Undoubtedly, and this is why I’m keen to distance myself from the debate about Patrick in particular - women have had a tough time breaking into premier racing series, and I’m really pretty pissed off that some twat has called into question the results of a genuinely talented female racer by pissing and moaning about weight differences. I don’t think it makes a huge difference around an oval, and I think if Patrick came fourth she did so primarily on her own merits, and deserves her place (although as has been pointed out, she got way more coverage than the 2nd and 3rd place racers). But as a general rule, I do think weight is something that should be abstracted out of racing, because it’s simply not fun to find out who’s the skinniest via racing; I’d rather find out who’s more talented, and I don’t think weight has much to do with that. Sure there are a whole bunch of other extraneous factors, and the wealth of teams is certainly one of them - F1 has made a lot of effort to try and compensate for the affluence of top teams by restricting testing and suchlike. Unfortunately this is a lot more difficult to do, as rich teams will always find something to spend money on, and gain a bit of performance thereby. But weight really is a pretty pointless advantage to gain, and it’s utterly trivial to compensate for, so we do, and I think we should.
The thing is, being small is simultaneously an advantage and a disadvantage. There’s no way that Patrick has the upper body strength of a man 50% or more heavier than she is, and those cars are physically demanding to drive. That’s got to mean that she needs greater endurance to keep up, which imposes a burden on her that the guys don’t have. So now you want to take away the advantage she has, but she’ll retain the disadvantage. How is that making things any fairer? All it’s doing is changing the unfairness.
Now, I’m not saying that racing leagues should or shouldn’t compensate for driver weight differences. If they do, fine. Certainly there are arguments that can be (and have been) made in favour of doing so. But if the IRL decides to weigh only the cars, that’s their business, and there’s nothing “unfair” about the rules so long as they’re consistently applied, and everyone knows about them going in.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant that in Thoroughbred racing (and Quarter Horse, and Arabian, as well), weight is in fact considered extremely important, in fact a 2 or 3 pound difference matters to handicappers. Consider this chart from this article on the 2004 experimental free handicap:
If you aren’t bored to tears by now, take a look at this article, which does statistical analysis of weight’s effects on racehorse performance, controlling for certain variables.
How directly would this would apply to auto racing? Beats me, the only horsepower I pay much attention to has four legs. 
To my knowledge, not a single person is saying that women are too weak to be racecar drivers. Are you taking that position?
The fact that she’s weaker affects the amount of difficulty she, the driver, has to endure to race. It has no bearing on the performance of the car. The fact that she’s lighter affects the ability of the car to accelerate.
Or are you saying she doesn’t have the strength to stomp on the gas pedal?
I’m confused.
No, I don’t think it would necessarily improve players’ ability to shoot baskets, but it would probably have an effect on the relative effectiveness of players’ defensive capabilities. The giants wouldn’t have as big an advantage on rebounding and defensive play anymore.
I’m not arguing that weight has no effect. My beef is that if the guy is crying because there is a 100 pound or more difference in the weights of Patrick and a 200 - 220 pound driver, where was the uproar over the 90 pound difference between the 220 pound driver and the 130 pound drivers?
I’m saying that the steering inputs are on the heavy side, and that not insubstantial upper body strength is required to control the car. I’m not saying she’s too weak, I’m saying that because she has to use a greater proportion of her strength to control the car, she’s got to have greater stamina in a long race. This is a disadvantage her size places her at. Perhaps it’s smaller than the corresponding advantage she gets accelerating her smaller mass. I have no idea how one would go about determining that. But the fact remains that being smaller has both advantages and disadvantages.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that being weaker (due to having a small build, not from lack of fitness) is a “fair” disadvantage, but being heavier (due to having a larger build, not from being fat) is an “unfair” disadvantage. I have no idea why you should think this, given that for fit individuals, strongth and weight are very highly correlated.
I suppose you think that Lance Armstrong has an “unfair” advantage in the Tour de France because he lost a lot of weight on his upper body while he was suffering from cancer? (I believe some people have actually said this, and it’s true that he’s got a smaller upper body now than he had before cancer.) Weight plays a vastly greater role in cycling than it does in motorsports, after all. A couple extra pounds could mean minutes on L’Alpe d’Huez or the Col du Tourmalet. Maybe we should make Lance carry lead ballast under his seat or something.
Agreed wholeheartedly. He really is a tool.
All I’ve been arguing is that weight is a factor. Period. Since it isn’t related to the skill of the driver in any way, it appears to me to be a cheap form of advantage. And since it is a trivial matter to compensate for, it’s a no-brainer that it should be.
Just for the record, I feel that basketball is flawed in numerous ways, and because of that, I am not a fan. The one that pisses me off the most is that there are game situations where the conservative, proper strategy is to intentionally break the rules. Drives me up a wall. The fact that you need to be (genetically) a freak of nature to be effective at certain positions annoys me as well. I prefer sports be as accessible to the general public as possible.
He’s saying that while her lesser mass allows the car to accelerate faster, the men have an advantage in upper body strength to maintain precise control over the vehicle over the entire duration of the race. Endurance is a big factor and having more muscle mass can lessen the effects of fatigue. Besides, there is a difference between a person being heavier and adding dead weight to a car. The person can shift their weight during the turns, but the dead weight can’t.
How does that affect the speed of her vehicle? And why can’t clever engineering from her team compensate for this? Is it against the rules? A 200 man can’t lose 100 pounds and survive.
Yes, exactly. Because one affects the performance of a machine. The other affects the athlete who is competing. Machine advantage = bad. Human advantage = good.
In my mind it would be akin to “normalizing” footraces giving women a slightly shorter track, and then competing head-to-head with men, and whomever wins gets the gold. That would be more “fair” based on the misunderstanding of my position in this thread, but I would rail against that even more loudly.
The propulsive work is done the human rider, so no, I completely disagree with your assumption of what my position would be. The propulsive work in car racing is done by a machine. That’s the difference.
I watch sports to see human competition. I could give a rat’s ass about machine abilities. A 100-pound weight differential translates into a purely machine-based advantage.
Are you saying that women are at a disadvantage in racing, so they deserve/need the advantage of weighing less?
I don’t buy it. I would prefer to think that women are just as good as men, and therefore don’t need a weight-based handicapping system.
If it turns out that they do, in fact, need a weight-based handicapping system, I would say they should form their own league, like every other sport, and just accept that they can’t compete with men. But I don’t beleive that’s the case.
You’ve never been strapped into a race car, have you? If you can shift your weight, the belts aren’t tight enough.
And, ironically, the drivers can shift some of the dead weight. There’s an adjustment called a ‘weight jacker’ that lets the driver change the weight distribution on the wheels, although I think the idea is to get it where they want and leave it, not change it as they enter and exit every corner.
Huh? Your position in this thread is that women should have to carry extra weights around, so that the race is “normalized”. You’re absolutely advocating handicapping some racers in the interests of “fairness”.
The thing is, you’re arbitrarily choosing some physical advantages and labeling them as “ability” and saying those are fine, while those that don’t qualify as “ability” should be handicapped.
Look, I’m not saying that being lighter doesn’t provide an acceleration advantage. I’m not saying that racing leagues shouldn’t handicap lighter drivers. All I’m saying is that if a racing league declines to handicap lighter drivers, that’s fine too, and if they do decline to do so, one shouldn’t go bitching about how the rules are unfair.
Explain to me how the better acceleration of a lighter driver is a skill/ability/talent in any way whatsoever.
I’m really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but my patience is wearing thin. Are you really unable to see a difference between:
- Women get shorter tracks to compensate for being slower
- All cars+drivers must weigh the same
I never said it was. I said it was a physical advantage. You’ve spent a lot of time arguing that it’s a physical advantage, so I presume you agree. It’s also a physical disadvantage. You seem inclined to argue that point, but I don’t see that there’s any substantial argument to be made. Being smaller entails (assuming equal levels of fitness) having less strength, which is a disadvantage. Now, you seem to think that being bigger and hence stronger (again assuming equal levels of fitness) is “ability” but being smaller isn’t. I don’t see how there’s any difference.
Let’s go back to Lance. Explain to me how the faster climbing times of a lighter rider are a skill/ability/talent in any way whatsoever. They go up the hill faster because they weigh less. How is this different from accelerating faster because you weigh less?
Again, I’m not saying that racing leagues should not handicap for weight. I’m just saying that they can choose not to if they like, and that’s needn’t be unfair in any troublesome sense.
What I’m unable to see the difference between is this:
- Men have to go further to compensate for being faster
- Women have to carry lead weights to compensate for being faster
Your worldview is beyond my ability to grasp. I see the words, but I can’t make heads or tails out of them. It’s as if you have no concept of the phrase “level playing field”. Notice it isn’t “level competitor pool”. It’s not the athletes that need to be normailzed, it’s the rules and equipment.
Look, in the most primal sense, sports is about head to head “survival of the fittest”. Who is the best? Who can win when the pressure is on? Now, the only way to answer these questions is to eliminate all the disparities that have nothing to do with the human competition.
Since when does having a smaller/larger body type have anything to do with a person’s ability to drive in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER? It doesn’t. What it has to do with is how hard the engine has to work. Nobody watches racing to see engines compete; they watch to see drivers compete. Except, apparently, you.
Well, this one’s easy. The formula for figuring out how much faster the lighter rider is involves identifying the forward thrust. That forward thrust is generated by the muscles of the athlete. Since it is muscle-based, the only limit is how hard the athlete wants to train. If it were mopeds, OTOH, then you’d have a point.
See, this is where you brain is short-circuiting. Read again, very carefully what you wrote, and see if you can identify where you tripped up. I’ll give you a hint: “Women have to carry…” No, women don’t have to carry jack fucking shit. Their CARS do. Their ENGINES get to work less when accelerating under the current rules.
I don’t get it. The IRL rules are normalized. The same rules apply to everyone. The equipment is normalized (within the limits of the rules - obviously different teams have differing levels of expertise in tweaking the suspension, etc). All cars have to meet the same standards, as spelled out in the rules.
You’re missing the point.
Let’s compare two cyclists. In the Green corner, winner of the 2003 Tour de France Points Jersey, Baden Cooke, weighing in at 161lbs. In the Polkadot corner, winner of the 2003 Tour de France Mountain Jersey, Richard Virenque, weighing in at 143lbs.
Let’s put these two guys on a dynamo and see which one develops more power. I flat out guarantee you that Cooke wins every time. Moreover, he develops more power regardless of the terrain. And yet, somehow, Virenque smokes Cooke every time they come to a hill. Every time, in spite of being weaker. Why? Because in cycling being bigger is both an advantage (develop more power) and a disadvantage (that pesky F=ma thing). On the flats, the advantages to being bigger outweight the disadvantages, since in road races riders are seldom under acceleration. The disadvantages are just increased rolling resistance and wind resistance (more frontal area for the big guys). In the hills, though, you have to elevate your mass, and the force required to do this is directly proportional to your weight, whereas your power output doesn’t rise linearly with your weight. So other things being equal, the big guys always win on the flats, and the little guys always win in the hills. Is this because the little guys are “more talented climbers”, as the commentators always say? Well, no, not if we use your analysis. They climb faster strictly because they weigh less. They’re actually weaker riders. They’re putting out fewer watts than the big guys, even when they’re in the hills. They’re just skinny, and hence require even fewer watts to push themselves up the hill. Should they be penalized for this? I think the answer is obviously not. And so it will remain that the winner of the Polkadot jersey will be some skinny wiry guy, and the winner of the Green jersey will be a much larger, more muscular guy. Every year, without fail. Neither competition is a “level playing field” with regards to the weight of riders, and yet neither competition is unfair, either.
Now of course auto racing is somewhat different. But it’s not clear to me why a person would conclude that being lighter isn’t an unfair advantage on L’Alpe d’Huez, but is an unfair advantage at the Brickyard. Being lighter in each case is advantageous for precisely the same reason (i.e., F=ma).
And again, I’m not saying that one can’t be interested in or even prefer a competition where weight advantages or disadvantages are handicapped out of existence. I just don’t understand why a competition where being a lightweight is an advantage automatically becomes “unfair” rather than just a slightly different competition with a slightly different set of advantages and disadvantages (just as the Tour de France would still be a legitimately interesting race, albeit a different one, with different advantages and disadvantages, if riders were handicapped for weight).
Do you actually watch racing? There’s a hell of a lot of competition between engines. Why the fuck do you think they spend all that money on the things, trying to get a leg up on the other teams? If people want to watch racing where the engines aren’t competing, they’ll watch classes where the cars are identical and driver skill is the only differentiating factor. In IRL and F1 and NASCAR, you’ve got teams competing to build the fastest cars. The driver is only one piece in the puzzle. I am certainly not alone in thinking that the cars should be competing as well as the drivers.
By the way, are you willing to concede yet that being physically stronger is an advantage in auto racing?
No, because the whole point of the sport is for the athletes – not mechanical engines – to power their bikes faster than the other athletes. If Danica had to run her feet on the ground under her car like the Flintstones, I’d agree that she should get the advantage of being a lighter person. But she isn’t doing that. The car engine is. That’s the difference.
Clearly it is beyond my ability to explain this to you. Perhaps you could ask NASCAR. Or maybe you could ask a boxer why there are weight classes. Pay attention to whether or not the phrase “fair fight” ever comes up in his explanation.
On re-reading, I notice your wording includes “automatically”. That word is incorrect as regards to my position. Advantage from being lighter is not automatically unfair. It just happens to be unfair in auto racing. Again, if you are unclear as to why, ask NASCAR, who run similar oval races but in heavier cars.
It would not be “legitimately interesting”. It would be patently stupid. Why? Because a good amount of the weight is in the form of the very muscles that power the rider. How is the 100 extra pounds of the bigger guy powering the car?
Funny how in the three organizations you mention in defending your position, the majority of them endorse my position. IRL should weigh the car+driver, not just the car, just like F1 and NASCAR do.
Being physically stronger is an athletic, human characteristic that is a fundamental aspect of sports in general. Therefore, only an idiot would think that physical strength should be handicapped in a sporting endeavor. Name any sport in the history of the world that has done this.
The sports that most closely resemble IRL do, in fact, handicap based on driver weight. Try to explain why they do, in a single sentence. That single sentence will likely be my position in this thread.
It seems like you are saying “sports can either be fair or not, it doesn’t matter, unfair sports can be interesting as well.” Well, MLB certainly does well enough for itself, despite not having any semblance of competitive balance. I’m arguing that sports should be fair. Most sports, unlike MLB, strive to be fair. As it should be.
More to the point:
If an athlete is at a disadvantage because they are weaker, tough shit, work out and get stronger. That’s your job as an athlete. If you can’t, don’t compete.
If, OTOH, they are at a disadvantage because they rely on an engine that is handicapped (when compared to other competitors) by a factor that they cannot overcome with unlimited resources, then clearly there is a competitive imbalance.
Now, that disadvantage can be overcome by other means, but that still doesn’t make it fair or right. Those same other means could be adopted by the competitors that have the advantage, and then you’re right back at square one with the competitive imbalance.
Great, a triple post.
negate
compensated for