Kevin Magnussen, Haas, Albert Park, 2018

Haas comforted by car’s performance despite retirements

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Haas team principal Guenther Steiner says the team has taken comfort from demonstrating its car is quick in Australia despite failing to score points due to pit stop problems.

The Bahrain Grand Prix on RaceFans

RaceFans’ coverage of the Bahrain Grand Prix will come direct from the Bahrain International Circuit this weekend. This week we are introducing a new regular feature in which @DieterRencken gives his insight into paddock life each day throughout the event.

Thanks to those of you who’ve told us what you want to know about this weekend’s race which we’ve read and will help inform our approach to covering the Bahrain Grand Prix.

And special thanks to the growing number of you who have signed up to become RaceFans Supporters recently. Following the F1 circus around the world to bring your our coverage is an expensive endeavour and the more of you who help contribute to it, the more we are able to do. Find out more about becoming a RaceFans Supporter and sign up here:

What they say

Steiner was asked whether he was pleased that the Australian Grand Prix proved the team’s testing pace was real.

That’s the thing which keeps the spirits up. In Barcelona testing people were still doubting if we were real or not, [we showed] we were here. We qualified well but I think we raced stronger than we qualified.

I think we are here and we go to Bahrain with our heads up and try to minimise these mistakes changing on the pit stops.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Ferrari might like the idea of a breakaway championship but who would want to join them in one, asks @JimG:

If Ferrari did break away and form their own series, who else would want to join them? It seems blindingly obvious that Ferrari want to make sure that they have an advantage written into the rules, so who would want to go against them in a series in which they write all the rules?

For all the talk of the ‘big four’ breaking away together, I don’t see them being able to agree on a set of rules in order to make it happen.

Personally I don’t believe that any formula will have global success without at least a semblance of equality.
@JimG

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Andy Mail, Red Andy and Matt88!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories RaceFans Round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 84 comments on “Haas comforted by car’s performance despite retirements”

    1. Personally I don’t believe that any formula will have global success without at least a semblance of equality.

      History disagrees.

      F1 has never been that equal & yet it’s become the biggest, Most popular category in the world. In fact there have been periods where things were less equal & differences between teams far greater than now yet it still grew through those times.

      Meanwhile many other categories have aimed for more quality of performance & havn’t been able to do all that much. I mean look at Indycar, For all the talk about how great the racing has been it still only gets a fraction of the audience that F1 has even when both were on the same TV network in the US.

    2. Personally I don’t believe that any formula will have global success without at least a semblance of equality.

      History disagrees.

      F1 has never been that equal & yet it’s become the biggest, Most popular category in the world. There have been times when it has been less equal with larger performance differences between teams & it still grew during those times.

      Meanwhile many other categories have aimed for more quality of performance & havn’t been able to do all that much. I mean look at Indycar, For all the talk about how great the racing has been it still only gets a fraction of the audience that F1 has even when both were on the same TV network in the US.

      1. Equality is boring in most sports, the real interest is in the dominant performer, be it football, golf, track and field, tennis etc.

        1. @hohum That’s not the same to be dominant on merit or to buy your way to the top. Even with a lot of extra bucks, you won’t gain much from your ultra developed racket or golf balls and the sportman/woman still make most of the difference. This is a lacking a bit in current F1, drivers do not make such a difference, the car does. I don’t want a spec serie for F1 but a bit more equilibrium between the car and the driver so that in a good day, a midfield driver could shine and get an occasional well deserved podium, it has been a while…

          1. @jeanrien And how do you think the car is made? You think they miraculously materialise out of nothing? No, they are designed and manufactured and maintained by hundreds of engineers and mechanics etc. F1 is a TEAM sport and the all the teams have the same set of rules. The TEAM of Mercedes people did a better job at creating the best car within the rules, so yes they are being dominant and winning by merit, as it is all their hard work that has gone into getting the victory along with the driver. Suggesting that it is only money that is getting the wins in F1 is ignoring and disrespecting all of the hard work and effort and genius that the people in the team have put in.

            1. @madman don’t get me wrong, F1 should remain a technological race as much as on track but it can’t be one without the other otherwise it lose its interest, which is on the limit of the current situation.

              Unfortunately cars are so complex that it takes huge effort (and thus money) to come up with a car able to compete to the front. No team could do a Brown 2009 anymore, the closest on offer is a 4th place such is the gap to the front money and performance wise.

              While I am impressed by Mercedes for their impressive records, I am a bit saddened that F1 has become a two tiers league not much different than lmp1-2 in WEC (except that they all run under the same regulation). You have arguably 6 drivers lining up for the win each weekend. But thankfully there are also 14 drivers doing a support race during the same time to entertain the fans.

          2. Even with a lot of extra bucks, you won’t gain much from your ultra developed racket or golf balls and the sportman/woman still make most of the difference

            Likewise Toyota didn’t do much considering their budget.

      2. The facts are that F1 had lower ratings and viewers than IndyCar when on NBCSN. F1 has always had lower ratings in the States than IndyCar regardless of the network it was broadcast on. IndyCar definitely has better racing, and also has the biggest race on earth (Indy 500) which is also the largest single day sporting event in the world.

        1. I did a quick google and found that in fact F1 gets as much viewership as IndyCar if not more in the US. I didn’t spend much time sussing out the details but certainly one set of stats had F1 viewership climbing since 2011 in the States.

      3. Well, I do think IndyCar would reach a larger audience if they made the effort to broadcast their races in Europe or provide a live stream for more countries than they do now. It’s similar to IMSA, they provide good streams so I don’t bother getting up early or go to bed late for most of the races.

      4. I think if Indycar were to try and make it easier for an european viewership to follow (in terms of racetimes and maybe some races in europe) along with some marketing, they would get much more viewers and compete with F1 in that sense, maybe even surpass it.

    3. Honda: “Don’t worry, Pierre. We still have one more engine to go!”

      Haas – No doubt a plethora of rather rigorous pit stop training sessions have taken place since Australia.

    4. The reported gender pay gap article created some questions in my mind (apologies if I missed the answers in the article, eyes glazing over etc.)
      1. Was Hamilton’s pay included on the male side, and if so it is hard to see how the female side could ever equalise without them holding all top engineering, design and positions.
      2. In the case of Williams (and other pay-driver teams) was the negative drivers pay included in the calculations to boost the female average pay?

      1. *,design and managerial positions.

      2. That is why I think you have to look at the median (the middle value). In this case of Mercedes, this basically negates the influence of Hamilton, Bottas and Wolff’s (presumably) high wages on the overall result. You see the average for Mercedes is 35% and the median drops to 17%.

        1. I think the only way to calculate pay gap is by comparing identical jobs only; and even then years of experience might affect the outcome.

          PS would be interesting to see the pay gap for grid girls (M/F).

      3. The whole article is BS and all this reporting about the “pay gap” should be discredited for the lie that it perpetrates that women get paid less (for doing the same job). I’m sure that a female and a male data engineer in the same position at Mercedes get paid the same amount per year (it’s actually illegal to pay women less see Equal Pay Act 1970 in the UK) But yes to your point it you add up all that men earn and average it out with Lewis, Valltteri, Toto and all the heads of department within the Mercedes team it’s going to be well to be exact 35% more than that of the women working in the team. Because a woman working as a receptionist or as a press officer or the girl that serves the coffee in the Mercedes motor home doesn’t deserve 40 million a year like Lewis does. If Danica Patrick came in and smoked Lewis then she would deserve 40 million a year or if by COMPETENCE the best aerodynamicist Mercedes could hire was a woman she would get paid what she SHE is worth and she would then get paid more than whoever the guy is that buffs Hamilton’s helmet, their is no discrimination against women working at Mercedes (or in Motorsport for that matter it’s a performance related field i.e best PERSON for the job) this has nothing to do with Women vs Men this has to do with a persons chosen field of employment and their competence in doing their job. I’m so sick of this rubbish. The end to all this nonsense.

        1. Factually correct! This non-issue is also used in all other jobs and careers. Its a fabricated myth that women get paid less than men *in the same job*!

        2. Well said.

          The truth is, there aren’t enough women in technical positions in F1. Conventional wisdom suggests that these positions pay more on average, as these are highly skilled roles. Hence, the average “gap” is more pronounced. If it isn’t an apple to apple comparison, its a waste if time, just click bait.

          Go to any engineering school at any university, you’ll see that the male to female ratio is lopsided. There is nothing stopping women/girls from taking up engineering, its just that they are largely not interested.

          In all my years in engineering school and in industry as an engineer, the ratio from my experience is something like 1 woman to 10 men, in fact its probably less than that. You can’t force someone to take up engineering just because there is a lack of representation.

          1. All of what you said is indeed true except for the first thing, there is indeed enough women in technical positions in F1, which is to say the amount that are qualified and that want to do the job. It’s like saying “there aren’t enough male nurses in hospitals” yes there are the same amount that want to do that job no more no less, there’s no obligation or reason for it needing to be a 50/50 split.

    5. The methodology used for pay gaps is:

      The mean hourly rate is the average hourly wage across the entire organization so the mean gender pay gap is a measure of the difference between women’s mean hourly wage and men’s mean hourly wage.

      The median hourly rate is calculated by ranking all employees from the highest paid to the lowest paid, and taking the hourly wage of the person in the middle; so the median gender pay gap is the difference between women’s median hourly wage (the middle paid woman) and men’s median hourly wage (the middle paid man).

      So, this doesn’t attempt to compare salaries of people in equal/equivalent roles, but does so across the organization top to bottom. I think the assumption and goal is that women will permeate across the organization in a manner that will bring the mean/median differences down. Fair enough a goal, but the approach used to report it is not ideal, or possibly even misleading, since the gender of one star (Hamilton, Danica Patrick, Adrian Newey, etc.) can easily sway the stats around.

      I actually like that Red Bull shared the data as a statement of fact with no comment, while Mercedes and McLaren toed a politically-correct line by offering the usual corporate-speak. As long as opportunities are open to all and hiring practices are not gender-biased, I’d say that is good enough for individual teams. Yes, it would be nice to encourage more women in STEM lines that leads to a motorsport career, but that’s something that needs to be owned by a wider group, and not individual companies.

      @hohum – very good question on #1, for all the highly paid drivers.

      On #2, I’m pretty sure you’re gently tweaking those teams about their driver status, but I’m sure the sponsorships are a separate line item from salaries, and that the drivers draw either a zero salary or a nominal/symbolic salary to make it clear they’re contractually employees.

      1. Gavin Campbell
        5th April 2018, 7:34

        Also in F1 it’s a numbers game and that’s not totally the responsibility of the teams. If only 10% of intake into engineering degrees is female of course their stats are going to be screwed! Engineering companies are about to post some awful figures. But if not enough women take up the career you can never address that gap other than artificially – which would be a travesty.

        1. Not sure why if only 10% of engineers are women that their mean or median wage should be less.

          1. Because engineering is one of the best paid professions

            1. still doesn’t make a difference if it’s 10% or 90% as long as you only compare similar jobs.
              That’s where all these comparisons go wrong.

            2. They don’t compare the same jobs, with the same companies and the same hours though because the gap practically disappears when they do and there’s no story

          2. Gavin is not saying the salary of women will be lesser if fewer women enroll in STEM courses, @Egonovi but just that with fewer data points on the women’s side, it’s going to be hard to infer a meaningful mean/median wage.

            It is a good point because what constitutes a “large” team in F1 (say Mercedes or RBR) consists of about 1000 employees all around, and once you start considering the various specializations & niches (aero, material manufacturing, strategy, IT), it becomes harder to infer meaningful information from some statistics like mean and median.

            On the other hand, areas like the IT service industry (where I work) are extremely well suited to measuring equality by such methods – we have the numbers to support such stats, and there’s enough cookie-cutter type of job descriptions that makes it easier to compare.

            @Gavin Campbell – very good point – women coming into STEM is improving but there’s still a way to go. And realistically, its a problem that has to be worked on at both ends – improve the enrolment of women in STEM on the one side, and ensure a meaningful workplace situation for them to come into, on the other side.

            1. They are comparing the average pay for men and women within the organization which means that if 90% of the engineers are men and engineering is better paid than other jobs where you would typically find more women (administrative tasks, PR, marketing, logistics, etc) the mean for men would be higher.

              This does not mean that female engineers make less money than their male colleagues.

            2. where you would typically find more women (administrative tasks, PR, marketing, logistics, etc)

              @latorres86 I don’t know where you get the idea logistics has a higher population than for example engineering. Logistics is very much a male dominated sector.

          3. They are comparing the average pay for men and women within the organization which means that if 90% of the engineers are men and engineering is better paid than other jobs where you would typically find more women (administrative tasks, PR, marketing, logistics, etc) the mean for men would be higher.

            This does not mean that female engineers make less money than their male colleagues.

      2. The question posed by @hohum is even more complicated to answer since Lewis probably doesn’t get a salary from Mercedes (see also the discussions had with Rosberg and the Panama Papers and Hamilton and his jet with the Paradise Papers) @phylyp, these drivers are conctacted through their own companies which then pay their cost and salaries, so their salaries might not even be part of the equasion.

        I think the figure as such really doesn’t say much. It functions as kind of a reminder that there is not an equal situation – in part this is exactly about bosses being men, coffee ladies being women, then there IS a real difference (yes, it’s been shown to exist in the UK too, just as in just about any western country where it was measured), but after looking at hours worked (something that can also be a sign of unequality – see how in NLD women often work only part time) and differences in functions (coffee serving vs. head aero department) there IS still a gap which probably ranges from between 3% (Nordic countries like Sweden) to about 12% that cannot really be explained by anything but bias.

        All of this is too much to take in, so that simple figure can then work as a sort of “red light” reminder that there IS an issue and it needs the attention of the management, because they could well be wasting oppertunities!

        1. @bascb – very nice point about how drivers are engaged with a team, I didn’t realize it was in such a manner (though in hindsight it does make sense).

          I definitely agree that the figure serves as a general wake-up call, but is not one that lends itself to use in comparisons.

          1. And it gets even harder because every company seems to measure different things!

        2. Good point @bascb
          You are likely correct that many/most/all of the drivers are contractors, not actual company employees that would be reported as actual wage earners.

          One would hope that more companies around the globe would adhere to the letter and spirit of laws governing equal opportunity employment and pay. It is obvious to anyone honest about it that bias still exists to varying degrees. That is why it is important to have true transparency in any reporting of statistics regarding this issue. One would also hope that reports issued are not merely used to placate consumers and governing bodies.

          1. @bullmello

            Actually, it’s obvious to anyone who looks at the science, that the main reason for the gap is not bias by employers.

            However, this is an inconvenient truth to a certain agenda, so this science is rarely shown to the public.

            1. “Actually, it’s obvious to anyone who looks at the science, that the main reason for the gap is not bias by employers.” – @aapje

              I’m curious, what is the reason then?

            2. Hm, @aapje, (dutch Monkey?) would you please share that obvious main reason? I am as curious as @bullmello

              Because the science I have seen (as described above) does see several factors, but even after filtering these out there DOES seem to be a difference that cannot be explained otherwise than bias/gender discrimination

            3. @bullmello @bascb

              To answer this, I will first explain why the reason is not employee discrimination, in more detail:

              The most credible scientific studies into the gender gap examine how certain metrics impact wages for both men and women. If:
              – when both men and women who work 3 hours of overtime, they get paid X% more
              – men work 3 hours of overtime more than women on average
              then X% of the wage gap can be explained by men working more overtime than women, not direct discrimination.

              There are a bunch of these kind of metrics that together, explain about 2/3rds of the gender pay gap. The metrics have a common thread in that the employee typically has most control over them. In cases where we can independently verify whether the cause is employee choice or employer discrimination, we typically find that employee choice is paramount. For example, the most important metric that impact wages is the kind of job that people do. The jobs that people end up in is heavily determined by what they choose to study and we see that men and women make vastly different choices already when choosing their studies. No employer is involved in that choice, so it can’t be that employers force people into certain studies.

              Of course, girls might choose to avoid choosing certain studies if they know that they will be discriminated against in hiring, however, we don’t see evidence for the latter. For example, the percentage of female programmers is very close to the percentage of women who studied computer science. If there was significant hiring discrimination, there would have to be a gap. Similarly, attempts to increase the hiring of women by blinding the gender in the hiring process typically has only relatively minimal effect & in quite a few cases causes fewer women to be hired, showing that you can have under-representation of women compared to the population while also discrimination in favor of women.

              So the actual main cause of the wage gap seems to be that men and women make different choices. Of course, that just leaves the question why this is the case.

              Given the evidence (not just what I described above, but a lot of other evidence as well), it seems very likely that there are two major causes:
              – Men being pushed into the provider role much more than women, means that men far more often choose to contribute to the household by making choices that make them earn more money, while women contribute in ways that lower their income, like working fewer hours to be able to do more childcare.
              – A difference in interests. Scientists have examined differences between men and women & found that on most metrics they are very similar on average. However, the one large difference is that men seem far more ‘thing-oriented’ and women far more ‘people-oriented.’ Jobs that are ‘thing-oriented’ typically pay considerably better, for reasons that are independent of gender.

              IMO, the currently popular approach of blaming employers is scapegoating and cannot work, because employers cannot close the wage gap unless they actively discriminate against men in ways that are very, very sexist (like paying men less for similar work, choosing less qualified women over more qualified men, etc).

            4. Also note that this scapegoating may actually be counterproductive. The feminist narrative may now actually cause women to shun jobs that pay more, by telling women that these jobs are male-dominated because of large scale sexism/abuse of women. I definitely wouldn’t feel inclined to take a job if I thought I would get treated that way.

              It seems to me that the truth, rather than this false narrative, has a much better chance at achieving more gender equality (although full gender equality may be impossible without oppressing people, given that biological differences may exist that will make men and women make different choices, in any free society).

            5. Ok, @aapje, I think we have information based on (more or less) the same facts, that is a good basis for Discussion.

              Yes, a large part of the pay gap when compared yearly wages can be explained (part time vs. full job, overtime etc and the types of jobs) or as you mention

              There are a bunch of these kind of metrics that together, explain about 2/3rds of the gender pay gap.

              As for the choice of which professions (a larger portion of) either gender chooses, I hope we can agree that this is largely informed by what is “normal” in the society we live in. Nowadays teachers, are mostly women, a century ago, it was a profession dominated by men. The same goes for other professions as well. And there are differences between cultures / countries.

              There are 2 reasons why I make a different conclusion from the facts than you do.

              1. Look at that quote – when you say that 2/3rds of the difference can be explained, that still leaves about a third that CANNOT be explained by these factors (i mentioned the result is between 3 and about 10%, depending on country/culture measured) in pure hourly wages for the same fuctions. This part can only explained if one accepts that there IS a bias in pay. THis is the part that employers should be held to change, because it is their business.

              2. The second part where I see a clear bias (i would hesitate to call it discrimination) that hurts equality of oppertunities and choices is a cultural bias. It has been proven that we start pushing gender steriotypes onto our own children and those around from about the age of 2-3. This influences which choices gils and boys are pushed towards too. But it is not something we can/should blame Employers for, although they can play a positive role in changing the situation and opening up more potentially great employees

            6. @aapje – “It seems to me that the truth, rather than this false narrative, has a much better chance at achieving more gender equality (although full gender equality may be impossible without oppressing people, given that biological differences may exist that will make men and women make different choices, in any free society).”

              My real world experiences in multiple workplaces show that women who do equal or more work than their male counterparts in the same job are sometimes discriminated against when it comes to pay and opportunities for promotion solely because they are women. I’m witness to business owners and corporate managers coming to that very conclusion. This is not a feminist narrative, it is a fairness reality.

              In workplaces where pay and opportunity is not gender based (also include not race, nationality or faith based) there is a greater wealth of ideas and experience brought to the table since none are excluded due to any discriminatory factors. Again, this is not a narrative based on feminism, liberalism or any other ism. Rather on simple logic and above the board fairness.

              “IMO, the currently popular approach of blaming employers is scapegoating and cannot work, because employers cannot close the wage gap unless they actively discriminate against men in ways that are very, very sexist (like paying men less for similar work, choosing less qualified women over more qualified men, etc).

              This is a fallacy argument. The wage gap can be closed if women are simply given equal pay and opportunities for equal work. The argument that can only happen if men are unfairly discriminated against is an argument only made to justify the status quo in which women are unfairly discriminated against.

              It would be interesting to know the original source of the studies you are quoting.

              I think most people around the world are for equal pay and job opportunities for everyone. Some are not for fairness in that regard.

            7. “IMO, the currently popular approach of blaming employers is scapegoating and cannot work, because employers cannot close the wage gap unless they actively discriminate against men in ways that are very, very sexist (like paying men less for similar work, choosing less qualified women over more qualified men, etc).*” -end quote from @aapje

            8. @bascb

              Actually, what we see is that in more socially conservative societies, there is a smaller gender gap in professions. For example, a larger percentage of engineers are women in Iran than in Sweden. This could also explain why teachers were mostly men in the past, but no longer today, assuming that we agree that there was significantly more gender inequality in the past. So this goes back to my point that freedom might very plausibly be incompatible with equality of outcomes & more in general, that people may be confusing ‘natural’ inequality of outcome for discrimination.

              Your claim that the 1/3rd of the gender gap that cannot be explained by statistics must be bias is a very typical mistake that I see made. It is actually reasoning towards a conclusion to claim that a lack of proof that the cause of part of the gap is A is proof that the cause is B. The cause can also be C or it can be A, but where you don’t have the data to prove it. There are choices that people make that can very plausibly cause higher value in the eye of an employer & that they are willing to reward with higher pay, but that are not measured & that men and women make differently.

              Overt discrimination by employers and the government against women has been made illegal and those who claim that significant discrimination against women still exist have not been able to make a strong case, where they propose a mechanism and prove that this mechanism has a significant effect. As I said before, one of the main mechanisms that keeps getting argued is a major cause, hiring discrimination, actually seems not to be a cause. So if you demand that employers change, what are you actually demanding they do, if you cannot show what they are doing wrong? A demand to fix something where you cannot point to a solution seems extremely unreasonable. In practice, we see that many employers who accede to these demands then start to discriminate against men, which means abandoning the principle of judging individuals and instead treating people differently based on their gender. That is overt discrimination and I strongly oppose that.

              Finally, I strongly agree that cultural bias/norms very much hurts equality, although I have misgivings how bias/norms that harm men are often ignored or perpetuated by those who claim to desire equality. One typical way in which this is done is by focusing the debate on situations where women do worse, while ignoring where men do worse. For example, the pay disparity is actually merely one of the gender inequalities that exist in the workplace. Men also suffer ~95% of workplace deaths, men have a worse work-life balance than women (surveys show that men report a larger disparity between desired work hours and actual hours worked), men work far more overtime, etc, etc. Yet those issues rarely get any attention, while the pay gap keeps getting brought up again and again. I don’t believe that we can truly achieve a breakthrough unless we start addressing those issues (that don’t fit the popular narrative), which then probably creates more equality that also allows women to make further advances.

            9. @bullmello

              I don’t put much stock in anecdotal evidence, because it is so very sensitive to bias. I suggest looking into the history of blood-letting, where people for thousands of years were utterly convinced that it saved lives based on anecdotal evidence, until proper statistical research showed that it actually killed patients.

              Similarly, ‘simple logic’ often is simple because it leaves out complexity that does exist and which can change the conclusions. For example, diversity may sometimes bring greater wealth of ideas and experience that improves performance or it may not (and it can also cause conflict). In many jobs, the particular experiences of women and men are not relevant to the job. Actual research into the benefits of diversity on company performance shows very little benefit. For example, see Top Management Team Diversity by Fabian Homberg, Hong T. M. Bui, 2013.

              The wage gap can be closed if women are simply given equal pay and opportunities for equal work.

              This is just untrue, because the evidence clearly shows that men and women do not do equal work and the gender wage gap will thus not disappear if men and women get equal pay for the same job. See An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women by CONRAD, 2009.

              What you write is the popular falsehood/meme that is often used because it seems so reasonable and it is very persuasive for people who are unaware of the real facts (which unfortunately the media tends to refuse to tell people). The actual facts around gender can be very counterintuitive, but I believe in science over intuition.

              For my earlier claim about gender differences in interest, I base my claim on Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? by Richard A. Lippa, 2010.

            10. @aapje – “I suggest looking into the history of blood-letting, where people for thousands of years were utterly convinced that it saved lives based on anecdotal evidence, until proper statistical research showed that it actually killed patients.”

              From modern workplace discrimination to medieval bloodletting. Quite a dramatic diversion.

              I believe in science, but statistics can be skewed, researchers can be biased. Sociological studies are only as valid as their scientific methodology, evidence gathering, controls, variables, proper interpretation of data, correlations, and potential bias even if benign in intention.

              My first hand experience of workplace discrimination may be anecdotal in nature, but it does not mean that it did not happen in real life or that it is not happening in workplaces right now. Even your quoted studies do not seem come to that conclusion, even if the quotes provided seem to conclude that it is happening less than what may be perceived in popular media.

              Studies can try to discover results after the fact, yet will have greater difficulty quantifying or qualifying the intent of employers. The media can keep reporting whatever news sells. I still know what I know based on nearly fifty years experience in the work world as an employee, contractor, manager and business owner. Ultimately it comes down to what individual employers decide to do.

            11. @bullmello

              I used blood-letting as an example to illustrate how anecdotal evidence can deceive people for thousands of years and to argue that science is far superior. It’s not a diversion when you insist on believing anecdotal evidence over science.

              Science does have a serious problem with replication, in part due to biased scientists, but also because of how science is organized and how scientists are trained. However, science is still the most rigorous effort to find the truth, although I agree with you that it can be quite misleading, especially when looking at a single study and/or when one is not able to spot the weaknesses in papers. The studies I presented are all meta-studies however, which means that the results are not dependent on a single researcher and one study, but give the most accurate picture that we can draw from many studies. These are generally quite reliable. In general, I have pretty good knowledge of the state of gender-related science and I try to base my claims on the strongest science.

              Note that I am not arguing that discrimination against women and/or in favor of men doesn’t exist, but also not that discrimination men and/or in favor of women doesn’t exist. I’m sure that both do exist in the workplace to some extent, but that doesn’t mean that they (merely) work the way you claim nor that they are the main or even significant cause of the issues that you want to see solved (and of other inequality issues).

              PS. Note that one reason why your anecdotes are not reliable is that your experiences are surely not representative. You can only have worked in a limited number of industries and it seems likely that the culture of different industries often differs greatly. A second reason is that we know that people tend to have confirmation bias. It is very common for people who have very similar experiences to draw wildly different conclusions, because their beliefs are different.

    6. The bit about Pierre Gasly’s engine, all I can say is: “Honda being Honda doing Honda things“. Shaking my head and sighing/swearing. So testing was all a lie.

      Early days, but it looks like TR are indeed the top contender for last-placed constructor.

      1. … perhaps to be outdone by underperformance by Sauber or Williams? Maybe the race to the bottom will be as interesting as the race to the top.

        1. Indeed, @boomerzoomer – that’ll be something to watch. I also agree that those three that you’ve listed are the “top 3” contenders.

          These April races must be trying times for the Red Bull machine, as they’ve to respond to Renault whether RBR wishes to continue with Renault into 2019 or not. I think RBR will suck it up and stay with Renault.

        2. Sad, but true @boomerzoomer

          It will be compelling in a dark way to see who is last. At least it does give some hope to the Sauber team. If they can manage fewer penalties, which shouldn’t be difficult, they have a good chance to finish ahead of ToroHonda.

          It was worth hoping that Honda would be in a better position to perform this season, but it would not be wise to place any bets on that.

          And Williams. You would think at some point they would begin to climb back up gradually. They don’t have much more backwards to go.

      2. I’m going to remain cautiously optimistic for now. Definitely cause for concern after what was seemingly a phenomenal testing period, but after Australia is absolutely too early to hit the panic button. Given that Toro Rosso has been designing their car around the power unit, rather than throwing it in an already developed car, like McLaren, my guess is they’ll have far less trouble making the engine reliable this time around.

        Or I could be totally wrong and Honda gets laughed out of F1 entirely in the next few years.

        And to respond to your other comment, I agree. It looks the hilariously strained Red Bull-Renault marriage will last at least one more year. All the more so given that Renault wants an answer by May. Though I am curious about one thing. Given the weird Renault-Honda swap that also sent Sainz to Renault, could it be possible that Renault demands Ricciardo from RBR in order to keep up the supply for 2019? I doubt it, considering it looks like Renault want to invest in Hulkenburg and Sainz, but I can’t help but wonder if they try to pull something like that again.

      3. Indeed @phylyp, after testing many thought that McLaren might have jumped the gun on the change, but by now it looks exaclty like what we saw the last 3 years. Honda feeling everythign is going fine (or pretending, hard to know without inside info) but then we get to the real action and something like this happends.

        I do hope for Gasly that he can make his engine component allocation last longer than the first 3-6 races, but I have little hope he won’t be regularly seeing engine penalties by mid season.

        1. And as it was a design issue on the turbo and MGU-H, Hartley is awaiting the same fortune :(

          1. They replaced the engine on both cars.
            Ans Honda/TR acknowledged that this year several penalty s will be unavoidable. It’s a development year for speed and reliability. Nothing new but we will see.

            1. indeed Erikje, nothing new. 20015 was supposed to be the development year with McLaren. Then 2016 became the year to iron out the issues. Then Honda found that they had to start from scratch and made a completely new concept for 2017, making it a development year again. Normally one would think that after a year, this unit would now be matured enough, but nope, it’s a development year again.
              So yes, nothing new but the same story.

        2. @bascb

          I think we all forgot, with STR doing so many laps in testing, that they are ultimately still Red Bull, masters of smoke-and-mirrors marketing…

          as soon as the news that TR was using basically an engine a day for testing came out, I began wondering if their testing performance wasn’t just a trick to show up McLaren and put some pressure on Renault, while saving Honda some face on the side. after this news, I feel my suspicions were no too far from the truth…

          1. I don’t like to become too cynical @arrows98, so I just assumed that this time Honda had aniticpated that they would run into trouble, had watched the indicators and decided to change engines every time “up front” instead of waiting for them to fail an hour or 2 later on track to enable the team to get as much running data as they could get from testing.

      4. It feels to me that STR is being the test lab they were intended to be this season.

        It is curious how Haas and Ferrari get so much criticism, while RBR is basically using STR as a guinea pig and nobody cares

        I expect this will continue and as soon as Honda finds upgrades they will implement them right away, regardless of the penalties they might incur

        1. Rui (@colinmcrui)
          5th April 2018, 10:48

          Good point @johnmilk. Anyway, why should they care much about grid penalties?, they are already at the bottom…

        2. @johnmilk – interesting question. I’m sure if RBR commit to Honda come may, we will hear grumbling from other teams about the very point you raise. Until then, RBR can always say the usual corporate-speak about Renault (“valued partner blah blah committed to the future blah”).

        3. The Haas criticism has been about the extent of Ferrari-ness to their cars, whereas STR has simply slapped in the Honda pu, no? I don’t think the two situations are comparable.

      5. The statement from Honda gave me some relief. I felt like everything was wrong with the world in pre season testing.
        I think the statement regarding mgu-h problem, which trickled down to the ICE sounds perfectly like the Honda I’ve come to know. We are one race down and they are already one retirement and one power unit down. I’ll predict, they should finish the allotted 3PUs by race 9, and then get back to grid penalties at every 2nd race weekend till the end of the year.
        I had Toro Rosso down for a 9th place finish in the WCC, but I think 10th is definitely on the cards.

        1. I was one of those who was chuckling at McLaren’s woes in testing, and was generally pleased by how Toro Rosso was running. Then I heard that they were running through multiple engines in the two weeks of testing. Now comes this info, which proves my attitude during testing wrong.

          I’ll predict, they should finish the allotted 3PUs by race 9

          Ladies and gents, we have an optimist here. :-)
          IMHO, I don’t see them coming to Europe within the allocation of 3 engines, @todfod

          I had Toro Rosso down for a 9th place finish in the WCC, but I think 10th is definitely on the cards.

          Quite true. Sauber are well sorted on the engine side, and I think that once they click a little on the aero side (they didn’t look too impressive in Australia), they’ll start drawing clear of Toro Rosso.

          1. I found it quite frustrating how quickly some were willing to selectively take testing as ‘proof’ of ‘facts’ that Mac were fools and it was Honda that deserved an apology for what went on at McHonda, like it was Mac all along. For some, saying ‘let’s see them race in anger,’ wasn’t good enough.

    7. I’m a Ferrari supporter – I love the fire and passion. However, they show a distinct lack of honour on occasion and adopt a detestable, entitled attitude.

      1. Zim, I think those things you mention are component parts of being fiery and passionate….

        1. Hmmm… I think we all know ‘fiery and passionate‘ people who show far from a ‘detestable, entitled attitude’.

    8. ”Personally I don’t believe that any formula will have global success without at least a semblance of equality.”
      – ‘Would.’ Now to the point, though. I agree with the COTD.
      – I wasn’t aware until today that two-seater go-karts exist, LOL.

    9. I’d really like to see a report on race pay gap as well. I think it is very likely that in Mercedes, the average hourly salary for black employees is higher than for whites. Then us white folks could feel rightfully offended :-).

      On a serious note, as someone who is professionally close to statistics it always hurts me when people show such a complete lask of understanding of meaning of numbers as we can see in that article.

      1. On a serious note, as someone who is professionally close to statistics it always hurts me when people show such a complete lask of understanding of meaning of numbers as we can see in that article.

        @ph – does that mean that saying Force India is twice as good as Williams is wrong? But, 14.8 is roughly half of 32, so it must be right (I kid, I kid, couldn’t pass up the opportunity to tease you!).

    10. My main issue with the power unit regs is that I fear it could make F1 a race of reliability. That’s perfectly okay in endurance racing, but when drivers are only allowed to run flat out for no more than 5-10 laps in a 90 minute race because they have to save the engine, that’s a huge issue.

      I get it, people want screaming V10s, more overtakes, and the halos are ugly, but I think that rule needs to be reversed or it may do more damage to F1 than the former three combined.

      1. I fear it could make F1 a race of reliability

        For decades F1 has been a race of reliability; and many of us with the rose-tinted spectacles refer to that era.
        If anything F1 is too reliable now, which takes away that uncertainty in the championship.

      2. That’s perfectly okay in endurance racing, but when drivers are only allowed to run flat out for no more than 5-10 laps in a 90 minute race because they have to save the engine, that’s a huge issue.

        People used to do that (limit the boost) to save the engine and I don’t think many complained.

    11. It is sad to see the myth of the pay gap being posted here on this site. In reality the pay gap is well understood and it is mainly about two things. Men do more work hours per week and more overtime. It only becomes a real gender issue at the very top salary levels (women CEOs get paid less than males) but of course it is a nice sound bite that if you count averages and then you get lower average for women. Look where the averages come from. Compares hours and and see the gap disappear.

      1. Your point is entirely incorrect as those reported pay gaps are for the mean and median *hourly* rate, which you would know if you read the text under the headline on this page.

        1. Mean and median rates usually include different hourly pays for overtime increasing the average per hour. If you work for 8 hours per day you get 8 hours worth of pay. If you work 12 hours per day you get a lot more than 12 hours worth of pay. Of course different work places have different overtime paying systems.

          1. In other words if you work 40 hours per week your average is different than if you work 50 hours per week. Here’s the first result from google: https://www.statista.com/statistics/280749/monthly-full-time-weekly-hours-of-work-in-the-uk-by-gender-year-on-year/

    12. Re: Comment of the Day
      Ferrari does not have an “advantage written into the rules” from a sporting prespective. Ferrari has a more favorable commercial deal. Does Ferrari “deserve it”? Apparently Bernie thought so, which is why Ferrari has the deal.

      The point of a breakaway series is that the economics are so blindingly obvious. Liberty Media brings nothing to the table other than having solidified the legacy of Bernie CVC & Co. in financial concrete.
      A breakaway series immediately vaporizes the financial obligation of providing a cost-of-capital return on Liberty’s massive invested capital base. And this capital is not invested in any assets that keep the F1 circus rolling, rather it is simply the intangible assets and goodwill related to the multi-billions that Bernie, CVC, etc. carried off into the sunset.
      If Ferrari (and Mercedes) were to form a breakaway series they would capitalize (provide cash to) an operating company. They would offer other teams an equity stake in the operating company in return for their participation. Shreholders of this operating company would receive a share of the net income in proportion to their sharesholdings in the company. The difference is that this new operating company, i.e. new “F1” series, would not need to allocate almost $1.0 billion per year to providing a return on capital for the legacy of Bernie CVC & Co.
      All of F1’s stakeholders would be better off in this arrangement, save for one. Teams are better off because they will receive all of the net income, not 50%. Race promoters are better off because, without the burden of Liberty’s capital base, the deals for hosting a race will allow a promoter to earn a profit. Fans are better off because lower hosting fees mean more reasonable ticket prices. The only “stakeholder” that’s not better off are FWONA shareholders and Liberty/FOG bondholders, who would likely lose everything. Too bad for them.

      1. I think Ferrari’s veto power is their ‘advantage written into the rules’.
        Support all technical change you like, whilst vetoing rule changes wich might disadvantage you.

      2. And all of this breakaway speculation is nothing more than that…speculation filled with huge assumptions. There would be massive financial outlay to set a new series up with all that it encompasses, and time needed to garner a following/revenues. It is so easy to say in a few sentences how wonderful it would be compared to the Liberty F1 that we now have. But to actually implement it is so complex that it would take years of organizing and putting everything together to even start race one of a series, as opposed to just verbally snapping one’s fingers and making it so in a few paragraphs from one’s armchair.

        What do the cars look like and how much time do the teams have to redesign and put to a track said cars? And what engines? Makers get 3 or 4 years to design for those. If Ferrari feels so limited in development, presumably their series would not hinder R&D and thus spending then? Who wants more spending races? As in which teams, and what audience wants to continue to see money = winning? Who is writing the rules? What are the rules? What about testing? Who is supplying the tires? What aero package and how much dirty air effect? What are the venues and what do the contracts look like with them? Promotion? Advertising? Television rights? Other social media? Who decides the quali format? The race format? ie. Who would be in charge and what would their philosophy be that so many would be in such agreement with compared to what we have now? Would there be unlimited spending with no concern for the costs to the teams? Unlimited development? Unlimited testing? Wind tunnel usage? Assuming they charged venues half the fees to host an event, what if less than half the audience buys in and attends this breakaway series? What are the contingency plans when one doesn’t just assume that the following and thus revenues will immediately be there, like low hanging fruit?

        And to say Liberty brings nothing to the table is ridiculous. Were they just handed F1 and it’s obligation to CVC? Or did they not actually contribute money to buy F1? Have they not immediately put a group together that will actually study closer racing and implement said fact-based findings? Their contribution has to be limited for the time being as they sort out a better way for F1 than we had under BE. Contracts have to see their way through, and no knee-jerk changes are ruling the day as they did under BE’s money grab methods. Their contribution has not only been financial, but they are there to wright a ship that’s been taking on water.

        Here’s what I know right now. Liberty are saying all the right things that would aim F1 to be a better product on the track. If some top teams can’t deal with that and need to keep their massive advantages in order to win, then they are the problem and aren’t willing to play in a more level playing field. So the very reasons that might cause them to leave Liberty, are the very reasons I would never trust them in their own series and therefore I would never follow said series. So if a breakaway series happened, and one of the results of that would be they would bury Liberty and F1 as we know it, I simply would stop watching. It would be an indication to me that those going with the breakaway would be greedy and self-interested and would end up just as bad as the BE era brought F1 to be…uninterested in a fairer and better way.

    13. Agree with the COTD. I just don’t see other teams lining up to play on a court where Ferrari make the rules. I mean, it’s ridiculous enough that Ferrari have a right to veto rules in F1, take a lion’s share of royalty payments, and exercise a heavy political influence on everything in Formula 1. Unfortunately, even with their current advantages, they still aren’t capable of bagging a championship. So the only next option for them is to be in a sport where they can control all the rules and governance.
      I think they should start a runaway series called Ferrari One – Where they have Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Fiat with their respective A/B and C teams competing against each other. They can fix the outcomes of the races to have Ferrari win, and create a sport that is the WWE of motor racing.

    14. Uh Ferrari, they’re awful. I hear they poisoned Carlitos Sainz jr on top of the Haas wheel mechanics. Ferrari are evil.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.