Jamie Chadwick - First competitive female driver in F1?
Discussion
LukeBrown66 said:
There is no science on this thread. There is very basic stuff often based on other sports that people throw up as an example and then say told you so.
Because no real research has been done to exactly detail why a female driver can not become decent in an F1 car.
The only stuff I read was about reaction times which has some merit and then some garbage based on cycling which is entirely physical. And then some idiot telling us that a woman had never beaten his trip time on a pushbike lol, I mean cmon guys surely you can do better?
Anyone with any sense knows that there is nothing preventing a woman getting to F1 and being able to score points and potentially should the right one come along win races.
The sport is demanding physically, but is any of it beyond a woman? Some of you seem to think so with no real research to back it up that has been done on that exact subject.
Will it ever happen? I doubt it, because of the all of the OTHER issues such as overall participation, finding that needle in a haystack is almost impossible, and even then she would have to be good enough to beat the vast array of guys in similar cars in F3, GP3, GP2 to get into F1, the odds are severely stacked against her.
But prove to me there is a reason why if the right person was found it could not happen?
There is no scientific proof that women cannot equal male drivers in the sport. Although being smaller and lighter is seen as an issue in some sports where men and women don’t compete, if anything it is an advantage in F1 racing. More key though are excellent cognitive abilities to focus on the task at hand. So, if properly trained, women have the same potential as men to become proficient F1 drivers. The conversation article a few years ago.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2019/think-female-ra... American research done on the subject ver small numbers
If we did some scientific research, then we can answer the question for once and for all,” Muir says. “So let’s sort it out, but we do it scientifically.” A quote from someone I think involved in W series called Catherine Muir.
So stop all the dreaming rubbish you keep calling me up for and realise that there is no research around this specific subject, there is evidence that certain areas of very extreme race driving might suit men slightly more, bit nothing really to prove any point.
Or are most of you disagreeing just not able to agree with me, or even worse simply not able to think or put up with the possibility that it might happen?
venue booked Because no real research has been done to exactly detail why a female driver can not become decent in an F1 car.
The only stuff I read was about reaction times which has some merit and then some garbage based on cycling which is entirely physical. And then some idiot telling us that a woman had never beaten his trip time on a pushbike lol, I mean cmon guys surely you can do better?
Anyone with any sense knows that there is nothing preventing a woman getting to F1 and being able to score points and potentially should the right one come along win races.
The sport is demanding physically, but is any of it beyond a woman? Some of you seem to think so with no real research to back it up that has been done on that exact subject.
Will it ever happen? I doubt it, because of the all of the OTHER issues such as overall participation, finding that needle in a haystack is almost impossible, and even then she would have to be good enough to beat the vast array of guys in similar cars in F3, GP3, GP2 to get into F1, the odds are severely stacked against her.
But prove to me there is a reason why if the right person was found it could not happen?
There is no scientific proof that women cannot equal male drivers in the sport. Although being smaller and lighter is seen as an issue in some sports where men and women don’t compete, if anything it is an advantage in F1 racing. More key though are excellent cognitive abilities to focus on the task at hand. So, if properly trained, women have the same potential as men to become proficient F1 drivers. The conversation article a few years ago.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2019/think-female-ra... American research done on the subject ver small numbers
If we did some scientific research, then we can answer the question for once and for all,” Muir says. “So let’s sort it out, but we do it scientifically.” A quote from someone I think involved in W series called Catherine Muir.
So stop all the dreaming rubbish you keep calling me up for and realise that there is no research around this specific subject, there is evidence that certain areas of very extreme race driving might suit men slightly more, bit nothing really to prove any point.
Or are most of you disagreeing just not able to agree with me, or even worse simply not able to think or put up with the possibility that it might happen?
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/party?iso=20...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgbJcblsLSY
thiscocks said:
andyA700 said:
InformationSuperHighway said:
This thread is pathetic.
Almost as bad as the Naomi Schiff one.
Please explain, rather than plopping a few random words.Almost as bad as the Naomi Schiff one.
Why is this thread pathetic?
LukeBrown66 said:
There is no science on this thread. There is very basic stuff often based on other sports that people throw up as an example and then say told you so.
Because no real research has been done to exactly detail why a female driver can not become decent in an F1 car.?
I’m not sure what you want “science” to prove. The proof is already there, Chadwick isn’t as fast as other people in the same machinery. You don’t need “science” to prove anything. You have the control, that is the car and the circuit. You have the variable. That is the driver. “Science” has thus already proven that she is faster than some men, but not all men.Because no real research has been done to exactly detail why a female driver can not become decent in an F1 car.?
pablo said:
I’m not sure what you want “science” to prove. The proof is already there, Chadwick isn’t as fast as other people in the same machinery. You don’t need “science” to prove anything. You have the control, that is the car and the circuit. You have the variable. That is the driver. “Science” has thus already proven that she is faster than some men, but not all men.
I think you’ve missed the pointWhilst what you say is true, some people on this thread are saying it’s impossible for women to be competitive in F1 due to physiology/science/genes or whatever you want to call it
Luke disagrees with that, as do I. It’s just that in the modern era no woman has so far proved to be fast enough to get to F1
And none will, for the very reason Luke states, it’s all about the other factors. Number of Participants, desire, investment etc etc.
You could take a girl aged 6, fund her through karting, give her all the top team access and track time she’s need, forsake school and all other hobbies, put her through all the feeder championships and she still might not be fast enough but that isn’t representative of all girls. Her best friend, the one not selected, might be the one….
I don’t really buy the physiology argument some are presenting either but Luke asking for “scientific proof” is like asking for evidence that God exists. Until it happens, he can claim he is in the right because it’s impossible to disprove his theory, not that his theory is logical.
To prove his theory wrong, you’d need to get every 6 year old girl and do the above.
You could take a girl aged 6, fund her through karting, give her all the top team access and track time she’s need, forsake school and all other hobbies, put her through all the feeder championships and she still might not be fast enough but that isn’t representative of all girls. Her best friend, the one not selected, might be the one….
I don’t really buy the physiology argument some are presenting either but Luke asking for “scientific proof” is like asking for evidence that God exists. Until it happens, he can claim he is in the right because it’s impossible to disprove his theory, not that his theory is logical.
To prove his theory wrong, you’d need to get every 6 year old girl and do the above.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 6th November 10:09
freedman said:
pablo said:
I’m not sure what you want “science” to prove. The proof is already there, Chadwick isn’t as fast as other people in the same machinery. You don’t need “science” to prove anything. You have the control, that is the car and the circuit. You have the variable. That is the driver. “Science” has thus already proven that she is faster than some men, but not all men.
I think you’ve missed the pointWhilst what you say is true, some people on this thread are saying it’s impossible for women to be competitive in F1 due to physiology/science/genes or whatever you want to call it
Luke disagrees with that, as do I. It’s just that in the modern era no woman has so far proved to be fast enough to get to F1
Do agree that the physiology between men and women is different? Do you agree that men are stronger, faster, can jump higher, have larger hearts, larger lungs, higher bone density, more lean muscle mass, higher percentage of red blood cells, better aerobic performance, faster reaction times?
Do you understand the concept of "marginal gains"?
I have said all along that there are clearly marginal physiological gains from man to woman that might hurt a female participant, but I do not think that explains why most current female race drivers are slow compared to most of their male peers.
As I have said all along, the right one has not come round yet because they are being picked from a tiny talent pool and also being falsely promoted to positions of power because they are women and then being found out, you could even call out Audi for that with Mouton, but she then proceeded to at least perform to a decent level as she knew she would have to to prove herself.
Chadwick is nowhere near good enough so far for top level world single-seaters, she might do OK in the USA as Danica did, and Danica did pretty well, But struggled in NASCAR for whatever reason. Again probably talent as she came from a more European background in karting and single-seaters not short oval and backyard oval racing as most NASCAR top drivers do or have done. That experience gives you so much in NASCAR, even when top drivers like Montoya come over they struggle and that has got nothing to do with talent per se. More just experience and knowing how to drive long miles round ovals.
I don't doubt that if a woman come along who is say as quick as a Max or Lewis, in the final reckoning she might lose something to either physically as they will both be at their peak, and she would have to be beyond that. But drive, determination, are also factors, they don't mean as much as they used to in F1 as the cars are far more important now than ever, but it still means something.
And this is what I am trying to get at, nothing we have seen for 50 years has been anywhere near good enough. But nobody really knows if it will never happen, you cannot simply say because it has not, it never will.
Women have gone to space, flown jets, even been in major roles in the military, been CeO's all things that 100 years would seem impossible.
Is it so hard to simply hope that one day a driver might come along who might also change this situation?
As I have said all along, the right one has not come round yet because they are being picked from a tiny talent pool and also being falsely promoted to positions of power because they are women and then being found out, you could even call out Audi for that with Mouton, but she then proceeded to at least perform to a decent level as she knew she would have to to prove herself.
Chadwick is nowhere near good enough so far for top level world single-seaters, she might do OK in the USA as Danica did, and Danica did pretty well, But struggled in NASCAR for whatever reason. Again probably talent as she came from a more European background in karting and single-seaters not short oval and backyard oval racing as most NASCAR top drivers do or have done. That experience gives you so much in NASCAR, even when top drivers like Montoya come over they struggle and that has got nothing to do with talent per se. More just experience and knowing how to drive long miles round ovals.
I don't doubt that if a woman come along who is say as quick as a Max or Lewis, in the final reckoning she might lose something to either physically as they will both be at their peak, and she would have to be beyond that. But drive, determination, are also factors, they don't mean as much as they used to in F1 as the cars are far more important now than ever, but it still means something.
And this is what I am trying to get at, nothing we have seen for 50 years has been anywhere near good enough. But nobody really knows if it will never happen, you cannot simply say because it has not, it never will.
Women have gone to space, flown jets, even been in major roles in the military, been CeO's all things that 100 years would seem impossible.
Is it so hard to simply hope that one day a driver might come along who might also change this situation?
LukeBrown66 said:
Women have gone to space, flown jets, even been in major roles in the military, been CeO's all things that 100 years would seem impossible.
I await the inevitable "going to space is easier than being an F1 driver" comment. After all, as Fred Hoyle said, it's only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight up. andyA700 said:
The title of this thread is actually "Be competitive in F1", which to my mind means getting in Q3 regularly and sticking it on pole a few times, then maybe win a race.
Do agree that the physiology between men and women is different? Do you agree that men are stronger, faster, can jump higher, have larger hearts, larger lungs, higher bone density, more lean muscle mass, higher percentage of red blood cells, better aerobic performance, faster reaction times?
Do you understand the concept of "marginal gains"?
thats a pretty high bar, less than 50% of the grid have got pole, even less a winDo agree that the physiology between men and women is different? Do you agree that men are stronger, faster, can jump higher, have larger hearts, larger lungs, higher bone density, more lean muscle mass, higher percentage of red blood cells, better aerobic performance, faster reaction times?
Do you understand the concept of "marginal gains"?
my definition would be regularly scoring points
& my guess would be that a woman will be achieving that in 10-15 years time
imo the biggest reason women aren't in F1 isn't to do with physicality (strength or endurance) it's the pool of women in motorsport isn't very big compared to men, to draw from ...get more girls/ women interested & you'll see some that are good enough, but gatekeeping (& im not sure why grown men are doing that on this thread tbh) isn't going to help that
but in answer to the OP- as good as Jamie is, she isn't good enough for F1
LukeBrown66 said:
Women have gone to space, flown jets, even been in major roles in the military, been CeO's all things that 100 years would seem impossible.
Is it so hard to simply hope that one day a driver might come along who might also change this situation?
It's not at all hard to hope it will happen. It's a separate thing to believe it WILL happen. I'd love to see it, personally, but don't think we will.Is it so hard to simply hope that one day a driver might come along who might also change this situation?
M3ax said:
pretty sensible, knows its a numbers game, however its also a numbers game that females lose interest in quicker / earlier than men,
vulture1 said:
M3ax said:
pretty sensible, knows its a numbers game, however its also a numbers game that females lose interest in quicker / earlier than men,
Susie was the last lady to drive and F1 car in a Friday P1 session, back in 2013. She wouldn’t be allowed to do that under the current super licence requirements.
My view is that when it happens that driver will be hugely committed, massively driven and focused on her career and improvement, no stone will be left unturned.
I think that is what it will take, it needs a driver to be as good as her peers, and that is not the case so far.
being as good will ensure sponsorship, even being close will. And from then it is up to personal drive, determination as it is with any other driver.
I also think luck will NOT play a part, if a female driver is as good as her peers in lower classes her path will be easy as people will be falling over themselves to take her on. She will get lots of chances and the key then is to be quick enough.
Anybody so far has not been, and that is the only aspect missing so far.
I think that is what it will take, it needs a driver to be as good as her peers, and that is not the case so far.
being as good will ensure sponsorship, even being close will. And from then it is up to personal drive, determination as it is with any other driver.
I also think luck will NOT play a part, if a female driver is as good as her peers in lower classes her path will be easy as people will be falling over themselves to take her on. She will get lots of chances and the key then is to be quick enough.
Anybody so far has not been, and that is the only aspect missing so far.
LukeBrown66 said:
My view is that when it happens that driver will be hugely committed, massively driven and focused on her career and improvement, no stone will be left unturned.
I think that is what it will take, it needs a driver to be as good as her peers, and that is not the case so far.
being as good will ensure sponsorship, even being close will. And from then it is up to personal drive, determination as it is with any other driver.
I also think luck will NOT play a part, if a female driver is as good as her peers in lower classes her path will be easy as people will be falling over themselves to take her on. She will get lots of chances and the key then is to be quick enough.
Anybody so far has not been, and that is the only aspect missing so far.
Agree with this. It is simply a numbers game, compounded by the fact that it's probably more challenging for a women in the early years than a man given the physical nature of karts and lower end single seaters which means a woman will probably have to train harder to achieve the same level. That's not to say it can't be done, just that it'll take extraordinary levels of determination and belief to make it - which tbf is no different for anyone who makes it to F1.I think that is what it will take, it needs a driver to be as good as her peers, and that is not the case so far.
being as good will ensure sponsorship, even being close will. And from then it is up to personal drive, determination as it is with any other driver.
I also think luck will NOT play a part, if a female driver is as good as her peers in lower classes her path will be easy as people will be falling over themselves to take her on. She will get lots of chances and the key then is to be quick enough.
Anybody so far has not been, and that is the only aspect missing so far.
The one aspect I don't understand and I'm interested in opinions on is the question of why is it so important that we must make it easier/more accessible to get a woman into F1? If woman are more inclined to fall out of the sport due to lack of that ultimate degree of interest and desire then it naturally follows that perhaps we are where we are because women themselves just aren't that interested in making it as an F1 driver. So why the clamour that we must make it more favourable for a woman to get to F1 - isn't that just positive discrimination? I don't know. Is there a similar clamour to get men into female dominated careers? Can't folks just choose what they want to do and the natural order of things will follow?
The original question has long since been answered and whilst Jamie is clearly a decent driver who could make it in a different category, she isn't the answer for F1 (and neither was W series in terms of helping that). So who's the next big prospect, and are they better than the men around them - after all the stopwatch is ultimately the only thing racing really cares about no matter your chromosomes.
I am in partial agreement.
I think it would benefit the sport enormously and lead to a far higher trickle of female drivers getting involved than currently.
But you are also right in that why does it matter. I guess because the way the world is now, because of Lewis, because of me too and the far increased awareness of the apparent sexism in this sport.
ON the contrary I would suggest that away from driving, women stand a far higher chance of being recruited to certain roles in F1 teams over and above perhaps equally or even more qualified candidates, which has its own issues.
I think it would benefit the sport enormously and lead to a far higher trickle of female drivers getting involved than currently.
But you are also right in that why does it matter. I guess because the way the world is now, because of Lewis, because of me too and the far increased awareness of the apparent sexism in this sport.
ON the contrary I would suggest that away from driving, women stand a far higher chance of being recruited to certain roles in F1 teams over and above perhaps equally or even more qualified candidates, which has its own issues.
LukeBrown66 said:
the far increased awareness of the apparent sexism in this sport.
.....women stand a far higher chance of being recruited to certain roles in F1 teams over and above perhaps equally or even more qualified candidates, which has its own issues.
Little bit of contradiction going on there, no? .....women stand a far higher chance of being recruited to certain roles in F1 teams over and above perhaps equally or even more qualified candidates, which has its own issues.
I'm not aware of sexism in F1, certainly not the post millennium version. There's LOADS of women employed in many and varied roles throughout the F1 community (and no, not just catering for the misogynists).trackdemon said:
The one aspect I don't understand and I'm interested in opinions on is the question of why is it so important that we must make it easier/more accessible to get a woman into F1? If woman are more inclined to fall out of the sport due to lack of that ultimate degree of interest and desire then it naturally follows that perhaps we are where we are because women themselves just aren't that interested in making it as an F1 driver. So why the clamour that we must make it more favourable for a woman to get to F1 - isn't that just positive discrimination? I don't know. Is there a similar clamour to get men into female dominated careers? Can't folks just choose what they want to do and the natural order of things will follow?
.
One reason is that because at the moment 50% of the worlds population is not really interested in F1, and so F1 is missing huge amounts of sponsorship opportunities from companies targeting women. .
There are vast untapped financial resources not available to the teams due to the fact that women generally are not interested / watching the races. If you have more female drivers, you have more female viewers, spectators, and therefore more sponsors bringing their money to the sport.
Imagine the difference to the team if a fitness or beauty company decided to sponsor Haas with $100million per year
This applies all down the ranks, not just F1. More female involvement at all levels of motorsport would boost numbers of racing drivers competing, race attendances and available sponsors
More info on the spending power of women here:
https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff