Indy drivers whine about Danica Patrick because of her weight

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Ellis Dee

curiously, it appears that of all the sports where the majority of the work is done by a non-human, they all take combined weight into account. All of them except IRL, that is.

No, sorry, that’s not correct. Horse racing under saddle takes the weight of the rider into account, but not harness racing – read the link I provided above discussing drivers’ weight and the physics of sulkies.

Beyond the racetrack, most equestrian sports do not in fact factor in weight. Showjumpers clear amazingly huge obstacles whether their rider is a petite woman or a tall man. Men and women compete as equals whatever their size in reining, cutting, polo, barrel racing and other such sports where athleticism decides the contest.

One equestrian sport did in the past have minimum weights allowed – combined training, also known as three-day eventing. In that sport, the horse and rider combination do a dressage test on day one (think of it as like the compulsory figures in figure skating), on day two gallop cross-country jumping fences, ditches, banks and other obstacles (the phase in which Christopher Reeve was crippled), and on day three do a round of showjumping. The winner is the horse/rider combination with the fewest faults over all three days. At the highest levels it’s a gruelling test of skill, strength, speed, and stamina.

Until 1998 there was a set minimum weight for the rider under international federation rules. This rule has been rescinded.

Beginning January 1, 1998, the minimum weight requirement of the rider was removed. This is good news for women riders, who have for years had to endure the encumbrance of dead weight in the form of lead saddle bags to bring them up to a set weight.

However, the reality under the new rule is that an average-sized male rider is now giving away a weight advantage of around 25 kgs. Australia Jockey Club (AJC) racing handicapper Mark Webbey was shocked aat sucha weight disparity. He maintains that in Thoroughbred racing, “a one-and-a-half kilogram difference in weights is equivalent to one length in a one kilometer race – or about 0.14 seconds.

On an advanced course, that weight disparity can definitely make a difference to the cross-country time. It may well determine if a horse will finish at all. From the AJC data, 25 kg of extra riding weight would be at least 20 seconds slower on an advanced cross-country track – which represents a large number of penalties under the new rules.

Unfortunately, neither the old rule nor the new rule, is completely fair: under the new rule, a man of medium physique is at a significant disadvantage; under the old rule, a woman or man of light body type had to compete while carrying a “dead weight”, which was also a significant disadvantage.

In future, we may see our riders fasting and dehydrating or taking diuretics to lower their weight for a championship – like race jockeys do. It may also happen in future that countries with a good depth of talent will line up their best horses for the team competition at the Olympics and put their lightest riders on them. Many nations have the depth of talent to do this – and this is precisely the reason set weights were instigated in the first place.

So, which way was fairer – a minimum weight, or none? As a rider I can attest that it makes a considerable difference to a horse whether the load on its back is live or dead. A skillful rider can move with the horse so as to minimize the effect of his/her weight. A heavyset rider of great skill will burden a horse less than a skinny person who doesn’t know how to ride well.

So for horse sports, weight does matter, though not as directly as you might expect. And yet very few equestrian sports require any minimum weight standards.

[Dead_Badger]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Not sole; one of the few. I can’t speak to NASCAR’s rule, but I’m saying that its rule is extremely rare in sports: very, very few sports penalize players for having bodies better-adapted to the sport.

NASCAR certainly isn’t unusual in motor racing, as has been pointed out; rather, Indy is more the exception than the norm. As for other sports: Boxing? Judo? <insert list of martial arts here>? Weight-lifting? Lightweight rowing? Lots of sports compensate for various advantages, and do so as and when it’s appropriate, according to the point of the sport. The point of sport is to entertain, which it achieves by getting people to excel at some task. If it’s not interesting to have results vary by a given factor, then it’s probably best to compensate for it. It’s pretty trivial to compensate for weight in racing, so why not do it? In basketball, the physical performance is provided by the athlete, so it doesn’t make sense to compensate for physical differences. In racing, the physical performance is provided by the car, and the control system by the driver. Which is why it makes sense to compensate for the driver’s weight, but not for his superior eyesight, for example. His eyesight is an intrinsic part of what he’s supposed to be adding to the race package; his weight isn’t.

@Darwin's Finch

An advantage, sure. But racers win based on more than just how much they weigh. Strength, reflexes, endurance, even the ability to strategize all are more likely far more important in the long run.

I think the point is twofold: firstly, that the weight advantage (at least in F1, and I know whereof I speak here) is actually huge relative to the gains that can be made by skill and design. For example, my weight would confer approximately a .4s per lap advantage over Michael Schumacher (I’m a skinny guy), or roughly a 30 second advantage over the course of a whole race. That’s an absolute eternity in racing; before they started qualifying with race fuel loads, that .4s would often have made the difference between qualifying in 1st and 6th. The second point is that the other factors you mention are far more part of racing than weight is. If you stopped a man in the street and asked him what makes a good driver, he would almost certainly list all of the other factors you did. I’d bet a lot of money against him mentioning “being skinny”. People don’t tune in to see skinniness, they tune in to see endurance, reflexes, overtaking and strategy. So it’s more entertaining if those things make for a win.

And suppose Patrick did win. Would everyone automatically discount the idea that perhaps she really does have “mad skillz”, and instead suggest that the sole reason she won was because she weighed less than the other drivers?

I can’t speak for everyone, but my position on this is pretty simple:

1. weight isn’t the sole factor
2. in Danica Patrick’s (and Indycar’s) case, I think the weight effect is probably negligible, and thus
3. if she had won, I’d be quite happy that she did so on her own merit.

I wouldn’t necessarily say the same at a street circuit, where the effect of weight is much more marked, as noted earlier. As a result, I think doing as most of the rest of the racing world does and measuring the weight of driver+car rather than just the car would be a sensible measure.

If compensating for weight were as ludicrous and unjustified as it’s being painted, there’d be no reason why heavyweight boxers shouldn’t fight featherweights. There’s a very good reason, however, and that’s because it would be shit to watch, because you’d invariably know who would win. The benefit of weight in boxing is huge relative to the benefit of skill; hence the weight categories. In racing, the benefit of weight is still pretty large relative to all the other factors, and it’s trivial to compensate for. So most series do so, in the name of entertainment. Fair play, sez I.

[EllisDee]

@Darwin's Finch

I think the more important question is what are you advocating?

I am advocating this:

@Dead Badger

In racing, the benefit of weight is still pretty large relative to all the other factors, and it’s trivial to compensate for. So most series do so, in the name of entertainment. Fair play, sez I.

Which is what I clearly stated in a short post just a few posts back:

@Me

I would like to see every reasonable measure put into place to minimize the unfairness. Equalizing for driver weight seems to be a reasonable measure.

I do not understand the controversy of this position. It seems self-evident.

On a side note:

@wolf_meister

Someone asked if the Dopers involved in this debate are sports fans. I used to be a sports fan but somehow port have been dominated by the almighty dollar as the year’s have gone by. I’m sure I’m not the first to say this but sports have become games that are played by millionaires and owned by billionaires.

That was me. I’ve never understood this rationale, as it applies equally to most television and movies, but people don’t boycott movies (other than Waterworld) because they are million$ actors playing make-believe for billion$ studios.

And finally, thanks for the correction on the equestrian events, ETF. Very informative.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Ellis Dee

And finally, thanks for the correction on the equestrian events, ETF. Very informative.

You’re welcome. I’m always happy to oblige with equestrian info, whenever I’m not otherwise occupied in pursuit of bits of colored cloth.

[E-Sabbath]

Hm. As far as racing and weight, two IRL memories present themselves. Remember when Nigel Mansel and Michael Schumacher were in IRL? (Was it still IndyCar at the time?) And they got large. So large that Nigel couldn’t FIT in a F1 when he went back overseas. But they were still winning.

[wolf_meister]

Ellis Dee
Actually it has been years since I saw a movie in a theater. (Gee, maybe I should get out more). Also, I haven’t watched any new network shows in many years.

I’ll admit I do have cable so maybe I am feeding the entertainment monster.

I tried searching for a story of a sprinter in the 1960 Olympics in Rome who was accused of cheating because judges thought he was he was “jumping the gun” so to speak. Actually, it was found that his reflexes were incredibly fast (maybe twice than normal). Again, this is something that is completely inherent and not due to training or developed skills. If anyone could find out about this sprinter, I’d like to know more about the story. (I am sure it was a sprinter in the 1960 Olympics in Rome. I don’t even know what country he was from).

[EllisDee]

@wolf_meister

Actually it has been years since I saw a movie in a theater. (Gee, maybe I should get out more). Also, I haven’t watched any new network shows in many years.

Fair enough; you are exempt from my standard reply, and I apologize.

Unless your “in the theater” caveat means you watch DVDs or movies on cable, at which point you are still watching the millionaires playing. Let’s assume you don’t, and let it drop.

[EllisDee]

@wolf_meister

I’ll admit I do have cable so maybe I am feeding the entertainment monster.

:smack:

I feel so stupid I’m compelled to use a smiley, which I detest doing.

Can we all pretend that I didn’t just exhibit the reading comprehension of a doorknob?

No?

sigh

[Rick]

@Ellis Dee

@Rick

Racing is not fair.

Agreed. I would like to see every reasonable measure put into place to minimize the unfairness. Equalizing for driver weight seems to be a reasonable measure.

:smack: I guess I did not make myself clear in my post. There are lots of things that are not equal in racing. Or fair if you will. The answer is so what?
Take for example the Foyt boys this year. Their cars did not have the same horsepower as the front runners and they were at the back of the pack and they were having a hard time keeping up with the race pace. Should the front runner be required to try down their horsepower to make it a fair race for the Foyts? The answer is no, for the simple reason is that this is what racing is all about. Man and machine both have to be top notch to win.
The rules in IRL is the car is weighed without driver. Deal with it. Either go on a diet, find some extra HP in your engine, run less wing giving you a higher top speed, or out drive the lighter driver. If you still can’t compete, then go to NASCAR where they weigh the car and driver together.
Just one thing, don’t whine, because when the green flag drops, the bullshit stops. Only the best win. Not the lightest, the best.

[EllisDee]

Okay, then I’m confused. Why do they weigh the cars?

[brickbacon]

@Colibri

To make it fair, all drivers should have to carry weight to bring them up to the weight of the heaviest driver. This is what you need to advocate. Otherwise, your whole case is just fucking stupid.

Or maybe you’re too stupid to realize that using the heaviest driver as the standard is stupid and unnecessary. If some 400 lb. guy wants to race, everyone shouldn’t have to add 200 lbs. Not to mention the fact that people will lose and gain several pound over time. There is no need to use the heavy guy as the measuring stick. If a 200 lb. guy wants to, he can lose 25 pounds to get down to the average, or agreed upon weight.

@tomndebb

I would have more sympathy for this (untested) position if the 200 - 220 lb. drivers had been looking to have the 150 - 170 lb. drivers adjusted years ago. Since they waited until a lighter woman was the “culprit” in “tiltng the scales,” I am unpersuaded by unsubstantiated claims that weight “will influence the outcome.” Where are the figures for the cars’ weights? Has the lightest car always won–or even won consistently? Has anyone guesstimated the difference that the drivers’ weights have made in races past?

I’m not buying it without evidence.

This is not untested. Many people have already calculated how much time this weight difference would give her. The math has been done. Everyone who knows about racing, including the drivers has said it’s an advantage. If you don’t want to accept the evidence, so be it. Don’t claim the evidence is not there.

I think you are missing the point that a 200 lb. man can lose weight to compete with the 170 lb. guy if he feels it’s too much of an advantage. He cannot lose 100 lbs. to compete with Ms. Patrick. It doesn’t matter if the lightest car always wins. What matters is if the lighter person has an unfair advantage. She clearly does.

[tomndebb]

This is not untested. Many people have already calculated how much time this weight difference would give her. The math has been done. Everyone who knows about racing, including the drivers has said it’s an advantage. If you don’t want to accept the evidence, so be it. Don’t claim the evidence is not there.

I think you are missing the point that a 200 lb. man can lose weight to compete with the 170 lb. guy if he feels it’s too much of an advantage. He cannot lose 100 lbs. to compete with Ms. Patrick. It doesn’t matter if the lightest car always wins. What matters is if the lighter person has an unfair advantage. She clearly does.

I have seen no evidence that it has been tested. There is a lot of testimony that it has been calculated, but no evidence that it has been tested. Given the variables of drag on different body shapes and tire performance along with any number of other apparently (but not proven) extraneous variables that might impinge on performance, I will wait until I see evidence of testing.

And if you believe that a 200 lb. man can lose weight to compete with a 150 lb. man and remain physically fit to function in a race, I suggest you get better sources for your health information. Yet, there have been no cries from the 200 - 230 lb. male racers that the 150 - 170 lb. male racers have an unfair advantage.
For that matter, where is the evidence that 150 lb. male racers win an inordinate number of races over their 200 - 230 lb. competitors?

All the talk about “advantage” is so much hot air until someone does more work than five minutes with a Ti-34 II or HP-33S to make up impressive (but uncorroborated) numbers.

[EllisDee]

I’m still wondering why they weigh the cars at all if a) there are a myriad reasons why the sport is unfair, and b) carrying less weight isn’t an advantage anyway.

[Dead_Badger]

@tomndebb

All the talk about “advantage” is so much hot air until someone does more work than five minutes with a Ti-34 II or HP-33S to make up impressive (but uncorroborated) numbers.

Sorry, I don’t have an Indy car handy. What I do have is personal experience writing software for an F1 team designed to take into account the effects of tyre wear, fuel load (i.e. weight penalty) and various other factors in order to simulate a car’s performance as it progresses through the race, and I can personally guarantee you that a 50lb weight difference on an average street circuit will cost a car between 2 and 4 tenths of a second per lap. This is something the teams spend a lot of time getting right, and I have seen the results with my own eyes. I can’t give you primary data, because then the team would probably sue my ass to death, so here is an article with a quote from the Michelin Motorsport director regarding last weekend’s Grand Prix at the Nurburgring, testifying that the penalty at that track for just 20lbs is in fact nearly 4 tenths of a second per lap. I can find more quotes if you like; just ask.

Why does this penalty exist? It’s got nothing to do with drag, it’s to do with acceleration and deceleration. If the car has greater mass, it requires a greater force to accelerate and decelerate. Since the car’s torque and power characteristics are not dependent upon its mass, it stands to reason (extensively tested reason, no less) that the same car carrying more weight will take longer to accelerate and decelerate. It will thus be slower (as in “takes longer to complete a lap” - not as in top speed). I simply can’t see how this can be disputed. Unless you’re contending that Indycars are so completely different to F1 cars that they become immune to the laws of basic physics, it is simply beyond contention that adding weight makes a car slower around a race track. Hell, in some touring car series they run two races per meeting, and deliberately add a weight penalty to the winner of the first race before the start of the second, to even things out. Teams fight tooth and nail to strip unnecessary weight from their cars; if there weren’t a weight penalty, why on earth do they bother to try and get as close as possible to the minimum allowed weight? Why is there a minimum allowed weight, for that matter?

What can be disputed (and has been, by me) is precisely how much of a difference weight makes on ovals, where the amount of acceleration and deceleration is relatively tiny by comparison to a street track. No-one’s hiding this, and it’s the main reason I really don’t think it’s a big deal if Indycar doesn’t compensate for driver weight. But the acceleration and deceleration are there (or the cars wouldn’t get round the corners at all), and therefore the weight effect can’t be zero. I just don’t see how this can be argued with.

Truly, I think this wouldn’t be a controversial topic at all if it hadn’t first been raised by someone who is apparently a misogynistic self-serving dickhead who frankly deserves a weight penalty. Unfortunate though it is, however, the asshole has a point.

[Robot_Arm]

Acceleration isn’t as crucial in oval racing as it is in F1, but it’s not irrelevant, either. I noticed that Patrick took the lead on a restart very late in the race (when the cars are accelerating), which I think lends some credence to the idea that her weight is an advantage.

And it might be in the corners as well. To turn the car, the tires apply a sideways force. The force that’s required to take a turn at a certain speed is proportional to the weight (car, driver, fuel, everything). The grip generated by the tires is a function of how hard the car is pressing down on the track, which is weight plus downforce. Rearranging F = m * a gives:

maximium cornering acceleration = (weight + downforce) / weight

meaning that, for a given downforce setting, her car could generate more cornering force due to its higher downforce-to-weight ratio.

However, an IQ test measures what an IQ test measures; and a sport measures what a sport measures. If you think that a driver’s weight is a reasonable factor to include in a competition, then none of this should bother you. If you think it should be incidental, you’d probably want them to weight the car and driver together at inspection.

Has anybody heard Danica Patrick’s opinion on the matter? If I were her, I’d want the cars weighed with the driver, so that when I do win a race there won’t be any of these sorts of questions about whether I’d earned it.

[Gorsnak]

@Robot Arm

I noticed that Patrick took the lead on a restart very late in the race (when the cars are accelerating), which I think lends some credence to the idea that her weight is an advantage.

Naw, that had very little to do with weight, and a heck of a lot to do with drafting.

[commasense]

Yes. On restarts the driver in second place can often catch the draft of the first place car and slingshot by him in the first turn. Michael Andretti, team owner for Dan Wheldon, who took the lead just as the yellow came out, actually said on-air that they’d rather be in second place at the restart for just that reason.

[wolf_meister]

Ellis Dee
Yes, I do have cable but I don’t rent DVD’s nor Videotapes. And even what I watch on cable isn’t what be considered to be the Hollywood blockbusters. (I don’t use Pay Per View either).
By the way, I think it is ridiculous that the cast of “Friends” (in the final few years) made $1,000,000 each.

[commasense]

@Dead Badger

What I do have is personal experience writing software for an F1 team…

A. Thanks, D.B., for your expert experience (and for validating, with greater authority, the points I made in an earlier post).

2. Do you mind telling us what team you worked with?

@E-Sabbath

Remember when Nigel Mansel and Michael Schumacher were in IRL? (Was it still IndyCar at the time?)

Nigel Mansell ran in the Champ Car series (CART) for a few years in the 1990s, before the IRL split off, but AFAIK, Schumacher has never competed in any US-based open-wheel series. Schumacher bio.

[GusNSpot]

Not to be cranky or anything… but …

F-1 is a whole different ball game. It is down to jus those sort of things that make or brake their races. What is being said about the F-1 street races is correct.

But …

It has very little to do with roundy round racing, even “Indy” style. Jeez… just look at the over all differences…

The pit times, the type of car, the type of tactics, the type of restrictions on car development, the type of course, et al …

We got a zillion years of past races to glean info from. All you smart folks with formulas… Go correlate all the past racing and find what advantage – disadvantage driver weight has made in the top 25 positions of all the races in roundy round over the years. The F-1 folks have done it because it is important as they are at the end of the spectrum where it is important because that is one of the few things that they can still control. Until they change the rules or the race venues, there is not much that will make a difference except those itty bitty things and that is just the way that is.

Now, in NASCAR or Indy style or dirt track at the county level, there is so much more important stuff and things that make a much bigger different that driver weight is not that critical. Yeah a 300 lb. guy verse a 100 lb. guy is MAYBE noticeable, ( Got those statistics worked up yet? ) but what are the actual weights and the extremes of this style of racing? It has not been addressed yet in the rules because it is not necessary … yet… It ain’t F-1 …

There is already “class” racing where everyone has the same car and they can’t change it… Those races are about driver – driver and they are trying to take the $$$ and the car advantages that can be derived for $$$ out of it. Is that how you want NASCAR and Indy to be? I don’t… because a significant part of the race for me is who can make the best car… and $$$$$$ is part of that.

If you want it to be about the driver mostly … go to F-1.

If you want it to be about the driver ONLY then you have to go to class racing in multiple racing as is done with say ‘sailboats’ Where the field draws for identical as possible boats boat and in each race the top 5-10 skippers have to take the bottom 5-10 boats for the next race so as to as much a possible take the boat out of the equation and find the best skipper. You want a truly even playing field and you have to do this and even more and I do not see auto racing surviving it.

So get all those records and results and show with the fancy formulas that the actual impact that the driver weight had a significant impact on the races over they years, heck, even the last 10 years and then we can either ban the women and itty bitty guys or make all the drivers weigh as much as the heavies… ::: sheesh :::::::

You want cars important only, have robot drivers… heck… don’t even race, just run the cars on test stands… You want to see individuals race, class race…

The World is Round,
It is Not Fair,
It is Just Damn Round !!!