Jamie Chadwick - First competitive female driver in F1?
Discussion
andyA700 said:
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...
From the summary of your first link: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...
Lipps et al said:
We estimate that female sprinters would have similar reaction times to male sprinters if the force threshold used at Beijing was lowered by 22% in order to account for their lesser muscle strength
The observed data is an artefact of a specific set of test criteria; the authors do not attribute this to a difference in actual reaction times.As I sated earlier in the thread, reaction times are complex. There is the decision-making reaction time (women seem to be better than men) and the physical reaction time (where men seem to be better than women in some studies, but not all). Which is most relevant for motor racing?
It is easy to cherry-pick stats or, in this case, simply not read the paper
The neck strength paper you link to, similarly, is a study of ordinary people. It isn't a study of elite athletes. It provides no evidence of the upper bound for neck strength, or whether elite women athletes can achieve the same level of neck strength as men. It simply says that, if you pick a bunch of young, healthy adults, then you'll find some data showing men have more strength than women.
I'm not - note - saying it is wrong to state that elite women athletes can't achieve the same neck strength as men; I'm saying that the paper you've linked-to has nothing whatsoever to say on that question either.
spikyone said:
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.
There may be 20 current F1 drivers, but how many drivers would actually be capable of competing at the same level. In the end its money + ability that determines if you get a drive in F1, and money is much rarer than talent.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.
I am not saying that a female fighter pilot would be able to race a car competitively, but the physical and mental characteristics are certainly similar enough that you would not be able to say that she would not - certainly not a trite comparison.
I would suggest that if anyone could apply, and there were scientific tests for entry to racing, and funds were allocated based on these, the makeup of the F1 grid would look a lot different.....
Burrow01 said:
spikyone said:
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.
There may be 20 current F1 drivers, but how many drivers would actually be capable of competing at the same level. In the end its money + ability that determines if you get a drive in F1, and money is much rarer than talent.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.
I am not saying that a female fighter pilot would be able to race a car competitively, but the physical and mental characteristics are certainly similar enough that you would not be able to say that she would not - certainly not a trite comparison.
I would suggest that if anyone could apply, and there were scientific tests for entry to racing, and funds were allocated based on these, the makeup of the F1 grid would look a lot different.....
We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly comperently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness.
TheDeuce said:
I think the point is that there is zero indication a female fighter pilot has the ability to fly a jet competitively Vs the best male pilots - of course there isn't, there isn't a global competition to measure such things. So the female fighter pilot comparison isn't useful.
We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly comperently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness.
Wars?.....We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly comperently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness.
Fighter pilots are constantly training by fighting each other, they have massive exercises simulating war situations including dog fighting against multiple opponents. If women pilots were not in the same league as their male colleagues we would certainly hear about it. I am sure the female pilot who flew in the Red Arrows will be delighted to know she is competent....
"We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly competently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness"
And until one tries, with the same level of funding etc as the guys, we cannot say, for definite, that they cannot be world class competitors. You are confidently surmising, based on no evidence whatsoever...
TheDeuce said:
Burrow01 said:
spikyone said:
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.
There may be 20 current F1 drivers, but how many drivers would actually be capable of competing at the same level. In the end its money + ability that determines if you get a drive in F1, and money is much rarer than talent.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.
I am not saying that a female fighter pilot would be able to race a car competitively, but the physical and mental characteristics are certainly similar enough that you would not be able to say that she would not - certainly not a trite comparison.
I would suggest that if anyone could apply, and there were scientific tests for entry to racing, and funds were allocated based on these, the makeup of the F1 grid would look a lot different.....
We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly comperently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness.
To Burrow's specific points, I deliberately included all FIA world championship level events, and we still have as many active Typhoons (the number of pilots are hard to find but likely to be similar) in the UK as there are top-level racing drivers. There are thousands - probably tens of thousands - of people qualified to fly fast jets around the world, and the same logic of "how many others would be capable?" applies in reverse. There might be a great many more people with the aptitudes to make it as a fast jet pilot, who instead went on to do something different because of culture, education, opportunity, lack of interest, etc.
The suggestion that the skills involved in flying a plane at an acceptable level are similar to being able to drive an F1 car at its limit is a bit like saying that the skills involved in playing badminton are similar to the skills involved in playing tennis. If you don't understand the detail of either, then yes, they appear similar, in reality they are very different. "Going fast and experiencing G force" are very far from the only requirements for driving a F1 car competitively.
Burrow01 said:
TheDeuce said:
I think the point is that there is zero indication a female fighter pilot has the ability to fly a jet competitively Vs the best male pilots - of course there isn't, there isn't a global competition to measure such things. So the female fighter pilot comparison isn't useful.
We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly comperently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness.
Wars?.....We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly comperently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness.
Fighter pilots are constantly training by fighting each other, they have massive exercises simulating war situations including dog fighting against multiple opponents. If women pilots were not in the same league as their male colleagues we would certainly hear about it. I am sure the female pilot who flew in the Red Arrows will be delighted to know she is competent....
"We know women can drive F1 cars perfectly competently, as they can fighter jets. Competence isn't the same as world class competitiveness"
And until one tries, with the same level of funding etc as the guys, we cannot say, for definite, that they cannot be world class competitors. You are confidently surmising, based on no evidence whatsoever...
The whole point of something like the Red Arrows, which is another poor example, is that they are doing things well inside the performance envelope of themselves and their aircraft. If they were approaching their limits of performance they would have no safety margin. It's very clever and designed to look spectacular, but there is always a margin. Again, it's not about whether women are in the same league as men, it's whether they are good enough. It's a bar you have to clear, not a competition based on a stopwatch.
spikyone said:
That's a ridiculous stretch. Even in war they aren't racing, and they are following orders and using the technology available to them. If they're the 20th best fighter pilot in their country, they will still be good enough - they won't get vilified like Mazepin or Sargeant. They aren't being timed and winning or losing based on being 0.5 seconds slower than someone else.
The whole point of something like the Red Arrows, which is another poor example, is that they are doing things well inside the performance envelope of themselves and their aircraft. If they were approaching their limits of performance they would have no safety margin. It's very clever and designed to look spectacular, but there is always a margin. Again, it's not about whether women are in the same league as men, it's whether they are good enough. It's a bar you have to clear, not a competition based on a stopwatch.
The selection criteria is to hold a super licence, and then to be either utterly brilliant or to bring sponsorship to a team. The whole point of something like the Red Arrows, which is another poor example, is that they are doing things well inside the performance envelope of themselves and their aircraft. If they were approaching their limits of performance they would have no safety margin. It's very clever and designed to look spectacular, but there is always a margin. Again, it's not about whether women are in the same league as men, it's whether they are good enough. It's a bar you have to clear, not a competition based on a stopwatch.
I suspect that, whenever a woman is good enough to hold a super licence, teams and sponsors will be falling over themselves to get her in the car, a process that nowadays involves a lot of private testing and coaching whilest embedded in the F1 team as well as driving in F2.
Possibly the best thing about what the Academy is doing differently, is getting the young ladies embedded in F1 teams. None of them will be driving the F1 car any time soon, but they will drive the sim and have a lot of career support behind them, alongside testing and coaching in the next car up from wherever they are at the moment. As has been said a lot on this thread, it’s a numbers game and they need to both encourage girls into karts and encourage the good ones to stay in karts as teenagers. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion of the best way to achieve this, is to ban the expensive, noisy, and smelly things that are horses.
Sandpit Steve said:
spikyone said:
That's a ridiculous stretch. Even in war they aren't racing, and they are following orders and using the technology available to them. If they're the 20th best fighter pilot in their country, they will still be good enough - they won't get vilified like Mazepin or Sargeant. They aren't being timed and winning or losing based on being 0.5 seconds slower than someone else.
The whole point of something like the Red Arrows, which is another poor example, is that they are doing things well inside the performance envelope of themselves and their aircraft. If they were approaching their limits of performance they would have no safety margin. It's very clever and designed to look spectacular, but there is always a margin. Again, it's not about whether women are in the same league as men, it's whether they are good enough. It's a bar you have to clear, not a competition based on a stopwatch.
The selection criteria is to hold a super licence, and then to be either utterly brilliant or to bring sponsorship to a team. The whole point of something like the Red Arrows, which is another poor example, is that they are doing things well inside the performance envelope of themselves and their aircraft. If they were approaching their limits of performance they would have no safety margin. It's very clever and designed to look spectacular, but there is always a margin. Again, it's not about whether women are in the same league as men, it's whether they are good enough. It's a bar you have to clear, not a competition based on a stopwatch.
I suspect that, whenever a woman is good enough to hold a super licence, teams and sponsors will be falling over themselves to get her in the car, a process that nowadays involves a lot of private testing and coaching whilest embedded in the F1 team as well as driving in F2.
Possibly the best thing about what the Academy is doing differently, is getting the young ladies embedded in F1 teams. None of them will be driving the F1 car any time soon, but they will drive the sim and have a lot of career support behind them, alongside testing and coaching in the next car up from wherever they are at the moment. As has been said a lot on this thread, it’s a numbers game and they need to both encourage girls into karts and encourage the good ones to stay in karts as teenagers. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion of the best way to achieve this, is to ban the expensive, noisy, and smelly things that are horses.
I know it's unpopular here but I'd like to see more separation between men and women, not less, until such a point as we see sufficient numbers of women to prove one way or the other whether women can be competitive in F1. (I'll happily accept it if I'm ever proven wrong in my feeling that women are inherently disadvantaged by biology and evolution as they are in every other sport)
It will take at least ten years to get any woman close to F1 standards, because right now there are no young women with enough potential on the junior ladder, and there are not enough women competing at higher levels to encourage more girls to take it up.
What's needed is for the best girls to be taken straight from karting into a parallel ladder so that we start getting the numbers through, and offer them progression if they're the best among their peers. That ladder needs to be built from the ground up, creating a pathway to women competing at the most elite levels in motorsport. If all they see is a handful of richer girls moving up and then struggling to compete, it helps nobody.
spikyone said:
I know it's unpopular here but I'd like to see more separation between men and women, not less, until such a point as we see sufficient numbers of women to prove one way or the other whether women can be competitive in F1. (I'll happily accept it if I'm ever proven wrong in my feeling that women are inherently disadvantaged by biology and evolution as they are in every other sport)
It will take at least ten years to get any woman close to F1 standards, because right now there are no young women with enough potential on the junior ladder, and there are not enough women competing at higher levels to encourage more girls to take it up.
What's needed is for the best girls to be taken straight from karting into a parallel ladder so that we start getting the numbers through, and offer them progression if they're the best among their peers. That ladder needs to be built from the ground up, creating a pathway to women competing at the most elite levels in motorsport. If all they see is a handful of richer girls moving up and then struggling to compete, it helps nobody.
But more separation would be just avoiding having to answer whether women can or cannot be competitive at the higher end of motorsport against men. It should be more funding being providing at earlier ages for the best in those ages irrespective of gender so those can then continue to prove their ability at a higher level. It will take at least ten years to get any woman close to F1 standards, because right now there are no young women with enough potential on the junior ladder, and there are not enough women competing at higher levels to encourage more girls to take it up.
What's needed is for the best girls to be taken straight from karting into a parallel ladder so that we start getting the numbers through, and offer them progression if they're the best among their peers. That ladder needs to be built from the ground up, creating a pathway to women competing at the most elite levels in motorsport. If all they see is a handful of richer girls moving up and then struggling to compete, it helps nobody.
isaldiri said:
spikyone said:
I know it's unpopular here but I'd like to see more separation between men and women, not less, until such a point as we see sufficient numbers of women to prove one way or the other whether women can be competitive in F1. (I'll happily accept it if I'm ever proven wrong in my feeling that women are inherently disadvantaged by biology and evolution as they are in every other sport)
It will take at least ten years to get any woman close to F1 standards, because right now there are no young women with enough potential on the junior ladder, and there are not enough women competing at higher levels to encourage more girls to take it up.
What's needed is for the best girls to be taken straight from karting into a parallel ladder so that we start getting the numbers through, and offer them progression if they're the best among their peers. That ladder needs to be built from the ground up, creating a pathway to women competing at the most elite levels in motorsport. If all they see is a handful of richer girls moving up and then struggling to compete, it helps nobody.
But more separation would be just avoiding having to answer whether women can or cannot be competitive at the higher end of motorsport against men. It should be more funding being providing at earlier ages for the best in those ages irrespective of gender so those can then continue to prove their ability at a higher level. It will take at least ten years to get any woman close to F1 standards, because right now there are no young women with enough potential on the junior ladder, and there are not enough women competing at higher levels to encourage more girls to take it up.
What's needed is for the best girls to be taken straight from karting into a parallel ladder so that we start getting the numbers through, and offer them progression if they're the best among their peers. That ladder needs to be built from the ground up, creating a pathway to women competing at the most elite levels in motorsport. If all they see is a handful of richer girls moving up and then struggling to compete, it helps nobody.
You can always look at the "but can they compete with the boys?" question with an end of season event similar to the Formula Ford Festival, or if you want to make sure that you're not just throwing women into F1 completely unproven, you can stop the ladder after F3 to ensure that they have to race men in F2.
Simply funding a few more girls does little to help. I don't think anyone is making the case that the issue is funding because it's not gender-specific and if anything, a girl excelling at motorsport is more likely to attract support and sponsorship.
I'm not suggesting this as a definitive, final approach that needs to be inflexible forever. As a short to medium term solution, it works to ensure we have enough girls and young women coming through and that they have enough opportunity to progress and raise the profile of women in junior formulae.
Longer term - 10+ years from now - we will be in a position to decide whether women are able to compete on an equal footing or not. At that point you make the decision on whether to continue the feeder series for women and extend it so that there is permanent separation, or if it's found that women can indeed compete equally you'll have done enough to inspire the next generation anyway and the female-only ladder can be wound down.
It needs a pragmatic, strategic approach that goes beyond forcing F1 teams to run Academy drivers - who will remain unknown to the majority of the public - or looking for a wealthy benefactor to throw money and karters in the vain hope of finding that needle in the haystack.
spikyone said:
I disagree with the part I've bolded. I accept the argument that it's potentially a numbers game, I don't agree with the idea that trying to cherry-pick a small number of girls at an early age is the right approach. You need to give as many girls as possible the opportunity to progress. Having a ladder specifically for girls and young women that goes all the way up alongside the current ladder literally creates a full grid of opportunities at each level.
You can always look at the "but can they compete with the boys?" question with an end of season event similar to the Formula Ford Festival, or if you want to make sure that you're not just throwing women into F1 completely unproven, you can stop the ladder after F3 to ensure that they have to race men in F2.
Simply funding a few more girls does little to help. I don't think anyone is making the case that the issue is funding because it's not gender-specific and if anything, a girl excelling at motorsport is more likely to attract support and sponsorship.
I'm not suggesting this as a definitive, final approach that needs to be inflexible forever. As a short to medium term solution, it works to ensure we have enough girls and young women coming through and that they have enough opportunity to progress and raise the profile of women in junior formulae.
Longer term - 10+ years from now - we will be in a position to decide whether women are able to compete on an equal footing or not. At that point you make the decision on whether to continue the feeder series for women and extend it so that there is permanent separation, or if it's found that women can indeed compete equally you'll have done enough to inspire the next generation anyway and the female-only ladder can be wound down.
It needs a pragmatic, strategic approach that goes beyond forcing F1 teams to run Academy drivers - who will remain unknown to the majority of the public - or looking for a wealthy benefactor to throw money and karters in the vain hope of finding that needle in the haystack.
The point is that you aren't cherry picking a few girls as they would have earned that right by results. People get better with more competition imo. Keep the girls to female only series and they will likely struggle even more later when they do get thrown in with the blokes having finally to be regularly competing with similarly quick drivers again rather than obliterating the competition as they have been used to doing.You can always look at the "but can they compete with the boys?" question with an end of season event similar to the Formula Ford Festival, or if you want to make sure that you're not just throwing women into F1 completely unproven, you can stop the ladder after F3 to ensure that they have to race men in F2.
Simply funding a few more girls does little to help. I don't think anyone is making the case that the issue is funding because it's not gender-specific and if anything, a girl excelling at motorsport is more likely to attract support and sponsorship.
I'm not suggesting this as a definitive, final approach that needs to be inflexible forever. As a short to medium term solution, it works to ensure we have enough girls and young women coming through and that they have enough opportunity to progress and raise the profile of women in junior formulae.
Longer term - 10+ years from now - we will be in a position to decide whether women are able to compete on an equal footing or not. At that point you make the decision on whether to continue the feeder series for women and extend it so that there is permanent separation, or if it's found that women can indeed compete equally you'll have done enough to inspire the next generation anyway and the female-only ladder can be wound down.
It needs a pragmatic, strategic approach that goes beyond forcing F1 teams to run Academy drivers - who will remain unknown to the majority of the public - or looking for a wealthy benefactor to throw money and karters in the vain hope of finding that needle in the haystack.
Look what that had done with W series or the current one. Chadwick completely crushed everyone else and Pin looks like she probably will do the same. If they have hopes of getting further up, they will need to be doing that in age 18 or so F3/F4 or better against everyone and the earlier they are able to test themselves the better rather than finding out only after years of winning different female only series. As far as Chadwick, she's never had impressive results once thrown into the mix with everyone else.
isaldiri said:
The point is that you aren't cherry picking a few girls as they would have earned that right by results. People get better with more competition imo. Keep the girls to female only series and they will likely struggle even more later when they do get thrown in with the blokes having finally to be regularly competing with similarly quick drivers again rather than obliterating the competition as they have been used to doing.
Look what that had done with W series or the current one. Chadwick completely crushed everyone else and Pin looks like she probably will do the same. If they have hopes of getting further up, they will need to be doing that in age 18 or so F3/F4 or better against everyone and the earlier they are able to test themselves the better rather than finding out only after years of winning different female only series. As far as Chadwick, she's never had impressive results once thrown into the mix with everyone else.
The problem with supporting kids out of karting is that it's a pyramid. At that level, there are many thousands of kids competing. If you're only picking a handful to support then the likelihood of picking the right ones is very low. It's far better to offer up grids full of opportunity and use the female ladder as a tool to promote that opportunity.Look what that had done with W series or the current one. Chadwick completely crushed everyone else and Pin looks like she probably will do the same. If they have hopes of getting further up, they will need to be doing that in age 18 or so F3/F4 or better against everyone and the earlier they are able to test themselves the better rather than finding out only after years of winning different female only series. As far as Chadwick, she's never had impressive results once thrown into the mix with everyone else.
On Chadwick and Pin, I think you've proved my point rather than your own. Neither looked particularly strong against male competition before going into the female-only series; competing with boys/men has done them no favours. Besides, the logical extension of "they need to compete against boys to become competitive" is that "they won't try to be as fast if they're only competing against other women and girls". They're racing drivers, they want to be absolutely as fast as possible. There's no reason to think that a female-only ladder would limit their potential.
We have to accept that if we want to encourage girls/women and see whether they can cut it against boys/men at the elite level, the current system isn't working. In fact it's failing pretty hard. We also have to accept that change won't happen overnight or by taking half measures. We need a fundamental rethink.
The issue that faced both W and F1A is that they were/are isolated, with no ladder leading up to that point. There weren't/aren't enough girls/women getting that far, by some distance, to make them viable, competitive series. You need vastly more opportunity and more girls progressing. That doesn't come about by trying to guess which 9 year old girl might have what it takes and giving them more money. You can't change things overnight. The idea that we'll find a girl that can excel in motorsport by funding alone is a simplistic non-sequitur.
It's better to take a more strategic, long term view. Deliberately increase representation by offering female competitions. Do that and you encourage more girls to follow the path, and you're more likely to catch the talented ones. As I said, it's not (necessarily) about making a female ladder a permanent solution. It does need to be discussed in an open and honest way from the start - "we're looking at this as at least a medium term solution to get more women higher up in motorsport participation. It might need to be in place for several years to meet that objective".
spikyone said:
isaldiri said:
The point is that you aren't cherry picking a few girls as they would have earned that right by results. People get better with more competition imo. Keep the girls to female only series and they will likely struggle even more later when they do get thrown in with the blokes having finally to be regularly competing with similarly quick drivers again rather than obliterating the competition as they have been used to doing.
Look what that had done with W series or the current one. Chadwick completely crushed everyone else and Pin looks like she probably will do the same. If they have hopes of getting further up, they will need to be doing that in age 18 or so F3/F4 or better against everyone and the earlier they are able to test themselves the better rather than finding out only after years of winning different female only series. As far as Chadwick, she's never had impressive results once thrown into the mix with everyone else.
The problem with supporting kids out of karting is that it's a pyramid. At that level, there are many thousands of kids competing. If you're only picking a handful to support then the likelihood of picking the right ones is very low. It's far better to offer up grids full of opportunity and use the female ladder as a tool to promote that opportunity.Look what that had done with W series or the current one. Chadwick completely crushed everyone else and Pin looks like she probably will do the same. If they have hopes of getting further up, they will need to be doing that in age 18 or so F3/F4 or better against everyone and the earlier they are able to test themselves the better rather than finding out only after years of winning different female only series. As far as Chadwick, she's never had impressive results once thrown into the mix with everyone else.
On Chadwick and Pin, I think you've proved my point rather than your own. Neither looked particularly strong against male competition before going into the female-only series; competing with boys/men has done them no favours. Besides, the logical extension of "they need to compete against boys to become competitive" is that "they won't try to be as fast if they're only competing against other women and girls". They're racing drivers, they want to be absolutely as fast as possible. There's no reason to think that a female-only ladder would limit their potential.
We have to accept that if we want to encourage girls/women and see whether they can cut it against boys/men at the elite level, the current system isn't working. In fact it's failing pretty hard. We also have to accept that change won't happen overnight or by taking half measures. We need a fundamental rethink.
The issue that faced both W and F1A is that they were/are isolated, with no ladder leading up to that point. There weren't/aren't enough girls/women getting that far, by some distance, to make them viable, competitive series. You need vastly more opportunity and more girls progressing. That doesn't come about by trying to guess which 9 year old girl might have what it takes and giving them more money. You can't change things overnight. The idea that we'll find a girl that can excel in motorsport by funding alone is a simplistic non-sequitur.
It's better to take a more strategic, long term view. Deliberately increase representation by offering female competitions. Do that and you encourage more girls to follow the path, and you're more likely to catch the talented ones. As I said, it's not (necessarily) about making a female ladder a permanent solution. It does need to be discussed in an open and honest way from the start - "we're looking at this as at least a medium term solution to get more women higher up in motorsport participation. It might need to be in place for several years to meet that objective".
My point about Chadwick and Pin is that for all their female only series success, it is more likely that they simply aren't very good by the very best at f3/f2 standard and their dominance reflects poorly on the competitiveness of female only series. I don't honestly see how you can be arguing that more of that lower standard of competition for those who might be actually good enough is a good thing.
Say Pin does continue hammering everyone else in F1A. What would the point be for her to move up to a women only F3 taking the top few plus say Chadwick? She's got to be able to get into F3 with everyone else and see how well (or otherwise) she does against the blokes if she does want to try her hand at getting into the top tiers of single seater racing.
While I do take your argument that female only (and by default 'easier') series might mean more representation because it's (correctly) perceived as being much easier to win/get successful so more try to enter and you get a bigger funnel to pick from, the funnel isn't necessarily getting the 'right' ones in that case. I tend to think those good enough and likely to want to continue anyway are likely to be there already and mainly just lacking the necessary financial support to continue and those are the ones you want to be backing with a much higher probability of success. Guess we might just have to agree to disagree here though.
isaldiri said:
Well, I absolutely do think it's essentially a pyramid. There are very few that do succeed in the end and they end up being the best by proving it all throughout right from the get go karting when young upwards rather than only needing to do it against lesser competition.
There's very little evidence to support the contention that the "best" end up getting to the top of the pyramid. There's a lot of evidence that those able to access greater financial support do, however, get to the top of the pyramid. Which is, in a way, what we're talking about.skwdenyer said:
isaldiri said:
Well, I absolutely do think it's essentially a pyramid. There are very few that do succeed in the end and they end up being the best by proving it all throughout right from the get go karting when young upwards rather than only needing to do it against lesser competition.
There's very little evidence to support the contention that the "best" end up getting to the top of the pyramid. There's a lot of evidence that those able to access greater financial support do, however, get to the top of the pyramid. Which is, in a way, what we're talking about.The first woman to manage that will have such insane media hype and positive PR they're very likely to find a seat at lower ranking F1 team. Therefore the only goal that matters in terms of progression beyond F1a now, is maintaining competitiveness at least sufficient to get those points. That's a tall ask but it is a bonefide minimum requirement of entry.
skwdenyer said:
isaldiri said:
Well, I absolutely do think it's essentially a pyramid. There are very few that do succeed in the end and they end up being the best by proving it all throughout right from the get go karting when young upwards rather than only needing to do it against lesser competition.
There's very little evidence to support the contention that the "best" end up getting to the top of the pyramid. There's a lot of evidence that those able to access greater financial support do, however, get to the top of the pyramid. Which is, in a way, what we're talking about.My point in any case was to try to ensure those who are good (iirespective of gender) have a higher chance to be able to get that finance in order to progress.
Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 21st March 22:58
skwdenyer said:
andyA700 said:
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...
From the summary of your first link: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...
Lipps et al said:
We estimate that female sprinters would have similar reaction times to male sprinters if the force threshold used at Beijing was lowered by 22% in order to account for their lesser muscle strength
The observed data is an artefact of a specific set of test criteria; the authors do not attribute this to a difference in actual reaction times.As I sated earlier in the thread, reaction times are complex. There is the decision-making reaction time (women seem to be better than men) and the physical reaction time (where men seem to be better than women in some studies, but not all). Which is most relevant for motor racing?
It is easy to cherry-pick stats or, in this case, simply not read the paper
The neck strength paper you link to, similarly, is a study of ordinary people. It isn't a study of elite athletes. It provides no evidence of the upper bound for neck strength, or whether elite women athletes can achieve the same level of neck strength as men. It simply says that, if you pick a bunch of young, healthy adults, then you'll find some data showing men have more strength than women.
I'm not - note - saying it is wrong to state that elite women athletes can't achieve the same neck strength as men; I'm saying that the paper you've linked-to has nothing whatsoever to say on that question either.
isaldiri said:
Well, I absolutely do think it's essentially a pyramid. There are very few that do succeed in the end and they end up being the best by proving it all throughout right from the get go karting when young upwards rather than only needing to do it against lesser competition.
My point about Chadwick and Pin is that for all their female only series success, it is more likely that they simply aren't very good by the very best at f3/f2 standard and their dominance reflects poorly on the competitiveness of female only series. I don't honestly see how you can be arguing that more of that lower standard of competition for those who might be actually good enough is a good thing.
Say Pin does continue hammering everyone else in F1A. What would the point be for her to move up to a women only F3 taking the top few plus say Chadwick? She's got to be able to get into F3 with everyone else and see how well (or otherwise) she does against the blokes if she does want to try her hand at getting into the top tiers of single seater racing.
While I do take your argument that female only (and by default 'easier') series might mean more representation because it's (correctly) perceived as being much easier to win/get successful so more try to enter and you get a bigger funnel to pick from, the funnel isn't necessarily getting the 'right' ones in that case. I tend to think those good enough and likely to want to continue anyway are likely to be there already and mainly just lacking the necessary financial support to continue and those are the ones you want to be backing with a much higher probability of success. Guess we might just have to agree to disagree here though.
Where is the evidence that women are held back by money? Why is a girl less likely to have the financial support than a boy with a similar level of talent? As far as I'm aware it's only Chadwick that's raised the issue of a lack of money, and given her profile, $1.5m in prize money from W, and the support of Williams it's safe to say that money is not what was holding her back from getting the (international) F3 level seat she felt she deserved.My point about Chadwick and Pin is that for all their female only series success, it is more likely that they simply aren't very good by the very best at f3/f2 standard and their dominance reflects poorly on the competitiveness of female only series. I don't honestly see how you can be arguing that more of that lower standard of competition for those who might be actually good enough is a good thing.
Say Pin does continue hammering everyone else in F1A. What would the point be for her to move up to a women only F3 taking the top few plus say Chadwick? She's got to be able to get into F3 with everyone else and see how well (or otherwise) she does against the blokes if she does want to try her hand at getting into the top tiers of single seater racing.
While I do take your argument that female only (and by default 'easier') series might mean more representation because it's (correctly) perceived as being much easier to win/get successful so more try to enter and you get a bigger funnel to pick from, the funnel isn't necessarily getting the 'right' ones in that case. I tend to think those good enough and likely to want to continue anyway are likely to be there already and mainly just lacking the necessary financial support to continue and those are the ones you want to be backing with a much higher probability of success. Guess we might just have to agree to disagree here though.
We've also seen women without much talent progress to a reasonably high level - Chadwick for a start, Carmen Jorda got to GP3 (and was hired by the Enstone team) with a dismal record, Susie Wolff drove in F1 free practice sessions having never won a race in her life. They've only reached those heights for their marketability. That alone is likely to give women/girls a significant advantage over men/boys in attracting sponsorship and being able to progress.
Pin has already raced in single seaters with men; she finished 10th in F4 UAE last season, with only a single podium - admittedly a win, but that's not indicative that she'll be anywhere near good enough for F1 if/when she returns to single seaters. Chadwick too has raced in single seaters with men, and has been poor. The current setup essentially excludes women from competing in high level single seaters. You ask where these female racers go. Well, there's even less point in them pootling around at the back in a male-dominated F3 series, so why not put them in that level of car but with an opportunity to win races?
A female ladder isn't just about making it "easier to win"; this is professional sport and for the most part you won't progress unless you're winning. At the moment it's a self-perpetuating cycle. The women at higher levels aren't good enough to mix it with men, therefore women make less progress, have little representation, and perhaps because they're not seeing women competing, not enough girls are taking up karting for there to be any realistic chance of finding someone that might be fast enough.
We're even less likely to find "the 'right' ones" with the funnel being as narrow as it currently is. Surely you can see that creating a women-only ladder is widening the potential talent pool? You did say that those good enough are already likely to be in karting, but the female ladder wouldn't ignore them or reduce their opportunities to shine. Instead it would take the top 10 or 20% of female racers rather than perhaps the current 1 or 2%, and it would give them more opportunities to progress. That's not suggesting that we create more of a "lower standard of competition" - at the moment we have what we have and there's no sign of it changing, because there's not enough representation to find the very best.
It's also worth noting that similar approaches are already being taken in other industries (e.g. programmes to improve access to STEM education both for women and under-represented ethnic groups). The long term goal isn't segregation, it's representation. That often means creating opportunities in the form of courses, schemes, competitions, or scholarships for those that are under-represented to help them progress.
And it goes one of two ways, in ten years or so: either we find women have the ability to race a car as fast as men, and then the female ladder can be scaled back; or we find that there are still no women able to compete with men, acknowledge that biology/physiology play a role, and it becomes a long-term/permanent ladder so that women can still race in high level single seaters. There's no downside.
The money is needed far lower down the pyramid. Fathers who don’t think it worth supporting their daughters are a major problem. By the time we’re talking about F4 it is far too late.
If we treated British motorsport the way we treat, say, British Olympic sports, we’d have a very different structure designed to surface and support innate talent as early as possible.
If we treated British motorsport the way we treat, say, British Olympic sports, we’d have a very different structure designed to surface and support innate talent as early as possible.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff