If Ocon was backed by a billionaire(
), he'd have a drive for next year regardless of whether he would stay with said team for a year or three. On ability and talent he's one of the hottest drivers on the market, he has the possibility to help Williams (for example) score a few points, which would be HUGE. That was why I mentioned his name in regards to funding.
Technically he is backed by billion dollar company, said company seems poised on moving up him to their works team in the near future. If the team doesn't want to invest as much as Perez's backers do then that's too bad for Ocon. Perez has a wealth of experience and gets the same range of results as Ocon. He has funding so it's a moot argument, the issue is how long is the funding going to happen? So no it doesn't matter if the backer is a multi hundred millionaire or a billionaire. Hence the anguish of Toto claiming those in the paddock don't have the balls to take Ocon on the deal Mercedes wants.
Except, this isn't really true. The drivers with the big money do so through personal means, either family, friends etc... Talent doesn't begot funding (unless you are one in a generation).
By being in F1 I meant, compete in a race (sorry I should have been more clear). Otherwise I could probably have mentioned the numerous test drivers?
How is it not true? Just because that is one of the means for racing doesn't mean it's not a cornerstone, it also neglects the very many drivers who haven't had family backing and currently race.
You want to cherry pick then? Because she was a signed race driver, I wouldn't have brought her up if I didn't know what you meant, which that is what you meant. If I wanted to bring up a current contracted driver with a team Caulderon would have been the last female F1 driver in that regard. She didn't race because she failed to qualify for said race, but nonetheless is a racing driver.
I guess it's worth noting that after Amati failed to qualify for her final weekend Damon Hill took over duties and also failed many times to qualify in the same car. One would assume perhaps she could have done better given a more competitive car (in her last qualifying session she was 11 seconds off pole, but I've no idea what that means relative to her team mate at the time etc)?
Yes one could assume that if they wanted to without doing a more in depth look into her career. For one she wasn't the first choice to take that seat a more qualified driver was but the FIA didn't recognize their nations F3000 series as a suitable feeder for a super license. Two she had supposed backing despite her very lackluster F3000 results. Finally while Hill did fail to qualify for races and yes the car was awful, the difference between them was the margin of time. It'd be fine if she failed within the same +/- as her team mates but she was massively off the mark seemingly due to lack of experience and skill. She raced for several season in F3000 without any success and was purely taken on because of supposed backing. Seems quite familiar.
It's also interesting to read (at least one of) the reason(s) for her being sacked;
via
Again not really, just proves that you need money to go racing, especially in teams that need the money to have you race for them.
Except, this isn't true is it? There are several women who could drive in F1, even for a single race... but they haven't. Instead they are given simulator roles and or test driver status, which amounts to basically nothing. Suzi Wolf, could have driven a race if they simply wanted a women to enter a race, but she just did a practice session and that was is.
(I don't get the point about Ocon?)
How is it not true? So you're suggesting that Susie Wolff should have been picked over the drivers that actually raced? Because that's my point, you're asking for a woman to be in the seat to fill some kind of unwritten quota. They're given test and development roles because they have the ability to understand driving a car fast but don't have the talents of the main drivers to get the max results. Some teams do it to help younger drivers gain experience for a potential future in F1. Thought many times it has been shown those drivers aren't exactly fast.
The point with Ocon is you can not have it both ways, you can't make the claim that a talented driver is without a seat and thus talent isn't the issue, it's backing. Though he has backing, then claim no one is backing women drivers, yet women drivers like Jorda, Caulderon, Wolff, Silvestro, Patrick and on and on have been backed but didn't have enough skill or any.
Like I said before, I think it's sad that this series has to exist, just like it's sad to hear of the racist abuse Lewis had to deal with in his karting career when he was starting out. But if this works and can bring more women and girls into the sport, it'll only make it better for everyone.
Yeah I too think it's sad that someone thought the best course of action was the split off a series for woman, rather than take that money put it into some scholarship or funding program to develop women drivers.
As for bringing women to the sport, what makes you think it will bring more women than prior? If this a free ticket for women to be able to race without worry of financial burden to them or their families, sure I could see more women drivers. If not, then I doubt it. I think the issue of why we don't see as many women drivers is because of cultural reasons. I mean it may seem crazy to some, but perhaps women aren't flooding in to race cars because they don't want to race cars. By and large racing is a niche on it's own to begin with, and trying to explain racing to a person (no matter the gender) who never grew up around it tends to be hard to do.
Perhaps the FIA should ask Monster Jam how they get so many women to hop into Monster Trucks and smash cars at State Fairgrounds/Colosseums.
