Jamie Chadwick - First competitive female driver in F1?

[skwdenyer]

isaldiri said:

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.

The expectations of adults do have rather a lot to do with what children do decide to engage with.

That’s the very problem that needs addressing. There’s nowadays no physical reason why males should be better at motor racing than females - unlike a lot of traditionally male-oriented sports.

[trackdemon]

skwdenyer said:

isaldiri said:

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.

The expectations of adults do have rather a lot to do with what children do decide to engage with.

That’s the very problem that needs addressing. There’s nowadays no physical reason why males should be better at motor racing than females - unlike a lot of traditionally male-oriented sports.

Is that absolutely true? Don't men have a baked in advantage in terms of reactions, peripheral vision, endurance? I realize it's not as physically demanding as it used to be but it's still of huge importance given the amount of G todays cars generate. There's a huge difference in being able to bang in 5 fast laps and still being physically sharp after 90mins of racing....

[skwdenyer]

trackdemon said:

skwdenyer said:

isaldiri said:

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.

The expectations of adults do have rather a lot to do with what children do decide to engage with.

That’s the very problem that needs addressing. There’s nowadays no physical reason why males should be better at motor racing than females - unlike a lot of traditionally male-oriented sports.

Is that absolutely true? Don't men have a baked in advantage in terms of reactions, peripheral vision, endurance? I realize it's not as physically demanding as it used to be but it's still of huge importance given the amount of G todays cars generate. There's a huge difference in being able to bang in 5 fast laps and still being physically sharp after 90mins of racing....

Reaction times are complex. Women in general have faster decision-making reaction times than men; conversely, men in general have faster muscle reflexes. But level of, say, physical conditioning makes a far bigger statistical difference than gender. When we’re talking about elite sportspeople, the differences really don’t seem to be the issue the population-level surveys might suggest.

But F1 drivers don’t have superhuman reflexes. They tend to be in the upper deciles, but that’s still 100s of millions of people worldwide

The physical demands are still significant, yes, but that doesn’t seem to be the issue holding females back.

[dobly]

trackdemon said:

Is that absolutely true? Don't men have a baked in advantage in terms of reactions, peripheral vision, endurance? I realize it's not as physically demanding as it used to be but it's still of huge importance given the amount of G todays cars generate. There's a huge difference in being able to bang in 5 fast laps and still being physically sharp after 90mins of racing....

^ That’s largely due to training and conditioning. I would hope that with 5+ years of the right physical and mental training behind them, the best women would be on a par with the best men. Motor racing isn’t a brute strength sport.

[ThingsBehindTheSun]

The other issue is we have drivers staying in F1 for 10, 15 even 20+ years now so there is literally nowhere for these drivers to go. We have Théo Pourchaire and Felipe Drugovich who won F2 and are in limbo. We have Oliver Bearman and Liam Lawson who have won points in an F1 car and don't have a drive. Even Oscar Piastri had to take a year out after winning F2 as there were no seats and he was one of a handful of drivers to win F3 and then F2 on their first attempts.

I think we can all agree that none of the current crop of female racers are even in the same league as these guys. Having a specially ringfenced racing series just for women is not going to help at all.

Until a female driver does well in Formula 2 it is unlikely they are ever going to get offered a drive.

[Castellet]

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

I think we can all agree that none of the current crop of female racers are even in the same league as these guys. Having a specially ringfenced racing series just for women is not going to help at all.

True, but as you say, hardly anyone can get into F1 if it is such a restrictive club for both new drivers and new teams.
However I do think the initiatives to get more girls into motorsport in general will result in more girls racing in other series - but F1 is probably still in the distant future.

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

Until a female driver does well in Formula 2 it is unlikely they are ever going to get offered a drive

From what I understand, and have read elsewhere here, the steering weights created by the combination of the aero and non-pas in the F3 and F2 cars is an obstacle to females performing well at this transitional level.
Although I gather this may well be addressed in the not too distant future.

[skwdenyer]

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

The other issue is we have drivers staying in F1 for 10, 15 even 20+ years now so there is literally nowhere for these drivers to go. We have Théo Pourchaire and Felipe Drugovich who won F2 and are in limbo. We have Oliver Bearman and Liam Lawson who have won points in an F1 car and don't have a drive. Even Oscar Piastri had to take a year out after winning F2 as there were no seats and he was one of a handful of drivers to win F3 and then F2 on their first attempts.

I think we can all agree that none of the current crop of female racers are even in the same league as these guys. Having a specially ringfenced racing series just for women is not going to help at all.

Until a female driver does well in Formula 2 it is unlikely they are ever going to get offered a drive.

Which is why the decision to deny Andretti an entry is so unconscionable. The rules provide for a certain number of teams, a number that we’re not at yet.

[skwdenyer]

Castellet said:

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

I think we can all agree that none of the current crop of female racers are even in the same league as these guys. Having a specially ringfenced racing series just for women is not going to help at all.

True, but as you say, hardly anyone can get into F1 if it is such a restrictive club for both new drivers and new teams.
However I do think the initiatives to get more girls into motorsport in general will result in more girls racing in other series - but F1 is probably still in the distant future.

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

Until a female driver does well in Formula 2 it is unlikely they are ever going to get offered a drive

From what I understand, and have read elsewhere here, the steering weights created by the combination of the aero and non-pas in the F3 and F2 cars is an obstacle to females performing well at this transitional level.
Although I gather this may well be addressed in the not too distant future.

Re steering, F2 has PAS this year IIRC. Braking force is also an issue, but that’s not that hard to resolve just by changing master cylinder sizes as a starting point.

[TheDeuce]

skwdenyer said:

Which is why the decision to deny Andretti an entry is so unconscionable. The rules provide for a certain number of teams, a number that we’re not at yet.

Sadly, the teams have a voting right - and it's in none of their interests to support an 11th entrant. At a board/ownership level, they actually have a legal duty to act in the interests of the business, so long as they have the vote/influence, they actually can't support an 11th entrant.

[skwdenyer]

TheDeuce said:

skwdenyer said:

Which is why the decision to deny Andretti an entry is so unconscionable. The rules provide for a certain number of teams, a number that we’re not at yet.

Sadly, the teams have a voting right - and it's in none of their interests to support an 11th entrant. At a board/ownership level, they actually have a legal duty to act in the interests of the business, so long as they have the vote/influence, they actually can't support an 11th entrant.

Do they have a voting right? I though that only applied if there was to be a change in the rules (eg an increase in permitted team numbers).

[TheDeuce]

skwdenyer said:

TheDeuce said:

skwdenyer said:

Which is why the decision to deny Andretti an entry is so unconscionable. The rules provide for a certain number of teams, a number that we’re not at yet.

Sadly, the teams have a voting right - and it's in none of their interests to support an 11th entrant. At a board/ownership level, they actually have a legal duty to act in the interests of the business, so long as they have the vote/influence, they actually can't support an 11th entrant.

Do they have a voting right? I though that only applied if there was to be a change in the rules (eg an increase in permitted team numbers).

You're right actually, they don't have a vote in this instance as the rules do already allow for up to 12 teams.

Nonetheless, the teams are influential and they were obviously dead set against dilution of the sponsorship pot.

[skwdenyer]

TheDeuce said:

You're right actually, they don't have a vote in this instance as the rules do already allow for up to 12 teams.

Nonetheless, the teams are influential and they were obviously dead set against dilution of the sponsorship pot.

They may be opposed, but I don’t care. The championship they signed up to provide for up to 12 teams. Just because there haven’t been 12 teams does not change what it is they signed up to.

In any case, with the budget cap these teams are now instantly worth a lot more - a windfall, you might say. My sympathy for them is decidedly small

[TheDeuce]

skwdenyer said:

TheDeuce said:

You're right actually, they don't have a vote in this instance as the rules do already allow for up to 12 teams.

Nonetheless, the teams are influential and they were obviously dead set against dilution of the sponsorship pot.

They may be opposed, but I don’t care. The championship they signed up to provide for up to 12 teams. Just because there haven’t been 12 teams does not change what it is they signed up to.

In any case, with the budget cap these teams are now instantly worth a lot more - a windfall, you might say. My sympathy for them is decidedly small

Mine too! I'd love to see 12 teams again.

The problem is the teams can block or complicate certain rule changes the FIA may wish to make, so by going along with one thing, they are owed a favour on the next thing... if all the teams simultaneously say they hate the idea of Andretti joining, that's a heck of a lot of goodwill thrown away if their desire is overidden by the FIA.

If the FIA are serious about increasing the number of teams then eventually they'll get it done. I'm not sure they are serious though..

[spikyone]

skwdenyer said:

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

The other issue is we have drivers staying in F1 for 10, 15 even 20+ years now so there is literally nowhere for these drivers to go. We have Théo Pourchaire and Felipe Drugovich who won F2 and are in limbo. We have Oliver Bearman and Liam Lawson who have won points in an F1 car and don't have a drive. Even Oscar Piastri had to take a year out after winning F2 as there were no seats and he was one of a handful of drivers to win F3 and then F2 on their first attempts.

I think we can all agree that none of the current crop of female racers are even in the same league as these guys. Having a specially ringfenced racing series just for women is not going to help at all.

Until a female driver does well in Formula 2 it is unlikely they are ever going to get offered a drive.

Which is why the decision to deny Andretti an entry is so unconscionable. The rules provide for a certain number of teams, a number that we’re not at yet.

That has bugger all to do with the number of teams, and far more to do with the fact that drivers are contracted to a specific team before they get to F1.

Piastri was contracted to Alpine. Until they messed up their contractual negotiations with Alonso and then let Oscar's contract lapse, he couldn't drive for another team.

Pourchaire is contracted to Sauber. Short of replacing either Bottas or Zhou, both contracted to the end of this year, he has nowhere that he can race in F1.

Drugovich is contracted to Aston Martin. You get the idea here...

8 teams have realistic vacancies at the end of 2024 (only McLaren and Ferrari have 2 drivers under contract) yet Bearman's only option is Haas because of their links to Ferrari; Lawson's only options are the 3 seats that RB and RBVCA have between them. Unless Andretti aligned themselves with Ferrari or RB, neither of those drivers would be more likely to be on the grid next year.

The issue for young drivers is the paradox of young driver schemes. They're the best way for a talented driver to progress to the point where they can get an F1 drive, whilst simultaneously placing limitations on a driver's chances of getting an F1 drive.

---

On female drivers, whilst ultimate strength is not required for F1, neither is it required for many other sports, yet men demonstrate significant advantages. The differences between elite male and female tennis players are vast. The Williams sisters at their peak were thrashed by a virtual unknown male player ranked 203rd in the world, who claimed he wasn't even trying. Lack of interest or opportunity cannot explain that, and a lowly-ranking male player is not going to be - physically - the strongest of the strong.

Whatever people may think, F1 drivers are elite athletes. Bottas is capable of mixing it with some very good cyclists
Button posted some triathlon times that close to female Olympic athletes. Those were essentially hobbies for them rather than something for which they'd specifically trained over their entire adult life. It's beyond naïve to expect that men and women would perform equally in a sport that - short of putting everyone in a Honda Jazz - will always be physical.

[andyA700]

trackdemon said:

skwdenyer said:

isaldiri said:

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.

The expectations of adults do have rather a lot to do with what children do decide to engage with.

That’s the very problem that needs addressing. There’s nowadays no physical reason why males should be better at motor racing than females - unlike a lot of traditionally male-oriented sports.

Is that absolutely true? Don't men have a baked in advantage in terms of reactions, peripheral vision, endurance? I realize it's not as physically demanding as it used to be but it's still of huge importance given the amount of G todays cars generate. There's a huge difference in being able to bang in 5 fast laps and still being physically sharp after 90mins of racing....

You are correct, there are very significant physiological differences between males and females. Male reaction times are also significantly faster than females. Of course, biology deniers (on the same wavelength as flatearthers) will always deny this. There are huge differences in neck muscle strength between males and females, something which is vitally important in motor racing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31983...

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/neck-st...

https://www.einsteinmed.edu/uploadedFiles/labs/mic...

[Burrow01]

andyA700 said:

trackdemon said:

skwdenyer said:

isaldiri said:

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.

The expectations of adults do have rather a lot to do with what children do decide to engage with.

That’s the very problem that needs addressing. There’s nowadays no physical reason why males should be better at motor racing than females - unlike a lot of traditionally male-oriented sports.

I;ve said this earlier in the thread, women are passing all the tests and requirements to be able to fly fast jet fighters in multiple air forces. This involves, flying at low level at 600mph, with loads up to 9G, and requiring them mentally to be prepared to fight to to the death with another person. Compared to that regime, F1 would present no real physical or psychological issues for women

Is that absolutely true? Don't men have a baked in advantage in terms of reactions, peripheral vision, endurance? I realize it's not as physically demanding as it used to be but it's still of huge importance given the amount of G todays cars generate. There's a huge difference in being able to bang in 5 fast laps and still being physically sharp after 90mins of racing....

You are correct, there are very significant physiological differences between males and females. Male reaction times are also significantly faster than females. Of course, biology deniers (on the same wavelength as flatearthers) will always deny this. There are huge differences in neck muscle strength between males and females, something which is vitally important in motor racing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31983...

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/neck-st...

https://www.einsteinmed.edu/uploadedFiles/labs/mic...

[isaldiri]

Burrow01 said:

I;ve said this earlier in the thread, women are passing all the tests and requirements to be able to fly fast jet fighters in multiple air forces. This involves, flying at low level at 600mph, with loads up to 9G, and requiring them mentally to be prepared to fight to to the death with another person. Compared to that regime, F1 would present no real physical or psychological issues for women

I think that's what your reply was as it got a little all mixed up in the multi-quote.

The difference to the above is that it's not about whether a woman would be able to physically cope with the demands of driving an F1 car (they can as you say per above given fighter pilots) but whether they would be able to do so competitively given they are going to be starting from a physiological disadvantage. So far, no woman driver has shown anything that would suggest they would be competitive in the sharper end of F2 nevermind F1.

[Burrow01]

isaldiri said:

Burrow01 said:

I;ve said this earlier in the thread, women are passing all the tests and requirements to be able to fly fast jet fighters in multiple air forces. This involves, flying at low level at 600mph, with loads up to 9G, and requiring them mentally to be prepared to fight to to the death with another person. Compared to that regime, F1 would present no real physical or psychological issues for women

I think that's what your reply was as it got a little all mixed up in the multi-quote.

The difference to the above is that it's not about whether a woman would be able to physically cope with the demands of driving an F1 car (they can as you say per above given fighter pilots) but whether they would be able to do so competitively given they are going to be starting from a physiological disadvantage. So far, no woman driver has shown anything that would suggest they would be competitive in the sharper end of F2 nevermind F1.

Well female fighter pilots are prepared to bet their lives on being as good as a man...

The reality is that we don't really know what separates the good from the excellent in terms of physiological differences amongst current F1 drivers (Tsunoda vs Hulkenburg for example). This does not mean that we should not encourage women to aim for F1. If they are good enough they will make it. If there are physical limitations then these will become apparent as they move up the ladder.

We cannot put barriers in front of women who want to give it a go, just because we assume they will not make it.

[isaldiri]

Burrow01 said:

Well female fighter pilots are prepared to bet their lives on being as good as a man...

The reality is that we don't really know what separates the good from the excellent in terms of physiological differences amongst current F1 drivers (Tsunoda vs Hulkenburg for example). This does not mean that we should not encourage women to aim for F1. If they are good enough they will make it. If there are physical limitations then these will become apparent as they move up the ladder.

We cannot put barriers in front of women who want to give it a go, just because we assume they will not make it.

Well the barrier is winning enough to get a seat in a higher division/better team. By all means let them give it a go. If they are successful enough, they will make it. that's the point being made rather than making it through a requirement to have X% of women drivers or something daft like that.

[spikyone]

isaldiri said:

I think that's what your reply was as it got a little all mixed up in the multi-quote.

The difference to the above is that it's not about whether a woman would be able to physically cope with the demands of driving an F1 car (they can as you say per above given fighter pilots) but whether they would be able to do so competitively given they are going to be starting from a physiological disadvantage. So far, no woman driver has shown anything that would suggest they would be competitive in the sharper end of F2 nevermind F1.

I'd extend that to F3 and F4 at the moment too.

Burrow01 said:

I;ve said this earlier in the thread, women are passing all the tests and requirements to be able to fly fast jet fighters in multiple air forces. This involves, flying at low level at 600mph, with loads up to 9G, and requiring them mentally to be prepared to fight to to the death with another person. Compared to that regime, F1 would present no real physical or psychological issues for women

Repeat after me: flying fast jets is not a competitive sport.

As you freely admit, you have to pass a test to become a fast jet pilot, you don't have to prove that you can beat your peers. That's the equivalent of getting a racing licence, not the equivalent of being capable of competing at the elite level.

It also misses the sheer number of fast jet pilots - the UK alone has around 100 Typhoons in service, whilst the entire world has 20 F1 drivers. If you add together all of the drivers competing at the highest level in FIA-sanctioned world championships (i.e. excluding privateers and those in second tier classes) the number won't be much higher than 100 - and virtually all of them will have demonstrated that they are better than their peers before they reached that level. Even Logan Sargeant.

Drawing parallels between flying a fast jet and competing at an elite level in F1 is the sort of thing that makes me roll my eyes; it's both trite and very, very wrong. It's no more indicative of someone's ability to race competitively than it is of their ability win Wimbledon.