Carmen Jorda didn’t just light a match. She brought a flamethrower to the gender-in-motorsport debate. A former Lotus development driver and member of the FIA Women in Motorsport Commission, she made repeated claims that there’s a physical barrier preventing women from reaching Formula 1 and Formula 2. The reaction? Swift, brutal, and from some of the sport’s biggest names. File this under: Yikes.
Let’s be clear. Jorda wasn’t just voicing doubts. She argued women should target Formula E because it’s “less physical” thanks to lower downforce and power steering. Translation: aim lower. The plot thickens like F1’s excuse list.
What Jorda said — and why it blew up
Jorda’s headline claim was simple: in F1 and F2, there’s a physical issue for women. She said the demands of those cars are a barrier women can’t realistically overcome, while suggesting categories like karting, Formula 3, and GT are fine. It wasn’t a subtle take. It was a line in the sand, and she drew it with a marker the size of a front wing.
Then came the kicker: she pointed to Formula E as a more suitable destination for women because the cars are easier to drive. Less downforce. Power steering. Less outright load. Sounds tidy on paper. In a paddock full of racers who live to prove people wrong, it sounded like a dare.
The backlash: big names, bigger punches
Jenson Button didn’t tiptoe. He slammed the notion that a physical barrier is what’s keeping women out of F1. He name-checked Danica Patrick, said she’d “kick his butt in the gym,” and could match any current F1 driver for strength. Button’s verdict? Physicality isn’t Jorda’s issue. That’s a mic drop.
Female drivers weren’t impressed either. People inside the sport called Jorda’s stance a “backwards step” for women. When you’re on the FIA’s Women in Motorsport Commission and women in motorsport are eye-rolling, you’ve missed the apex by a mile.
Where the argument falls apart
Top-level single-seaters are brutal. No one’s disputing that. Neck loads, heat, G-forces — the track temperature hits levels that would make Hell consider air conditioning. But turning that into a blanket ceiling for women? That’s not analysis. That’s surrender. And motorsport doesn’t pay for surrender.
Physical prep can be tailored. Drivers build neck and core strength like it’s a second job. Access, funding, and seat time matter more than chromosomes. Blaming biology is just another way to ignore the ladder’s broken rungs. Bold strategy: let’s do exactly what lost us the last three races.
History check: women have done the miles
Lella Lombardi started an F1 race in 1976 and scored points. Susie Wolff ran F1 practice sessions for Williams in 2015–16. Tatiana Calderón earned a Sauber test role. Simona de Silvestro raced in Formula E. Danica Patrick won in IndyCar and fought in NASCAR. Not a flood, sure. But proof the door isn’t locked by biology — it’s jammed by opportunity.
Saying women can’t because of F1’s physicality? That defense was pure Schumacher — minus the success part. The better question is why so few women get the same simulator hours, junior seats, and long-term investment. Spoiler: it’s not because the neck machine ran out of weights.
Why this became a lightning rod
Jorda made these comments while holding a role intended to elevate women in the sport. That’s why the blowback hit harder. It’s one thing for a pundit to stir the pot; it’s another when the spoon belongs to the kitchen. Somewhere, a PR manager just had a minor stroke.
She also pushed for an all-female championship. A few drivers liked the visibility. Many didn’t, arguing it walls women off rather than helps them reach mixed-category top tiers. Channeling 2016 Mercedes, except nobody asked for that sequel.
The Formula E angle
Formula E’s cars are different, yes. Lower downforce, power steering, and street circuits that punish mistakes. But “easier” is doing heavy lifting there. Energy management, brake-by-wire, and tire conservation turn races into chess at 200 kph. Calling it the softer option? That’s how you start fights in the paddock.
Also, FE isn’t a retirement home. It’s pulled champions from everywhere. If the pitch is “women should go there because it’s simpler,” don’t be surprised when the garage doors slam shut. The wind played favorites today — apparently it’s not a Jorda fan.
So what actually holds women back?
- Pipeline and funding: fewer seats, fewer sponsors, fewer long-term bets on female talent.
- Seat time: less testing equals slower development. Shocking, we know.
- Bias: subtle, structural, and deadly for careers before they start.
- Visibility: fewer role models, fewer recruits. It’s not rocket science.
Fix those, and talk to us about lap times. Until then, pointing at neck muscles is like blaming the pit board for a slow stop. Another masterclass in how NOT to diagnose a performance gap.
Jorda’s intent vs impact
To be fair, Jorda says she wants more women in motorsport, from karting to engineering. She’s not the villain twirling a mustache. But her message landed like a locked door. If the headline is “women can’t do F1,” you’ve just handed every skeptic their new favorite quote.
She could have championed tailored training, improved junior access, and better funding. Instead, we got “try Formula E.” Lights out and away we… oh wait, ambition already lost.
The bottom line
Carmen Jorda was controversial because she framed F1’s gender gap as a physical inevitability, not a fixable system failure. Drivers and champions dismantled the claim in minutes. The sport needs more women, not more ceilings dressed up as realism. Grab your popcorn, the debate isn’t over.
Women don’t need a separate lane. They need the same car, the same prep, and the same faith teams give teenage rookies with Super Licences and rich uncles. Until then, the competition? Reduced to expensive spectators — watching another opportunity spin into the gravel.