The Official 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix Thread ***Spoilers**
Discussion
NRS said:
I don't think anyone will argue Hamilton is worse in regards to passing other cars, however Rosberg's strength is more making sure he finishes the race, part of which is not forcing overtakes that may not be there occasionally.
got some data to back this argument up with?Yes, Lewis had more DNF's last year, but if you look at the detail, hard to blame him for any of them.
BritishRacinGrin said:
Tony2or4 said:
[Some apparent b
ks]
This guy is, with all due respect, a fks]king moron... He was comimg out with exactly the same bks a couple of weeks ago in the Vettel thread;Tony2or4 said:
[An earlier dose of apparent bks]
ks]To be fair, if you examine my b
ks (as it were) with a comb of finer tooth than you used, you'd see that the first bk was subtly different from the second one.
ETA: In any case, lesson learned, mea culpa and all that. In future I'll be doing what the other sages on here do and just avoid PH like the plague whenever I'll be watching recorded races of any stripe.
Edited by Tony2or4 on Monday 30th March 17:38
ash73 said:
I see Bernie's in the news today, calling for a separate women's F1 WDC. I agree, except for one detail - I think they should take part in the same races, but with their own WWDC, by adding a third car to the top teams for the best women drivers.
It would mean a few extra cars on the grid, won't hinder the guys from getting a top drive, and adds to the spectacle. Every other sport has separate competitions for men and women, and this would also give them a chance to compete directly on track.
I am not sure that positive discrimination is the way forward. Lets just have the third cars and let either sex get through on merit.It would mean a few extra cars on the grid, won't hinder the guys from getting a top drive, and adds to the spectacle. Every other sport has separate competitions for men and women, and this would also give them a chance to compete directly on track.
ash73 said:
I know what you're saying, but on the other hand you could argue motorsport not having a separate division for women's competition IS discrimination.
I think Bernie has finally realised no other sport works like that. Sharapova might struggle to beat any of the top 50 male tennis players, but she is a champion, and people want to see her play.
That's completely different though. Any sport which relies heavily on physical strength (such as tennis) clearly needs separate championships.I think Bernie has finally realised no other sport works like that. Sharapova might struggle to beat any of the top 50 male tennis players, but she is a champion, and people want to see her play.
That isn't the case for motorsport.
Danica Patrick didn't need a separate championship when she competed in Indycar (and won a race)
Michèle Mouton finished second in the World Rally Championship all the way back in 1982.
There is simply NO need for women to be treated differently in motorsport.
Scuffers said:
NRS said:
I don't think anyone will argue Hamilton is worse in regards to passing other cars, however Rosberg's strength is more making sure he finishes the race, part of which is not forcing overtakes that may not be there occasionally.
got some data to back this argument up with?Yes, Lewis had more DNF's last year, but if you look at the detail, hard to blame him for any of them.
You can see Hamilton's way is better by him being a 2x WC, but Rosberg did get very close last year despite being a lot less of a "passer".
Paul_M3 said:
ash73 said:
I know what you're saying, but on the other hand you could argue motorsport not having a separate division for women's competition IS discrimination.
I think Bernie has finally realised no other sport works like that. Sharapova might struggle to beat any of the top 50 male tennis players, but she is a champion, and people want to see her play.
That's completely different though. Any sport which relies heavily on physical strength (such as tennis) clearly needs separate championships.I think Bernie has finally realised no other sport works like that. Sharapova might struggle to beat any of the top 50 male tennis players, but she is a champion, and people want to see her play.
That isn't the case for motorsport.
Danica Patrick didn't need a separate championship when she competed in Indycar (and won a race)
Michèle Mouton finished second in the World Rally Championship all the way back in 1982.
There is simply NO need for women to be treated differently in motorsport.
ash73 said:
It looks pretty physical to me, judging by the state of the drivers when they got out of the cars this weekend. And when they're not racing half of them are doing triathlons!
Indeed. The only way to allow women to compete on equal terms with men is to limit cornering forces, have power-assisted steering, brakes and more. Even then, men will have an advantage as such limitations will only reduce the physical requirements so allow a, probably, slightly higher percentage of women to compete.
The idea that Mouton’s success - if finishing second in such circumstances can be classified as a success - proves she was the equal of male rally drivers is a nonsense.
Those who suggest that having separate female competitions is discrimination is, of course, spot on. But what are the options? No female only rugby? Only someone who hasn’t seen a premiership team come past them could think that.
If the physical difference between men and women was just 0.5%, then women would still be at a massive disadvantage in any sport where elite athletes compete, such as grand prix motor racing. Button is the equal to any top class athlete in the Olympics.
There have been female F1 racing drivers, but none have been able to mix it with men at the top level. If there was ‘no need for women to be treated differently’ then we would have seen women on the grid before now. The marketing advantages of having a woman in an F1 car would be tremendous. PR people would love that. Women have an advantage over men in marketability. But what do we see? None. And that is because of valid reasons.
I think I will see women of real ability in the cockpit of an F1 car in my time, but it will be for the same reason that some drivers are there, having bought their way in, and not through ability alone. That, I think, would harm the ‘cause’ as, given identical driving ability, they will be at a distinct disadvantage to an elite man.
I talked to two female Le Mans Endurance Series drivers about women in the sport and both were of the opinion that women would never be able to compete at the top level in F1, due to physical limitations. However, they did very well at LMES. One of them had driven an F1 car, cars in fact, and I would bet the other had as well. They were convinced.
The argument that the regulations of F1 are discriminatory is one that we could discuss, and I could produce a lot of support for that. One could argue that where a car is such a major part of the lap times - look at how often the grid looks like the route into the ark - it should be possible to eliminate physical differences.
But you cannot argue against nature. As pointed out above, the drivers train and train and train. Differences in physique will become the deciding factor.
Wishing doesn’t make things so, no matter how nice it might be. There have been major advances in attitudes in the workplace in my lifetime but women will, on average, continue to have physical disadvantages in comparison to men. This doesn’t matter at all most of the time, and little for the majority of the rest, but when it comes to elite athletic events where strength and endurance matters, it is a significant.
Get over it.
Derek Smith said:
The idea that Mouton’s success - if finishing second in such circumstances can be classified as a success - proves she was the equal of male rally drivers is a nonsense.
First person I've ever heard to suggest Mouton's career wasn't successful - if that's what you meant. Not only was she the equal of many of her peers, she was better than most. A great talent. Derek Smith said:
Wishing doesn’t make things so, no matter how nice it might be. There have been major advances in attitudes in the workplace in my lifetime but women will, on average, continue to have physical disadvantages in comparison to men. This doesn’t matter at all most of the time, and little for the majority of the rest, but when it comes to elite athletic events where strength and endurance matters, it is a significant.
Get over it.
I take your points, but maybe the better long term equivalent (from a marketing perspective) is something like 3 day eventing. Could the energies and physic limitations be reduced to a level where the sport is still compelling, and have an ability for men and women to compete?Get over it.
Athletics is a comparator, but the primary energy to compete is from the car. i don't know the answer, but should great racing be determined by physical capability and mind? Or could we find a compromise?
Derek Smith said:
Paul_M3 said:
ash73 said:
I know what you're saying, but on the other hand you could argue motorsport not having a separate division for women's competition IS discrimination.
I think Bernie has finally realised no other sport works like that. Sharapova might struggle to beat any of the top 50 male tennis players, but she is a champion, and people want to see her play.
That's completely different though. Any sport which relies heavily on physical strength (such as tennis) clearly needs separate championships.I think Bernie has finally realised no other sport works like that. Sharapova might struggle to beat any of the top 50 male tennis players, but she is a champion, and people want to see her play.
That isn't the case for motorsport.
Danica Patrick didn't need a separate championship when she competed in Indycar (and won a race)
Michèle Mouton finished second in the World Rally Championship all the way back in 1982.
There is simply NO need for women to be treated differently in motorsport.
ash73 said:
It looks pretty physical to me, judging by the state of the drivers when they got out of the cars this weekend. And when they're not racing half of them are doing triathlons!
Indeed. The only way to allow women to compete on equal terms with men is to limit cornering forces, have power-assisted steering, brakes and more. Even then, men will have an advantage as such limitations will only reduce the physical requirements so allow a, probably, slightly higher percentage of women to compete.
The idea that Mouton’s success - if finishing second in such circumstances can be classified as a success - proves she was the equal of male rally drivers is a nonsense.
Those who suggest that having separate female competitions is discrimination is, of course, spot on. But what are the options? No female only rugby? Only someone who hasn’t seen a premiership team come past them could think that.
If the physical difference between men and women was just 0.5%, then women would still be at a massive disadvantage in any sport where elite athletes compete, such as grand prix motor racing. Button is the equal to any top class athlete in the Olympics.
There have been female F1 racing drivers, but none have been able to mix it with men at the top level. If there was ‘no need for women to be treated differently’ then we would have seen women on the grid before now. The marketing advantages of having a woman in an F1 car would be tremendous. PR people would love that. Women have an advantage over men in marketability. But what do we see? None. And that is because of valid reasons.
I think I will see women of real ability in the cockpit of an F1 car in my time, but it will be for the same reason that some drivers are there, having bought their way in, and not through ability alone. That, I think, would harm the ‘cause’ as, given identical driving ability, they will be at a distinct disadvantage to an elite man.
I talked to two female Le Mans Endurance Series drivers about women in the sport and both were of the opinion that women would never be able to compete at the top level in F1, due to physical limitations. However, they did very well at LMES. One of them had driven an F1 car, cars in fact, and I would bet the other had as well. They were convinced.
The argument that the regulations of F1 are discriminatory is one that we could discuss, and I could produce a lot of support for that. One could argue that where a car is such a major part of the lap times - look at how often the grid looks like the route into the ark - it should be possible to eliminate physical differences.
But you cannot argue against nature. As pointed out above, the drivers train and train and train. Differences in physique will become the deciding factor.
Wishing doesn’t make things so, no matter how nice it might be. There have been major advances in attitudes in the workplace in my lifetime but women will, on average, continue to have physical disadvantages in comparison to men. This doesn’t matter at all most of the time, and little for the majority of the rest, but when it comes to elite athletic events where strength and endurance matters, it is a significant.
Get over it.
As long as you are fit enough to complete the race distance and still comfortably operate the car that is enough. Being 50% stronger on top of that won't make you 50% faster.
Jenson is obviously the most well known for his triathlons and fitness. In his 2013 charity event his time (coming 17th in the male final) was 0:55:41. The winning female did a time of 0:55:24.
I'm sure any female with the correct training could reach the level of fitness required to compete in F1. They'd have to work a bit harder on upper body strength (particularly neck muscles) compared to men, but it's not impossible.
Susie Wolff completed 89 laps of Silverstone in one day during a 2013 test, so it's not unimaginable that with the right training a full Grand Prix distance at full pace is possible.
Trust me, I'm no womens rights activist, or anything like that! I just personally believe that if a truly talented woman got to F1, physically differences wouldn't necessarily stop her competing at the front.
Men will always have the ability to be ultimately stronger (lets say 10%), but that doesn't matter if they are 20% stronger than they NEED to be to do their job.
Rugby, athletics etc are different because that extra bit of stamina or strength will be the difference between winning and losing.
In motor racing, skill and speed is the difference between winning and losing. Being fit and strong makes life easier, but I do not believe it to be the deciding factor.
I couldn't really care less whether there are women in F1 or not. So I'm not "wishing for anything", nor do I need to "Get over it".
Vaud said:
I take your points, but maybe the better long term equivalent (from a marketing perspective) is something like 3 day eventing. Could the energies and physic limitations be reduced to a level where the sport is still compelling, and have an ability for men and women to compete?
Athletics is a comparator, but the primary energy to compete is from the car. i don't know the answer, but should great racing be determined by physical capability and mind? Or could we find a compromise?
Whether the sport should be tuned, so to speak, to allow women to compete on an equal basis with men is a subject of another thread I think. The implications are significant. Athletics is a comparator, but the primary energy to compete is from the car. i don't know the answer, but should great racing be determined by physical capability and mind? Or could we find a compromise?
Sports will push the boundaries. Ever improving seems to be the hope of most.
From another point of view, should men be penalised for being stronger? Should they not be allowed to use their physical abilities?
If you look at 3-day eventing, where strength is not such an advantage and is counter-balanced by light weight, we have a nice spread of male/female. There are some arguments about the proportion of men and women in the sport and the relative success, but I'm not sure that's relevant.
Some actor bought an American football team and his missus banned cheerleaders/pompom girls, saying it was sexist. One of their leaders replied in print with a well-reasoned, and persuasive, argument that the banning was sexist. Women wanted to be part of the event and the girls suggested they were as much athletes as the men, and certainly healthier.
It's a complex argument either way.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer and I think there must be compromise on both sides.
So no hope there then.
That race was in a different league to the opener.....
Ferrari have now shown that if you are willing to have a punt with your strategy and if the Mercs make the slightest mistake with theirs, they can be beaten.
Although like for like the Merc's are clearly still ahead.
I wonder where Williams would of ended had they also stayed out on the safety car.
Alonso and Button said they were happy with the progress made since Australia.....did I miss something?
Ferrari have now shown that if you are willing to have a punt with your strategy and if the Mercs make the slightest mistake with theirs, they can be beaten.
Although like for like the Merc's are clearly still ahead.
I wonder where Williams would of ended had they also stayed out on the safety car.
Alonso and Button said they were happy with the progress made since Australia.....did I miss something?
Paul_M3 said:
It obviously is a very physical sport, but strength and stamina and not the primary attributes required to be the best.
As long as you are fit enough to complete the race distance and still comfortably operate the car that is enough. Being 50% stronger on top of that won't make you 50% faster.
Jenson is obviously the most well known for his triathlons and fitness. In his 2013 charity event his time (coming 17th in the male final) was 0:55:41. The winning female did a time of 0:55:24.
I'm sure any female with the correct training could reach the level of fitness required to compete in F1. They'd have to work a bit harder on upper body strength (particularly neck muscles) compared to men, but it's not impossible.
Susie Wolff completed 89 laps of Silverstone in one day during a 2013 test, so it's not unimaginable that with the right training a full Grand Prix distance at full pace is possible.
Trust me, I'm no womens rights activist, or anything like that! I just personally believe that if a truly talented woman got to F1, physically differences wouldn't necessarily stop her competing at the front.
Men will always have the ability to be ultimately stronger (lets say 10%), but that doesn't matter if they are 20% stronger than they NEED to be to do their job.
Rugby, athletics etc are different because that extra bit of stamina or strength will be the difference between winning and losing.
In motor racing, skill and speed is the difference between winning and losing. Being fit and strong makes life easier, but I do not believe it to be the deciding factor.
I couldn't really care less whether there are women in F1 or not. So I'm not "wishing for anything", nor do I need to "Get over it".
Your argument, that a woman can be fit enough to finish the race, is not the point. Physical ability is a requirement and, to a certain extent, strength gives an advantage. As long as you are fit enough to complete the race distance and still comfortably operate the car that is enough. Being 50% stronger on top of that won't make you 50% faster.
Jenson is obviously the most well known for his triathlons and fitness. In his 2013 charity event his time (coming 17th in the male final) was 0:55:41. The winning female did a time of 0:55:24.
I'm sure any female with the correct training could reach the level of fitness required to compete in F1. They'd have to work a bit harder on upper body strength (particularly neck muscles) compared to men, but it's not impossible.
Susie Wolff completed 89 laps of Silverstone in one day during a 2013 test, so it's not unimaginable that with the right training a full Grand Prix distance at full pace is possible.
Trust me, I'm no womens rights activist, or anything like that! I just personally believe that if a truly talented woman got to F1, physically differences wouldn't necessarily stop her competing at the front.
Men will always have the ability to be ultimately stronger (lets say 10%), but that doesn't matter if they are 20% stronger than they NEED to be to do their job.
Rugby, athletics etc are different because that extra bit of stamina or strength will be the difference between winning and losing.
In motor racing, skill and speed is the difference between winning and losing. Being fit and strong makes life easier, but I do not believe it to be the deciding factor.
I couldn't really care less whether there are women in F1 or not. So I'm not "wishing for anything", nor do I need to "Get over it".
The drivers are not stronger than they need to be for their job. They are, in all probability, as strong as they can be for the level of dedication.
F1 differences are microscopic. Rosberg and Hamilton are, to any logical degree, all but identical in ability to drive. Both are at their peak of ability. A 0.5% advantage of one over the other would put them out of reach, all else being equal.
All factors can be decisive if all else is equal. If you cream off the top 1% around the world of those with the ability to be an F1 driver, then men would be represented disproportionately. Then reduce that number by a further 99% and so on until we reach homeopathy dilutions.
As mentioned above, perhaps the regs should be changed. There used to be power steering but it was banned as being too easy.
The physical requirements of driving an F1 car are tremendous. Neck muscles take a pounding both laterally and along the line of of the car. Limit the acceleration and g-forces by all means, say down to the level of the 3-litre formula in the 60s, and have shorter races. Then the physical advantages of men would be reduced significantly. But would we watch it? Would it be fair on men?
There have been many drivers with talent in the past, who were not committed to the sport. They were in it for the life-style. We could all name a few. But even they, to stay on the grid, had to exercise.
It's a hard sport.
Re: rugby. I used to play with a chap who was 5'6" tall and weighed a bit less than the ball. He was one of our most influential players, scrum half, and got his position through merit. He was not unique in his size for that position. If he was tackled by anyone a lot bigger than him, the error in etiquette would be pointed out to them. A girl could have taken his place.
Since going pro, the scrum half has doubled in weight and size. Tactics have changed through the top levels and all players are now significantly larger and a woman would have to be exceptional to be able to stay with the blokes, let alone shine.
I was playing rugby when the cars were powered by 3-litre DFVs and, although the races went on for over 2 hours sometimes, lack of physical ability was not so important. But times have changed.
Derek Smith said:
Your argument, that a woman can be fit enough to finish the race, is not the point. Physical ability is a requirement and, to a certain extent, strength gives an advantage.
The drivers are not stronger than they need to be for their job. They are, in all probability, as strong as they can be for the level of dedication.
F1 differences are microscopic. Rosberg and Hamilton are, to any logical degree, all but identical in ability to drive. Both are at their peak of ability. A 0.5% advantage of one over the other would put them out of reach, all else being equal.
All factors can be decisive if all else is equal. If you cream off the top 1% around the world of those with the ability to be an F1 driver, then men would be represented disproportionately. Then reduce that number by a further 99% and so on until we reach homeopathy dilutions.
As mentioned above, perhaps the regs should be changed. There used to be power steering but it was banned as being too easy.
The physical requirements of driving an F1 car are tremendous. Neck muscles take a pounding both laterally and along the line of of the car. Limit the acceleration and g-forces by all means, say down to the level of the 3-litre formula in the 60s, and have shorter races. Then the physical advantages of men would be reduced significantly. But would we watch it? Would it be fair on men?
There have been many drivers with talent in the past, who were not committed to the sport. They were in it for the life-style. We could all name a few. But even they, to stay on the grid, had to exercise.
It's a hard sport.
Re: rugby. I used to play with a chap who was 5'6" tall and weighed a bit less than the ball. He was one of our most influential players, scrum half, and got his position through merit. He was not unique in his size for that position. If he was tackled by anyone a lot bigger than him, the error in etiquette would be pointed out to them. A girl could have taken his place.
Since going pro, the scrum half has doubled in weight and size. Tactics have changed through the top levels and all players are now significantly larger and a woman would have to be exceptional to be able to stay with the blokes, let alone shine.
I was playing rugby when the cars were powered by 3-litre DFVs and, although the races went on for over 2 hours sometimes, lack of physical ability was not so important. But times have changed.
Where we disagree is the importance of strength for the formula one driver. I think once you can compete the race without being tired, an increase in strength gives minimal increase in performance.The drivers are not stronger than they need to be for their job. They are, in all probability, as strong as they can be for the level of dedication.
F1 differences are microscopic. Rosberg and Hamilton are, to any logical degree, all but identical in ability to drive. Both are at their peak of ability. A 0.5% advantage of one over the other would put them out of reach, all else being equal.
All factors can be decisive if all else is equal. If you cream off the top 1% around the world of those with the ability to be an F1 driver, then men would be represented disproportionately. Then reduce that number by a further 99% and so on until we reach homeopathy dilutions.
As mentioned above, perhaps the regs should be changed. There used to be power steering but it was banned as being too easy.
The physical requirements of driving an F1 car are tremendous. Neck muscles take a pounding both laterally and along the line of of the car. Limit the acceleration and g-forces by all means, say down to the level of the 3-litre formula in the 60s, and have shorter races. Then the physical advantages of men would be reduced significantly. But would we watch it? Would it be fair on men?
There have been many drivers with talent in the past, who were not committed to the sport. They were in it for the life-style. We could all name a few. But even they, to stay on the grid, had to exercise.
It's a hard sport.
Re: rugby. I used to play with a chap who was 5'6" tall and weighed a bit less than the ball. He was one of our most influential players, scrum half, and got his position through merit. He was not unique in his size for that position. If he was tackled by anyone a lot bigger than him, the error in etiquette would be pointed out to them. A girl could have taken his place.
Since going pro, the scrum half has doubled in weight and size. Tactics have changed through the top levels and all players are now significantly larger and a woman would have to be exceptional to be able to stay with the blokes, let alone shine.
I was playing rugby when the cars were powered by 3-litre DFVs and, although the races went on for over 2 hours sometimes, lack of physical ability was not so important. But times have changed.
I agree that 0.5% can separate top drivers, but I think that driving ability is what will give that advantage, not fitness levels.
My unprofessional views echo this one:
"According to Dr Riccardo Ceccarelli, who offers medical support to the Toro Rosso and Lotus F1 teams - and has set up a centre called Formula Medicine which conducts research into how an F1 driver can train to the optimum - strength is not as important as many people think. They may have 30% less muscle so they have to work hard, but there's no reason why females can't get strong enough to race an F1 car.
"There is a big lack of culture in Formula 1," said Ceccarelli. "Too many drivers focus on physical strength and not enough on the mental side. "Yes, you need the strong muscles in the neck and upper body so you can have the energy to drive without any tiredness, but once you reach a certain level - there's no more benefit. There's no point putting on extra muscle. If women are capable to fly fighter planes, they should be able to drive an F1 car.
"Endurance training, rather than weight training, then becomes key. The heart will become bigger, which pumps more blood to the brain. That in turn improves the efficiency of the brain and improves the driver's ability to perform all the tasks he needs to perform in the cockpit. Slowly, drivers are coming round to this idea but there's a still long way to go. To achieve the optimum in training, our research shows a driver needs to spend just 30% of their time on physical training and the other 70% on brain training. If you can train the brain to be more efficient, it's easier to multi-task and that will make the bigger difference in terms of performance."
When Catherine Legge tested a formula one (albeit quite a while ago) car she said it was easier to drive than her Champ Car at the time. Although the cornering forces were not as high in the Champ car, the acceleration and braking forces were similar.
You say that you don't think F1 drivers are fitter / stronger than they need to be. I'd argue that half the time they finish the race and look like they've just been for a leisurely walk. Even Brundle has jokingly commented how much it annoys him.
As you well know Derek, drivers used to get out of the cars and collapse due to exhaustion in the older days. Now they normally look like they could do another 2 hour stint!
I don't think the Regulations need to be changed to allow women to compete. I just think that statistically it's much less likely for a female to have the ability required to earn a place in F1.
Only a tiny fraction of male drivers are good enough to make it to F1, and with so few females in the lower formulae it's no real surprise we haven't seen a female superstar yet.
It's an interesting discussion, and I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
swisstoni said:
Re women drivers, F1 is utterly ruthless. If there was a woman good enough she'd be there already. The sponsors and the media would love it. Sadly there doesn't seem to be a compelling candidate at the mo. I hope Mrs Wolff gets her chance at some point.
Susie wasn't good enough to win in any of the series that she HAS raced in, I doubt she's good enough for F1. Her highest championship position in any series she's ever raced in is 5th. I believe that she's more of a PR exercise. As is the very pretty new Lotus driver Carmen Jorda.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff