Elio de angelis -- the forgotten gem ?

Autosport seems to be down at the moment so I can't check, but I'd be interested to know if they all named 40 drivers or if they named say 20 and they happened to be able to get enough variation to get a top 40.

 

But to suggest he was better than Mansell would be to also suggest that he shoudl be in the poll, at least around Mansell's area.

Many drivers never had the chance to fully show their talents but were in the poll having done many fewer races.

His problem as I have alluded to already was he was a nice guy and a gentleman (a superb pianist by all accounts, not that it has much relevance!). He lacked the cutting edge that made some usually ordinary drivers stand out from time to time.

Also worth mentioning if he had the same reliability issues Mansell had in 1987 he would not have won the WDC anyway. Mansell pissed all over Piquet that year but strange Williams and Honda reliability issues seemed to hit his car much more than Piquet's.

1986, well who knows, to say he would have won it that year is a big ask bearing in mind Prost had a competitive McLaren that year, Piquet was also motivated and Senna was always taking points off them in the Lotus when he had the chance. You;d have to be sure that Elio would have made no mistakes and had no off days to beat that trio of drivers. As he was latin, that makes all that no certaintiy at all. His head was down at Lotus when Senna came in and trounced him on speed. And we all now what happened late in the race at Adelaide to deny Mansell the WDC anyway.

Elio, great guy, a gem of a person, but not a gem of a driver.

 

I think the poll was deliberately and fundamentally flawed; providing much amusement for its voters - at expense of the ignorant who hang on their every word.

Did the journalist who constructed it consider that most drivers play a prank when given such an open goal? Probably. After all, if he/she is paid by Autosport, there's a fair chance of having been in the business long enough to know all that matters is to get people to argue over it; thus increasing readership, advertising potential, simple revenue and job-security for any employee.

The result should be taken with considerable mirth…

 

Oh yeah, but the poll gets brought up as undisputable evidence when it suits .............

After all, 217 international drivers can't be wrong

 

so let me get this strait cc -- autosport polled 217 ex F1 drivers many of them WDCs , many of them in there 40s , 50s , 60s and older so they are obviously sensible intelligent people ,
the 217 drivers then as if by a miracle all got together and thought they would play a little prank on the autosport and vote for somebody they did not like --
--------- where did you dig that one up from

if you noticed the top ten are roughly the same top ten that are allways top in these kind of polls -- it just so happens it was 217 F1 drivers spread over several decades which gives that particular poll even more credibility -

 

de angelis was never likely to be included in that poll as he died to soon and never had the chance in a competitive car so never actually achieved a great deal ,
however the bottom line is in the 3 and a bit yrs he was teamed up with mansell he was overall the better driver out of the two --

i have never said he was anything trully special because he was not , i just believe he was better than mansell , he proved that anyway , and there by definition he was probally better or as good piquet --

as for 1986 -- de angelis was allways a very consistant , intelligent driver , and for me would not of made the silly errors neither had some of the bad races that mansell had given the williams was the absolute class of the field for 86 -

to me mansell was poor that year given the machinery he had -- i just could not have seen de angelis slipping up like that --

 

Are you hanging on my every word?

Why not stick to the facts without presuming a miracle?

 

good shout canary -- polls such as the autosport 217 driver poll , i take that back as it was a very unique poll , the drivers can only vote on what they have seen to date ,

have no doubt the likes of vettel and alonso may well move up in the historians estimation as there career unfolds a little more -

 

exactly what facts are these are these cc -- tell me again how the 217 drivers all got together and played a little prank on autosport by voting for somebody they did not like -

----- it gets better every time i hear it --

 

Aha! It would seem you are hanging on my every word!

Your question is easy Xig. I'm sure you know the answer because you wrote it. Logic therefore suggests these would constitute the facts worth sticking to:

The rest of what you said is either speculative conjecture or pure supposition.

 

very interesting cc , some very nice long words thrown in there for good measure ,

------- you would"nt be avoiding the question would you --

 

Thanks. I knew you'd understand and appreciate them.

Surely you've noticed that I answered it?

 

cant say i have noticed cc -- i see alot of longwinded words and nothing else --

 

I see a round about way of making an ironic point

 

I'll repeat it for you more simply without the words you can't see past:

 

You're too damned clever!

 

no you have lost me cc -- cant quite decipher gobbledy gook

-- so you still think autosport got together 217 ex F1 drivers many of them WDCs spanning several decades in the most comprehensive poll ever undertaken of its type anywhere and polled them all on the drivers ,

the 217 drivers then thought they would play a jolly jape and vote for somebody they did not like -? --- is that what you think ?

 

They're your words Xig. But I would not suggest they're "gobbledy gook"; since I understood them clearly:

 

still not answered the question cc that you are desperate to avoid -

so do you still think the 217 ex F1 drivers many of them WDCs when polled in the most comprehensive poll of its type ever undertaken anywhere played a jolly jape and all voted for somebody they did not like ?

 

Yes, I have!
I have stuck entirely to the facts and not presumed anything, miracles or otherwise.

In addition, I have also given my opinion - which you must already have read because you quoted me and demonstrated some confusion over with another question; which I then answered with words I thought you understood and appreciated. When it became clear that you did not understand, I removed the words you said you could not see past.