Stop using your Gender as a weapon as it's becoming BORING!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, you know you all wanted to say it.
"Gender as a weapon"?! As Freud might have said: Perhaps you haff an irrational fear off ze vagina dentata.
Penis envy more like for Susie? I think Freud's detractors used the term "Womb envy" for men as in that they are jealous they cant "have" children themselves etc or so I remember.
Some women have a 'hostile' womb, apparently... I don't know whether teeth are involved in that or not.
a little harsh. I think she has done her self merit today. certainly put a quicker lap than I was expecting. Though I don't think she has the talent or past success to become an F1 Racer. She is better than some tail end pay drivers who also don't belong in F1 (cucumber, Guitierrez, Chilton). now there's a good point... Is Wolff better than Max?
El bando you devil you...............that's a great subject to "filter" around the F1 world with just like "did you know Paul di Resta beat Seb in F3?"
I like Susie Wolff and I'm pleased that she has impressed during this test. Max Chilton seems sort of creepy to me, as well as bland and mediocre so, for me it's Susie > Max
I'll agree with the previous comments and say that this is a little harsh. I don't think Susie is using her gender as a weapon so much as fighting back against the people who write her off solely on account of that same gender, of which there are quite a lot. The media are the ones who seem determined to make her into a champion of women's rights in F1, and I don't blame her for going along with that.
Her best lap was a good time but for all we know she could have been on a qualifying fuel load - based on her junior record she probably was. Put her in a Friday practice session. Then we'll see how quick she is. In the meantime no doubt Susie will start talking about how her performance proves her doubters wrong blah blah blah..... but I'm yet to be convinced.
Off topic perhaps but it's interesting to think what any F1 driver has to do in order to prove themselves quick. For example, we frequently talk about how practice sessions are irrelevant and we shouldn't look too much into a driver popping up at the top of the timesheets. So perhaps we should chuck her in a race and see how good she is. But then we also sometimes - and the key is it does seem to only be sometimes - say that it takes a while to get used to F1. Which perhaps, from the way you're kind of asking her to be thrown in at the deep end, leads me to infer that you've to an extent already written Wolff off as a driver and will only be convinced if she turns up and immediately trounces Maldonado. (Apologies if that's not the case) It seems - and this is not a criticism, because I'm sure I'm just as guilty of it - that a lot of what we think of any rookie simply comes down to whether we think they'll come good. See also people's defences of Vergne and people's criticisms of Bruno Senna when he replaced Heidfeld - so many people seemed to want him to fail and demand instant success, when at the same time they could give someone else time to prove themselves. At the same time, I and a couple of others perhaps gave Senna too much time to prove himself, so it's not an exact science. But I do think we need some consistency. I know that it's quite funny that I've got "supporting Max Chilton" in my signature but, well, the wave of negative vitriol aimed against him at the start of the season - when he hadn't even driven the Marussia in anger - kind of necessitated it. Hell, take a look at di Resta - start of the season and everyone was saying Sutil would trump him, when he actually hadn't done a bad job at all the season before. Now he looks like a decent shot for a top seat. I think it shows that we as fans write drivers off far too readily, although I don't think the selection system is by any means perfect either. Just my two cents.
It's worth mentioning that her poor DTM results were due in part to having a car about 2 1/2 years out of date each season. I'm no fan, but she did do a pretty good job today
