Wasn't Susie Wolff the #3 driver at Williams a few years ago? What happened to her?
Many would say the same about Schumacher and Schumacher Latifi and Latifi Stroll and Stroll Rosberg and Rosberg Verstappen and Verstappen . . (just to name a few) She was not the first person to be born on 3rd base. I mean the 'rich dad' with a racing background trope is pretty played out in F1 by now yeah? I guess if you're a female, it matters more?
Jamie Chadwick has some very valid views on the strength needed to compete in a modern F1 Car: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/jamie-chadwick-w-series-career-27377437?fbclid=IwAR0npubt4-kZ-QO0C4SDUyooElHyngmV4WmqLLdhUO1eP1N19lw_sfL5-LY Not the best news for an aspiring female F1 driver when the highest profile woman working towards it doubts the possibility
Sounds like she is making excuses for herself. Like setting up the fact she is too slow is because she isn't strong enough. Or her words are taken out of context. A person with stronger muscles don't push the gas pedal any better, or steer any faster. Sure the brake pedal is supposedly very stiff, but I am quite certain that isn't to a point where the strongest man has the best brakes. Also one could make an argument about fast twitch muscle fibers, but I don't believe auto racing of any 5 wheel form is at a point where the fastest reaction times automatically equate to being a better driver. There are female rally drivers, and that's about as physical as it gets, requiring crazy reaction times. And drag racing where women are very successful is highly based on reaction times.
Aside from G Forces, which we know is not a limitation to a female, the answer would be no. Indycar doesn't have power steering and it's supposedly far more physically difficult to drive. Anyone can listen to Grosjean's comments. Also 90 lb Danica Patrick drove Indycar and didn't complain that it was too physically difficult for her.
Several females have driven at Indy, and I have never heard they had physical problems to hold their car. I think it's a macho excuse to say women couldn't drive a F1.
I'm not sure making a female-only path is a good solution, since to some extent it supports the idea that women cannot compete against men. On the other hand, it will be positive if it leads to more women trying to competitively drive. Because to me the main reason why there are so few women succeeding in auto sport is that very few are trying : it's a statistics matter. Some years ago most chess champions were Russians - not because Russians were genetically better at chess playing, but because in a country where everybody was playing chess, the potential champions almost always were reaching their full possibilities. In countries with marginal chess playing, probably most people with the potential to become chess champions did not even know how to play it. And the few people actually playing had no reason to be champions material.
For starters, she was beyond ****. Only reason she was anything at Williams because of her husband toto. Her stint in DTM was embarrassing.
Wasn't it an opening race in Australia when Bottas hurt his back in practice, and they just raced 1 car instead of having Wolff drive? Maybe she was just the simulator driver and not an official "backup/reserve" without a super license, but it just seemed crazy to not put someone in the car.
So you're a Nepotist. Ok got it. What about all the genuine talent that do not get the opportunity due to an absence of privelege through no fault of their own ?
Just the way of the world and crying about it won't change a thing. Reality is anyone who even gets to race karts let alone cars at any level is massively privledged and has no right to complain. Also lots of people like to moan about their genuine talent that was overlooked when in reality they never made it far enough to prove that they were indeed talented. They merely thought it but never proved it. Big difference. The current F1 field is among the most talent rich in the history of the sport. Yes some are better than others but just about every driver on the grid could win in a Red Bull. There was a time when some of the drivers on the grid could not win regardless of the help you give them. Modern F1 is more talent rich than ever and the spread in performance between cars is closer than ever.
Toto Wolff didn't break any law by obtaining a seat for his wife at Williams where he was one of the shareholders. Just Lawrence Stroll is fully entitled to employ his son in his team. I would do the same in similar circumstances. I don't see how that would hurt anyone. You sound very woke and judgemental.
Nepotism denies a seat to the real talent, and you're ok with it. Says a plenty about you. The best business models are a meritocracy.
That doesn't explain why Bottas, a non Top 10 driver according to the F1 polls, was in the Top car for 5 years.
It also says a lot about you that you constantly pick bones . You are full of resentment, which is a negative feeling.
