51 replies to this topic

[SenorSjon]

https://www.motorspo...survey/6659719/

 

Direct link: https://f1-global-fa...motorsport.com/

 

Well, new one is up. If you have been blocked by the spamwall, throw away your cookie and you can do it again, now without mandatory mailspam checkboxes.

 

Most notable to me is question 38 for a peek what they want to do in the future.

Rating is 1-5 for disagree >>> agree

1) Introduction sprint race has improved the show

2) Refueling back

3) Succes ballast

4) Use all three tire compounds in the race.

5) Reverse grids

6) More than one tire supplier

7) Design freeze the whole year, no car updates

8) Heavy penalties for track limiets

9) Teams should be able to buy customer cars

10) Drivers are free to race and only penalties for dangerous driving

11) F1 should be leading on renewable fuels

12) Race for reserve drivers during the weekend

13) Sprint Q at every event

14) Points for qualy (not being SQ).

 

No questions about proper sounding cars, size or what like.

[Marklar]

I found it ridiculous that in the question about what elements exceeded or didnt met your expectations you couldnt just say "I dont like it in the first place". There was stuff there like celebrity attendance or amount of crashes/danger! I can only say if there is as much as I expected or not, if I say there is less than I expected they will probably conclude that more celebrities/crashes/danger are needed, if I say it exceeded my expectations they will probably conclude that they are doing a great job and we need more of that. This survey is a scam.

[Burtros]

It’s a very odd question that, I did it last night. Exceeds my expectations??

I read the question about 4 times and in the end it wasn’t at all clear so I nearly stopped.

I think the traditionalist are ‘gonna have a bad time’ in the coming years looking at some of those questions.

[Taxi]

done 

[Heyli]

I found it ridiculous that in the question about what elements exceeded or didnt met your expectations you couldnt just say "I dont like it in the first place". There was stuff there like celebrity attendance or amount of crashes/danger! I can only say if there is as much as I expected or not, if I say there is less than I expected they will probably conclude that more celebrities/crashes/danger are needed, if I say it exceeded my expectations they will probably conclude that they are doing a great job and we need more of that. This survey is a scam.

I guess in this case with "expectations" they mean how much you would like it? 

[Astandahl]

Done it.

As usual i voted for refuel to be implemented again. Thank you for including this option.

Another point i highlighted is the necessity to ditch Pay TV exclusive deals and focus on streaming platforms which could help in getting new fans into the sport, on top of providing exciting races.

Edited by Astandahl, 09 September 2021 - 08:48.

[ANF]

No question about point for fastest lap?

[milestone 11]

As Marklar says, a scam. Nevertheless, I made my views crystal clear in the comments box at the end.

[JimmyClark]

It’s a very odd question that, I did it last night. Exceeds my expectations??

I read the question about 4 times and in the end it wasn’t at all clear so I nearly stopped.

I think the traditionalist are ‘gonna have a bad time’ in the coming years looking at some of those questions.

Yes I was confused too. I couldn't tell if its what you wanted f1 to be or what you currently thought it was delivering - it was utterly unclear.

[Rediscoveryx]

I found it ridiculous that in the question about what elements exceeded or didnt met your expectations you couldnt just say "I dont like it in the first place". There was stuff there like celebrity attendance or amount of crashes/danger! I can only say if there is as much as I expected or not, if I say there is less than I expected they will probably conclude that more celebrities/crashes/danger are needed, if I say it exceeded my expectations they will probably conclude that they are doing a great job and we need more of that. This survey is a scam.

 

Very good points.

 

Also, these surveys also give you the impression that they are incapable of understanding trade-offs. It's all about maximizing each individual component regardless of whether or not that'll have a detrimental impact on other areas.

 

So for instance, it is just taken for granted that we want "more overtaking". There's no way to express a view that DRS could actually be too effective on some locations and that they should get rid of it for that reason.

 

...or that the issue with sprint races isn't whether or not they are entertaining in their own right, but that they have a potentially negative knock-on effect on the actual race (as they increase the probability that cars'll line up in race pace order on Sunday).

 

...and just what would they do to create more "exciting crashes" if the general public feels that the ones we are having aren't "meeting their expectations"?

Edited by Rediscoveryx, 09 September 2021 - 09:18.

[Ali623]

Yeah as others have mentioned, it feels like the questions/answers have been purposely worded to be confusing - I also had no clue what didn't meet/exceeded my expectations meant in regards to half of these questions

[ANF]

I found it ridiculous that in the question about what elements exceeded or didnt met your expectations you couldnt just say "I dont like it in the first place". There was stuff there like celebrity attendance or amount of crashes/danger! I can only say if there is as much as I expected or not, if I say there is less than I expected they will probably conclude that more celebrities/crashes/danger are needed, if I say it exceeded my expectations they will probably conclude that they are doing a great job and we need more of that. This survey is a scam.

I really don't understand that question. Or questions. Do they want to know if I think the spectacular crashes are spectacular enough and if I think they are important?
"On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is well below expectations and 5 is far exceeds expectations, please rate the following attributes and their importance to the appeal of Formula One?"

[Risil]

For that one I just put meets my expectations. Like I expect there to be crashes, and some of them will be spectacular because that's the nature of fast and lightweight racing cars. Not sure why they were asking me the question though! Presumably there's not going to be a mandatory crash rule.

[Risil]

I wonder what they'll think about what I said about what an affordable F1 ticket price would be. There was no option for "Just charge what they do for the Indy 500" sadly.

[ANF]

Instead of having four questions about the price for a general admission ticket, maybe they could ask fans what they are willing to pay for a general admission ticket, a grandstand ticket with a shitty view, the best seat in the house, and a meet the drivers pit walk on Friday afternoon to substitute the need for a Sprint Qualifying 🤮 schedule.

[Rodaknee]

Where do these questions come from Motorsport Network or Liberty?  Is it James Allen attempting to discover what he can write about in the next 12 months?

 

How long have they been sitting on this questionaire?

 

 

Which races do you consider are essential for the Formula One calendar?

Vietnam

[deepsouth]

Agree some of the questions were stupid - have to laugh that this is the culmination of all these big well established organisations coming together to put together this survey, when unqualified pleb me (and half of you) could've done better.

 

Anyway, I did the survey regardless, and let em have it in the comments at the end 

Edited by deepsouth, 09 September 2021 - 11:40.

[HerbieMcQueen]

I wonder what they'll think about what I said about what an affordable F1 ticket price would be. There was no option for "Just charge what they do for the Indy 500" sadly.

 

To attend an attendance restricted Italian Grand Prix this year would cost four times as much as what I paid to attend the Indy 500 this year. Crazy.

Edited by HerbieMcQueen, 09 September 2021 - 11:50.

[Beamer]

I found it ridiculous that in the question about what elements exceeded or didnt met your expectations you couldnt just say "I dont like it in the first place". There was stuff there like celebrity attendance or amount of crashes/danger! I can only say if there is as much as I expected or not, if I say there is less than I expected they will probably conclude that more celebrities/crashes/danger are needed, if I say it exceeded my expectations they will probably conclude that they are doing a great job and we need more of that. This survey is a scam.

Same here. Most meets my expectations, but i couldnt care less or would just not have it at all. Very bad line of questioning

[Marklar]

Results are in

Ferrari being apparently only the third most popular team does make this a tad questionable in terms of representativeness besides of the way the survey was framed in general, but hey ho

https://cdn-1.motors...portnetwork.pdf


most relevant bit

Edited by Marklar, 21 October 2021 - 15:44.

[A.Fant]

Results are in

Ferrari being apparently only the third most popular team does make this a tad questionable in terms of representativeness besides of the way the survey was framed in general, but hey ho

https://cdn-1.motors...portnetwork.pdf


most relevant bit

VERY disheartened by there being any semblance of support for the reintroduction of refueling. It's clear that the pundits and journalists have not been doing their duty in explaining how fundamental refueling was in the Trulli Train phenomenon and how it removed any semblance of strategic flexibility.

[ANF]

I really don't understand that question. Or questions. Do they want to know if I think the spectacular crashes are spectacular enough and if I think they are important?
"On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is well below expectations and 5 is far exceeds expectations, please rate the following attributes and their importance to the appeal of Formula One?"

I still don't understand this, but it seems that Spectacular Crashes etc. were "brand attributes" secretly linked to other "brand attributes" and "important measures" (or should it read "features"?) in other questions:

"The top five brand attributes in 2021 have been identified by fans as Exciting, Technological, Expensive, Competitive and Entertaining. It is the first time that "entertaining" has entered the top five attributes.

 Supporting this evidence is the fans' belief that F1 exceeds expectation for five of their top six most important measures. We tested F1's core attributes by weighing fan reaction for and against multiple factors and offsetting the resulting positive and negative responses.

 The results show that fans agreed F1 was exceeding expectation against many key measures:

 [Chart 5.2]

 The only under-performing key attribute was that F1 'Provides lots of overtaking' – this recorded a net disagreement of -10.2%. This is clearly an area that it aims to improve with the 2022 rules set.

Edited by ANF, 21 October 2021 - 17:04.

[Ruusperi]

So, are Domenicali and Brawn going to ignore the findings involving sprint races and other gimmicks:

"Fans continue to dismiss perceived artificial race manipulation"

"Introduce Sprint races at every GP -43.0%"

"Introduce reverse grid system -51.5%"

 

I don't know they use these confusing percentages. Why no simple frequency histogram of "Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree" answers?

[ANF]

Results are in

Ferrari being apparently only the third most popular team does make this a tad questionable in terms of representativeness besides of the way the survey was framed in general, but hey ho

https://cdn-1.motors...portnetwork.pdf


most relevant bit

So F1 fans would rather see the introduction of success ballast than have sprint races at every GP!

Formula One Group will probably come to the conclusion that fans want sprint races at almost every GP...

[PayasYouRace]

Results are in

Ferrari being apparently only the third most popular team does make this a tad questionable in terms of representativeness besides of the way the survey was framed in general, but hey ho

https://cdn-1.motors...portnetwork.pdf


most relevant bit
 

 

Looks like people are coming to their senses and realising refuelling was bad.

 

I wonder why the interest in customer cars has waned? Haas? Force India last year?

 

That's assuming I'm reading that strange graph format correctly.

[Ali623]

Results are in

Ferrari being apparently only the third most popular team does make this a tad questionable in terms of representativeness besides of the way the survey was framed in general, but hey ho

https://cdn-1.motors...portnetwork.pdf


most relevant bit

 

So is 'Change' meant to mean we want it? Why is this graph so confusing...

[P123]

So is 'Change' meant to mean we want it? Why is this graph so confusing...

 

I'm assuming 'don't change' really means 'Against', and 'Change' is 'For'.  So around 50% were against reverse grids ("don't change to"??).

 

But as ever, these surveys are widely hyped and publicised after completion, for another to creep along at some point for a bit of rinse and repeat with either slight or wild variations in responses.

[Astandahl]

Refueling coming back is still my dream.

[PayasYouRace]

So is 'Change' meant to mean we want it? Why is this graph so confusing...

 

I took it to mean "Don't change" being liking it the way things are and "Change" being wanting something new.

 

So on matters with large bars to the left, people generally want things as they are. On matters with large bars to the right, people want that thing either introduced or removed compared to the current situation.

 

But I could be wrong.

[ANF]

So is 'Change' meant to mean we want it? Why is this graph so confusing...

I'm sure you can find the answer to that in How to Lie with Statistics.

[Marklar]

Guess the detailed results didnt went as they wanted

[PayasYouRace]

What kind of cretin would be happy with just 3 Grands Prix a year?

[Risil]

There were 3 Grands Prix in 1912 and we considered ourselves lucky to have them.

[Collombin]

What kind of cretin would be happy with just 3 Grands Prix a year?

To be fair, the red option seems to say greater than 4.

[Rumblestrip]

Shouldn't that be "< 4" in the graph legend? Or am I starting to lose it?

 

Also, why is there no breakdown beyond 13+ ?

[PayasYouRace]

To be fair, the red option seems to say greater than 4.

 

It does, but that in itself makes it an entirely meaningless option. The context indicates they meant less than 4.

[Marklar]

Shouldn't that be "< 4" in the graph legend? Or am I starting to lose it?

Also, why is there no breakdown beyond 13+ ?

I'm going to be a cynic here and say that most people voted for around 20 races (or even less), rather than 25, so this is obviously not wanted, since we are meant to believe that we want more races.

(I mean that's 99.9 % certain what happened)

Edited by Marklar, 21 October 2021 - 20:51.

[P123]

Guess the detailed results didnt went as they wanted

 

Was that the options for the question, or do they just not want to show the breakdown of the rest?  Comical either way, as it is nearly 50 years since there were 13 or fewer races in a season. 

[Jellyfishcake]

I'm going to be a cynic here and say that most people voted for around 20 races (or even less), rather than 25, so this is obviously not wanted, since we are meant to believe that we want more races.

(I mean that's 99.9 % certain what happened)

 

Yeap i'd agree with this, chosing to say greater than 13 races per season is too low for a 'proper' group, considering it was 16+ races a season since i've been watching in 1997,

so 13 is way too small for it to not be creative stats showing

[ANF]

Guess the detailed results didnt went as they wanted

In 2017 the results were presented like this:

Edited by ANF, 21 October 2021 - 21:30.

[PlatenGlass]

I always said 15 was an under-rated number.

[Ruusperi]

Guess the detailed results didnt went as they want

You cannot make this stuff up. That's what we call 'Putin level' stats manipulation.

 

This is why I always demand to see numeric data. Guess they're not going publish it as open access...

Edited by Ruusperi, 21 October 2021 - 22:06.

[Collombin]

I always said 15 was an under-rated number.

And 21 over-rated. Jeez what a terrible presentation of data.

[F1 Mike]

Manipulated results to suit the agenda of F1 - absolutely 100% clear

[ARTGP]

Guess the detailed results didnt went as they wanted

Laughable lol. As mentioned above, How to lie in statistics 101

Edited by ARTGP, 21 October 2021 - 22:50.

[r4mses]

those categories are utter trash alltogether. Who in his right mind wants a championship with less then four races per year? (I assume the > is the wrong way, otherwise it's even more stupid)

[ARTGP]

What kind of cretin would be happy with just 3 Grands Prix a year?

Don’t rule out the possibility that some people who have taken the survey can’t actually read....That is far more probable than somebody being happy with a 3 or less round championship.

Edited by ARTGP, 21 October 2021 - 22:55.

[Anderis]

Guess the detailed results didnt went as they wanted

What am I even looking at...

[Calum]

That's incredible the way they've displayed the 2021 'preferred ideal number or races' from fans. 

[ARTGP]

In 2017 the results were presented like this:

 

Following this trend, F1 seems to be in an ideal place at 19-21 races.  And I'd agree with that. I'd be happy with 19 rounds. From 2006 through 2017, there basically does not seem to be a growing appetite for races from fans. Only a growing appetite from the organizers.