2019 W Series

[SlipZtrEm]

FWIW, I’m not against women in motorsports, but when we’re talking about creating opportunities for people who can’t get funds, why do it for girls only.

Why do it for gamers only? Why do it for youths only?

I’m all for giving opportunity, but not based on gender/race/nationality, just pure talent.

Pure talent isn't even the deciding factor in the so-called pinnacle of the sport.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

If you think that driver’s quality isn’t important and the only point of this is PR and marketing, than I can safely assume you would be ok with pushing a woman through the feeder series just to get her an F1 seat.

And yes, now you will say I’m putting words in your mouth but that’s kind of what you said, especially with this “irrelevant” part, unless you can’t figure out how to quote people and you didn’t mean that as a response to everything you quoted there

You did it again. Assuming MY position and speaking for me is not arguing against me. I don't know how else to explain that. You're literally arguing against points that YOU made. I didn't say those words regardless of what you presume.

Like I said, I really don't have time to teach people how to argue. Ultimately, you're not having a real argument, you are just spouting your rhetoric ad nauseam without sincerely engaging with me or any other people. It's just a waste of time.

 

[adb]

Why do it for gamers only?

I didn’t say that

Why do it for youths only?

Because it’s easier to learn as a kid/teen/youth? Also it gives you more time to develop before you start fading physically and mentally

Pure talent isn't even the deciding factor in the so-called pinnacle of the sport.

Sure it isn’t, it’s a bit more complex, as it’s not a spec series with a fixed setup.
But you stick two drivers in the same car and the more talented one will have the edge, always, especially over longer period of time

You did it again. Assuming MY position and speaking for me is not arguing against me. I don't know how else to explain that. You're literally arguing against points that YOU made. I didn't say those words regardless of what you presume.

Like I said, I really don't have time to teach people how to argue. Ultimately, you're not having a real argument, you are just spouting your rhetoric ad nauseam without sincerely engaging with me or any other people. It's just a waste of time.

Please sir, spare me a few minutes of your priceless time and explain how were I supposed to understand your first response to my post, I know I’m not worthy but I would really appreciate that, cheers.

 

[Famine]

I’m really sorry that I don’t know much about Academy, but are there still 600+ people there at that stage you mentioned? Serious question, I’m sorry

So with GT Academy it looked pretty much like this in terms of player count:

Online competition phase: ~1.5m players
National finals: ~600-900 players (around 30 players per participating nation)
Race camp: ~30 players (sometimes a little more, especially in the European version)

FWIW, I’m not against women in motorsports, but when we’re talking about creating opportunities for people who can’t get funds, why do it for girls only.

Women do not seem to be able to attract enough sponsorship to get them above F3 level. Men who are fast enough - and indeed a few who aren't - don't seem to have that problem, which is why every GP2 driver and every F1 driver in the last 42 years has been male.

There may be many reasons for why women don't get the sponsorship. There may not be a single right answer, but I suspect the fact that they are not taken as serious contenders (which is what sponsors want) because there haven't been women doing it in recent memory plays a role. This series would seem to take women who can attract F3 level funding, put them out in the public eye showing their speed and racecraft, and giving the winner enough money to then make the move into GP2 in addition to her existing funding.

That may not be enough, and it may not be the answer, but it may be - and it causes no harm to existing racers in any other series, nor the women who would take part, to find out.

 

[zzz_pt]

DISCLAIMER: Sorry for the long post.

That sounds an awful lot like “no reason at all”.

It may sound, but it isn't. I don't know how to make it clearer than what I've did already.

Men and women may have no difference to tolerance to G-f in specific situations and short periods of time (as the studies suggest) but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be any differences when you put them inside F1 cars fighting for race wins and WC titles.

Which means that you no longer have any reason why women wouldn’t be able to compete in F1.

I never said women aren't able to compete in F1. As I've said before, they may be able to compete. I'm sceptical of the idea they could be able to win races and championships against male F1 drivers. That's the nuance you seem unable to get.

So why wouldn’t they?

I've answered this before but I'll try again.

Am I stupid to question the idea that the fittest and most well prepared women wouldn't be as fast as the fittest and most well prepared men in F1? And by that I don't mean being able to compete for a top10 finish but actually winning races / WC and getting podiums. Because there's a difference.

I think some women could compete in the ATP and rank in the top 100 or top 150 against male tennis players. Some could even reach quarter finals in tournaments against male opponents, very rarely. But would that be better than having WTA and having women competing against each other? I don't think so. That doesn't mean women can't compete against men in tennis, it just means they can't get similar results (wins, trophies, etc) as often, because at the top end of any sport, differences between both will be one of the most determining factors for their respective results. I'm using this example as an illustration, because I don't think the differences in F1 would be so big as in tennis.

I may be wrong, but I think women have way more to win with this new W Formula 1 than they could by competing directly against men.

Except the study doesn’t say: “men and women can tolerate G forces.” It says that there is no significant difference in G force tolerance. For your case to be true you need a study showing that there is no significant difference between men and women when it comes to 110 m hurdles, not merely that that they can both jump and run.

Well, the study is the equivalent as saying there's no difference between men and women when it comes to jumping and running. Because it's not relative to F1 types of G forces for 90 min, while driving a car at 250km/h. It's is very specific for airplanes and being in a passive state. So yes, being equally tolerant to those G-f for short periods of time (up to 15 or 30 seconds) in a passive state, is not exactly the same as driving an F1 car where your muscle structure is actually fight the G-forces and not only tolerating them.

If you watch any video of a similar test of G-f as the one from the study you linked, you can see the subjects are not doing any effort to hold their head in place or their arms or anything, because the G-f only pushes them back, from not side to side or back and forth. They're seated in a chair, in a resting position and the impact of the G-f only manifests in their internal organs, vision and breathing. They're not holding their arms in the air, trying to turn a car while holding their heads up with the strength of their neck, for example. Both are tough things to do but very different. For the former you don't need such an upper body strength or neck strength specifically.

There is a lot of physical work, but you’re assuming that it has the same kind of physical work as in sports like running. It doesn’t. In running you need muscle strength to move your body as fast as possible.

F1 drivers are some of the fittest athletes in the world. No, they're not running, but they're not Sunday driving either. In F1 you need muscle strength to hold you head in place, to start off, like no other sport or motorsport requires. When some drivers have their first test runs with F1 cars, sometimes they get a hard time adapting to the new F1 car's speed and G-forces because their necks aren't strong enough yet. And all of them are fit with years of experience in formulas and karts. Didn't Lewis had issues when he first drove the McLaren back in 2006 or 2005 because his neck couldn't handle more than a dozen laps at a time?

In F1 the car provides those muscles and instead it’s about coping with the G forces. So it’s wrong to extrapolate from marathons or 110 m hurdles and say that it’s equivalent, because it’s not.

The car provides the muscles? Really? So any average dude can drive an F1 as long as they can cope with the G-forces...

F1 drivers are some of the fittest people on the planet. They need to build and train their muscles, contrary to what you're saying. Otherwise they can't drive at the speeds they do. Legs, chest, back, arms, shoulders and neck. Everything needs to be fit and strong enough to endure 90m+ without a time break to get some fresh water down their face or sit for a minute on the bench, while keeping their bodies as light as possible. They also need huge amounts of cardio training to endure 90m+ of high heart rate (180 / 190 bpm) which the car doesn't provide either. All that combined.

It's not the same as running a marathon as it's not the same as riding a horse in a dressage competition, where you don't actually need to be an athlete. You just need to be light and have the right technique to guide the horse. The horse is the one making the moves and providing the muscle, literally.

Name one thing we know about how men and women endure physical activities differently.

You're only focusing on the enduring and tolerating part of the issue and forgetting the active part: driving the car itself. You need the muscles for that and women and men have different upper body muscle strength (and general muscle vs fat % of body mass) and that's what it's used to not only endure a 90m+ F1 race but also make it fast enough to be competitive. The stronger you are physically, the best you'll perform, and the lesser chance you'll have of making mistakes and lose time on track.

I'm of the opinion that at the F1 level (which is unique in motorsports IMO) those differences between men and women will probably show, making it virtually impossible for a women to win a F1 world championship. I'm not saying it's impossible or that women can't compete in F1. But I don't believe they can compete for the top spots against male drivers.

Men are on average better at stuff like mental rotation tests, which may come in handy when you want to figure out how your car is oriented when you flipped it and landed upside down. It has no relevance to driving in a pack of cars, unless you want to make the case that it would somehow allow them to see what’s going on around them.

That seems like a bit disingenuous. Not relevant to have good spatial awareness while driving an open wheeler at high speed while in a pack, overtaking or being overtaken? Really? Of course I'm implying the second idea.

Women on the other hand are on average better at recognising landmarks, which might give them an advantage when it comes to recognising braking points and apexes.

You're making that up, with the apexes and braking points...

2.2.1. Sex differences in spatial navigation
Although males perform better than females in the navigation strategy, the relationship between navigation and one’s level of testosterone has not been consistently demonstrated.36,37 It is known that men tend to favor a more allocentric strategy (accurate judgments of distance), while women are more frequently egocentric (able to recall more street names and building shapes as landmarks) navigators.38,39 However, it is worth pointing out that the outcome of sex-specific navigation test is closely related to the experimental conditions. For example, when test was performed within a single room or within an indoor environment without absolute directional cues, men and women perform the same.40,41 On the other hand, men significantly outperform women in navigating through a large outdoor space.42

souce: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266559/

Other studies suggest that such differences are due to utilising the same force threshold, which gives individuals with stronger muscles an advantage.

Doesn't that mean, women can be at disadvantage fighting for a F1 WC because they have lower muscle mass, especially in the upper body?

This is a sport where the car does almost all of the athleticism though.

So they lose up to 3kg in 90m by doing almost nothing? In what other sports where athletes do almost nothing does that happen?

I think you have no idea of how intense and tough it is to drive an F1 car fast, on the limit. The closest experience I have is driving karts and, if you have ever done it, you'll know that after a 30m race your arms, hands, shoulders and abs are sore and hurting quite a bit (if you're actually pushing hard). Now imagine an F1 car, with an exponential amount of power, speed and race duration with higher temperatures, two layers of suit + protective gear and an almost closed cockpit.

If it's a piece of cake to you, it's not for anybody else.

Ok. Perhaps it didn’t load properly then. On my phone I can see all of them.

I've seen it now, even tough some of the paragraphs are impossible to decipher due to the poor quality of the print.

You did say continuously, but it wasn’t what you meant.

Should have written continually. English can be tricky, especially for a non native.

Which makes it a false equivalency: “I have not seen a top F1 female driver.” ⇔ “women can’t compete in F1 because of biological differences between sexes.”

When in fact there should be an implication:
“Women can’t compete in F1 because of biological differences between sexes” ⇒ “I have not seen a top F1 female driver.”

Which means that if the first statement is true, then the second statement is true, but not necessarily vice versa. In your reasoning you draw the implication arrow in the reverse direction and that is not correct.

That's dishonest. I didn't write "women can't compete in F1". Don't put quotes around sentences I didn't write.

A more honest reply to my point would be (and with words I actually wrote):

“every other highly physically demanding sport separates male and female athletes” ⇔ “women can’t compete for F1 titles because of biological differences between sexes.”

And since, I'm arguing from the start that F1 is a highly demanding sport, it follows I'm sceptical of the idea of a woman winning a F1 championship. There's a reason why I put the sentence "I haven't seen a top F1 female driver yet" at the end. Because, if that had happened already, my scepticism would end.

No. You are claiming that women are not able to compete in F1 due to biological differences between sexes and I’m saying “prove it”.

Wrong. I never said women can't compete in F1. I've argued women can't probably compete for an F1 title and wins due to differences between male and female bodies (and brains, I could add). F1 is the peak of motorsports and an F1 champion needs to be at the the peak of athleticism within that sport. And at the peak of athleticism in any demanding sport, differences between men and women will manifest in results.

That's why I agree with the idea of a WF1 championship. And hopefully in 10 or 15 years we'll be able to see women coming from WF1 to F1 to have a better idea of how, in fact, they can compete against male drivers on a full calendar, with practice sessions, qualifying and races.

Do you think I'm not curious to see that too? I am. I'm only sceptical of the idea that they will be able to perform as a lot of people seem to think they will, because they compare F1 to other types of motorsports, when everyone should know F1 has a lot of things that make it unique, one of them being the level of athleticism and strength you need to be competitive. That's why lots of exF1 drivers go on to other motorsports and get better results way easily and faster, even tough they're not at the peak of their careers and are getting older. Because F1 is way more demanding than any other type of motorsport on the planet.

When was the last time you saw any F1 driver coming from, say, driving GT cars? Or from Nascar? Or from drag racing? Or from Indy cars? Or from Dakar? Or from WRC? There are plenty of multi millionaires driving in those categories. But they never go on to F1. It's always the other way around and almost always, they do a good job. Just see how well Alonso did on his first try with an Indy car at the Indy 500 despite the Honda engine. Or Hulkenberg in Le Mans. Or Kamui Kobayashi for Toyota.

In sum, I'm being sceptical, based on what we know about differences between male and female athletes. You're claiming there's no difference at all in F1 because they're just driving a car and making little physical effort, so no differences between men and women are at play.

Maybe you're right. But you have zero evidence to provide. I'm not posing a fact, but I'm sceptical of your claim. If anything, I'm saying I don't think a female F1 driver can win an F1 title, based on the facts 1) that F1 is a highly physically demanding sport and 2) every other sport as tough as F1, separates men and women to make it fair for both parties.

But in very different ways and with very different importance to the end result.

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know until we see women perform well in F1. Something we haven't seen yet, in great part due to the low number of female F1 drivers throughout history.

Really? F1 is not primarily about driving cars? Then what is it primarily about?

That's me going to work. Or what an uber driver does.

Put the best driver you know inside an F1 car and see how well they can do. It's as much of driving cars as it is to be an athlete. I get the impression you think any random person can drive an F1 car if they go for track days with their car and even hold a lap record around their local track.

I don't think that. As I've said in the beginning, even professional racing drivers from other series struggle to drive F1 cars sometimes. On the other hand, F1 drivers can go on to other categorys and perform well and win on a regular basis even on the decline of their peak physical fitness.

So now women do not have a body and they’re not able to turn a steering wheel or control pedals?

How did you get that from what I wrote? lol

You're the one suggesting there's no difference, at top F1 level of performance between men and women, even though you recognize there are differences between both and know virtually every sport on earth separates both genders due to those differences.

So, you think, driving an F1 car is like driving with a controller on a sofa because there's not a body doing hard work...after all the car is doing almost everything, according to you. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

The only way you can reconcile these two ideas: 1) there's no difference in performance between men and women in F1 and 2) there are differences between men and women and that's why they have separate categories in sports, is to propose the ridiculous notion that driving an F1 is like being seated on a sofa, because the car does all the muscle work.

 

[AudiMan2011]

The subject of women in racing is a very difficult line to tread. If this W Series is marketed and managed correctly, it could (big emphasis on could) help aspiring women looking to make that next step in racing.

However, the best way women can progress in racing is for them to race against equivalent male competition. Giving women their own series like this will deny them that opportunity.

Female drivers like Katherine Legge and Christina Nielsen in IMSA, Flick Haigh in British GT, Hailie Deegan and Natalie Decker in stock cars, upcoming stars like Jamie Chadwick in Formula 3 and Aurora Straus in PWC show what women in racing can do without the need for segregation.

We'll just have to wait and see how W Series plays out.

 

[05XR8]

https://www.speedcafe.com/2018/10/12/new-w-series-to-run-on-dtm-bill-in-2019/

 

[eran0004]

Men and women may have no difference to tolerance to G-f in specific situations and short periods of time (as the studies suggest) but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be any differences when you put them inside F1 cars fighting for race wins and WC titles.

Of course it doesn’t. But you are assuming that there would for an unknown reason suddenly be a difference in G tolerance when driving fast cars. Show me data that supports that hypothesis.

I never said women aren't able to compete in F1. As I've said before, they may be able to compete. I'm sceptical of the idea they could be able to win races and championships against male F1 drivers. That's the nuance you seem unable to get.

To be able to compete implies you have a fair chance of winning. Otherwise it’s not a competition. But sure, if you think the term is too broad let’s make it more precise by explicitly saying “be able to win”.

Am I stupid to question the idea that the fittest and most well prepared women wouldn't be as fast as the fittest and most well prepared men in F1?

But you’re not questioning the idea, you’re reinforcing it. And because you have no data to support it you’re reinforcing a prejudice.

I think some women could compete in the ATP and rank in the top 100 or top 150 against male tennis players. Some could even reach quarter finals in tournaments against male opponents, very rarely. But would that be better than having WTA and having women competing against each other? I don't think so. That doesn't mean women can't compete against men in tennis, it just means they can't get similar results (wins, trophies, etc) as often, because at the top end of any sport, differences between both will be one of the most determining factors for their respective results. I'm using this example as an illustration, because I don't think the differences in F1 would be so big as in tennis.

Tennis is a very different sport than F1. The speed of the ball is proportional to the force of the swing and that force is not generated by a machine.

Well, the study is the equivalent as saying there's no difference between men and women when it comes to jumping and running.

No it’s not. It can only be equivalent if they have the same truth value. Since there are differences between men and women when it comes to jumping and running, it means that the study must be false. If you believe the study is false, then point out how.

Because it's not relative to F1 types of G forces for 90 min, while driving a car at 250km/h. It's is very specific for airplanes and being in a passive state.

It’s not specifically about F1, but that doesn’t make the study false. It’s also not specific for airplanes, it’s about positive G on the vertical axis, and that is mainly what you get when braking hard in an F1 car from high speed and that is also when the G forces in an F1 car are the most intense.

So yes, being equally tolerant to those G-f for short periods of time (up to 15 or 30 seconds) in a passive state, is not exactly the same as driving an F1 car where your muscle structure is actually fight the G-forces and not only tolerating them.

No, it’s not exactly the same. But what makes you think women wouldn’t be able to cope with those forces in F1?

Yes, men typically have more muscle mass, but is there a direct proportion between muscle mass and lap times in F1? The answer is no, you just need enough muscle strength to cope with the G-forces, because the car is doing all the rest of the work for you.

F1 drivers are some of the fittest athletes in the world.

According to what study?

The car provides the muscles? Really? So any average dude can drive an F1 as long as they can cope with the G-forces...

That’s not a correct implication.

F1 drivers are some of the fittest people on the planet.

Source.

They need to build and train their muscles, contrary to what you're saying.

I must have missed the part where I said that F1 drivers doesn’t need to train their muscles. Maybe my phone isn’t loading all the pages?

Otherwise they can't drive at the speeds they do. Legs, chest, back, arms, shoulders and neck. Everything needs to be fit and strong enough

And the keyword there is “enough”. What makes you think women can’t reach that threshold?

They also need huge amounts of cardio training to endure 90m+ of high heart rate (180 / 190 bpm) which the car doesn't provide either.

Have you seen the Norwegian cross-country skiing team?

It's not the same as running a marathon as it's not the same as riding a horse in a dressage competition, where you don't actually need to be an athlete. You just need to be light and have the right technique to guide the horse. The horse is the one making the moves and providing the muscle, literally.

It’s also not like folding paper planes and a bunch of other completely irrelevant comparisons.

You're only focusing on the enduring and tolerating part of the issue and forgetting the active part: driving the car itself. You need the muscles for that and women and men have different upper body muscle strength (and general muscle vs fat % of body mass) and that's what it's used to not only endure a 90m+ F1 race but also make it fast enough to be competitive. The stronger you are physically, the best you'll perform, and the lesser chance you'll have of making mistakes and lose time on track.

Show me the study where you see correlation between muscle strenght and lap times in F1.

I'm of the opinion that at the F1 level (which is unique in motorsports IMO) those differences between men and women will probably show, making it virtually impossible for a women to win a F1 world championship. I'm not saying it's impossible or that women can't compete in F1. But I don't believe they can compete for the top spots against male drivers.

Danica Patrick won an IndyCar race though, and the G forces they are subject to there are almost exclusively lateral, and for longer periods of time due to the sheer corner length. In magnitude they’re very similar to F1. Pack driving is also more prominent in IndyCar than in F1, where the field tends to spread out relatively quickly, and the speeds are considerably higher.

A more honest reply to my point would be (and with words I actually wrote):

“every other highly physically demanding sport separates male and female athletes” ⇔ “women can’t compete for F1 titles because of biological differences between sexes.”

That’s not the case you made and your alterations does still not make it a correct equivalency.

And since, I'm arguing from the start that F1 is a highly demanding sport, it follows I'm sceptical of the idea of a woman winning a F1 championship. There's a reason why I put the sentence "I haven't seen a top F1 female driver yet" at the end. Because, if that had happened already, my scepticism would end.

Hence the incorrect equivalency. There are other explanations for why you may not have seen a top F1 female driver yet, such as:
- low participation
- few role models
- discrimination
- prejudice

F1 is the peak of motorsports and an F1 champion needs to be at the the peak of athleticism within that sport.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating the correlation between absolute muscle strength and F1 results.

And at the peak of athleticism in any demanding sport, differences between men and women will manifest in results.

If your proposed correlation holds true, which has not yet been demonstrated.

It's always the other way around and almost always, they do a good job. Just see how well Alonso did on his first try with an Indy car at the Indy 500 despite the Honda engine. Or Hulkenberg in Le Mans. Or Kamui Kobayashi for Toyota.

What do you imply? That F1 is more difficult than Indy 500 and thus women can’t compete*?

You're claiming there's no difference at all in F1 because they're just driving a car and making little physical effort, so no differences between men and women are at play.

What page did you read that on? I think my phone is giving up on me again.

I'm not posing a fact, but I'm sceptical of your claim. If anything, I'm saying I don't think a female F1 driver can win an F1 title, based on the facts 1) that F1 is a highly physically demanding sport and 2) every other sport as tough as F1, separates men and women to make it fair for both parties.

1) is a fact.
2) is a construction you made based on the assumption that physical differences between men and women have a similar importance to performance in F1 as in sports like tennis or 110m hurdles. You’ve been trying to prove your case by stating an absurdity, namely that either you are right, or F1 does not contain any element of physical work.

We don't know until we see women perform well in F1. Something we haven't seen yet, in great part due to the low number of female F1 drivers throughout history.

Indeed.

Put the best driver you know inside an F1 car and see how well they can do. It's as much of driving cars as it is to be an athlete. I get the impression you think any random person can drive an F1 car if they go for track days with their car and even hold a lap record around their local track.

Why? Because female drivers are and always will be amateurs? Because female drivers don’t practice and exercise? Because female drivers don’t build muscles?

How did you get that from what I wrote?

From you ridiculous point that F1 drivers have bodies:

“Driving an F1 car is not the same as playing on a controller nor it's a brain inside a helmet doing all the work, without a body attached.”

You're the one suggesting there's no difference, at top F1 level of performance between men and women, even though you recognize there are differences between both and know virtually every sport on earth separates both genders due to those differences.

No. I’m saying that there’s no reason to believe that female drivers can’t compete* in F1 due to biology.

You have yet to show the correlation between absolute muscle strength and F1 performance.

So, you think, driving an F1 car is like driving with a controller on a sofa because there's not a body doing hard work...after all the car is doing almost everything, according to you. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

If I were you I would call customer service for that mind reading class you took and demand my money back, because it’s clearly not working.

Where did I say (or think) that there is no hard work done in F1? What I’m saying is that there’s no reason to believe that women can’t do that hard work just as well as men can.

The only way you can reconcile these two ideas: 1) there's no difference in performance between men and women in F1 and 2) there are differences between men and women and that's why they have separate categories in sports, is to propose the ridiculous notion that driving an F1 is like being seated on a sofa, because the car does all the muscle work.

Challenge accepted:

A: “There is no difference in performance between men and women in F1”

B: “There are differences between men and women and that’s why they have separate categories in sports”

The truth of statement A is unknown, because there are simply not enough data to make a reliable comparison.

The first part of statement B is only partially true, there are differences between men and women, but they don’t have separate categories in all sports. Horse racing, show jumping, motorsports are examples of mix gender sports.

So first we need to modify statement B:

“There are differences between men and women and that’s why they have separate categories in some sports.”

Now we can bake:

You claim that the only way we can reconcile these statements is if there is no muscle work being done (building on the assumption that the difference between men and women is muscles).

But there is another way we can make these two statements fly nicely side by side in formation and that is if F1 is a sport where the differences between genders are not having a significant impact on performance.

We know that your proposed notion is wrong, because F1 do involve physical work. The question then is if performance is limited by the amount of physical work you can do, or if it’s simply a matter of reaching a certain threshold, from where it doesn’t matter how much more muscle strength you have got, because just because you can tolerate 6G in the corners doesn’t make your car actually pull 6G in the corners.

There, challenge complete.

Oh, and before I forget:

*Compete for the F1 title

 

[Sick Cylinder]

This thread is already up to 9 pages and some of the posts are very long, so I haven't read them all. However I strongly recommend anyone interested in this topic to read Desire Wilson's book "Driven by Desire."

Looking at her complete race history she definitely had the talent to compete in F1 at a certain point in time - i.e. before the ground effects era. She explains in her book how the arrival of ground effects led to a massive increase in spring rates and hence an extreme increase in the physicality of F1 driving.

She faced prejudice many times from many sources and had great difficulty raising sponsorship, but so have many men - if you read "Flat out, flat broke" (the autobiography of the first Stig) you will find out just how difficult it can be to reach F1 - the obstacles that can be placed in the way and the sometimes hysterically funny consequences e.g. the team doing everything possible to make him fail so that he would leave and a more financially lucrative driver could take over the seat.

At the very top level it is all about talent, but from the next level downward it's about having enough talent coupled with bringing a lot of money to the team.

Hopefully this new initiative will bring some good results, but the chances are low just as the chances of any driver, regardless of talent level reaching F1 are very low. As you all probably know there are so few spaces that it is a bit like there only being one football team in the world and every player worldwide trying to get a game with that team - it's just not possible for the vast majority of very talented drivers to break through to the top level, but maybe, just maybe this will help!

 

[Dotini]

In 1961 I attended my first race as a spectator, driven to the circuit (Pacific Raceways) in the passenger seat of an MG-A which competed in the race. The car was driven by my advanced math teacher, Beverly Turman. Her husband was also a racer, running a D Jag and a faster Burnett-Chevy Mk I, which I was later to purchase and race. Beverly later went on to become divorced and involved in the jazz and night club scene.

At Mills College my mother was friends with Denise McCluggage, who became a famed international racing journalist and a racer of note in her own right.

 

[baldgye]

In 1961 I attended my first race as a spectator, driven to the circuit (Pacific Raceways) in the passenger seat of an MG-A which competed in the race. The car was driven by my advanced math teacher, Beverly Turman. Her husband was also a racer, running a D Jag and a faster Burnett-Chevy Mk I, which I was later to purchase and race. Beverly later went on to become divorced and involved in the jazz and night club scene.

At Mills College my mother was friends with Denise McCluggage, who became a famed international racing journalist and a racer of note in her own right.

That’s cool.
My mum used to drive me to school in the mornings before work, my dad used to enjoy Karting and was successful in his works Karting events.

 

[novcze]

Women do not seem to be able to attract enough sponsorship to get them above F3 level.

Isn't weird, one would say it would be the opposite. Or is it because they don't have a great results on F3 level?

btw. professional race driver Josef Kral is doing co-commentary on F1 races here and there was some talk about Formula W and he is of the opinion that in some cases girls can get further than boys of the same talent, because they attract more attention.

 

[Dotini]

Here's a checkpoint on the career of Simona de Silvestro.

Simona de Silvestro will remain with Kelly Racing for the 2019 Supercars Championship,
https://racer.com/2018/10/22/de-silvestro-to-remain-with-kelly-racing-in-2019/

 

[05XR8]

https://www.speedcafe.com/2018/10/18/angelo-focused-on-porsche-career-despite-w-series/

 

[05XR8]

She does have a point.
https://www.autosport.com/other/news/139790/de-silvestro-junior-initiative-better-than-w-series

 

[05XR8]

https://www.speedcafe.com/2018/11/28/australians-in-contention-for-w-series-seats/
I definitely rate Chelsea Angelo. She's one of the smart and aggressive, young drivers.

 

[TheElbows]

I'm just waiting for the inevitable excuses for poor viewership or return on investment when this series cranks up.

 

[Northstar]

I'm just waiting for the inevitable excuses for poor viewership or return on investment when this series cranks up.

I can already tell you it will have low viewership solely based on the fact it's a support series.

As for the second part, whether it fails or succeeds in the long run, at least someone is trying something to get more younger people involved in racing.

 

[Novalee]

So how do the nay sayers explain the Force girls beating men with faster reaction times ? Even winning championships against men ?


Im all for this and i think a female could beat a male in f1 because there is zero reason they could not .

Anyone saying flying a f18 is pasdive really is not paying attention to facts . I would venture a dog fight at speed is far more taxing than driving a race car

 

[TheElbows]

Dogfighting is immensely more exhausting than driving even the most advanced race car. The two levels of professionals do share a number of mental components though (both top tier aviators and motorsports professionals on average have faster reaction and comprehension times, better eye-hand coordination, etc.). A three minute dog fight will turn most seasoned aviators into soup. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though.

I wouldn't confuse drag racing with normal motorsports though. And you don't need to. There are plenty of excellent female motorsports drivers in real racing series - and many of them agree that Formula W doesn't need to exist. If anything, it's putting women in motorsports back a decade or so. It's tantamount to admitting that they cannot compete, or that they need special conditions or support to exist in the motorsports world. That's simply not the case. A Formula W win or championship may get you some sponsorship, but it's going to mean a hell of a lot less on paper than a normal series (of which no series in the world prevents female drivers from participating - at least that I'm aware of...surely one exists somewhere).

 

[Northstar]

So how do the nay sayers explain the Force girls beating men with faster reaction times ? Even winning championships against men ?

They're the offspring of the most successful drag racer in history, of course they're going to be good at it.

A Formula W win or championship may get you some sponsorship,

Isn't that kind of the point?

but it's going to mean a hell of a lot less on paper than a normal series

Honestly, at the level this series is poised to be at, I don't think it will really make a difference. If someone is fast and has good race craft it will show even in a lowly all-woman series.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They're the offspring of the most successful drag racer in history, of course they're going to be good at it.

^ This

Honestly, at the level this series is poised to be at, I don't think it will really make a difference. If someone is fast and has good race craft it will show even in a lowly all-woman series.

It does make a difference though you've already limited they're playing field the cars are not really on the same power level as GP3 and the 55 on that list are very questionable, from an age stand point and experience stand point. When I see a driver in Aussie Racing Cars or F4/Formula Mazdas getting ready to face off potentially against those who have driven much faster machines...it seems like a very stacked and take all type selection process. Makes me wonder why the other 45+ weren't qualified.

 

[Veinz]

It’s a joke series, no need to segregate men and women in racing. This isn’t MMA or hockey.

 

[Famine]

no need to segregate men and women in racing.

Are women prevented from racing alongside men, and does the existence of W Series mean women can only race in W Series and nothing else?

If the answer to both questions is "no", it's not segregation.

 

[Veinz]

Are women prevented from racing alongside men, and does the existence of W Series mean women can only race in W Series and nothing else?

If the answer to both questions is "no", it's not segregation.

It is if its a women only series. A dead end one at that for the Carmen Jordas of the world.

 

[Famine]

It is if its a women only series.

No, it's only segregation (of women) if women cannot compete against men. Female drivers can, in fact, drive against male drivers - as many of the qualifiers already do - and the W Series will not prevent that from happening, even for the drivers who are part of the series will still be able to drive in their other series, against men.

There is no segregation in motorsport. However there is, apparently, a glass ceiling of F3/GP3, beyond which women do not seem to be able to get funding despite talent. W Series intends to reveal the talent that's there and provide the winner with 50% of the funding they need for a GP2 seat - which, for a woman who already attracts enough sponsorship for an F3 seat (Jamie Chadwick, for example), will get them through that apparent limit.

For free.

Including travel and accommodation expenses.

 

[Veinz]

No, it's only segregation (of women) if women cannot compete against men. Female drivers can, in fact, drive against male drivers - as many of the qualifiers already do - and the W Series will not prevent that from happening, even for the drivers who are part of the series will still be able to drive in their other series, against men.

There is no segregation in motorsport. However there is, apparently, a glass ceiling of F3/GP3, beyond which women do not seem to be able to get funding despite talent. W Series intends to reveal the talent that's there and provide the winner with 50% of the funding they need for a GP2 seat - which, for a woman who already attracts enough sponsorship for an F3 seat (Jamie Chadwick, for example), will get them through that apparent limit.

For free.

Including travel and accommodation expenses.

It's a series where only women can compete, segregation fits. But enough of that.

There are plenty male drivers who don't get funding despite talent. Other than the money, no F2 team is going to be rushing to sign the champion from this series when there are tons of drivers coming through the ranks of the other (more competitive) feeder series with just as much or more funding.

 

[Joey D]

There are plenty male drivers who don't get funding despite talent.

There are plenty of male drivers who do get funding because of their talent. That's not the case with females. Yes, there are plenty of talented female drivers but they end up running into funding issues beyond GP3 level. The W Series hopes to change that since it will give more exposure to talented drivers and hopefully get them to the next level.

 

[Famine]

There are plenty male drivers who don't get funding despite talent.

As @Joey D points out, there are plenty that do. In fact almost all drivers who drive in GP2/F2 or F1, or LMP1, are male drivers who have both funding and talent. That said plenty that get funding despite their (a lack of) talent.

Race teams don't care about talent. They care about money. They have to, because racing is expensive. Ideally they'd like a talented driver with money, because they get prize money and don't ruin so many cars. If someone brings enough money, because they're sponsored by a state bank for example, teams are willing to ignore the talent (so long as the driver has the appropriate licence, which is only a function of time anyway).


There are no women in GP2/F2 or F1, or LMP1. Talented women seem to be able to get GP3/F3 funding (about $500k/year), although they are exceptionally rare - no more than 8% of drivers in any given season, and commonly 0%. They do not seem to be able to get GP2/F2 funding (about $1m/year). I don't think anyone is totally sure why, and it's surely not because a vagina makes them less talented.

Should a woman who drives GP3/F3 win W Series, they'll be able to take their GP3/F3 funding ($500k/year), add a $500k prize and have enough funding to take to a GP2/F2 team, even without the exposure that winning an international series will bring.

This will enhance female participation in motorsport and bring yet more exposure. That will feed more girls through karting and junior levels - and that's actually where the inequality actually starts. Girls don't get into karting.


Perhaps having a highly visible female role model will help get girls into karting. Can W Series provide that too? Yes.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

There are plenty of excellent female motorsports drivers in real racing series - and many of them agree that Formula W doesn't need to exist.

And many agree that it is needed. That's not proof of anything, just confirmation bias.