Ferrari was a top car, shame the reliability could not keep up with the rest of the car - too many times the alternator belt went west rendering the solenoids on the semi auto 'box useless. SIlly how such an insignificant part can ruin a race car reputation - and such a beautiful car too.....
15th April 2010, 02:00
Saint Devote

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Considering the top cars he had (like in years 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, even in 1994) it is given that he should have won a huge amount of races. It says a lot that with even such cars he only won one title.

You just hate Mansell. I am on the side of Chapman and Williams who recognized Nigel was a very special individual.

And again, your fixation on titles rather than race wins is convenient - albeit that doing so axiomatically places Stirling Moss in the same category you do Mansell.

You are very wrong in this matter. For every argument you level against Nigel [and Jenson I might add] also erodes the status of other drivers that are recognized greats.

You may overlook this little abstract contradiction in order to attack using concretes. But it is illogical.
15th April 2010, 02:07
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

In 1986 he and Piquet lost because Prost was a much much better driver than them. Williams as a car was much better than what Prost had.

Mansell would have won the title in 1986 if that tyre hadn't blown itself to pieces 19 laps from home.
Ironically, if Piquet hadn't pitted, then Prost wouldn't have past him and then Piquet would have been on 72 points to Prost's 69.

Prost won the 1986 title because of 14mm of rubber.
15th April 2010, 08:16
ShiftingGears

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Mansell would have won the title in 1986 if that tyre hadn't blown itself to pieces 19 laps from home.
Ironically, if Piquet hadn't pitted, then Prost wouldn't have past him and then Piquet would have been on 72 points to Prost's 69.

Prost won the 1986 title because of 14mm of rubber.

Prost won because he put himself in a position to win the title going into the last race, with an inferior car.
15th April 2010, 08:48
Sonic

Quote:

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

Prost won because he put himself in a position to win the title going into the last race, with an inferior car.

I don't believe Prost had a mega strong team mate stealing points off him. If only Mansell or PK had been in that Williams with a weak team mate yo back them up the championship would have been settled well before oz.

Certainly Nige was bested in the early part of '91, but do bear in mind Patrese was the incumbent in that team at the time and it only took Mansell half a season to beat him, and by 1992 - by the time he really understood how to maximise the active ride - he totally wiped the floor with him to the tune of seconds per lap!

Even if you take away the 9 wins he scored in that dominant FW14B his record is still an impressive 22 wins. The man is a Leg End - end of story.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page