Ask Nigel: April 17

Dear Robert,

I spent last Saturday morning walking round much of the track at Imola, and the handling balance of two cars particularly impressed me, the Ferrari F2002 and the McLaren MP4-17. At one point David Coulthard, considerably neater and more controlled than team mate Kimi Raikkonen, was fastest of all, but when it came to qualifying conditions the McLarens were unable to threaten the Williams-BMWs, let alone the Ferraris. Fast forward 24 hours, and Michael Schumacher lapped DC in the race.

Although McLaren folk have been commendably loyal to their engine partner this year, refraining from apportioning blame to Mercedes (whose personnel, it should be said, have sometimes been rather less reticent when the boot has been on the other foot), there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Coulthard and Raikkonen are significantly short of horsepower this year, just as the Honda-powered Jordan and BAR drivers are. From what David has told me, the MP4-17 is the best McLaren for some time, so its absence from the front couple of rows of the grid can be put down to only one thing.

Frankly, I don't think Mika Hakkinen's departure has anything to do with the team's current predicament. For one thing, in 2001 he was invariably a shadow of the driver he had been; for another, I would say that Raikkonen is pushing Coulthard harder this year than Hakkinen usually did last; for a third, not even Mika at his most inspired could have done much about a 70-horsepower deficit.

Can Raikkonen threaten DC's future with the team? As far as I know, David's current contract with McLaren expires at the end of 2003, and at that point it's possible that either he or his team might decide to make other arrangements, but at present I certainly don't see anything in his performances that would prompt Ron Dennis urgently to look elsewhere. Yes, there is the brilliant, if still somewhat unformed, talent of Raikkonen in the other car, but I think David is driving superbly this season - indeed, I have great sympathy for him because at last he has become the senior driver in the team, and it coincides with a period when McLaren - or Mercedes - are in the relative wilderness.



Dear Thomas,

Yes, Nigel Mansell did indeed suffer unreliability problems and bad luck before finally winning the World Champuionship in 1992, but was it really any worse than that endured by most drivers? All right, we all remember the famous day at Adelaide in 1986 when his Williams-Honda's right rear tyre exploded on the Dequetteville straight; he was running third at the time, and four points were all he needed to clinch the title, so undoubtedly that was hugely unlucky.

However, you could argue that he lost the '86 championship a fortnight earlier, when he selected third, rather than first, gear on the grid, and made a consequently appalling start. In the course of that race, he changed tyres three times, and finished fifth; Alan Prost's slower McLaren-TAG changed just once, and finished second. Thus, Prost went to Adelaide still with a shot a the title, and he duly won it.

The following year, a Williams-Honda was still very much the quickest car around, and again Nigel won more races than anyone else. Nelson Piquet, though, was very much more consistent. Early in the year, the Brazilian had a huge accident at Tamburello - the corner which would later claim Ayrton Senna - and it was many months before he felt truly well again. As a consquence, he took the year relatively quietly, and his finishing record was somewhat better than Mansell's. The issue was settled at Suzuka, where Nigel crashed during practice, his injuries keeping him out of both the Japanese and Australian Grands Prix.

As for '91, over the whole season it cannot be said that Nigel, now in a Williams-Renault, was truly a match for Ayrton Senna - indeed, for the first half of the season he was unable to out-qualify his team mate Riccardo Patrese.

Finally, in '92 Williams introduced the FW14B, the only car that year with 'active' suspension. In all my years of covering F1, I would say that the FW14B was the most quantifiably superior car - relative to its opposition - I have seen. All you need to know is that Patrese finished second in the World Championship - ahead of Senna's McLaren-Honda.

That said, unquestionably Mansell made the most of the car, and had the title won as early as the Hungarian Grand Prix in August, where Michael Schumacher clinched the title last year.

Had he won four championships, would he have deserved 'similar legendary status' to Fangio, Prost, Senna and Schumacher? The question is academic, because he didn't. I wouldn't put him in their company, I must say, but doubtless some will disagree. To my mind, the greatest single victory of his career came not in a Williams, and not in any the years you cite. I thought his win in the Ferrari, at the 1989 Hungarian Grand Prix, right out of the top drawer. All right, it was an opportunist's victory, but that day he didn't have the best car, and he truly got the better of Senna.



Dear Chris,

On Saturday I sat through Max Mosley's press conference at Imola, listening as once more he mellifluously advised us we didn't really know very much about motor racing. Certainly, when it comes to drivers 'damaging the sport', that is true of me. My idea of 'damaging the sport' is when one driver swerves at another audacious enough to think about passing, but clearly here my views and those of the FIA are at variance, for they seem more concerned about what drivers say. Criticism of the governing body appears to be tolerated about as readily as it is by Mr Blair and his alleged Government.

Alain Prost was hauled over the coals in 1993 for remarks of a disparaging nature, and the following year Eddie Irvine had his already harsh punishment - a one-race ban for allegedly causing an accident at Interlagos - tripled when his team dared to appeal against the judgement.

Then, in 1997, Jacques Villeneuve came forth with some impassioned remarks about the forthcoming rule changes - those involving grooved tyres, narrow-track cars, and so on - which did not go down well. JV was asked to explain himself at a hearing in Paris, and just by chance this was scheduled for the middle of the week before the Canadian Grand Prix, so that Jacques, already in Montreal to do pre-race publicity work, had to fly the Atlantic a couple of extra times.

Whether or not these are the occasions to which Max was referring I have no idea. I certainly don't recall any when 'dangerous driving' was involved. It's speaking out of turn that seems to get you into trouble these days.



Dear Dominic,

I am not entirely certain that the layout of the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve for the August CART race will be identical in all respects to the one used for the Canadian Grand Prix. Some say yes, others no.

If it is exactly the same, I shall be fascinated to see the lap times of the CART cars, compared with F1. I suspect that they will be somewhat slower, but you never know. I remember that when the Indycars first came to England, in 1978, it was confidently predicted that they wouldn't approach F1 times at Silverstone, and we were thus rather floored when Danny Ongais qualified his Parnelli more than two seconds faster than the quickest previously seen by an F1 car...

At that time, however, there was an enormous horsepower gulf between Indycars and F1 cars. The most powerful F1 engine of the late '70s was Ferrari's 3-litre flat 12, which probably gave a little over 500bhp. The turbocharged 2.8-litre Cosworth and Offenhauser engines used by the Indycars of that period, however, were not restricted on boost, and in qualifying, at least, Ongais will have had perhaps 1100bhp available. No
surprise that his straightline speed were so impressive.

These days there is not a lot to choose. A turbocharged engine for use in CART still gives over 900bhp, but there is a boost limit now, and the best of the 3-litre F1 engines - say, the BMW - is probably producing around 870. The F1 car is, however, considerably lighter, and has carbon brakes, as well as considerably more sophisticated electronics and aerodynamics.

Montreal has a very long straight towards the end of the lap, and I would expect the CART cars to be quicker down there, but they will struggle to get near F1 cornering speeds, particularly in the slow stuff, where nimbleness is all. Therefore, I could be wrong, but I'll be surprised if they match F1 lap times.



Dear Gil,

Not an easy question to answer. Had Ayrton Senna not been killed, yes, I think ultimately Michael Schumacher would have made the same impression, but I think it would have taken him appreciably longer than it did.

In any era of racing, there is always a king - and eventually someone comes along to depose that king. It doesn't always happen, of course, because sometimes drivers retire before they are dethroned. Without any doubt, at the time of his death Senna was still the greatest driver on earth, but he well knew, as Jo Ramirez said, that "Schumacher was someone who was going to give him trouble".

Martin Brundle believes that no one - not Schumacher, nor anyone else - would ever have dethroned Senna. "Ayrton was the best, and he knew it, but as soon as he was no longer quite what he had been, he'd have known that, too - and he'd have retired immediately. He'd have done that before it was apparent to anyone else."

I'm sure Martin is right. Ayrton had too much pride to stay on past his prime. Until the terrible events at Imola in 1994, we were on the verge, I think, of what was going to be a fantastic era. Consider, though: in 1994, Senna was 34 years old, and perhaps at the zenith of his ability; Schumacher was but 25, by no means there yet. Had the pair of them kept going, I think Ayrton would have had the better of it for a time, but eventually the lines of convergence would have crossed - and he would have known it before anyone else.

At some stage, therefore, the Schumacher era would have begun, because, after Senna, Michael was the next truly great driver to come along. I think the presence of Ayrton would have delayed it, that Michael might now have fewer wins and World Championships against his name, but without any doubt he would ultimately have become 'The Man'.



Dear Robert,

Funnily enough, few of my memories of Brands Hatch are to do with the Race of Champions. In fact, when recalling great days at Brands, I tend to think in terms of sports cars as much as F1. I first went there in the summer of 1964, for the Guards Trophy meeting on August Bank Holiday Monday. The big attraction was AJ Foyt, at the wheel of John Mecom's brutish Scarab-Chevrolet. Unfortunately, it didn't last long, but I don't believe I ever saw a car more sideways through Paddock.

The Guards Trophy was won was by Bruce McLaren, but of note, too, was an earlier event on the card - for Formula 2, no less. Pretty good entry it had, too, for a 'supporting race': names like Graham Hill, Jack Brabham, Denny Hulme, Jochen Rindt - and Jimmy Clark, who then drove in the main race, and finished off by driving a Lotus Cortina in the touring car race! Time was you got to see a lot of your heroes. Only the month before, Jimmy and the rest had been at Brands for the track's first British Grand Prix.

The other Brands sports car race I cannot forget was - of course - the 1970 BOAC 1000kms. It has gone into history because it was one of those days when one driver - Pedro Rodriguez - made all the rest look ordinary. The weather was atrocious, and, had it not been for Pedro's sublime display in the Gulf Porsche 917, I might well have left early. As it was, I never gave it a thought; just stood there, sodden, frozen and mesmerised.

Rodriguez also had a memorable F1 drive at Brands Hatch, and this was in the Race of Champions, in 1968, when - on an oil-soaked track - he brought his BRM through to second place, behind Bruce McLaren, who that day won his first F1 race in a car bearing his own name.

A year earlier, the winner was Dan Gurney in his own Eagle-Weslake V12, one of the most beautiful racing cars of all time, and this was also a first win for the marque. In an extremely exciting finish, Gurney beat Lorenzo Bandini's Ferrari by about a second. Ferrari were twice to win the Race of Champions, however, with Clay Regazzoni in 1971, then with Gilles Villeneuve in '79.

Jacky Ickx's win in '74 was extemely memorable, as you say. I happened to be at Paddock that torrential day, and I can still remember that black Lotus going around the outside of Niki Lauda's Ferrari, which had led to that point. When Ickx talked about it, of course it made sense to do what he did: there was grip on the wide line, because Paddock was banked to some degree, and inevitably the rain water drained to the inside, which was the conventional line, of course, taken by all save Jacky.

Perhaps the most thrilling of all the Races of Champions, however, was the very first, in 1965. At that time Jimmy Clark was unquestionably the best driver in the world, as nearly unbeatable then as Michael Schumacher is today, but he always said the only rival who truly worried him was Dan Gurney, and that day Gurney, in a Brabham, put Clark's Lotus under such pressure that eventually Jimmy overdid it at the exit of Bottom Bend, and had a huge accident, from which he was lucky to escape unhurt.

Dan's perennially awful luck kicked in eventually, of course, and in the end victory went to Clark's Lotus team mate, Mike Spence, from a new, and very promising, BRM driver, one J.Y. Stewart...