Jamie Chadwick - First competitive female driver in F1?

[TheDeuce]

Muzzer79 said:

TheDeuce said:

Muzzer79 said:

TheDeuce said:

ChemicalChaos said:

Given the stellar performance of Doriane Pin this year so far, is there a danger of Jamie suddenly becoming an irrelevance as the media finds a new poster child for the dream of first modern era woman in F1?

I've been thinking that but politely waited for someone else to say it first

It's a cyclical process and highly likely to not produce a F1 talent for some time

Jamie was the best female of her group, Pin (potentially) will be a bit better, there'll then be someone else who's better and so on.

I don't think Jamie would begrudge this. She's made the most of her talent, limited as it is.

One of them will hopefully make it to F1.

I agree, you need to keep the mill turning and a bit at a time the best will exceed the last.

But F1 seems just sooooooo far beyond anything we have seen in terms of female talent so far.

I know there have been female F1 drivers way back, but I think the most successful scored half a point and not on merit.

In a decades time i'd be happy to see at least a couple in FIA F3 each season and some of those get to F2 and be at least competitive. That's seems vaguely within reach. Contact with the F1 teams and drivers will hopefully help in terms of ambition, gotta set a a goal super high even if you don't reach it.

It'll take time. The fact that a female driver isn't good enough now doesn't mean that there'll never be a female driver good enough.

It might not take a decade. All we need is to keep the opportunities coming for the talent and it'll come through. That could be sooner rather than later.

Of course, the women will face the same issue as the men however in that it's so hard to break into F1 at present due to drivers making their careers last longer and teams choosing experience over youth all the time. This year's field with precisely zero rookies was a worrying representation of that.

Fingers crossed it happens sooner rather than later then..

In a way a female entering F1 probably has it marginally easier than a male, there is an undeniable media interest in it happening and there are teams that would put that value (thinking of sponsors) ahead of absolute, outright talent. Which is why certain other drivers are on the grid currently of course. they're all 'good enough' for F1 but not all are there purely on merit.

As for no rookies this season, unless DR gets Yuki beaten by summer break I think there remains a possibility we might get a rookie in a seat this season..

[ettore]

TheDeuce said:

Fingers crossed it happens sooner rather than later then..

In a way a female entering F1 probably has it marginally easier than a male, there is an undeniable media interest in it happening and there are teams that would put that value (thinking of sponsors) ahead of absolute, outright talent. Which is why certain other drivers are on the grid currently of course. they're all 'good enough' for F1 but not all are there purely on merit.

As for no rookies this season, unless DR gets Yuki beaten by summer break I think there remains a possibility we might get a rookie in a seat this season..

I think it may be more likely that Yuki gets DR beaten by summer break tbh...

[TheDeuce]

ettore said:

TheDeuce said:

Fingers crossed it happens sooner rather than later then..

In a way a female entering F1 probably has it marginally easier than a male, there is an undeniable media interest in it happening and there are teams that would put that value (thinking of sponsors) ahead of absolute, outright talent. Which is why certain other drivers are on the grid currently of course. they're all 'good enough' for F1 but not all are there purely on merit.

As for no rookies this season, unless DR gets Yuki beaten by summer break I think there remains a possibility we might get a rookie in a seat this season..

I think it may be more likely that Yuki gets DR beaten by summer break tbh...

That's what I'm alluding too.. sad but quite possibly true the way he's going.

Lawson seems a certainty at some point, could be sooner than expected.

[trackdemon]

Muzzer79 said:

All we need is to keep the opportunities coming for the talent and it'll come through. That could be sooner rather than later.

I know it's a point that's been made countless times already, but the opportunities are already - and always have been - there. It's an open sport, if you're fast enough you're good enough. I don't know why there's such a desire to push women drivers rather than accepting that maybe just maybe women have massively less interest in becoming a racing driver, and even if they do there's a degree of biology working against them. I certainly don't think so called positive discrimination is the answer (of course one could argue that sons of very rich parents have that too).

[isaldiri]

trackdemon said:

I know it's a point that's been made countless times already, but the opportunities are already - and always have been - there. It's an open sport, if you're fast enough you're good enough. I don't know why there's such a desire to push women drivers rather than accepting that maybe just maybe women have massively less interest in becoming a racing driver, and even if they do there's a degree of biology working against them. I certainly don't think so called positive discrimination is the answer (of course one could argue that sons of very rich parents have that too).

Exactly. there are less women interested and those that are, so far haven't been terribly good. It's making the continual push for more women drivers into the higher echelons of racing pretty daft given that. When more women can be bothered to enter and win the lower racing classes and still aren't able to be getting a decent step to the next racing formula then there would be more of a issue to be resolved. That isn't the case now at all.

[TheDeuce]

trackdemon said:

Muzzer79 said:

All we need is to keep the opportunities coming for the talent and it'll come through. That could be sooner rather than later.

I know it's a point that's been made countless times already, but the opportunities are already - and always have been - there. It's an open sport, if you're fast enough you're good enough. I don't know why there's such a desire to push women drivers rather than accepting that maybe just maybe women have massively less interest in becoming a racing driver, and even if they do there's a degree of biology working against them. I certainly don't think so called positive discrimination is the answer (of course one could argue that sons of very rich parents have that too).

At the most fundamental level I don't agree that introducing segregation into the sport is ever actually a 'step forward'. However, if the sole goal, at the expense of fair and reasonable opportunity for all, is to attract girls to the sport and accelerate their progress, F1a is at least better than any previous attempt.

I particularly like that those entering F1a know that they will be given a paid up seat in a higher level formula if they win. That at very least ensures that they know that their target is not just winning the girls formula and then pissing off into some obscure racing series - they know from day one that F1a success is the start of a journey and they need to look beyond that one challenge.

This stops the Chadwick 'let's win a junior formula 3 times' and then buy a nice little flat instead of an F3 seat approach.. Which as I said above, is a valid but not very progressive approach.

[trackdemon]

TheDeuce said:

trackdemon said:

Muzzer79 said:

All we need is to keep the opportunities coming for the talent and it'll come through. That could be sooner rather than later.

I know it's a point that's been made countless times already, but the opportunities are already - and always have been - there. It's an open sport, if you're fast enough you're good enough. I don't know why there's such a desire to push women drivers rather than accepting that maybe just maybe women have massively less interest in becoming a racing driver, and even if they do there's a degree of biology working against them. I certainly don't think so called positive discrimination is the answer (of course one could argue that sons of very rich parents have that too).

At the most fundamental level I don't agree that introducing segregation into the sport is ever actually a 'step forward'. However, if the sole goal, at the expense of fair and reasonable opportunity for all, is to attract girls to the sport and accelerate their progress, F1a is at least better than any previous attempt.

I particularly like that those entering F1a know that they will be given a paid up seat in a higher level formula if they win. That at very least ensures that they know that their target is not just winning the girls formula and then pissing off into some obscure racing series - they know from day one that F1a success is the start of a journey and they need to look beyond that one challenge.

This stops the Chadwick 'let's win a junior formula 3 times' and then buy a nice little flat instead of an F3 seat approach.. Which as I said above, is a valid but not very progressive approach.

Good if you happen to have the right chromosomes. But strikes me as deeply unfair. Can you imagine the uproar if it were the opposite way round? And I still don't get the point, why is there this invented 'need' to have more women drivers than the natural order - or at least make it much easier (than for boys) for those that do want to race? It all seems a tad virtue signalling to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

[TheDeuce]

trackdemon said:

TheDeuce said:

trackdemon said:

Muzzer79 said:

All we need is to keep the opportunities coming for the talent and it'll come through. That could be sooner rather than later.

I know it's a point that's been made countless times already, but the opportunities are already - and always have been - there. It's an open sport, if you're fast enough you're good enough. I don't know why there's such a desire to push women drivers rather than accepting that maybe just maybe women have massively less interest in becoming a racing driver, and even if they do there's a degree of biology working against them. I certainly don't think so called positive discrimination is the answer (of course one could argue that sons of very rich parents have that too).

At the most fundamental level I don't agree that introducing segregation into the sport is ever actually a 'step forward'. However, if the sole goal, at the expense of fair and reasonable opportunity for all, is to attract girls to the sport and accelerate their progress, F1a is at least better than any previous attempt.

I particularly like that those entering F1a know that they will be given a paid up seat in a higher level formula if they win. That at very least ensures that they know that their target is not just winning the girls formula and then pissing off into some obscure racing series - they know from day one that F1a success is the start of a journey and they need to look beyond that one challenge.

This stops the Chadwick 'let's win a junior formula 3 times' and then buy a nice little flat instead of an F3 seat approach.. Which as I said above, is a valid but not very progressive approach.

Good if you happen to have the right chromosomes. But strikes me as deeply unfair. Can you imagine the uproar if it were the opposite way round? And I still don't get the point, why is there this invented 'need' to have more women drivers than the natural order - or at least make it much easier (than for boys) for those that do want to race? It all seems a tad virtue signalling to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

As per my previous post, I don't agree with it in principle. But that is what they're doing regardless, and yes to broaden inclusivity, partly for reasons of virtue, chiefly I suspect to increase the demographic of fans the sport will appeal to.. And on that last point, in commercial terms, I can't fault them tbh. Commercially speaking, exciting female drivers moving up the ranks and getting screen time during F1 weekends will probably attract more and younger female viewers to the sport.

It depends if WE are looking at this from a pov of business or virtue as to what we consider reasonable...

[skwdenyer]

trackdemon said:

Muzzer79 said:

All we need is to keep the opportunities coming for the talent and it'll come through. That could be sooner rather than later.

I know it's a point that's been made countless times already, but the opportunities are already - and always have been - there. It's an open sport, if you're fast enough you're good enough. I don't know why there's such a desire to push women drivers rather than accepting that maybe just maybe women have massively less interest in becoming a racing driver, and even if they do there's a degree of biology working against them. I certainly don't think so called positive discrimination is the answer (of course one could argue that sons of very rich parents have that too).

That really isn’t true. As the old quote goes, “English justice is open to all - just like the Ritz Hotel.”

Getting sponsorship money requires hope. In the absence of a trailblazer who has already made it, women drivers risk being categorised as not going to make it.

I agree with many that we don’t need F1 Academy. What we need are major bursaries for female drivers in karting and minor series. We need to level the underlying playing field, and then trust that those with real talent will get attention later on. We need to neutralise the “women aren’t good enough” undercurrent.

This isn’t new. See universal suffrage, women in STEM, black people in general, and so on. At every stage there have been no shortage of naysayers and apologists for the status quo.

[Hondashark]

skwdenyer said:

That really isn’t true. As the old quote goes, “English justice is open to all - just like the Ritz Hotel.”

Getting sponsorship money requires hope. In the absence of a trailblazer who has already made it, women drivers risk being categorised as not going to make it.

I agree with many that we don’t need F1 Academy. What we need are major bursaries for female drivers in karting and minor series. We need to level the underlying playing field, and then trust that those with real talent will get attention later on. We need to neutralise the “women aren’t good enough” undercurrent.

This isn’t new. See universal suffrage, women in STEM, black people in general, and so on. At every stage there have been no shortage of naysayers and apologists for the status quo.

bks. It's easier for women to get sponsorship than men, (or girls vs boys).
They only difference is the amount that WANT to do it.

[skwdenyer]

Hondashark said:

skwdenyer said:

That really isn’t true. As the old quote goes, “English justice is open to all - just like the Ritz Hotel.”

Getting sponsorship money requires hope. In the absence of a trailblazer who has already made it, women drivers risk being categorised as not going to make it.

I agree with many that we don’t need F1 Academy. What we need are major bursaries for female drivers in karting and minor series. We need to level the underlying playing field, and then trust that those with real talent will get attention later on. We need to neutralise the “women aren’t good enough” undercurrent.

This isn’t new. See universal suffrage, women in STEM, black people in general, and so on. At every stage there have been no shortage of naysayers and apologists for the status quo.

bks. It's easier for women to get sponsorship than men, (or girls vs boys).
They only difference is the amount that WANT to do it.

It isn’t easier for 8 year olds to get into karting with sponsorship. It is sadly self-evident that parents decide who will get started; anecdata suggests it is far harder to persuade parents (usually Fathers) to support girls, precisely because there’s an apparent opportunity ceiling.

Hence my point: we need to level the playing field far earlier in the age range. It may be that *later* sponsorship becomes easier, but if the funnel is already mostly empty by that point then we have a problem.

[GlobalRacer]

Hondashark said:

bks. It's easier for women to get sponsorship than men, (or girls vs boys).
They only difference is the amount that WANT to do it.

Is it? If that was true why do the women racers in BTCC struggle to get sponsorship when there are multiple men who are getting sponshorship?

There's far more to it than just male or female.

[540TORQUES]

GlobalRacer said:

Is it? If that was true why do the women racers in BTCC struggle to get sponsorship when there are multiple men who are getting sponshorship?

There's far more to it than just male or female.

Maybe because they are crap, at the back of the field all the time, so get no TV exposure.

[isaldiri]

skwdenyer said:

It isn’t easier for 8 year olds to get into karting with sponsorship. It is sadly self-evident that parents decide who will get started; anecdata suggests it is far harder to persuade parents (usually Fathers) to support girls, precisely because there’s an apparent opportunity ceiling.

Hence my point: we need to level the playing field far earlier in the age range. It may be that *later* sponsorship becomes easier, but if the funnel is already mostly empty by that point then we have a problem.

define 'level the playing field'. there are less girls that are going to be interested in karting so the pool is smaller from the start. Intentionally skewing things just to get even numbers of them competing would mean those are clearly less quick than others would be getting a step up purely by virtue of being a girl. that's..... not terribly ideal I'd suggest.

By all means provide support for those who are good enough - if girls don't prove good enough then..... that's what it is really.

[TheDeuce]

GlobalRacer said:

Hondashark said:

bks. It's easier for women to get sponsorship than men, (or girls vs boys).
They only difference is the amount that WANT to do it.

Is it? If that was true why do the women racers in BTCC struggle to get sponsorship when there are multiple men who are getting sponshorship?

There's far more to it than just male or female.

Because it's BTCC.

A dab of girl power in the world of F1 is gold dust in PR terms. This is why F1a exists.

[skwdenyer]

isaldiri said:

skwdenyer said:

It isn’t easier for 8 year olds to get into karting with sponsorship. It is sadly self-evident that parents decide who will get started; anecdata suggests it is far harder to persuade parents (usually Fathers) to support girls, precisely because there’s an apparent opportunity ceiling.

Hence my point: we need to level the playing field far earlier in the age range. It may be that *later* sponsorship becomes easier, but if the funnel is already mostly empty by that point then we have a problem.

define 'level the playing field'. there are less girls that are going to be interested in karting so the pool is smaller from the start. Intentionally skewing things just to get even numbers of them competing would mean those are clearly less quick than others would be getting a step up purely by virtue of being a girl. that's..... not terribly ideal I'd suggest.

By all means provide support for those who are good enough - if girls don't prove good enough then..... that's what it is really.

There’s ample data to support the contention that gender expectations are established early by - frequently unconscious - parental bias.

We don’t know that there are far fewer girls who - left to their own devices - want to get into karting. Nor do we know how many would wish to do so if it wasn’t such a make-dominated sport.

You have only to look at the history of other sports to see how powerful the status quo can be in excluding female participation.

[isaldiri]

skwdenyer said:

There’s ample data to support the contention that gender expectations are established early by - frequently unconscious - parental bias.

We don’t know that there are far fewer girls who - left to their own devices - want to get into karting. Nor do we know how many would wish to do so if it wasn’t such a make-dominated sport.

You have only to look at the history of other sports to see how powerful the status quo can be in excluding female participation.

I don't expect girls to have the same interests as boys if left to their own devices to choose what they want to do. You seem to be implying that would be the case so the numbers participating at junior karting levels should be equalised by offering extra incentives just for girls to do so and giving them are extra advantage over boys at the same level. That would be a rather bloody poor idea imo.

[TheDeuce]

skwdenyer said:

isaldiri said:

skwdenyer said:

It isn’t easier for 8 year olds to get into karting with sponsorship. It is sadly self-evident that parents decide who will get started; anecdata suggests it is far harder to persuade parents (usually Fathers) to support girls, precisely because there’s an apparent opportunity ceiling.

Hence my point: we need to level the playing field far earlier in the age range. It may be that *later* sponsorship becomes easier, but if the funnel is already mostly empty by that point then we have a problem.

define 'level the playing field'. there are less girls that are going to be interested in karting so the pool is smaller from the start. Intentionally skewing things just to get even numbers of them competing would mean those are clearly less quick than others would be getting a step up purely by virtue of being a girl. that's..... not terribly ideal I'd suggest.

By all means provide support for those who are good enough - if girls don't prove good enough then..... that's what it is really.

There’s ample data to support the contention that gender expectations are established early by - frequently unconscious - parental bias.

We don’t know that there are far fewer girls who - left to their own devices - want to get into karting. Nor do we know how many would wish to do so if it wasn’t such a make-dominated sport.

You have only to look at the history of other sports to see how powerful the status quo can be in excluding female participation.

I have to agree. And the reason many sports are male dominated is because they originated in a male dominated world. That's the justification for forced bias towards female involvement now.

As ever, I'm at pains to state I fundamentally do not agree with introducing segregation into formula racing... But allowing for the advantage males have had due to preconceptions that existed in the past.. it's perhaps acceptable short term to make an extra effort to nurture female talent.

At the end of the day, kick the door open - that's all that's asked and all that's happening and all that can be done. If talent walks through, it was worth it. If it doesn't, we temporarily accepted positively sexist behaviour in the sport and it's proved a waste of time.

Whatever happens, no matter how upset a person might be about segregation and special treatment, no one can lose here. If it works it was worth it, if it doesn't anyone upset gets their point reinforced.

[trackdemon]

540TORQUES said:

GlobalRacer said:

Is it? If that was true why do the women racers in BTCC struggle to get sponsorship when there are multiple men who are getting sponshorship?

There's far more to it than just male or female.

Maybe because they are crap, at the back of the field all the time, so get no TV exposure.

Naughty. You're not allowed to say that in 2024 #yougogirl

[Drawweight]

Also don’t forget that it’s not just enough that a woman makes a good showing in F2 or F3 and finish mid tableish (which is difficult enough for most drivers ) but to get sufficient Super Licence points that have finish near the top.

The 10 points for winning the Academy is a good start but they only have a few years to add to them.