Nigel Mansell's view on F1 rules and participants

[Glen]

"If I was in charge, I would write a new set of rules for the good of the sport not the mighty manufacturers who spend mega money."

Well, duh, Nigel. Where do you think those manufacturers would go then? Thank God he isn't in charge! What he says always sounds popular and rings nicely with the nostalgia set - but how does he think it helps to make such dumb assessments which leave virtually all questions unanswered?

I mean - he wants reduced costs, but he also wants traditional qualifying. Well how does he think it will reduce costs if we go back to qualifying cars, extra engines and all that? It is easy for him to spout off, because he doesn't have to consider the consequences.

Stick to golf mate.

[sonic]

Originally Posted by Glen

Stick to golf mate.

Yeah, the one sport where Alain Prost might not humilliate you. (did you see that DTM classic?)

He was never the sharpest tool, but the media do love him enough to give exposure to his ramblings. pity.

[garcon]

Ah, the lad means well.

And remember, it's not the plank screwed to the bottom of the car that matters so much as the plank in the seat...

[Glen]

I was a bit unkind there I suppose. I revered him as a driver I must add - terrific fighting spirit and brave in a comic book hero sort of way.

[John Turner]

Yes, a bit harsh, I'd say. He's entitled to an opinion like the rest of us, I feel, especially if asked to give it. Don't remember him being particularly humiliated by Prost in the recent DTM event either. It would have been humiliating to Prost if anyone had beaten him given that he was the only one with recent racing experience.

[Glen]

He is entitled to an opinion - but in his position he's not entitled to spout an opinion which obviously cannot be realised. Many people will read his comments and feel that they ring true, but anyone that knows anything about F1 has heard of the lobby of the manufacturer teams and must realise that this threat cannot simply be ignored. Mansell's comments sound too good to be true because they are - if he actually were in charge of things he wouldn't get anywhere with thinking like that.

[John Turner]

I agree, it's probably a 'romantic' opinion based on nostalgia, but was the added 'plank' necessary? By adding that you are disparaging the great driver that he was and opening the door to the sort of 'constructive' comment that Sonic chose to post.

[Adam43]

Thread title changed. I'm only guessing, but Glen's main point seems to be that there is a contridiction between what people are trying to achieve with F1. Do we want to just save money, or do we want some of it to be spent on exciting things like Q. Do we want manufacturers? If not where will they go to play. let us not let a dig at Mr Mansell detract from a discussion point he himself has raised.

Personally, the saving money thing isn't important to me! Reducing the effect of spending more may have something in it. To a certain extent it regulates itself.

The manufacturers. Yes they should play in F1 if they want. If F1 isn't for them then they will go somewhere else. Fair enough, but then we lose a lot of what F1 is about.

Nigel is being romantic and that is no bad thing. I can be fairly rose tinted. However one of the last people I'd want writing F1 rules would be Nige'.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by John Turner

...you are disparaging the great driver.

I shouldn't have been unkind, so my fault there - although nobody is above having the mickey taking out of them. I was disparaging a poor thinker (as i see it), not a great driver.

[N I Tram]

Mansell's recent interviews have been quite troubling - he doesn't seem to have understood the crux of the problems with F1, and hasn't really thought through his supposed solutions. Better to remember what he achieved on track than worry about this.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Glen

I shouldn't have been unkind, so my fault there - although nobody is above having the mickey taking out of them. I was disparaging a poor thinker (as i see it), not a great driver.

Glen, thanks for comments; hope I wasn't sounding too sensitive on behalf of the man! Also thanks to Adam for changing the thread title; he's absolutely right, it is worth discussing.

I agree with N I Tram, too. I think that the trouble with Nige is that he has been out of touch, too long. I suspect that he 'follows' F1 only sporadically and only then, probably in a very specific focused way, without grasping the 'bigger picture'.

Having said that, there is a problem with high profile and high investment involvement of car manufacturers in F1 because they can come and go as they please. A change of directors often heralds a change of policy. We have seen it before. F1, as it is today, is very exposed to these decisions outside its control.

[ggreen29]

I don't understand the criticism of Nige's comments. Don't manufacturers tems tend to do more harm than good in the long run? CAN-AM was killed by Porsche; no one else could spend the money they did. GTP was mortally wounded in 93 when almost all the manufacturer's teams (Jag, Nissan, Chevy, Mazda), who had previously driven out many of the independents, pulled out because of the recession. Has Audi's dominance in ALMS limited the participation of other teams? Remember Cadillac's halfhearted effort and their departure just as they seemed to get the bugs out? That's a CFO decision, not a Tyrrell, FW, or pre-Benz Dennis decision. And F1 now has the smallest grids in my lifetime, with the least amount of passing and the least amount of respect for, if this forum is any indication, the winningest WDC and an utterly amazing team (and I'm not a fan of Ferrari or MS).

While not all of these problems can be laid at the feet of the manufacturers, they have huge influence on F1 for only their stockholders' interests, and they can leave at anytime without looking back. Do you think Ford had any angst about leaving F1 when facing their shareholders? Can McLaren still race if Daimler decides to pull out? What if an accountant's analysis says that Red Bull can get more money on dinner napkins than on an F1 team? What if a recession hits? Do we lose in one fell swoop Renault, McLaren, Toyota, Red Bull, and the nascent BMW team? That's half the field! Has there ever been a time when this large a portion of F1 was manufacturer teams?

I shudder to agree with Ecclestone, but he said F1 depends on the independents (I keep wanting to type it like that drunk on Firefly- "innapenunts"), and I never really thought about it until he said that but I think he's completely right. I don't know quite what the solution is, whether it's allowing customer cars, reducing aero and disallowing wind tunnels, but more and more rules over smaller and smaller things (why is there even a rule about brake cooling intakes?!) hasn't brought us a solution yet. Nor has criticizing Nige when he points out a major weakness in modern F1.

Being here in the US, maybe I just don't have the anti-Nige gene or see the Nige overexposure.

[Pingguest]

Does anyone has a link to that interview?

[SkaifeHRT]

Here you go.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=33761