Nigel Mansell is a Legend!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Prost won the title because in an inferior car he took it to the williams guys all year long.
Mansells tyre did not last - it was only one mans problem. His. He used it too much and destroyed it.

---

One one? Really? Perhaps you know more about this than I do.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr436.html
On lap 63 the battle became one for the lead, when Rosberg suffered a right rear tire failure. Mansell was on course for the title when two laps later his left rear tire exploded at 180mph. Nigel managed to avoid hitting anything by his championship hopes were over. Williams had no choice but to call Piquet to the pits and so Prost went into the lead.

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Australian_Grand_Prix
Fearing the same happening to the second car, Williams called Piquet to the pits and Prost took the lead.

To summarise:
Lap 63: Rosberg retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 64: Mansell retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 65: Piquet pits to change tyres. - Why is that?

Adelaide was an abrasive street circuit. If Mansell's tyre hadn't blown he would have been World Champion. Prost wasn't catching him towards the latter stages of the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

One one? Really? Perhaps you know more about this than I do.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr436.html
On lap 63 the battle became one for the lead, when Rosberg suffered a right rear tire failure. Mansell was on course for the title when two laps later his left rear tire exploded at 180mph. Nigel managed to avoid hitting anything by his championship hopes were over. Williams had no choice but to call Piquet to the pits and so Prost went into the lead.

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Australian_Grand_Prix
Fearing the same happening to the second car, Williams called Piquet to the pits and Prost took the lead.

To summarise:
Lap 63: Rosberg retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 64: Mansell retires - due to tyre failure
Lap 65: Piquet pits to change tyres. - Why is that?

Adelaide was an abrasive street circuit. If Mansell's tyre hadn't blown he would have been World Champion. Prost wasn't catching him towards the latter stages of the race.

---

Thansk Rollo! I was just about to post something similar. Mansell didn't loose the '86 title, it was lost for him. He was also in the hunt in '87 before that shunt wrecked his back. So but for circumstances we could be talking about, Nigel Mansell, 3 times WDC! :D the number of wins in his career could have easily seen him achieve that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

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...

---

Nigel himself said the only reason he reversed his retirement decision was because Renault and Williams offered him everything he wanted and needed to become world champion. He made demands that he didn't expect them to meet but they did, so he came out of retirement and had everything just as he wanted it.

And yet in the first six races he was comfortably outscored by Patrese, including Riccardo's win in Mexico. In the first seven races he was outqualified by Patrese everytime, often by a decent margin. But then Mansell went on a roll of three successive wins and won the second half of the season. Quite why there was such a turnaround I don't know. Was it just down to Nigel getting comfortable in the team, and the car?

We do, however, now know what happened in 1992.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

...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!

---

Agreed. He did. Mansell absolutely made the most of the FW14B, whereas Patrese did not. One of the reasons was that some of the drivers input (or feel) was replaced by the computer. Mansell, a more physical than feel kind of driver, trusted the car more than his team-mate, who lost speed and time as a result, particularly through the corners where the active ride was so effective.

However, there was far more to it than just that, as Motorsport uncovered in 2002, and as Maurice Hamilton wrote about more recently in his book "Williams". You can read the Motorsport article here. Riccardo wasn't aware of what Mansell and his engineer were doing at the time, and Adrian Newey admits that he and Patrick Head were slow to realise it.

It's the main reason I don't hold Mansell in as high esteem as many here. He didn't need to talk a load of rubbish in team debriefs designed to fool Riccardo. He would have won, and deserved to win, the title in 1992 anyway.

Some will argue that the ends justify the means, and the results support that view to some extent, but when I read "he totally wiped the floor with him" I think the whole picture needs to be seen to explain, at least in some way, why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

You cant get away from the facts regardless of anyone's opinion.

Nigel is the fourth highest ever race winner in F1.

He was afraid of nobody and overtook people in places where overtaking was supposedly impossible, winning the races.

He was the measure of all the drivers of his day.

He was one of the toughest and drove in his championship year with a broken foot.

He did not withdraw from a race when he was being soaked and burnt by exposure to fuel.

Colin Chapman and Frank Williams recognized his ability.

No. Nigel is a legend and it is the little bitter people that squeal against this giant of a racing driver.

---

I have never disagreed that Mansell was one of the toughest SOBs to ever race in F1, was very brave and exciting to watch. Never have I disagreed with those points. What I have said is that he never was that impressive speedwise against his teammates, something you or any other mansell fan have managed to address in their post or argue against.
Thanks for proving my point :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

One one? Really? Perhaps you know more about this than I do.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr436.html
On lap 63 the battle became one for the lead, when Rosberg suffered a right rear tire failure. Mansell was on course for the title when two laps later his left rear tire exploded at 180mph. Nigel managed to avoid hitting anything by his championship hopes were over. Williams had no choice but to call Piquet to the pits and so Prost went into the lead.

---

Yes, I know that Rosbergs tyre failed too, but how does it change what I said - "It was only one mans problem - his." Maybe I did not express myself well enough, so I will try to do it now. That his tyre failed, was not the fault of anyone else besides himself. Same for Rosberg. He had used it too much, if I remember correctly then Piquet was told to pit by Williams for fear of a failure too, but his tyres were found to be in a much better condition than Mansells. Infact, he probably would have managed to do the whole race on them.

Quote:

---

Adelaide was an abrasive street circuit. If Mansell's tyre hadn't blown he would have been World Champion. Prost wasn't catching him towards the latter stages of the race.

---

Oh really? You must know better than facts and me then.

On lap 50 Prost was 8,5 seconds behind Mansell. On lap 58, the gap was 1,5 seconds. The next lap it was already under 1 second and it stayed that way till Mansells tyre blew. Prost had much better tyres and was going to overtake him soon anyway. Mansells tyres were never going to last the whole race with his driving style on that track. But of course, his ego did not allow him to pit.

So if we exclude Mansell from the list of people at fault for the tyre failing, whose fault was it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

Thansk Rollo! I was just about to post something similar. Mansell didn't loose the '86 title, it was lost for him. He was also in the hunt in '87 before that shunt wrecked his back. So but for circumstances we could be talking about, Nigel Mansell, 3 times WDC! :D the number of wins in his career could have easily seen him achieve that.

---

He was 12 points behind Piquet in 1987 before he crashed at Japan, with two races to go. Unlikely that he would have won the title.

Mansell did indeed lose the 1986 title all by himself, the tyre failed because he had overused it.

BTW: Care to retract this statement of yours, which I so nicely dismantled?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Thats not quite what happened. There was a segment on this very incident before one of the GP's in 2008 where Patrick Head was interviewed and he gave his memories on that very incident. Rosberg had a right rear tyre failure on his Mclaren and Williams put the call out to Mansell asking him to pit on that lap. It was literally seconds after recieving the call that Mansell's tyre exploded. I don't quite see the logic that it was the fault of one man, being Nigel Mansell. Drivers up and down the grid were pitting as a precaution after Rosberg's incident, and Mansell was extremely unlucky IMO. It was very similar to Indy 2005 in the respect that two drivers recieved blown tyres and others reported excessive wear. :)

---

How was Mansell unlucky? He abused the tyres too much, they were never going to last the whole race with his style. Whose fault was it then if not his? Both he and Rosberg abused the tyres too much and that is why they failed. Simple as that.

To compare this to indy is idiotic, at indy the tyres were clearly not suitable for the conditions and were going to blow up after 10 laps. At Adelaide people were able to do almost the whole race on one set of tyres, some took better care of their tyres and were able to do the whole race on them, some pitted early, some abused their tyres like crazy and retired due to that. Not luck involved, Mansells tyres were NEVER going to last the whole race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

On lap 50 Prost was 8,5 seconds behind Mansell. On lap 58, the gap was 1,5 seconds. The next lap it was already under 1 second and it stayed that way till Mansells tyre blew.

---

You might want to watch a clip of the tyre blow online to see just where Prost was. 1 second behind he most certainly was not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

On lap 50 Prost was 8,5 seconds behind Mansell. On lap 58, the gap was 1,5 seconds. The next lap it was already under 1 second and it stayed that way till Mansells tyre blew. Prost had much better tyres and was going to overtake him soon anyway. Mansells tyres were never going to last the whole race with his driving style on that track. But of course, his ego did not allow him to pit.

---

Not sure it changes any arguments but wasn't Prost AHEAD of Mansell at the time? I thought the order was Piquet, Prost, Mansell, then a big gap to Johansson in fourth when Mansell's tyre went pop. Third was good enough for the title no matter what happened ahead of him. After Mansell's tyre blew Piquet was brought in, and Prost deservedly (I'm not disputing that) won the race and the title.

From what I remember of things said and written about the race, Mansell could have pitted or dramatically eased off and still finished third that day because Johansson's Ferrari was so far behind. I believe the information from Goodyear who supplied all the top teams apart from Benetton was that the tyres were looking OK, it was only what happened to Rosberg and Mansell in quick succession that informed them otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

You might want to watch a clip of the tyre blow online to see just where Prost was. 1 second behind he most certainly was not.

---

On lap 62 he was 0,5 seconds behind Mansell. The next lap Mansells tyre blew.

In fact, looking at that clip, was it not Prost leading Mansell already before Mansells tyre blew up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IvGwoNrv8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

On lap 62 he was 0,5 seconds behind Mansell. The next lap Mansells tyre blew.

In fact, looking at that clip, was it not Prost leading Mansell already before Mansells tyre blew up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IvGwoNrv8

---

You tell me - you had him behind me old mucker.....

You can't go charging in lambasting others about facts when yours are.....


.....poorly researched and dubious.

Have a great weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V12

Not sure it changes any arguments but wasn't Prost AHEAD of Mansell at the time? I thought the order was Piquet, Prost, Mansell, then a big gap to Johansson in fourth when Mansell's tyre went pop. Third was good enough for the title no matter what happened ahead of him. After Mansell's tyre blew Piquet was brought in, and Prost deservedly (I'm not disputing that) won the race and the title.

From what I remember of things said and written about the race, Mansell could have pitted or dramatically eased off and still finished third that day because Johansson's Ferrari was so far behind. I believe the information from Goodyear who supplied all the top teams apart from Benetton was that the tyres were looking OK, it was only what happened to Rosberg and Mansell in quick succession that informed them otherwise.

---

Actually yes. you are right on most counts.
If Mansell had pitted, he would still finished third and taken the title by virtue of 1 more win compared to Prost.
But as I remember, the goodyear mechanics had inspected the tyres of Prost who picked up a puncture in the early stages of the race and concluded from looking at those that doing the whole race on them would be okay. But of course, Prost took care of his tyres in an extraordinary way.

I've had a look at the Forix lapchart for Mansell and he was in third place from lap 44-ish until his tyre blew, I am guessing then that Prost passed him on the same lap Rosberg retired.

Either way, my point was that Mansell wasn't racing Prost that day.