Oh, Elio, Elio, Elio. I so clearly remember the news on TV when Elio De Angelis was killed. Such a terrible, dreadful loss. A racing driver who was respected by everyone. R.I.P.
That year De Angelis ended up with 34 points on 3th position in Championship. At the same time Mansell ended up the year in only 10th with just 13 points. So this race is just an oasis in the desert for Lotus drivers that year. And by the way....De Angelis outquaified Mansell 11-5 in the 16 races of 1984.
De Angelis had the turbo for the full year. Mansell only had the normally aspirated V8 DFV until the British GP when they finally put the turbo unit in... where he started to wipe the floor with De Angelis, when the car managed to finish...
What a great race track. Saw the race as a ten year old boy on austrian tv. Nowadays, the track is shortened. The part at 0:44 shows the corner where the fatal crash of Roger Williamson happened. This part of the track is nowadays a golf course.
Nigel Mansell was beaten five years in a row at Lotus by Elio de Angelis. Then Rosberg demolished him in 1985 at Williams. After being beat 6 years in a row by his teammates very few drivers could have even existed in F1. Yet Mansell got a position in a top team. That's strange.
@@trumpstinyhands Ha ha. People often forget the all conquering super reliable McLaren MP4/4 and Senna’s special relationship with Honda. Mansell had the best car in 92 of course, but for many years before that he only narrowly missed out on world championships without that luxury. ‘88 was a miserable year overall with the massively underpowered and unreliable N/A Judd engined Williams but he still managed a win at Silverstone plus some respectable qualifying positions. Fastest moustache ever!
People moan these days that people focus on Lewis and Seb too much, it took Nigel to get into the top 6 wish people would stop telling me how the 80s were better, your lucky nowadays if you lap a back marker more than once there was a bigger Field spread and please don't tell me they were better drivers because they didn't do the fitness training they do nowadays, senna and prost were the first people that took it seriously but please don't tell me that they were the best in the world when they were busy ramming each other off the road, F1 was alot better 30 years ago alright then wish we could ask senna at his physical peak if he could cope with the g force's the cars produce today
If these cars produced that sort of G force they would have got fitter, there wasn't the G force so why would they get so fit? People like these cars because they were more basic and mechanical grip and driving skill was more important than an extra winglet on the body work somewhere and the price for crashing was both your legs or your life not just jumping out completely fine. You might as well say ww2 pilots are shit because the couldn't cope with today's fighter pilot G forces.
Modern F1 cars are ridiculously easy to drive compared to these. The throttle of a turbo car was more and on/off switch of 10 - 1000bhp. Modern drivers would be stunned at how hard these cars were to drive.
Modern cars are so sophisticated in the aero and suspension department, they are relatively easy to drive today. It's the forces that are put on the drivers that require the fitness. 5G is quite alot. If you drive the 1500hp FW 11 in a sim, it is amazingly powerful but it's all at the top end with quite a lot of turbo lag. If you want to drive it fast it is a real beast but hell of a lot of fun. The modern cars are much more composed and predictable.
DVAFP Many races were really boring past the halfway point... Nothing happend, race was done, only the endless listing of the driver's positions. Backmarkers added some excitement though.
Mansell's myth was based on luck, i.e. being in the right place at the right time. His first win was pure luck (Senna took out Rosberg and Piquet for the lead at Brands Hatch) and he lucked out by Rosberg leaving Williams just as it became the best car (Rosberg absolutely hammered Mansell in 1985). It was only by driving the ridiculously superior Williams in 1992 that he won a title. People quickly forget that Prost took him to the cleaners at Ferrari in 1990, Rosberg ate him for breakfast in 1985, De Angelis made him look amateur in 1984 and Piquet recovered from a horrendous crash at San Marino (similar to the one that would eventually kill Senna) to beat him in 1987. He was an over-rated cry baby. In 1989 he said Prost was the only driver he could learn from but after being given a driving lesson by Prost in 1990 all he did was slag Prost off. When Williams hired Prost for 1993 he couldn't work it out (despite the Ferrari hammering) so he ran away to Indycar.
Rubbish. He regularly out qualified Rosberg toward the end of 85 and leading for over 60 laps in Britain is hardly just luck. He dominated at the next race and led from lights to flag. Remember Rosberg had been with williams for 3 seasons already and was expected to be the quickest to start with. You conveniently gloss over 86 where he had the beating of Piquet and he should have won the title if it wasn't for bad luck (although you call him lucky?). In 87 he was the quickest driver / car combo on the grid and if it wasn't for his crash in Japan probably would have won the title. Piquet used the San Marino crash as an excuse for his regular pastings he took from Nigel. He had the upper hand over Berger in 89 and regularly outqualified Prost in 1990. He was hardly 'given a driving lesson'. If the Williams was so ridiculously superior in 92, how come Patrese offered no competiton to Nigel at all? He was regularly a second quicker than anyone else in qualifying and was an unbelievable 1.9 seconds faster than anyone to pole in Britain. People bang on about Senna beating Prost by 1.5 seconds in Monaco 88 but this was as good if not a better performance. His drives in 92 are seriously under rated and simply glossed over by people who think anyone could win in the Williams. Oh yes and when he 'ran away' to Indycar he won the title on the first attempt. Not many drivers could do that.
@@thiscocks Mansell fan eh? Fair enough - he was a good driver and good to watch but your argument falls down on the drivers you compare him favourably to. Berger? Patrese? When the history of Formula One is being written neither of these drivers will be mentioned among the greats. They were just quick drivers who drove cars capable of winning a World Championship but didn't even get close when they had the chance (Patrese in 1983 and 1992 and Berger in 1990 and 1991). 1986 and 1987 were good years for Mansell and improved his stature (I agree he deserved to win the title in 1986) but in reality those years actually showed Piquet up as being over-rated after years driving the Brabham against weak team mates (including Patrese). Winning the Indycar title was nothing. Fittipaldi did it 15 years after being F1 champion and F1 failures like Rahal and Zanardi walked to titles in the sport. How did Michael Andretti do in F1? It was a cakewalk for a reigning F1 champion to win that title. In 1990 Prost was in a title race with Senna, winning 5 races. Mansell was nowhere and probably cost Prost the title with his childish swing at him at the start of the Portuguese GP which was his only win that season. He did that because his ego was being battered by Prosts superiority. A driving lesson!
@@Claggyt Agree to an extent. On his day I think he was up there with the very best but no I wouldn't rate him with the all time greats like Senna and Prost. Winning the Indycar title on a first attempt was certainly impressive and certainly not a cakewalk. Its a totally different discipline and requires alot of skill and commitment to immediately do well on ovals. It was also super competitive in those days with many great drivers and teams. I really don't think many drivers (even the greats) could pull off the title straight away. Maybe Alonso but cant think of anyone else.
Oh, Elio, Elio, Elio. I so clearly remember the news on TV when Elio De Angelis was killed. Such a terrible, dreadful loss. A racing driver who was respected by everyone.
R.I.P.
as talented as senna and much more approachable. A colossus of f1. Thanks Mansell
Mansell my all time favourite sportsman👍👍👍👍
The black n gold Lotuses were some of the most gorgeous cars ever to race in F1. Such a tragic loss that the team collapsed.
They were but cigerette advertising was banned and JPS was all a cigerette packet on wheels. Black n gold... beautiful.
Mansell was awesome and so was senna
What a driver, what a true racer, simply fearless
That year De Angelis ended up with 34 points on 3th position in Championship. At the same time Mansell ended up the year in only 10th with just 13 points. So this race is just an oasis in the desert for Lotus drivers that year. And by the way....De Angelis outquaified Mansell 11-5 in the 16 races of 1984.
De Angelis had the turbo for the full year. Mansell only had the normally aspirated V8 DFV until the British GP when they finally put the turbo unit in... where he started to wipe the floor with De Angelis, when the car managed to finish...
@@firefinga yes. I forgot that was 1983. Too many wines down for a Friday night.
Great Nigel Mansell .
Il Lione .
De Angelis was stuck behind Rosberg for how many laps? Then Mansell goes through in 1 lap. Amazing pass!
greatest era of F1 - F1 today is GP2b
Agreed boring as hell with no real characters to speak of. It's just too clinical. So I've stopped watching.
Seeing Prost coming up to lap him hurried him up to pass Elio and Rosberg , Nigel definitely wanted to finish on the same lap as Prost.
What a great race track. Saw the race as a ten year old boy on austrian tv. Nowadays, the track is shortened. The part at 0:44 shows the corner where the fatal crash of Roger Williamson happened. This part of the track is nowadays a golf course.
Nigel Mansell was beaten five years in a row at Lotus by Elio de Angelis. Then Rosberg demolished him in 1985 at Williams.
After being beat 6 years in a row by his teammates very few drivers could have even existed in F1. Yet Mansell got a position in a top team. That's strange.
0:17 A nearly endless stream of cars...and today you can be glad when they stay at 20 cars per race.
A lot more cars in those days.
Brilliant work CM well done, great vid :-)
Mansell,, the best of the all times.
One of for sure.
great video 5*
What!!! No Blue flags...however did they cope !!!
they hit the drs......oh wait
So much better when drivers had to manage their cars and not be assisted from the pit-lane wall with computerised systems,this is proper F1,
Nice pass vs Rossberg
this is F1
@starlionblue They're back now though, yeah?
The rumours were right.
Mansell just had good drives
Pfffffffffffffft
@@matthewbriggs388 come on the William was in a different class.
OK I'll grant you he had a world class moustache too
@@trumpstinyhands Ha ha. People often forget the all conquering super reliable McLaren MP4/4 and Senna’s special relationship with Honda. Mansell had the best car in 92 of course, but for many years before that he only narrowly missed out on world championships without that luxury. ‘88 was a miserable year overall with the massively underpowered and unreliable N/A Judd engined Williams but he still managed a win at Silverstone plus some respectable qualifying positions. Fastest moustache ever!
@@gaucho5073 sorry, second 👍🏻
People moan these days that people focus on Lewis and Seb too much, it took Nigel to get into the top 6 wish people would stop telling me how the 80s were better, your lucky nowadays if you lap a back marker more than once there was a bigger Field spread and please don't tell me they were better drivers because they didn't do the fitness training they do nowadays, senna and prost were the first people that took it seriously but please don't tell me that they were the best in the world when they were busy ramming each other off the road, F1 was alot better 30 years ago alright then wish we could ask senna at his physical peak if he could cope with the g force's the cars produce today
If these cars produced that sort of G force they would have got fitter, there wasn't the G force so why would they get so fit? People like these cars because they were more basic and mechanical grip and driving skill was more important than an extra winglet on the body work somewhere and the price for crashing was both your legs or your life not just jumping out completely fine. You might as well say ww2 pilots are shit because the couldn't cope with today's fighter pilot G forces.
Modern F1 cars are ridiculously easy to drive compared to these. The throttle of a turbo car was more and on/off switch of 10 - 1000bhp. Modern drivers would be stunned at how hard these cars were to drive.
F1 today is boring 💤
Modern cars are so sophisticated in the aero and suspension department, they are relatively easy to drive today. It's the forces that are put on the drivers that require the fitness. 5G is quite alot.
If you drive the 1500hp FW 11 in a sim, it is amazingly powerful but it's all at the top end with quite a lot of turbo lag. If you want to drive it fast it is a real beast but hell of a lot of fun. The modern cars are much more composed and predictable.
If you think there's too much of a difference between teams nowadays, in this race the maclarens lapped everyone
DVAFP Many races were really boring past the halfway point... Nothing happend, race was done, only the endless listing of the driver's positions. Backmarkers added some excitement though.
Mansell's myth was based on luck, i.e. being in the right place at the right time. His first win was pure luck (Senna took out Rosberg and Piquet for the lead at Brands Hatch) and he lucked out by Rosberg leaving Williams just as it became the best car (Rosberg absolutely hammered Mansell in 1985). It was only by driving the ridiculously superior Williams in 1992 that he won a title. People quickly forget that Prost took him to the cleaners at Ferrari in 1990, Rosberg ate him for breakfast in 1985, De Angelis made him look amateur in 1984 and Piquet recovered from a horrendous crash at San Marino (similar to the one that would eventually kill Senna) to beat him in 1987.
He was an over-rated cry baby. In 1989 he said Prost was the only driver he could learn from but after being given a driving lesson by Prost in 1990 all he did was slag Prost off. When Williams hired Prost for 1993 he couldn't work it out (despite the Ferrari hammering) so he ran away to Indycar.
1986 and 87 ?
Rubbish. He regularly out qualified Rosberg toward the end of 85 and leading for over 60 laps in Britain is hardly just luck. He dominated at the next race and led from lights to flag. Remember Rosberg had been with williams for 3 seasons already and was expected to be the quickest to start with.
You conveniently gloss over 86 where he had the beating of Piquet and he should have won the title if it wasn't for bad luck (although you call him lucky?). In 87 he was the quickest driver / car combo on the grid and if it wasn't for his crash in Japan probably would have won the title. Piquet used the San Marino crash as an excuse for his regular pastings he took from Nigel.
He had the upper hand over Berger in 89 and regularly outqualified Prost in 1990. He was hardly 'given a driving lesson'.
If the Williams was so ridiculously superior in 92, how come Patrese offered no competiton to Nigel at all? He was regularly a second quicker than anyone else in qualifying and was an unbelievable 1.9 seconds faster than anyone to pole in Britain. People bang on about Senna beating Prost by 1.5 seconds in Monaco 88 but this was as good if not a better performance. His drives in 92 are seriously under rated and simply glossed over by people who think anyone could win in the Williams.
Oh yes and when he 'ran away' to Indycar he won the title on the first attempt. Not many drivers could do that.
@@thiscocks Mansell fan eh? Fair enough - he was a good driver and good to watch but your argument falls down on the drivers you compare him favourably to. Berger? Patrese? When the history of Formula One is being written neither of these drivers will be mentioned among the greats. They were just quick drivers who drove cars capable of winning a World Championship but didn't even get close when they had the chance (Patrese in 1983 and 1992 and Berger in 1990 and 1991).
1986 and 1987 were good years for Mansell and improved his stature (I agree he deserved to win the title in 1986) but in reality those years actually showed Piquet up as being over-rated after years driving the Brabham against weak team mates (including Patrese).
Winning the Indycar title was nothing. Fittipaldi did it 15 years after being F1 champion and F1 failures like Rahal and Zanardi walked to titles in the sport. How did Michael Andretti do in F1? It was a cakewalk for a reigning F1 champion to win that title.
In 1990 Prost was in a title race with Senna, winning 5 races. Mansell was nowhere and probably cost Prost the title with his childish swing at him at the start of the Portuguese GP which was his only win that season. He did that because his ego was being battered by Prosts superiority. A driving lesson!
@@Claggyt Your really fighting a loosing battle here, you obviously have beef with Nigel Mansel for whatever reason. In other words your full of shit.
@@Claggyt Agree to an extent. On his day I think he was up there with the very best but no I wouldn't rate him with the all time greats like Senna and Prost. Winning the Indycar title on a first attempt was certainly impressive and certainly not a cakewalk. Its a totally different discipline and requires alot of skill and commitment to immediately do well on ovals. It was also super competitive in those days with many great drivers and teams. I really don't think many drivers (even the greats) could pull off the title straight away. Maybe Alonso but cant think of anyone else.
Senna, the most overrated driver in history