Valtteri Bottas at Mercedes
Discussion
kiseca said:
Some drivers have an inherent advantage over others that makes them better drivers. Whether it's better motivation, better mental capacity, better hand / eye coordination, better fine motor skills, more sensitive sense of balance.... personally I don't see why "better built" should be regulated against. Apart from fitting in the car, there are plenty of other areas for a driver to make up the difference.
If you can find a guy who's as good as George Russell but is also 6in shorter and 15kg lighter, good for you, use that advantage.
This is obviously veering off topic, but I agree. All other things being equal, being taller and/or heavier is a disadvantage. Like equestrian sports. If you can find a guy who's as good as George Russell but is also 6in shorter and 15kg lighter, good for you, use that advantage.
No one complains it’s unfair that short arses are not picked to play prop forward for England.
There aren’t many sports where being below average height is an advantage, but F1 is one of them.
Leithen said:
The numbers of female participants is so small in relation to their male counterparts, and the legacy of prejudice against participation (see Walter Rohl's initial reaction to Michelle Mouton) that the results are entirely unsurprising.
In fairness, he has denied saying anything untoward, including in Motorsport Magazine:"I am always in trouble for saying what I think. But this time I’m innocent! Before the Acropolis — which she won — I took Werner Grissmann, the famous downhill skier, up a gravel road with hairpins in the Opel and he asked could anything be quicker. I said “a monkey in a Quattro,” meaning that the Quattro had so much power and traction that anyone could drive it quicker than the Opel up that hill. But, as often happens, it got around that I had compared Michèle to a monkey. She deserved her victories: it was only my good luck that I beat her to the title."
SpudLink said:
kiseca said:
Some drivers have an inherent advantage over others that makes them better drivers. Whether it's better motivation, better mental capacity, better hand / eye coordination, better fine motor skills, more sensitive sense of balance.... personally I don't see why "better built" should be regulated against. Apart from fitting in the car, there are plenty of other areas for a driver to make up the difference.
If you can find a guy who's as good as George Russell but is also 6in shorter and 15kg lighter, good for you, use that advantage.
This is obviously veering off topic, but I agree. All other things being equal, being taller and/or heavier is a disadvantage. Like equestrian sports. If you can find a guy who's as good as George Russell but is also 6in shorter and 15kg lighter, good for you, use that advantage.
No one complains it’s unfair that short arses are not picked to play prop forward for England.
There aren’t many sports where being below average height is an advantage, but F1 is one of them.
On top of this F1 already set the precedent with the 80KG min weight ruling. This removed a chunk of the natural advantage that small drivers like Tsunoda had so what's the difference?
He's physically incapable of driving some of the cars on the grid, it's not like small rugby players are physically prevented from taking part is it?
Given that cars and the tubs are designed well in advance of many driver announcements a solution has to be found.
Eg let's say Merc don't take George at the last minute and he's a free agent in December, RB sack Tsunoda and want to sign George. As next yrs tub is already designed and in production he actually can't drive for the team. Totally different situation to other sports and to try to equate them is ludicrous.
kiseca said:
honda_exige said:
You can't really make that analogy as at least shorter tennis players can still play the game. As it stands Russell would be physically incapable of fitting into some of the cars on the grid.
And even with his proposal small drivers would still retain their CoG advantage because the difference in weight between them and the 80kg minimum can be placed as ballast right on the floor of the car.
Some drivers have an inherent advantage over others that makes them better drivers. Whether it's better motivation, better mental capacity, better hand / eye coordination, better fine motor skills, more sensitive sense of balance.... personally I don't see why "better built" should be regulated against. Apart from fitting in the car, there are plenty of other areas for a driver to make up the difference.And even with his proposal small drivers would still retain their CoG advantage because the difference in weight between them and the 80kg minimum can be placed as ballast right on the floor of the car.
If you can find a guy who's as good as George Russell but is also 6in shorter and 15kg lighter, good for you, use that advantage.
Teddy Lop said:
A few years back before the current weight/seat ballast regs the naturally lightest drivers had a real advantage in how they ballasted the car. Some say to the degree it may have been a helping factor in vettel beating webber, with vettel being naturally much smaller than the thick set webber. I can respect the sentiment "and so what, thems the breaks, in other times/pursuits the muscles win" but some of the larger drivers were looking emancipated as they tried to keep off weight to what was probably an unhealthy target. F1 doesn't want quasi anorexia as its hero's public image.
Previously there was no ballast for the drivers weight, if Vettel was 20kg lighter than Webber than his car would always be 20kg lighter. Now (assuming Vettel is 60kg and Webber 80kg) Vettel would have 20kg of ballast to play with, he loses the pure weight advantage but still retains the CoG advantage as the ballast can be placed on the floor of the car. honda_exige said:
Teddy Lop said:
A few years back before the current weight/seat ballast regs the naturally lightest drivers had a real advantage in how they ballasted the car. Some say to the degree it may have been a helping factor in vettel beating webber, with vettel being naturally much smaller than the thick set webber. I can respect the sentiment "and so what, thems the breaks, in other times/pursuits the muscles win" but some of the larger drivers were looking emancipated as they tried to keep off weight to what was probably an unhealthy target. F1 doesn't want quasi anorexia as its hero's public image.
Previously there was no ballast for the drivers weight, if Vettel was 20kg lighter than Webber than his car would always be 20kg lighter. Now (assuming Vettel is 60kg and Webber 80kg) Vettel would have 20kg of ballast to play with, he loses the pure weight advantage but still retains the CoG advantage as the ballast can be placed on the floor of the car. Teddy Lop said:
A few years back before the current weight/seat ballast regs the naturally lightest drivers had a real advantage in how they ballasted the car. Some say to the degree it may have been a helping factor in vettel beating webber, with vettel being naturally much smaller than the thick set webber. I can respect the sentiment "and so what, thems the breaks, in other times/pursuits the muscles win" but some of the larger drivers were looking emancipated as they tried to keep off weight to what was probably an unhealthy target. F1 doesn't want quasi anorexia as its hero's public image.
I chuckled at "emancipated" 
One of those things that you scan over and do a double take.honda_exige said:
Both missing the point. Again as I said, even with his proposal small drivers would retain their advantage in being able to place ballast where they like.
On top of this F1 already set the precedent with the 80KG min weight ruling. This removed a chunk of the natural advantage that small drivers like Tsunoda had so what's the difference?
He's physically incapable of driving some of the cars on the grid, it's not like small rugby players are physically prevented from taking part is it?
Given that cars and the tubs are designed well in advance of many driver announcements a solution has to be found.
Eg let's say Merc don't take George at the last minute and he's a free agent in December, RB sack Tsunoda and want to sign George. As next yrs tub is already designed and in production he actually can't drive for the team. Totally different situation to other sports and to try to equate them is ludicrous.
You’re right, my reply did miss the point you were making. However I’m not convinced by the argument that all teams should make there cars big enough to fit all drivers. On top of this F1 already set the precedent with the 80KG min weight ruling. This removed a chunk of the natural advantage that small drivers like Tsunoda had so what's the difference?
He's physically incapable of driving some of the cars on the grid, it's not like small rugby players are physically prevented from taking part is it?
Given that cars and the tubs are designed well in advance of many driver announcements a solution has to be found.
Eg let's say Merc don't take George at the last minute and he's a free agent in December, RB sack Tsunoda and want to sign George. As next yrs tub is already designed and in production he actually can't drive for the team. Totally different situation to other sports and to try to equate them is ludicrous.
If they have to 5’6” drivers under contract, why should they have to build a car big enough for a 6 foot driver who is contracted to another team? If the team choose to keep their options open by making the cockpit big enough for a taller driver, that’s up to them. But I don’t like forcing them to make cars to fit drivers they do not employ.
SpudLink said:
You’re right, my reply did miss the point you were making. However I’m not convinced by the argument that all teams should make there cars big enough to fit all drivers.
If they have to 5’6” drivers under contract, why should they have to build a car big enough for a 6 foot driver who is contracted to another team? If the team choose to keep their options open by making the cockpit big enough for a taller driver, that’s up to them. But I don’t like forcing them to make cars to fit drivers they do not employ.
I understand where you're coming from but to me because smaller drivers still have the ballast advantage it's pretty fair still. I don't think its a massive ask to have 2 minimum dimensions for the cockpit area, there's already millions of minimum radii, lengths and volumes in the rule book, 2 more isn't really going to change anything apart from mean that more people are physically allowed to take part. If they have to 5’6” drivers under contract, why should they have to build a car big enough for a 6 foot driver who is contracted to another team? If the team choose to keep their options open by making the cockpit big enough for a taller driver, that’s up to them. But I don’t like forcing them to make cars to fit drivers they do not employ.
honda_exige said:
SpudLink said:
kiseca said:
Some drivers have an inherent advantage over others that makes them better drivers. Whether it's better motivation, better mental capacity, better hand / eye coordination, better fine motor skills, more sensitive sense of balance.... personally I don't see why "better built" should be regulated against. Apart from fitting in the car, there are plenty of other areas for a driver to make up the difference.
If you can find a guy who's as good as George Russell but is also 6in shorter and 15kg lighter, good for you, use that advantage.
This is obviously veering off topic, but I agree. All other things being equal, being taller and/or heavier is a disadvantage. Like equestrian sports. If you can find a guy who's as good as George Russell but is also 6in shorter and 15kg lighter, good for you, use that advantage.
No one complains it’s unfair that short arses are not picked to play prop forward for England.
There aren’t many sports where being below average height is an advantage, but F1 is one of them.
On top of this F1 already set the precedent with the 80KG min weight ruling. This removed a chunk of the natural advantage that small drivers like Tsunoda had so what's the difference?
He's physically incapable of driving some of the cars on the grid, it's not like small rugby players are physically prevented from taking part is it?
Given that cars and the tubs are designed well in advance of many driver announcements a solution has to be found.
Eg let's say Merc don't take George at the last minute and he's a free agent in December, RB sack Tsunoda and want to sign George. As next yrs tub is already designed and in production he actually can't drive for the team. Totally different situation to other sports and to try to equate them is ludicrous.
Firstly, Alpha Tauri don't have two drivers that are Tsunoda's size. The tub will be designed to accommodate the larger one, they haven't built a separate car for Tsunoda. However, if they really are making their cars that tight, they won't be interested in George anyway since his body dimensions would be going against their design strategy.
It's also not just about the ballast. Designers want the front of the car to be as small and narrow as they can possibly get it. That's why John Barnard pushed for the semi-auto gearbox. It wasn't to make the shifts faster, it was so he could get rid of the gearlever and mechanism which was making his cockpit a couple of inches wider than he wanted it to be.
Whether or not F1 has set a precedent doesn't impact my point of view, by the way. I feel that physically, a driver's size should be valued like any other of their natural talents that give them an advantage or a disadvantage. Formula 1 feel differently, and it's their ball so their rules. Fine by me but doesn't change my opinion.
Do you know for sure that he doesn't fit into an RB (or any other current formula 1 car), or is this a hypothetical scenario?
Edited by kiseca on Monday 14th June 11:43
APontus said:
I might have imagined it, but I'm sure I saw Russell in the Mercedes late last year, who just happened to be battering the title of this thread at the time. He apparently does fit in the car and seemingly it isn't so tight he can't perform.
He was lucky to fit. You might be interested to read that Williams tried to call up Ocon to replace an unwell Russell at the end of 2019 in Abu Dhabi but couldn't because despite a similar height Ocon was too tall. https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/51416/ocon-reveals-...
honda_exige said:
APontus said:
I might have imagined it, but I'm sure I saw Russell in the Mercedes late last year, who just happened to be battering the title of this thread at the time. He apparently does fit in the car and seemingly it isn't so tight he can't perform.
He was lucky to fit. You might be interested to read that Williams tried to call up Ocon to replace an unwell Russell at the end of 2019 in Abu Dhabi but couldn't because despite a similar height Ocon was too tall. https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/51416/ocon-reveals-...
Leg length / torso length. I'm tall and I don't fit in some cars that other people the same height have said are fine.Jasandjules said:
thegreenhell said:
Teddy Lop said:
some of the larger drivers were looking emancipated
That's quite a proclamation.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff