``I won't race against Danica Patrick until the IRL does something to take that advantage away.''

Yes, actually. I watched a great documentary on HBO last April about jockeys and the health problems they had trying to cut weight and the efforts to create a union. Nowadays, there's a minimum weight of 122 (I think), whereas there wasn't one until last year.

Cycling is probably a better example. There are minimum weight limits for the bikes, and therefore, smaller guys have an advantage over larger guys on the long climbs. Thus, most of the best climbers are small. This is hardly an "unfair" advantage.

Right, but given the fact that horses have, well, fewer horses, any less weight that's carried is beneficial. As a result, jockeys had to cut down to contract weights or lower to get jobs. When we talk "lower", we're talking making sub-flyweight (think: under 112 lbs), often losing 10 lbs in a single night prior to races. Its pretty nasty.

>Cycling is probably a better example. There are minimum weight limits for the bikes, and therefore, smaller guys have an advantage over larger guys on the long climbs. Thus, most of the best climbers are small. This is hardly an "unfair" advantage.<

Well, in cycling, you're self propelled. That's a big difference from a race car or a horse. For that reason alone, we can't even really compare it. Besides, bigger guys can succeed in cycling. See; Miguel Indurain.

Indurain wasn't a top climber.

The point is, smaller guys can climb faster. If you're planning on winning a race like the Tour de France, then you'd best not weigh more than, say, 165 lbs. So if you're 6'2", 185, then it's stretching it to say that the 5'9", 140lb Iban Mayo's of the world have an unfair advantage over you. He was born smaller, and smaller guys excel at skills that larger guys don't, and vice versa.

My previous post, in short:

-Auto Racing depends on pure speed, whereas cycling requires endurance from the rider. Typically, a race car driver getting tired doesn't mean the car slows down, unless it affects his ability to drive seriously. It does affect the speed of a cyclist because the propulsion of the bike is driven by him. And when raw speed counts, the time trials, Miguel did pretty damn decently.

-This is only an issue because Danica Patrick is playing the role of Freddy Adu 2K5. Paul Tracy talking about this same issue half a decade ago in CART and practically everyone in F1 the last decade going over this topic never garnered any media attention from the US media because none of it was directed at a female, and therefore there was no fun "sexist" angle to pull off of it for ratings and controversy.

That is an oversimplification -- cycling depends on the body's power output and on stamina. These are separate things. Climbing at 30 km/h requires more power output from a 180 lb rider than from a 140 lb rider, and thus, the lighter riders have an advantage.

But it's not an "unfair" advantage. By that measure, Shaq has an unfair advantage in the NBA because he's bigger than everybody else. In baseball, 170 lb infielder have an unfair advantage over 195 lb infielders because they're lighter and are therefore more agile and have better range.

Paul Tracy talking about this same issue half a decade ago in CART and practically everyone in F1 the last decade going over this topic never garnered any media attention from the US media because none of it was directed at a female

Ain't that the truth.

HEY FATASS: LOSE SOME FUCKING WEIGHT. FATTY.

(no offense to the non-professional-"athlete" ILXors out there...)

Seriously, how can you expect me to take you seriously as a "sports-man", Robby, if you're going to bitch about the fact that a presumably fit little woman is making you lose because you weigh 100 (!!!) pounds more than she does? Gimme a break.

http://www.lemans-racing.com/images/trajectoires/17720031058445330.jpg

oh yeah, also from that page:

http://clantongang.com/oldwest/tgplb0203.jpg http://clantongang.com/oldwest/tgplb0204.jpg
CAPTAIN?!

http://www.speedtv.com/_assets/library/img/medium/42229_pedrosa.motegi.web.jpg

The only question about Dani Pedrosa, former 125 and defending World 250 Champion, is which of the two factory HRC teams he will ride for in the 2006 MotoGP season.

Well, there is another question too, but not one that seems to bother HRC. Can a 107-pound rider who is so small that he would carry ballast in most horse races, control a 250 horse power 990cc MotoGP machine? In fact, Dani would have to carry ten pounds of ballast under the proposed 118 pound minimum jockey weight currently under study by the California Horse Racing Board.

Dani´s personal manager and mentor, former 500 GP rider (and winner), Alberto Puig, is overseeing a program to build Dani´s strength. Weight gain will be a consequence but not the objective. Pedrosa was evaluated three years ago at the famous CAR (Centro de Alto Rendimiento…or Center for High Performance) in Barcelona where doctors correctly estimated his rate of growth. The CAR evaluation said that he would need to compensate for a lack of bulk by strength and endurance.

In the 250 class last year his rivals and, in fact, most of the IRTA 250 team owners, sought to have the rules changed to introduce a minimum weight (with ballast to be added) as is currently the case in the 125 class where a 299.2 pound minimum weight is applied to the combined rider (with protective clothing and helmet) and bike weight. (Amazingly the combined weight of Dani and his 250 Honda is only 152 kilograms or 334 pounds, only about 35 pounds more than the minimum weight for a 125 rider-bike combo.)

The Grand Prix Commission rejected the rule change proposal and fans in Spain regarded the attempt to add ballast to the 250s as an insult to Pedrosa. It is an emotional issue, with most technicians agreeing that Dani’s light weight is an advantage, but also agreeing that he is an extraordinary rider and that his weight advantage is not the reason he wins.

Plus, there is NO REASON an athlete under 6'3" MUST weigh 210 lbs. If you're 6' even and 210 lbs you're either fat, quite muscular, or some combo thereof. And if you tell me that you need all that muscle to steer your car, I say simply "Danica Patrick seems to do it fine at 105 lbs."

A pure climber in pro cycling at 6'3" is pretty much non-existent, but you'd probly be looking at around 150 lbs (the 2 lbs/inch rule). Someone like Armstrong being able to climb with the pure climbers at 5'11" 158 lbs is amazing, plus he's got some explosiveness from what little extra mass he's got.

Cycling is probably a better example. There are minimum weight limits for the bikes, and therefore, smaller guys have an advantage over larger guys on the long climbs. Thus, most of the best climbers are small. This is hardly an "unfair" advantage.

The cycling analogy is, I think, not so good here. The weight limit on bikes works against lighter people. Jose Rujano who finished 3rd overall today in the Giro weighs 48 kilos!!! He is fucking tiny, even for pro cycling. If you looked at his bike, it's so overbuilt for him it's not funny. Really, he should ride smaller 650 wheels, but if he did, he wouldn't be able to get a quick wheel change from anyone.

...like a fox! An idiotic fox.

That's Tommy Kendal (Race driver...dominated the Trans Am series int he early/mid 90's) that she's leading around. That's from when he was the tv color guy for the CART series in 2003 (I think) and Danica was racing Toyota Atlantics (CART support/rookie series). At the Long Beach Grand prix that year, they both raced in the Toyota Celebrity race, and TK bet Danica that he'd finish higher than her. He lost the bet and had to be her slave for a day or something.

But it's not an "unfair" advantage. By that measure, Shaq has an unfair advantage in the NBA because he's bigger than everybody else. In baseball, 170 lb infielder have an unfair advantage over 195 lb infielders because they're lighter and are therefore more agile and have better range.<

But you're racing a car. That's the key difference here. The car is the athlete (its the truth) and the driver mearly guides. Yes, there are physical demands on the driver; this is fact. However, the purpose of the sport is to find out who controls a race car in the best fashion. A proper comparison to Shaq in basketball would be like discussing Ferrari's typical dominance in Formula One; There are no limits to what you can spend in F1, so whoever wants to put together a better car than Ferrari can. They just have to spend about $300 million to do it.

Again, weight limits for drivers is *NOT* new. This is not the first time its been discussed. Its only an issue because its a female for whom the discussion is about. If Robby Gordon was somehow against female racers, it probably would have come out somewhere along his over 20 year career where he's piloted everything from wheels (having nearly won the Indy 500, raced Winston Cup, winning the Baja 1000, etc). Hell, he currently races in a series where sandbags are used to offset driver weight (Winston Cup). Its just character assasination at this point; hell, look at this thread. People seem to be under the impression that the California born/bred Gordon is some sort of slack jawed southerner.

Paul Tracy talking about this same issue half a decade ago in CART and practically everyone in F1 the last decade going over this topic never garnered any media attention from the US media because none of it was directed at a female

uh, or because "no one" in the US cares about CART or F1?

If a female was running F1, there would be coverage in the US. Make no doubt about it. CART less so, since there are no big races. However, were someone to come out with a similar quote, yes, the media would turn their attention to it.

BTW, Gear, the reason why open wheel racing is dead is because of the IRL/CART split that occurred back in 1995. CART is still a separate entity with its own series, cars, and races, while the IRL has become the "Indycar Racing Series". However, around 2002, many of the top CART teams defected to the IRL, and the IRL changed pretty much their entire image to fit them. So out with the whole no ovals, no engine leases, and all american squad of drivers, and in with, well, what CART did pretty well with up till the split. Frankly, I wouldn't mind it if both series faded into oblivion.

Well, CART is getting nothing out of this. No PR, no interest, nothing. Patrick runs for Rahal/Letterman, and not Forsythe. IRL is getting all the buzz, so you can expect their ratings and attendance to go up (which it desperately needs to). CART, on the other hand, has had two feet in the grave for the last 3-4 years, its just that the rich folks who own it (and most of the cars competing) don't know it and keep throwing money in. As long as the street races still pack in crowds, there's no reason to kill either series...but neither really means anything right now.

when was the last time you heard about F1 in the US? i can't recall a single instance since Senna died.

You seem to be arguing that the weight issue was the 'real' story here, even though that arose only after the national media had already started paying attention to Patrick - the AP article above followed several days of stories about her in national papers. But the story above arose less from the fact that there was a female driver, and more from the fact that she was commented upon by a driver in a more prominent series (and the #2 sport in America) - note that the byline of the AP story is Concord, NC, home of the weekend's NASCAR race, rather than Indianapolis, IN.

And the coverage of her in general arose not just because she is female, but also because (i) there was a serious chance she would win the race, (ii) she was promoted and given national tv exposure by a major television figure, and (iii) the 24-hour tv news cycle has next to nothing to talk about over Memorial Day weekend. The coverage was not driven by "sexis[m]" controversy, but rather was a mix of sports and "human interest" coverage of the sort that appears in what used to be referred to as the "womens' pages" of newspapers - a way to gain the attention of two "audiences" at once.

I'm not positive you're wrong, but you're ignoring a lot of factors in why the media paid attention here, such as:
- the fact that she was not merely competing, but had a chance to actually win a big race, without an American cognate in F1
- the fact that her team is owned by Letterman, giving her national tv exposure (and perhaps a push at CBS News)
- the fact that the story became a news leader, rather than a human interest (formerly "womens'") or sports story only after it was commented on by a prominent driver in the #2 sport in America.
- the completely dead Memorial Day weekend news cycle, combined with the demands of 24-hour tv news

OK: http://www.nationalledger.com/danica_pictures.shtml

(we can talk about the whole why-do-pro-athlete-females-need-to-do-FHM-spreads-shouldn't-we-just-respect-them-for-their-accomplishments later. cuz it IS a valid question.)

practically everyone in F1 the last decade going over this topic

is (and apologies if I'me wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not) 100% wrong in the context of this issue. Weight matters in F1, enormously, but 2 things make the Danica problem impossible, or as near as:

1) at the end of the race, the combined weight of car and driver must be over 600kg

2) modern technology is so efficient that the cars run many dozen kg underweight and make up the difference with ballast.

Using the same system in IRL would mean Robby Gordon could eat a dick - his only potential complaint being that he has a higher centre of gravity.

When was the last time a female ran F1? Exactly. A female racing in F1 would make the news, just as if a female got signed to Manchester United.

>You seem to be arguing that the weight issue was the 'real' story here, even though that arose only after the national media had already started paying attention to Patrick - the AP article above followed several days of stories about her in national papers. But the story above arose less from the fact that there was a female driver, and more from the fact that she was commented upon by a driver in a more prominent series (and the #2 sport in America) - note that the byline of the AP story is Concord, NC, home of the weekend's NASCAR race, rather than Indianapolis, IN.<

If she was not female, the discussion would have never happened. True or false?

1) at the end of the race, the combined weight of car and driver must be over 600kg

2) modern technology is so efficient that the cars run many dozen kg underweight and make up the difference with ballast.

Using the same system in IRL would mean Robby Gordon could eat a dick - his only potential complaint being that he has a higher centre of gravity. <

Exactly. This is a recent rules change from the last 5 years or so, I believe, and breaking it is a serious rules infraction. BAR broke it at San Marino and ended up having both their cars have to sit on the sidelines for 2 races as a suspension. What you have to understand is that Robby Gordon is asking PRECISELY for such a rule in the IRL. It exists in the two biggest racing series in the world (sans the WRC), so why not in the IRL or CART?

(i still think she's a babe even if she didn't win)

Fourth is still pretty impressive for a rookie driver, right?

no one in America cares about Man U either