[New!] Ranking Nigel Mansell's F1 Cars

[XcraigX]

Bottom post of the previous page:

I agree that the FW14B should be at the top of the heap. That was a simply awesome car that could likely beat several championship winning cars from different eras.

I'd do the 94T (mid-to end 83 car) at the bottom of that top 10 (= 11th overall)
followed by the Lotus91 (1982) and Lotus95T (1984). The former is a race winner, the latter is not - but overall the '84 car performed better than the '82 car.

And I agree with Antonov's assessment of the last two Loti. The 91 won a race, but mostly due to luck, where the 95T was a regular podium finisher.

Although it's hard to think the 94T was much better than the 87 or some of the others in the lower regions. I'm almost thinking it should be 13th or 12th. Anyone else have thoughts on that? I mean from Nigels perspective the MP4/10 was a dog, but Mika had some decent results with it (4th, 5th, and two 2nd places).
The one thing going for the 94T over the 87 is the 3rd place Nige achieved in the 94T. So I would put the 94T in 12th below the MP4/10.

I'm also not 100% sure we will not slot a few of the remaining cars in between some of these Loti, so don't engrave the trophies just yet.

[Michkov]

I'd do the 94T (mid-to end 83 car) at the bottom of that top 10 (= 11th overall)

followed by the Lotus91 (1982) and Lotus95T (1984). The former is a race winner, the latter is not - but overall the '84 car performed better than the '82 car.

getting the Lotae' out of the way, with only the Ferrari's and Williams' remaining seems fair.

Not so fast here. The FW11 and FW14, both iterations of each Williams are pretty much head to head imo. Problem is comparing FW11 against F14 the FW14s are always going to win alone by the virtue of being the younger car in the same regulation set (apart from the engines of course). On analysis the FW14B comes out on top by the fact that it was Mansells best car, nearly double the points of his teammate and 65% more than the second placed team in 92. Looking at those numbers the FW11B is very similar, even in reliability. Just a little less dominant, which I put down to early season troubles and a oddly strong Lotus on slow tracks.

So if @PTRACER permits I'd lock the FW14B on top with the FW11B in second.

[Star]

So, folks, the bottom of the list is looking well populated. Let's jump straight to the top.

Is there any doubt at all that the 1992 Williams is the best car on this list by far?




Bottom of the list:

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

@Everso Biggyballies @kals @Antonov @John @MonteCristo @Michael Ferner @DoubleFart @erwin greven @Cheeveer @caneparo @Michkov @Circuitmaster @Picci @JBT @White six @P. Cornelius Scipio @Ruslan @Star @Vassago @jimclark @XcraigX @lollipop dan @Tom @Xstatic3000 @motorsportandi @Manfred Cubenoggin @sadsac @theracer120 @Scuderia CC @Finix @Matt @SB83

I didn't see Mansell racing, I wasn't watching F1, all I do recall is seeing are odd bits on the news or odd bits of races if we were channel surfing and the men in the house decided to watch some of a race that was already under way. If I think of Mansell, that would probably be the car I picture him in.

[White six]

I'd do the 94T (mid-to end 83 car) at the bottom of that top 10 (= 11th overall)

followed by the Lotus91 (1982) and Lotus95T (1984). The former is a race winner, the latter is not - but overall the '84 car performed better than the '82 car.

getting the Lotae' out of the way, with only the Ferrari's and Williams' remaining seems fair.

Not so fast here. The FW11 and FW14, both iterations of each Williams are pretty much head to head imo. Problem is comparing FW11 against F14 the FW14s are always going to win alone by the virtue of being the younger car in the same regulation set (apart from the engines of course). On analysis the FW14B comes out on top by the fact that it was Mansells best car, nearly double the points of his teammate and 65% more than the second placed team in 92. Looking at those numbers the FW11B is very similar, even in reliability. Just a little less dominant, which I put down to early season troubles and a oddly strong Lotus on slow tracks.

So if @PTRACER permits I'd lock the FW14B on top with the FW11B in second.

Lotus , odd? No, just senna at the height of his powers on tracks where the horses made less difference.

[Michael Ferner]

... but the active suspension did, and since the horses in the Williams and Lotus were the same I'd say it was indeed a bit of an oddity.

[White six]

... but the active suspension did, and since the horses in the Williams and Lotus were the same I'd say it was indeed a bit of an oddity.

How they applied the power then, the engines in mercedes and rp are the same too.

The Williams was far superior at putting the power down but senna was able to close on tighter circuits

[Michael Ferner]

And that ain't odd?

[White six]

And that ain't odd?

Senna winning street races odd? Err no

Piquet won only three I think, and one of those was long beach which was pretty quick. Mansell had his moments but could be like a bull in a china shop

[Everso Biggyballies]

And that ain't odd?

Senna winning street races odd? Err no

Piquet won only three I think, and one of those was long beach which was pretty quick. Mansell had his moments but could be like a bull in a china shop

Re Piquet, Monaco Meister he was not, his forte was more the (old) Hockenheim type of track.
Politely put, Mansell lacked subtlety!

[Michael Ferner]

So, what you're saying is that Senna won those races because he was "at the height of his powers", everything else being equal. Does that mean he was just twiddling around the other 14 races? Still sounds odd to me!

[White six]

So, what you're saying is that Senna won those races because he was "at the height of his powers", everything else being equal. Does that mean he was just twiddling around the other 14 races? Still sounds odd to me!

Pierre Gasly at Monza will stand out as an odd result, people will look up how it happened. Senna winning at Monaco and Detroit won't, neither will a much better car burning him off elsewhere

[Michael Ferner]

Mansell was actually considered a bit of a Monaco specialist, early on. His 1981 performance was the first time he really caught the eye as a potential frontrunner, the podium at Zolder notwithstanding (which was a bit of a freak result), and in 1982 he drove a storming second half of a race to catch de Angelis on the final lap. 1984 was the first time he ever led a GP, if I'm not mistaken, and in both 1985 and '86 he beat his respective number one team mate at Williams for the first time. He ran well most other years, though he never won, but he certainly wasn't a klutz around the streets of Monte Carlo! And Piquet, while he most definitely detested Monaco, ran very well there in 1981 and '83, for example. S'not always black and white!

As for Lotus in 1987, the fact that the car was (extra) competitive on one type of circuit alone, whether one considers that odd or not, was at the time widely and quite satisfactorily attributed to its active suspension, which sounds reasonable enough for me. More reasonable, certainly, than the theory that Senna (of all people!) was merely touring around the other 14 races!

[Antonov]

1. 1992 Williams
2. 1987 Williams (evolution of the already great '86 car)
3. 1986 Williams
4. 1991 Williams
5. 1990 Ferrari (evolution of the '89 car)
6. 1994 Williams
7. 1985 Williams
8. 1989 Ferrari
9. 1984 Lotus (95T)
10. 1982 Lotus (91)
11. 1995 McLaren
12. 1988 Williams
13. 1983 Lotus - latter season (94T)
14. 1981 Lotus (87)
15. 1980 Lotus (81)
16. 1983 Lotus - early season (92)

[JBT]

... but the active suspension did, and since the horses in the Williams and Lotus were the same I'd say it was indeed a bit of an oddity.

The horses weren't the same - Williams had exclusive use of the RA167E engine in '87, Lotus had to use the RA166E from the previous year. Not short on power or drivability of course, but still not the same between the two teams.

[Michael Ferner]

That's not what all the period sources, and respected journalist/historian Doug Nye in Autocourse and all the history books say - do you have inside information?

For the record, according to Autocourse/Nye, both teams used the RA166E in Brazil only, and the RA167G from San Marino onwards until the season's final at Adelaide.

[JBT]

Interesting. No inside info Michael - my detail came from the book 'Team Lotus - Beyond the Colin Chapman Era' by Ibrar Malik. I stand corrected.