Top 20 Greatest F1 drivers

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by davyboy

LOL! Funny is it? You tell me what quality Mansell lacks, relative to Schumacher, aside from being a terrible at inter-team politics and being Ross Brawn's pet?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

LOL! Funny is it? You tell me what quality Mansell lacks, relative to Schumacher, aside from being a terrible at inter-team politics and being Ross Brawn's pet?

His choice in women ! Even Nelson Piquet said that

[formerf1champ]

NOt bad deeks, you have given me much to think about. I may just drip feed my responses over the next day or 2.

Originally Posted by deeks6

Seriously? Much as I used to enjoy "our Nige" that is just crazy. He deservedly won a WDC in probably the most dominant car in the championship history but lets put his career in perspective:

People like mentioning the fw14b, when speaking of Mansell. It's like a subconcious backhander. People forget that, if it weren't for non-driving errors, Mansell would've won 15 of the 16 races that year (missing out on Canada). Nobody ever talks about Prost, in the same car in 1993, only winning a relative paltry 7, and was often beaten fair and square that year (even by first year Hill!).

Originally Posted by deeks6

- In 4 years as a teammate to Elio de Angelis, he scored roughly half (38) the points that Elio did (73) and was comprehensively beaten in 3 out of the 4 years. As fine a driver that de Angelis was, I dont hear him being mentioned in Top 10 or even Top 100 despatches

Are you saying de Angelis had the authority in him to deal with the pressure of possibly winning the title and then going on to win it? It may need to be confirmed by older fans, but my impression of de Angelis is that he was a typical latin driver. He was fast on his day and when circumstances went with him, otherwise insignificant. From what I understand, Peter Warr had a significant effect on Mansell performance with his leadership of the team, I haven't heard many good things said about Peter. Did de Angelis enjoy being cast-off by Warr when Senna joined the team?

Originally Posted by deeks6

- Against Keke Rosberg at Williams ... beaten again. Keke went on to join Alain Prost and get thrashed

Rosberg was the incumbent, Mansell's in his first year in a new team, so what? It's just one year. Once Mansell settled in, he got the better of Rosberg. Mansell most likely would've won in Adelaide had Senna not punted him off.

Originally Posted by deeks6

Nige was an entertaining, gritty fighter but was prone to mistakes and probably a bit hard on his equipment. However, when people such as Murray Walker and Nigel Roebuck and other assorted British-centric "experts" rate him above the likes of Jack Brabham, Fernando Alonso, Mika Hakkinen, Mario Andretti, Nelson Piquet, Jochen Rindt, Graham Hill, Sebastien Vettel, Alan Jones, Emerson Fittipaldi etc,I cant really take them seriously because both the statistical and physical evidence just does not stack up.

I think, maybe you could review your conclusion.

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

I remember Clark saying that if you ran a nation-wide newspaper competition and invited 1000 finalists to Brands Hatch to have a run in his car there would be many crashes, probably a few deaths, but there was also a good chance that one driver would be quicker over one lap than him.

Yes, if you throw the net wider the greater the chance of capturing talent but karting isn't the only way to do it. Karting is to driving a single seater what table tennis is to Wimbledon. The only reason some "stars" have started in karting is that their parents had the money to indulge them, so of course the majority of racers are ex-karters these days.

Everybody focusses on the karting stars who have succeeded, nobody mentions the enormous number of karting stars who have failed....that's not good for business.

As for opportunity, there was a far greater chance of being "talent spotted" in the days of old because many cars and teams were run by "patrons" as a sport rather than just a money making venture. When's the last time a mechanic was given a run in a car like Graham Hill?

Fun thread in the silly season though isn't it?

Interesting that Clark said that, also what you say about karting stars that dont succeed, I live near where Mansell lived in Shirley, a school friend of mine who was a karting star when Mansell was karting, could blow him away most of the time, however the lad then fell out with his dad who prepared the kart & they didn't speak to each other for a number of years, he's a builder in Stratford upon Avon now.

Mansell couldn't have been half bad, he went to CART and won the Championship in his 1st season - he had pole & a win in his 1st race.
When he came back he out qualified Hill & Schumacher at the last race of the season, Adelaide, he did win it by default though as they crashed out.

Most of the modern FI stars are from wealthy backgrounds still.

A lot of the 50s /60s stars were often talent spotted, Clark raced a Lotus Elite against Chapman & Costin in 1958, the rest is history, Brabham came over to further his racing career at the behest of Dean Delamont (RAC chap), I dont think his parents were absolutely loaded , McLaren & Hulme were selected by the New Zealand racing authority on a 'Driver to Europe' campaign.
These guys were also good mechanics

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by FastDB2s

Mansell couldn't have been half bad, he went to CART and won the Championship in his 1st season - he had pole & a win in his 1st race.
When he came back he out qualified Hill & Schumacher at the last race of the season, Adelaide, he did win it by default though as they crashed out.

Good times there...

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

NOt bad deeks, you have given me much to think about. I may just drip feed my responses over the next day or 2.

You're obviously a big fan of Nigel and thats fine. I would suspect that most F1 enthusiasts of that era (including me) were also Nigel fans ... you know why? Because he was the archetypical underdog (like Rosberg against the turbo cars for example) ... and everyone loves an underdog. Not only that, he was a loveable boofy character and a sportsman on the track. Thats important to me and why I respect him far more than someone like a Senna, infinitely more talented but a dirty driver.

But the first person you have to beat in F1 (and the only real comparison you can make against) is your teammate. The simple facts are this - the only teammate Nigel managed to properly beat was Ricardo Patrese. He was soundly beaten by de Angelis and Rosberg, on a par with Piquet and Berger then thrashed by Prost. When he won the WDC, Patrese was just as dominant over the rest of the field and again, with due respect, I doubt that anybody is going to rate Ricardo as anything but a good honest reliable driver. Yet, if he was the lead driver that year he would have been a dominant WDC.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by deeks6

You're obviously a big fan of Nigel and thats fine. I would suspect that most F1 enthusiasts of that era (including me) were also Nigel fans ... you know why? Because he was the archetypical underdog (like Rosberg against the turbo cars for example) ... and everyone loves an underdog. Not only that, he was a loveable boofy character and a sportsman on the track. Thats important to me and why I respect him far more than someone like a Senna, infinitely more talented but a dirty driver.

But the first person you have to beat in F1 (and the only real comparison you can make against) is your teammate. The simple facts are this - the only teammate Nigel managed to properly beat was Ricardo Patrese. He was soundly beaten by de Angelis and Rosberg, on a par with Piquet and Berger then thrashed by Prost. When he won the WDC, Patrese was just as dominant over the rest of the field and again, with due respect, I doubt that anybody is going to rate Ricardo as anything but a good honest reliable driver. Yet, if he was the lead driver that year he would have been a dominant WDC.

Thinking about it I should have put him in my list; I know it's not in the rules of the thread but he was the only driver to hold the WDC and the PPG CART/Indy Car championship at the same time.

[chunterer]

Mansell was hardly thrashed by Prost was he?

How many times was he ahead in 1990 when the bloody car caved in?!

It's Mansell's legendary lack of delicacy with a car that arguably cost him more wins, points and therefore titles. In speed he wasn't inferior to almost anybody else from 1984 onwards. He really ought to have been a triple WDC no question about that.

Let's look at reasons why he may not have 'performed'

The Lotus days: combo of largely crap cars and latterly firmly being treated as a no.2 by Warr.

Early 1985 at Williams: bedding in, as by the end of the season he generally had the upper hand on Keijo.

After that, generally quicker than Piquet but perhaps lacked the guile of the Brazilian and Nige just simply did not seem to know when not to push!!

Having said all that, I still wouldn't rate him as a top 10 all time driver....

[Bononi]

Mansell was simply amazing to watch... that puts him as a top ten for me.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by deeks6

You're obviously a big fan of Nigel and thats fine. .

Better to take the "This guy's an offended Mansell fan" glasses off, then read my post. I've asked you and davyboy legitimate questions and have received donuts for responses. I hadn't yet finished responding to your other stuff.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by deeks6

- Against Nelson Piquet, he took one of the 2 years together but was outscored over the 2 years 143-131. Yet many of you guys are rating him ABOVE Piquet who won 3 WDC!

Why are you stating the accumulative points to make a point? Hardly conclusive evidence to further diminsh Mansell. You didn't acknowledged the far more compelling statistic when comparing those two drivers in those two seasons.

Originally Posted by deeks6

- He beat Gerhard Berger at Ferrari but that year, the Ferrari was notoriously unreliable. Berger outqualified him 9/7 to show their raw speed comparison. Again, Gerhard would be rated a very good F1 driver but hardly Top 10 material.

Who the **** would rate Berger as a good driver, let alone a very good driver??? The guy was a potato. This I cannot explain. However, I will say it's only one season, so what? Berger outqualified Mansell 9-7. Big deal, it's only one qualifying session difference. Mansell did produce two good wins that year.

In fact, I'll use Gerhard to further my point that may apply to de Angelis. Ok, a guy "may" have the speed, but does he have the leadership, mental strength, the nerve to withstand the pressure of a championship challenge? Gerhard, never once had it in him to challenge for the title, not even close. You can't say he missed out on driving good cars, or not driving good cars for long enough. Mansell, on the other hand, more than proved his worth before 92. There's a strong case to say he was the moral 86, 87 and 91 champ.

Originally Posted by deeks6

- In 1990, he was comprehensively thrashed by Alain Prost. No shame in that as Prost is most certainly one of the legends but, if Nige was one of the greats he would have been a tad closer

Once again, it was only one year. Another example of of Mansell's off-track smarts letting him down. As chunterer pointed out, the performance between Mansell and Prost isn't as obvious as the statistics suggest. If you think off-track "ambiance" doesn't have an effect on-track, look at Prost's 91 season.

Originally Posted by deeks6

- Nige was an entertaining, gritty fighter but was prone to mistakes and probably a bit hard on his equipment. However, when people such as Murray Walker and Nigel Roebuck and other assorted British-centric "experts" rate him above the likes of Jack Brabham, Fernando Alonso, Mika Hakkinen, Mario Andretti, Nelson Piquet, Jochen Rindt, Graham Hill, Sebastien Vettel, Alan Jones, Emerson Fittipaldi etc,

Walker and Roebuck may find it a bit hard to take you seriously (particularly Roebuck). With the possile exception of Alonso, even Fittipaldi, I can pick holes with all those drivers.

Originally Posted by deeks6

- I cant really take them seriously because both the statistical and physical evidence just does not stack up.

Statistical and physical evidence doesn't stack up because you pick and choose to make your points (like everyone else when making whatever point they want to make). Yes, de Angelis did better than Mansell in 81 for example. But it was Mansell who produced Lotus's best qualifying result (3rd Monaco) and best race result (3rd Belgium). Yes, de Angelis beat Mansell in 84, with what was, on the surface, a great season. However, Mansell created two serious opportunities to win races that year. Did de Angelis come close to even one win?

No need to mention the glaring statistical omission between Mansell and Piquet in 86 and 87, hugely favouring Mansell.

How is it, that it's alright to mention Berger's 9-7 qualifying record over Mansell, but there's no mention of the 8-8 score between Mansell and Prost? Not only that, but I checked that Prost had the better of Mansell at Hockenheim and Monza. They a hardly circuits where driver input is relatively more valuable.

You see what I mean about picking and choosing?

[formerf1champ]

To anyone

How does a guy, who's known to be hard on the cars he drives, dominates oval racing, a discipline foreign to him and familiar to his competitors?

Does anyone acknowledge, that Mansell got the most out of the fw14b?

Does anyone think, despite winning the title, Prost underperformed in 93?

Since I also follow the NFL, I've often held a belief, that discussing the comparisons between quarterbacks is similar to doing the same with drivers. Does anyone see the similarity?

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

To anyone

How does a guy, who's known to be hard on the cars he drives, dominates oval racing, a discipline foreign to him and familiar to his competitors?

Does anyone acknowledge, that Mansell got the most out of the fw14b?

Does anyone think, despite winning the title, Prost underperformed in 93?

Since I also follow the NFL, I've often held a belief, that discussing the comparisons between quarterbacks is similar to doing the same with drivers. Does anyone see the similarity?

Aren't you comparing ?

NFL ? Quarterback ? Nasa ? Mars ?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

To anyone

How does a guy, who's known to be hard on the cars he drives, dominates oval racing, a discipline foreign to him and familiar to his competitors?

Does anyone acknowledge, that Mansell got the most out of the fw14b?

Does anyone think, despite winning the title, Prost underperformed in 93?

Since I also follow the NFL, I've often held a belief, that discussing the comparisons between quarterbacks is similar to doing the same with drivers. Does anyone see the similarity?

You can also apply comparison's to Wimbledon, Football players, Golf, the list goes on but the NFL it's Joe Montana and I'm a Raiders fan. .

Mansell did an amazing job with the FW14B.

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Why are you stating the accumulative points to make a point? Hardly conclusive evidence to further diminsh Mansell. You didn't acknowledged the far more compelling statistic when comparing those two drivers in those two seasons.

Who the **** would rate Berger as a good driver, let alone a very good driver??? The guy was a potato. This I cannot explain. However, I will say it's only one season, so what? Berger outqualified Mansell 9-7. Big deal, it's only one qualifying session difference. Mansell did produce two good wins that year.

In fact, I'll use Gerhard to further my point that may apply to de Angelis. Ok, a guy "may" have the speed, but does he have the leadership, mental strength, the nerve to withstand the pressure of a championship challenge? Gerhard, never once had it in him to challenge for the title, not even close. You can't say he missed out on driving good cars, or not driving good cars for long enough. Mansell, on the other hand, more than proved his worth before 92. There's a strong case to say he was the moral 86, 87 and 91 champ.

Once again, it was only one year. Another example of of Mansell's off-track smarts letting him down. As chunterer pointed out, the performance between Mansell and Prost isn't as obvious as the statistics suggest. If you think off-track "ambiance" doesn't have an effect on-track, look at Prost's 91 season.

Walker and Roebuck may find it a bit hard to take you seriously (particularly Roebuck). With the possile exception of Alonso, even Fittipaldi, I can pick holes with all those drivers.

Statistical and physical evidence doesn't stack up because you pick and choose to make your points (like everyone else when making whatever point they want to make). Yes, de Angelis did better than Mansell in 81 for example. But it was Mansell who produced Lotus's best qualifying result (3rd Monaco) and best race result (3rd Belgium). Yes, de Angelis beat Mansell in 84, with what was, on the surface, a great season. However, Mansell created two serious opportunities to win races that year. Did de Angelis come close to even one win?

No need to mention the glaring statistical omission between Mansell and Piquet in 86 and 87, hugely favouring Mansell.

How is it, that it's alright to mention Berger's 9-7 qualifying record over Mansell, but there's no mention of the 8-8 score between Mansell and Prost? Not only that, but I checked that Prost had the better of Mansell at Hockenheim and Monza. They a hardly circuits where driver input is relatively more valuable.

You see what I mean about picking and choosing?

Mate, for some reason you think I'm knocking Nigel ... not the case, please re-read post. Nigel is most certainly in the Top 10 most popular drivers but his record pales against other drivers that I have mentioned. You can have a different opinion (pretty sure thats what forums are for) I think the facts speak for themselves. However, because I've got some time on my hands, I'll address your stuff:

1. Not sure what the "far more compelling statistic" is you refer to. I'd say it was this one - 1987 WDC Nelson Piquet. Now, for all intents and purposes, there was not much between these guys in any measure. In 1986, Nigel beat Piquet by a single point and beat him 5-4 in races they both finished. In 1987 Piquet won by 15 points even though Nige beat him 5-4 in races they both finished. Piquet missed the 2nd race of the season (which) Nigel won yet he still wrapped up the WDC with 2 races to go so I dont know how Nigel could be the "moral" champion. The aim of this game is to win the WDC and you do that with skill, consistency and focus. You can talk about Sterling Moss, Graham Hill, Alan Jones, Felipe Massa (just to name a few) who might consider themselves unlucky at times but, the fact is, you make your own luck and a guy who wins 3 titles is not lucky. Piquet got the job done ... 3 times ... and once when Nigel was his teammate. thats compelling for mine.

2. Berger was hardly a spud and that is disrepectful to a very good driver. I dont place any great emphasis on qualifying, more the end result, however Gerhard was in front of Nigel more often that not when he retired. The car was the spud. Lets not forget that he missed Monaco and drove several races recovering from broken bones after that. And he beat Mansell in the only race they both finished.

3. Again, in 1991, Senna wrapped up the title with 2 races to go ... not sure how Nigel was the "moral" champion there either.

4. Against Prost, he lost 8-2 in races they both finished and was 37 pts to 73 in the WDC. Thats a thrashing, no other way to put it.

5. You can pick holes in any driver, nobodys perfect but those other drivers have a better overall record than Nigel. The underrated Alan Jones, for example, won a GP fair and square in a Shadow, one of the very few times that a driver has won a GP in a car that really shouldnt have. I rate that highly. Yes, James Hunt retired but Jones passed about 10 cars on track including Niki Lauda's Ferrari.

6. I think Roebuck rates Gilles Villeneuve the greatest ... enough said. Murray is great fun but everybody know he loved Nige. We used to giggle when he would exclaim with great excitement " and Nigel Mansell has moved from 18th to 15th..."

7. Elio de Angelis 1984: 3rd in WDC, 4 podiums, 12 times in the points out of 16 races inc the first 10 in a row ... fair effort I'd say. In 4 years together de Angelis clearly won 3 of them and the year he didnt (1983), he beat Mansell in the only race they both finished and was ahead of him more often when retiring.

Lies and damned statistics maybe but they dont work for Nigel. In any case, I still love pulling out the old DVDs and enjoying his work and, at the end of the day, thats what its all about surely.

[FastDB2s]

I think we need to move on from Mansell & debate more drivers, there are a great many that we havent debated, Lauda, G.Hill, Moss, etc.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

You can also apply comparison's to Wimbledon, Football players, Golf, the list goes on but the NFL it's Joe Montana and I'm a Raiders fan. .

Mansell did an amazing job with the FW14B.

No no, I don't mean as in having the same topic "Who's the greatest <insert sport> of all time". I've found, when discussing QBs, the pattern of conversation is similar when dicussing drivers. Who do you think is the best, their relative strengths and so forth. I'll be sitting there thinking "This is just like talking about racing". In other sports, it's a bit more clear cut. With drivers/qbs, there are more factors to take into account.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by FastDB2s

I think we need to move on from Mansell & debate more drivers, there are a great many that we havent debated, Lauda, G.Hill, Moss, etc.

Feel free to make a point.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by deeks6

1. Not sure what the "far more compelling statistic" is you refer to.

Mansell 11 wins - Piquet 7.

Originally Posted by deeks6

2. Berger was hardly a spud and that is disrepectful to a very good driver. I dont place any great emphasis on qualifying, more the end result, however Gerhard was in front of Nigel more often that not when he retired. The car was the spud. Lets not forget that he missed Monaco and drove several races recovering from broken bones after that. And he beat Mansell in the only race they both finished.

Berger was a spud, someone of moderate ability who bluffed his way through 13 years of GP racing. He would've been a OK Touring car driver in a lesser series.

Originally Posted by deeks6

3. Again, in 1991, Senna wrapped up the title with 2 races to go ... not sure how Nigel was the "moral" champion there either.

Senna was barely affected by mechanical trouble. Mansell had 3 wins affected by non-driving errors. Not to mention all the times he had a definite podium/possible win.

Originally Posted by deeks6

4. Against Prost, he lost 8-2 in races they both finished and was 37 pts to 73 in the WDC. Thats a thrashing, no other way to put it.

So you remember the 1990 season? You'd know Mansell was looking highley likely to win at San Marino, before his engine blew. Prost, in effect, inherited the British GP from Mansell. In Japan, taking into account Senna ploughed Prost, Mansell was leading that til his transmission packed itself. Even if you didn't give Mansell that one, that 3 possible wins to Mansell and 4 to Prost. On the surface, a thrashing. But not really...

Originally Posted by deeks6

5. You can pick holes in any driver, nobodys perfect but those other drivers have a better overall record than Nigel. .

There are many factors that affect a driver's overall record, it is not a reflection of relative talent.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by FastDB2s

I think we need to move on from Mansell & debate more drivers, there are a great many that we havent debated, Lauda, G.Hill, Moss, etc.

I'm dreading the debate over Sir Stirling - it normally ends up with young 'uns quoting statistics showing how his win record wasn't so great, and the veterans huffing and puffing about "you don't understand".

Today the UK is generally regarded as the hub of the world's motor sport industry, especially F1. The foundation for this started back in the late 50s, leading to almost total domination in the mid-60s onwards; the Great Man played his part, I can assure you.

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by nicanary

I'm dreading the debate over Sir Stirling - it normally ends up with young 'uns quoting statistics showing how his win record wasn't so great, and the veterans huffing and puffing about "you don't understand".

Today the UK is generally regarded as the hub of the world's motor sport industry, especially F1. The foundation for this started back in the late 50s, leading to almost total domination in the mid-60s onwards; the Great Man played his part, I can assure you.

I reckon his win / position / finish rate was great but I would as we have now met him many times in the last 10 years & realised just how special he is !
When he drove his / any car in a race for the last time at Le Mans Legends 2011, decided to hang up his helmet there & then, and announced his retirement to the world a day later was an emotional moment,

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by FastDB2s

I reckon his win / position / finish rate was great but I would as we have now met him many times in the last 10 years & realised just how special he is !
When he drove his / any car in a race for the last time and announced his retirement to the world a day later (last year) was an emotional moment,

He means so much to folks from a certain generation - he was in his day the equivalent of Beckham in popularity and world-wide recognition. The way things are, what with his recovery from the lift-shaft fall, I reckon he'll outlast me.

There is often one driver in each era whom his peers regard with awe for his abilities. After the retirement of Fangio, Sir Stirling was that man until "the big one" at Easter goodwood. Today we have several drivers of a fairly equal ability, so it's difficult to get your head round how things used to be. The only hope for the others was Stirling's persistence in driving British whenever possible, and his gentlemanly way of doing business. (No written contracts).

[FastDB2s]

Sir Stirling's books aren't great, they are mainly statistical lists with a few comments on cars so you dont get the man or the era, however the Alf Francis book catches this, I hope the new book by Tony Robinson may also catch this as i'm about to order it.

[Bononi]

I love threads like this... it aaalways goes this way.

[FastDB2s]

Does it, never really had time to look, or contribute so this is a first for me.