I would love to see a woman in F1 but...

[peanutaxis]

My guess most on here could barely squat 135lbs (ass to grass).

See, this kind of comment is why it is hard to take you seriously. How in god's name is this relevant to anything?

I watched a 145lb female squat 285lbs at my gym this week...

And remember, the often quoted 300lbs of brake force is that, a force. This isn’t the same as squatting. Force can be measured on force plates. F1 drivers have the advantage too of being assisted with higher g forces.

Sure a force is not exactly like squatting. But assisted by deceleration or not the force still has to go through the leg. So let's ask the question. How many females, with training, could stand on one bent leg with 300lb of force going through it for 5 seconds every 20 seconds for 2+ hours?

[peanutaxis]

I don't think F1 drives are even close to "elite athletes" in any sport other than F1, and then only because only a handful get to drive F1 cars. There are rare exceptions but the cars themselves don't hold a high physical demand except in specific areas. There are probably loads of non elite level athletes of both sexes that could easily withstand the physical rigors of driving an F1 cars.

Bingo, you don't think F1 drivers are elite athletes. That gets straight to the point. So why do you think that they are very often referred to as that by the media and fellow ex-drivers etc?

[Airshifter]

I don't think F1 drives are even close to "elite athletes" in any sport other than F1, and then only because only a handful get to drive F1 cars. There are rare exceptions but the cars themselves don't hold a high physical demand except in specific areas. There are probably loads of non elite level athletes of both sexes that could easily withstand the physical rigors of driving an F1 cars.

Bingo, you don't think F1 drivers are elite athletes. That gets straight to the point. So why do you think that they are very often referred to as that by the media and fellow ex-drivers etc?

Ego along with the desire (both of the drivers and the press) to make it more elite than it really is.

I think your initial argument, as well as most of your comments, are misguided at best. And I don't say that to be caustic, but to bring the discussion more into reality. I could just as easily make a thread stating F1 drivers are not elite athletes as none have shown to be elite in anything other than driving F1 cars.

Jenson Button, for example, was considered to be one of the most fit F1 drivers ever. And he competed in triathlons and such.... on an amatuer level. Though he got to be fairly good on his (age defined amatuer) level, he was far from elite. And I don't know of a single race where he wasn't beaten by women, often older women at that.

And overall, I think Jenson was much more fit than the majority of F1 drivers as an all around athlete.


As for the braking force questions, F1 uses very short throw brakes. Drivers are far from doing a huge weight squat or stand, they are simply pushing the pedal a short distance with legs closer to straight. And plenty of women can do that as well. They use those same muscles that can often beat male competitors in sport.

[hollus]

peanut, you are being disingenuous, possibly on purpose?
Insisting on your initial 2 points being key is a primary school level logical fallacy.
They also have been addessed in the second line of the second post, with the word ”horse”. Subtly ignoring the fact that in most sports the human muscle is the primary, often the only motive force should mark the difference between discussing in good faith and not. Every human input to an F1 car goes though a force multiplier.
In reality those points (yours and mine) are BS anyways, since the 2030 F1 rules substitute the whole Q for a weight lifting and bench press competition. The strongest, who often will be so by 9%, will start the race from the back for the good of the show, as clearly all the others will be 5s/lap slower.

The tennis example is kinda interesting, albeit still resting on muscles as motive force. Are male tennis player better? Sponsorship, viewership money says yes… by only a bit. Now, in direct competition, the man wins. The same short sprint to reach the ball carries the man, say, half a meter further in the same available time, and longer arms and legs might add 20cm to that. Then hitting the ball 25 km/h harder makes all the difference as well, of course. But are they better in skills? Perhaps, not clear to me.
There is an interesting YouTube video of an exhibition tennis game, I believe in Montreal. Mirra Andreeva, then a 16 year old girl ranked about 40th, had her rival forfeit last minute, and the organizers found the local training sparring: a man ranked 1000 in males, to play the exhibition game. One can clearly see that 2 minutes in, the game became dead serious for both. She started winning. She had more and better spins, put the ball closer to the lines, changed ball direction better and later, made him run twice harder. Any trick he tried on her, she anticipated way faster.
He doubled down, played more aggressive, went for the kill, and her superior skills only shone further, using his strength and excessive movements against him, as if in judo.
But then he had time to think, and found what he could do better, and clammed down. He denied the skill match, stayed back and hit every freaking ball flat, centered, long and strong. And so she ended up moving back too and finding mediocre angles from the center of the court, giving him time to always reach the next ball and hit that one too long, centered and strong.
And in that game, he won, clearly.

But an F1 car is not moved by muscle force. Its acceleration is no better, its top speed no higher and its side grip limit unchanged because the driver has better muscles.

If we are playing the strength game, really, the argument that anyone who can be as strong, measured in Newtons, as 2024’s Tsunoda, is fit for 2024’s F1 competitiveness, is kind of hard to deny. It may or may not imply that a weaker person could be OK too, there must be a practical limit somewhere. but equal to the actual bench press values Tsunoda moved in 2024 is undeniably enough. And with specific training, that’s a lot of women.

You wanted 3 sports? (another random arbitrary choice, but you chose it).
Horse based sports.
Olympic shooting.
Paris-Dakar (in cars, not motorbikes, curious that!).

[mwillems]

Not agreeing with the lighter and muscle theory.

Males have a disproportionately higher power to weight ratio. (see sprinting for example).
Males aslo have more neurons for spatial processing and motion detection.

What this means is that the female driver would feel more neck pain, more tiredness in her arms and and her coordination will start to degrade faster (normal as men were the hunters) as the the race wears on. Hmm come to think of it... LeMans might be a better ground foster female participation.

It would take a special woman or women to be competing tenth for tenth and and keeping race pace with the men though. I think such a woman would have to go through intense development from child to adult stage.

Why would it take a special woman? This all all anecdotal with no actual metric or measure even in opinion that demonstrates where the bar rests for endurance and strength and why woman can't reach it.

I could read your reply and totally forget that women compete in elite sports already. If I watch any elite racket sport it becomes really clear that women have plenty of strength and endurance at the top level. At tennis grand slams they will play for an average of 1 hour and 40 minutes up to 8 times over the course of two weeks at an intensity that seems at face value at least the equal of what an F1 car would take.

I've no doubt that Men are stronger than women. The question is, does that extra strength really count or are they strong enough? Surely once you have enough strength and endurance, any extra isn't really going to add anything? There's a limit to what you need. And I don't think it is the limiter in terms of how an F1 driver can perform.

As for people that train their whole lives, isn't that what a large portion of male and female elite athletes do? I'm not quite sure why you mention this.

Some factual differences between men and women:

Womens marathon record is 2hrs 9 mins and the mens is 2 hours on the dot. Nothing much in it. Mens 100m record is 9.58 and womens is 10.49. The Women's time is only 9% greater. I think that once you get to the elite level where body architectures are quite different from the average that you are summarising, the difference is not always as big as you think.

The same pool of elite physical female specimens are available to F1 like they are to every other sport.

A “9% difference” over a theoretical 1 minute lap is about 5.5 seconds. unacceptable in a sport where you fight for Miliseconds. Is this enough difference for you?

It also matches the difference of Calderons time vs qualy times of the sauber car from 2018.

if it hasn’t happened today with the global push for diversity, it’s most likely undoable

You've totally misunderstood what was said. The fact that men are stronger is not in doubt. The fact that in sports that lean mostly on the body that men will be better is not in doubt. F1 is not a sport that has the same physical demands as tennis or running. They lean mostly on the body. F1 does not lean mostly on the body. It is an enabler, not a differentiator in F1. In other sports it is the differentiator. That distinction is crucial and it is largely ignored.

As someone else said. Button was one of the fittest F1 drivers, but he was an average triathlon runner, so very very far from elite. In fact I think there was a documentary if I recall that compared his fitness to.the brownlees and the gap was huge.

Edit: Its here. Brownlee powered ahead in physical aspects. Jenson was fastest only in physical reaction times and this was the point I made 5 pages ago around the differentiator for F1 drivers.

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/heritage ... brownlees/

[mwillems]

Why would it take a special woman? This all all anecdotal with no actual metric or measure even in opinion that demonstrates where the bar rests for endurance and strength and why woman can't reach it.

There has been plenty of evidence brought up suggesting why men have a significant advantage in an F1 car. And what metric or measures have you come up with? The link you provided earlier is evidence for the OP. F1 drivers are "elite athletes" where "strength" matters.
https://www.redbull.com/us-en/formula-o ... ness-plans
You just seem to be stuck on the idea that racing in F1 doesn't require strength. And you are wrong.
And in order to prove your point you need to address the OP. But you can't and so you won't.

I could read your reply and totally forget that women compete in elite sports already.

Irrelevant unless they are successfully competing with men. See the OP.

If I watch any elite racket sport it becomes really clear that women have plenty of strength and endurance at the top level. At tennis grand slams they will play for an average of 1 hour and 40 minutes up to 8 times over the course of two weeks at an intensity that seems at face value at least the equal of what an F1 car would take.

An ant has plenty of strength and endurance. They can lift ten times their own weight! An ant would easily be able to compete in F1 and wipe the floor with everybody.
It has been estimated that the top woman tennis player might be about rank 300-400 in the men's, and that's being generous. There have been 770 odd Grand prix drivers in history. IF tennis is at all comparative to F1 (doubtful), then we would expect about 2.5 women to have been able to compete in F1 in the entire history of F1.

I've no doubt that Men are stronger than women. The question is, does that extra strength really count or are they strong enough? Surely once you have enough strength and endurance, any extra isn't really going to add anything? There's a limit to what you need. And I don't think it is the limiter in terms of how an F1 driver can perform.

Google says there are 8,000 different sports in the world. If you are correct then surely there are at least a few other examples of sports where the competitors are described as elite athletes where women can compete with men. For myself I am honestly open to there being examples, but I suspect there will not be.

Womens marathon record is 2hrs 9 mins and the mens is 2 hours on the dot. Nothing much in it. Mens 100m record is 9.58 and womens is 10.49. The Women's time is only 9% greater. I think that once you get to the elite level where body architectures are quite different from the average that you are summarising, the difference is not always as big as you think.

7% (marathon) and 9% is quite a lot. Again for the purposes of this discussion what is relevant is what rank the fastest woman would be on the men's ranking.
For the marathon it might not be as bad because it is an endurance sport. (It will still be bad because if you are a man and are 7% slower than the fastest man then you are not getting anywhere near the Olympics or world championship; the top runners will all be within a few % of each other on the world stage)
But when it comes to muscle strength - a lot more important in sprinting - many male team sports players, for instance, can run 10.5 which means that a 10.49second female sprinter will be waaaaaay down the list of professional male sprinters.

This all all anecdotal with no actual metric or measure even in opinion that demonstrates where the bar rests for endurance and strength and why woman can't reach it.

And so, even in just this post I have come up with plenty of evidence that is far from anecdotal to suggest that women would not likely be able to compete in F1. I look forward to your evidence.

In the replies I was replying to, the answers did not carry any attempt to be objective.

In fact, reading back, there was very little objectivity prior to my replies.

Folks have only tried to evidence men are stronger, nothing has evidenced women are not strong enough. Everyone knows men are stronger, it was a waste of time and I have been nothing but polite in pointing this out.

Speaking anecdotally you can see the endurance is there. Can woman also have leg, hand grip and neck strength? A lot gets made of the strength to press a pedal. But most people without any training are able to balance on one foot a raise their heel off the ground. I'm 250 pounds and it is easy. I can hop like that too. I do no exercise and this is only testing my calf whereas F1 drivers will use all their leg muscles.

Squats are harder because your muscles fully contract and expand. The difference in weight that I can carry when fully squatting and not, is huge.

F1 drivers are not squatting, it is much easier to press 350 pounds when your legs are largely extended.

When I ever went to.tne gym, I could push 650 pounds relatively soon without fully extending or contracting my muscles.

[V12-POWER]

Why would it take a special woman? This all all anecdotal with no actual metric or measure even in opinion that demonstrates where the bar rests for endurance and strength and why woman can't reach it.

I could read your reply and totally forget that women compete in elite sports already. If I watch any elite racket sport it becomes really clear that women have plenty of strength and endurance at the top level. At tennis grand slams they will play for an average of 1 hour and 40 minutes up to 8 times over the course of two weeks at an intensity that seems at face value at least the equal of what an F1 car would take.

I've no doubt that Men are stronger than women. The question is, does that extra strength really count or are they strong enough? Surely once you have enough strength and endurance, any extra isn't really going to add anything? There's a limit to what you need. And I don't think it is the limiter in terms of how an F1 driver can perform.

As for people that train their whole lives, isn't that what a large portion of male and female elite athletes do? I'm not quite sure why you mention this.

Some factual differences between men and women:

Womens marathon record is 2hrs 9 mins and the mens is 2 hours on the dot. Nothing much in it. Mens 100m record is 9.58 and womens is 10.49. The Women's time is only 9% greater. I think that once you get to the elite level where body architectures are quite different from the average that you are summarising, the difference is not always as big as you think.

The same pool of elite physical female specimens are available to F1 like they are to every other sport.

A “9% difference” over a theoretical 1 minute lap is about 5.5 seconds. unacceptable in a sport where you fight for Miliseconds. Is this enough difference for you?

It also matches the difference of Calderons time vs qualy times of the sauber car from 2018.

if it hasn’t happened today with the global push for diversity, it’s most likely undoable

You've totally misunderstood what was said. The fact that men are stronger is not in doubt. The fact that in sports that lean mostly on the body that men will be better is not in doubt. F1 is not a sport that has the same physical demands as tennis or running. They lean mostly on the body. F1 does not lean mostly on the body. It is an enabler, not a differentiator in F1. In other sports it is the differentiator. That distinction is crucial and it is largely ignored.

As someone else said. Button was one of the fittest F1 drivers, but he was an average triathlon runner, so very very far from elite. In fact I think there was a documentary if I recall that compared his fitness to.the brownlees and the gap was huge.

Edit: Its here. Brownlee powered ahead in physical aspects. Jenson was fastest only in physical reaction times and this was the point I made 5 pages ago around the differentiator for F1 drivers.

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/heritage ... brownlees/

how are you able to assert “F1 does not lean on the body” if from the very beginning you’re required to adhere to an strict diet and training schedule?

sounds to me you have no previous experience in professional karting or lower formulas, you would NOT be saying such thing otherwise.

saying “its an enabler” more or less equals “differentiator”, think: if my fitness level improved, I could improve my lap times over a long stint. What difference does it make being an “enabler” or a “differentiator”, if you’re pushing for performance, the logical option is to train harder. If you’re not concerned, you’re a hobbyist (nothing wrong with this)

it is unfair to compare an elite triathlon runner, or a top 1% tennis player vs a F1 driver. They excel in their own class, not in others. this should be obvious and is a bogus point, and it also deviates from the threads topic.

the point still stands that a female F1 driver tested and was 3-4 seconds off from a FP2 time, and about 7 seconds off from a qualy time. This is hard evidence and all the rest is speculation.

You sayJenson was faster only in reaction times, but reaction times are everything. When you’re getting 100% out of a racing car you need perfect reflexes. Braking a few ms latter or sooner directly impacts how you take a corner, where and how you apply the throttle directly impacts your exit, etc. And that’s where women will not match men, naturally at least.

All this you can prove with a mychron 5s, a car/kart/formula and your track of preference.

[hollus]

This gets a bit frustrating as a discussion: horse? addressed in the second post. Lower formulæ? Addressed on the second post?

it is unfair to compare an elite triathlon runner, or a top 1% tennis player vs a F1 driver. They excel in their own class, not in others

But it of course is. If being in the 1-5% fittest group for men is enough, being in 0.1-0.5% fittest group for women surely is enough?


Can we read and consider the whole thread before replying, please?

[hollus]

So, and if course, this is my view only:

To drive in 2025 F1 you need a certain mix of reflexes, balance, coordination, strength, stamina, strategy, etc. Strength and stamina are a contributing factor, no doubt.
But to reach F1, you also need a certain obsessive, ultracompetitive and I think narcissistic personality.
You need to have that as a small kid, you need to have that as a teenager through hormonal changes and societal expectation changes, you need to have that as an 18 year old and you need to still have that at 22-25 when you might enter F1. Any weak link in that chain? You are out, never seen.
You also need to be a team player enough for teams to play with/for you but not so much a team player that you get abused/fail to abuse weaknesses yourself.
You also need to spend the money and time resources of your family for about 15 years.

Without all that, you get no shot at F1.



Slight different angle: any successful F1 drivers from poor African countries? Nope. Successful racers with poor African ancestry? Yes, of course. 20 years ago the latest answer might have been perceived very differently.


As another side example (where strength does not really matter). India had no star chess players for, like, ever. Then one superstar arose, Vishi Anand.
Suddenly, India had a star for children to look up to, and the barrier of entry is really small, so millions of Indian children took up chess, and if they became good, they found a structure, societal support, and family support. Now we have a flood of 18-20 year old supergrandmasters from India.
The innate skills had always been enough, but the nurture, the exposure, the career prospects had not. Until they were. The starting number of players matters.

[mwillems]

A “9% difference” over a theoretical 1 minute lap is about 5.5 seconds. unacceptable in a sport where you fight for Miliseconds. Is this enough difference for you?

It also matches the difference of Calderons time vs qualy times of the sauber car from 2018.

if it hasn’t happened today with the global push for diversity, it’s most likely undoable

You've totally misunderstood what was said. The fact that men are stronger is not in doubt. The fact that in sports that lean mostly on the body that men will be better is not in doubt. F1 is not a sport that has the same physical demands as tennis or running. They lean mostly on the body. F1 does not lean mostly on the body. It is an enabler, not a differentiator in F1. In other sports it is the differentiator. That distinction is crucial and it is largely ignored.

As someone else said. Button was one of the fittest F1 drivers, but he was an average triathlon runner, so very very far from elite. In fact I think there was a documentary if I recall that compared his fitness to.the brownlees and the gap was huge.

Edit: Its here. Brownlee powered ahead in physical aspects. Jenson was fastest only in physical reaction times and this was the point I made 5 pages ago around the differentiator for F1 drivers.

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/heritage ... brownlees/

how are you able to assert “F1 does not lean on the body” if from the very beginning you’re required to adhere to an strict diet and training schedule?

sounds to me you have no previous experience in professional karting or lower formulas, you would NOT be saying such thing otherwise.

saying “its an enabler” more or less equals “differentiator”, think: if my fitness level improved, I could improve my lap times over a long stint. What difference does it make being an “enabler” or a “differentiator”, if you’re pushing for performance, the logical option is to train harder. If you’re not concerned, you’re a hobbyist (nothing wrong with this)

it is unfair to compare an elite triathlon runner, or a top 1% tennis player vs a F1 driver. They excel in their own class, not in others. this should be obvious and is a bogus point, and it also deviates from the threads topic.

the point still stands that a female F1 driver tested and was 3-4 seconds off from a FP2 time, and about 7 seconds off from a qualy time. This is hard evidence and all the rest is speculation.

You sayJenson was faster only in reaction times, but reaction times are everything. When you’re getting 100% out of a racing car you need perfect reflexes. Braking a few ms latter or sooner directly impacts how you take a corner, where and how you apply the throttle directly impacts your exit, etc. And that’s where women will not match men, naturally at least.

All this you can prove with a mychron 5s, a car/kart/formula and your track of preference.

how are you able to assert “F1 does not lean on the body” if from the very beginning you’re required to adhere to an strict diet and training schedule?

Because I didn't say that. Of course, if you take a word out it totally changes the meaning, which is why on a forum it is pretty tiresome to reply to people that do. Tennis is way more physical than F1 because Tennis demands that you use the maximum physical exertion you can for a period of time, it is directly linked to the outcome of your game. That is why unlike tennis, F1 doesn't require you to mostly lean on your body. No, that doesn't mean every shot is maximum power. It means you have to race about the court, get back to your position as quickly as possible, change direction rapidly causing you to twist your joints and cause all sorts of muscle strains. It means the more powerful you are the better you are on shots and serve. The fitter you are, the more power you have in your shots later and the quicker you can reach your optimum position for the next shot. Is that true of F1? Of course not. As long as I can turn the wheel, hold my neck in place and press a pedal for up to 2 hours maximum, then I'm good. It's hard, but it's not hard to see it's not the same level or type of physicality as sports which rely entirely on the human body to do the work. F1 has a limit beyond which extra strength and extra endurance are not really adding anything, apart from possibly weight.

it is unfair to compare an elite triathlon runner, or a top 1% tennis player vs a F1 driver. They excel in their own class, not in others. this should be obvious and is a bogus point, and it also deviates from the threads topic.

The fact that elite female athletes can be only 9% behind male athletes in the 100m and 7.5% in marathon, but that the gap between one of the fittest F1 drivers and an elite triathlon runner is over 25% shows that in F1 you do not need to have elite levels of fitness. Jensons F1 traing was focussed on triathlons, making this a particularly useful comparison. You need to have a certain level of fitness in F1 and that is it. This demonstrates quite adequately that women can achieve the levels of endurance required for F1 with a suitable of pool of candidates. The past x pages have been about whether women have the physicality to be in F1. It does show, however, that the pool would likely be smaller for women than men.

saying “its an enabler” more or less equals “differentiator”

Putting on a pair of trainers to run is an enabler (In most cases). If I then have to run to a set time, a non elite limit that isn't too far out of reach, the trainers are not a differentiator. My fitness is. But I can't run without them. In F1 fitness is more than a pair of trainers, you need a certain level and some won't be able to get it but it seems fairly clear that once you get there, having extra isn't much help. In fact, as I already posted, an F1 driver will have just enough strength and stamina, because the other consideration is not to bring their weight up unnecessarily.

the point still stands that a female F1 driver tested and was 3-4 seconds off from a FP2 time, and about 7 seconds off from a qualy time. This is hard evidence and all the rest is speculation.

Have you seen how female football is evolving quickly now with money and backing? They aren't on drugs, the same coaching methods have been around, the same training methods, same diet knowledge. They just didn't get the attention. Now they do, it is moving on quickly. Also, saying because one driver didn't do well is evidence of absolutely nothing. A study that has a pool of one, two or three would be laughed out of any journal and the fact there are so few woman in motorsport does not mean it is because they are not good at it. Many other factors are involved, such as how much harder it will be for women to get funding and opportunities.


"You sayJenson was faster only in reaction times, but reaction times are everything. "

Yes, if you read the thread you'd see that is what I had previously written, and in the context of those posts you'd understand that my initial point was that physical reaction time is more important than fitness. The past x pages have been talking almost exclusively about fitness and all my posts in the past x pages have been about the same. The point being made was that Jenson was physically inferior to Brownlee by some distance . I made no comment about the importance of reaction time, but yes, it is the differentiator in my view.

If you go back and read, you'll see my point was that you cannot asses suitability unless you first agree what skills and attributes are required of an F1 driver. My points since have been to try and apply some actual fact or to objectively question the main reason most blokes on here are saying women can't race in F1 in varying degrees of laziness. Because they aren't as strong as men. This is quite clearly nonsense. They don't need to be.

[mwillems]

So, and if course, this is my view only:

To drive in 2025 F1 you need a certain mix of reflexes, balance, coordination, strength, stamina, strategy, etc. Strength and stamina are a contributing factor, no doubt.
But to reach F1, you also need a certain obsessive, ultracompetitive and I think narcissistic personality.
You need to have that as a small kid, you need to have that as a teenager through hormonal changes and societal expectation changes, you need to have that as an 18 year old and you need to still have that at 22-25 when you might enter F1. Any weak link in that chain? You are out, never seen.
You also need to be a team player enough for teams to play with/for you but not so much a team player that you get abused/fail to abuse weaknesses yourself.
You also need to spend the money and time resources of your family for about 15 years.

Without all that, you get no shot at F1.



Slight different angle: any successful F1 drivers from poor African countries? Nope. Successful racers with poor African ancestry? Yes, of course. 20 years ago the latest answer might have been perceived very differently.


As another side example (where strength does not really matter). India had no star chess players for, like, ever. Then one superstar arose, Vishi Anand.
Suddenly, India had a star for children to look up to, and the barrier of entry is really small, so millions of Indian children took up chess, and if they became good, they found a structure, societal support, and family support. Now we have a flood of 18-20 year old supergrandmasters from India.
The innate skills had always been enough, but the nurture, the exposure, the career prospects had not. Until they were.

A bit harsh with the narcissistic but overall I agree

I'd say money from family is in many cases is not enough. Where it isn't enough, men are more likely to get funding because they represent a better commercial investment than women simply because the chances of women doing well in motorsport is heavily against them. This will reduce opportunities for racing quite substantially I'd imagine.

You only have to look at Lewis' story and how his Dad nearly killed himself so his son could race. If you think women have no chance in racing, realistically, this is going to be less likely.

This is why the work Susie Wolff and the FIA are doing to create those opportunities, series and financing is so important. Susie Wolff has already said it will be over a decade before there is enough a pool of female racers that some could start to be selected for F1.

But even if they do, if they slip up at all, it could be very damaging for them and for female racers that want to follow because without a doubt it will be very easy for media and fans to treat them differently.

[V12-POWER]

You've totally misunderstood what was said. The fact that men are stronger is not in doubt. The fact that in sports that lean mostly on the body that men will be better is not in doubt. F1 is not a sport that has the same physical demands as tennis or running. They lean mostly on the body. F1 does not lean mostly on the body. It is an enabler, not a differentiator in F1. In other sports it is the differentiator. That distinction is crucial and it is largely ignored.

As someone else said. Button was one of the fittest F1 drivers, but he was an average triathlon runner, so very very far from elite. In fact I think there was a documentary if I recall that compared his fitness to.the brownlees and the gap was huge.

Edit: Its here. Brownlee powered ahead in physical aspects. Jenson was fastest only in physical reaction times and this was the point I made 5 pages ago around the differentiator for F1 drivers.

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/heritage ... brownlees/

how are you able to assert “F1 does not lean on the body” if from the very beginning you’re required to adhere to an strict diet and training schedule?

sounds to me you have no previous experience in professional karting or lower formulas, you would NOT be saying such thing otherwise.

saying “its an enabler” more or less equals “differentiator”, think: if my fitness level improved, I could improve my lap times over a long stint. What difference does it make being an “enabler” or a “differentiator”, if you’re pushing for performance, the logical option is to train harder. If you’re not concerned, you’re a hobbyist (nothing wrong with this)

it is unfair to compare an elite triathlon runner, or a top 1% tennis player vs a F1 driver. They excel in their own class, not in others. this should be obvious and is a bogus point, and it also deviates from the threads topic.

the point still stands that a female F1 driver tested and was 3-4 seconds off from a FP2 time, and about 7 seconds off from a qualy time. This is hard evidence and all the rest is speculation.

You sayJenson was faster only in reaction times, but reaction times are everything. When you’re getting 100% out of a racing car you need perfect reflexes. Braking a few ms latter or sooner directly impacts how you take a corner, where and how you apply the throttle directly impacts your exit, etc. And that’s where women will not match men, naturally at least.

All this you can prove with a mychron 5s, a car/kart/formula and your track of preference.

how are you able to assert “F1 does not lean on the body” if from the very beginning you’re required to adhere to an strict diet and training schedule?

Because I didn't say that. Of course, if you take a word out it totally changes the meaning, which is why on a forum it is pretty tiresome to reply to people that do. Tennis is way more physical than F1 because Tennis demands that you use the maximum physical exertion you can for a period of time, it is directly linked to the outcome of your game. That is why unlike tennis, F1 doesn't require you to mostly lean on your body. No, that doesn't mean every shot is maximum power. It means you have to race about the court, get back to your position as quickly as possible, change direction rapidly causing you to twist your joints and cause all sorts of muscle strains. It means the more powerful you are the better you are on shots and serve. The fitter you are, the more power you have in your shots later and the quicker you can reach your optimum position for the next shot. Is that true of F1? Of course not. As long as I can turn the wheel, hold my neck in place and press a pedal for up to 2 hours maximum, then I'm good. It's hard, but it's not hard to see it's not the same level or type of physicality as sports which rely entirely on the human body to do the work. F1 has a limit beyond which extra strength and extra endurance are not really adding anything, apart from possibly weight.

it is unfair to compare an elite triathlon runner, or a top 1% tennis player vs a F1 driver. They excel in their own class, not in others. this should be obvious and is a bogus point, and it also deviates from the threads topic.

The fact that elite female athletes can be only 9% behind male athletes in the 100m and 7.5% in marathon but that the gap between one of the fittest F1 drivers who trains specifically for Triathlon and an elite triathlon runner is over 25% shows that in F1 you do not need to have elite levels of fitness. You need to have a certain level of fitness and that is it. This demonstrates quite adequately that women can achieve the levels of endurance required for F1 with a suitable of pool of candidates. The past x pages have been about whether women have the physicality to be in F1. It does show, however, that the pool would likely be smaller for women than men.

saying “its an enabler” more or less equals “differentiator”

Putting on a pair of trainers to run is an enabler. If I then have to run to a set time, a non elite limit that isn't too far out of reach, the trainers are not a differentiator. My fitness is. But I can't run without them. In F1 fitness is more than a pair of trainers, you need a certain level and some won't be able to get it but it seems fairly clear that once you get there, having extra isn't much help. In fact, as I already posted, an F1 driver will have just enough strength and stamina, because the other consideration is not to bring their weight up unnecessarily.

the point still stands that a female F1 driver tested and was 3-4 seconds off from a FP2 time, and about 7 seconds off from a qualy time. This is hard evidence and all the rest is speculation.

Have you seen how female football is evolving quickly now with money and backing? They aren't on drugs, the same coaching methods have been around, the same training methods, same diet knowledge. They just didn't get the attention. Now they do, it is moving on quickly. Also, saying because one driver didn't do well is evidence of absolutely nothing. A study that has a pool of one, two or three would be laughed out of any journal and the fact there are so few woman in motorsport does not mean it is because they are not good at it. Many other factors are involved, such as how much harder it will be for women to get funding and opportunities.


"You sayJenson was faster only in reaction times, but reaction times are everything. "

Yes, if you read the thread you'd see that is what I had previously written, and in the context of those posts you'd understand that my initial point was that physical reaction time is more important than fitness. The past x pages have been talking almost exclusively about fitness and all my posts in the past x pages have been about the same. The point being made was that Jenson was physically inferior to Brownlee by some distance and was only better in reaction time. I made no comment about the importance of it, but yes, it is the differentiator.

If you go back and read, you'll see my point was that you cannot asses suitability unless you first agree what skills and attributes are required of an F1 driver. My points since have been to try and apply some actual fact or to objectively question the main reason most blokes on here are saying women can't race in F1 in varying degrees of laziness. Because they aren't as strong as men. This is quite clearly nonsense. They don't need to be.

fair enough. some things still taken as granted, ie, saying you only need to be "this" fit and stop. I doubt racing drivers take it easy outside the track, they would push for performance as much as they do on track. When I train I still push for more even if my endurance is already enough, so fitness levels never stop being a differentiator no matter the importance, saying it doesnt matter past a certain point is nonsense, its like saying "im this fast and thats enough, no more improvement needed" which is the mentality that makes athletes lose in all disciplines.

how fast is football evolving?

https://www.facebook.com/FootballFunnys ... 047149985/

so hold your horses. examples like these are many.

"A study that has a pool of one, two or three would be laughed out of any journal"

true, but when every new F1 driver is at least within 2 seconds of the top, one that is 4 seconds (irrelevant of sex) is just not deemed capable. thats how things are as of today. the day a girl can hop in and make similar times, we will talk.

if it hasnt happened in todays age, it is unlikely to happen in the future too

[Hoffman900]

I don't think F1 drives are even close to "elite athletes" in any sport other than F1, and then only because only a handful get to drive F1 cars. There are rare exceptions but the cars themselves don't hold a high physical demand except in specific areas. There are probably loads of non elite level athletes of both sexes that could easily withstand the physical rigors of driving an F1 cars.

Bingo, you don't think F1 drivers are elite athletes. That gets straight to the point. So why do you think that they are very often referred to as that by the media and fellow ex-drivers etc?

Because they are super sensitive to the sporting world at large not thinking they are athletes and it’s a big of a “no, we are! See!” There are ego’s on both the driver, team, and press side that benefit from this narrative.

I think they are athletes, but not the best of the best physically… it’s about creating this “elite, warrior competitor” narrative for marketing reasons. Like I said, I personally know 40yo dads with full time jobs who have beat Bottas in bicycle races. When I raced bicycles I’d average 170bpm for 2 hours (processing and strategizing at the same time). Does that make me elite? Of course not. Thousands and thousands of amatuers are doing that all over the world all the time. Does that mean they could drive a F1 car? Of course not. Do I think F1 driver’s reflexes and processing power behind the wheel is elite? Absolutey.

As for the neck thing, as I said, anyone in involved in wrestling, American football, MMA and combat sports is doing all of that too. There are wrestling females who weigh 69kg and 76kg who can neck bridge no problem while a competitor is on top trying to pin them.

[Hoffman900]

My guess most on here could barely squat 135lbs (ass to grass).

See, this kind of comment is why it is hard to take you seriously. How in god's name is this relevant to anything?

I watched a 145lb female squat 285lbs at my gym this week...

And remember, the often quoted 300lbs of brake force is that, a force. This isn’t the same as squatting. Force can be measured on force plates. F1 drivers have the advantage too of being assisted with higher g forces.

Sure a force is not exactly like squatting. But assisted by deceleration or not the force still has to go through the leg. So let's ask the question. How many females, with training, could stand on one bent leg with 300lb of force going through it for 5 seconds every 20 seconds for 2+ hours?

Except they don’t apply that much force in every braking zone, that value has always been vague, and everytime you jump you’re almost applying that much force.

120lb female runners can push 450lbs through a force plate in extremely rapid succession (that’s how running works). Give them 25-35lbs of more muscle (running is a power to weight sport, so they purposely stay light) to get to the F1 driver weight and it’s zero problem. They don’t even need that much.

Female Alpine ski racers are seeing up to 6gs of peak load in turns / bumps through their legs. For a 140lb female that’s 840lbs… they have force sensors in their boots that record this stuff.

[Hoffman900]

I don't think F1 drives are even close to "elite athletes" in any sport other than F1, and then only because only a handful get to drive F1 cars. There are rare exceptions but the cars themselves don't hold a high physical demand except in specific areas. There are probably loads of non elite level athletes of both sexes that could easily withstand the physical rigors of driving an F1 cars.

Bingo, you don't think F1 drivers are elite athletes. That gets straight to the point. So why do you think that they are very often referred to as that by the media and fellow ex-drivers etc?

Ego along with the desire (both of the drivers and the press) to make it more elite than it really is.

I think your initial argument, as well as most of your comments, are misguided at best. And I don't say that to be caustic, but to bring the discussion more into reality. I could just as easily make a thread stating F1 drivers are not elite athletes as none have shown to be elite in anything other than driving F1 cars.

Jenson Button, for example, was considered to be one of the most fit F1 drivers ever. And he competed in triathlons and such.... on an amatuer level. Though he got to be fairly good on his (age defined amatuer) level, he was far from elite. And I don't know of a single race where he wasn't beaten by women, often older women at that.

And overall, I think Jenson was much more fit than the majority of F1 drivers as an all around athlete.


As for the braking force questions, F1 uses very short throw brakes. Drivers are far from doing a huge weight squat or stand, they are simply pushing the pedal a short distance with legs closer to straight. And plenty of women can do that as well. They use those same muscles that can often beat male competitors in sport.

Well put.