Autosport F1 Fan Survey

[bjohnsonsmith]

Autosport, that illustrious motosports organ, recently carried out a fan survey on F1 and have today published their findings.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120142

I thought it would be interesting to see what Tenthers make of it.

[Deleted]

I don't understand why they only decided to make Excel graphs of half of the results Full time staff on vacation and gave the task to some summer job guy/gal?

Meh questions but was gladly surprised how many people - 77,9% - wanted open tires instead of the spec crap F1 is force feeding to the public. I had the impression from Autosport forums that most people there preferred the one-way-supply for some bizarre reason, so this was good. Not that it's gonna change anything though.

[Richard C]

I expect people will focus in on parts of the survey that speak to them personally and I am no different. I also am not commenting on things that didn't particularly surprise me. Here are my thoughts...

* Fans want more infographics during broadcast closely followed by better paddock access. I have been a fan of more (and smarter) display of data on screens. I think a lot could be done with that as long as there is not information overload.

* I find it interesting that almost half of the respondents haven't attended a race in person in the past 10 years. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

* Almost half are not willing to pay to watch races on TV

* Clearly nobody wants the double points at end of season. Hopefully they will continue to listen to us on that.

* Majority wants to see refueling is a real surprise to me.

* I like that fans are open to third cars, but only for young drivers.

* Thankfully fans don't want a two tier series (spec chassis for some, full constructor for others)

* Slightly surprised at amount of support for more freedom on technical regulations and crazy high (90.1%) that F1 should be cutting edge technology. Given so many here feel the opposite, we must have a very vocal, but very much in the minority population here. I sometimes feel in the minority by saying it should not revert to decades old tech in an effort to spice things up. I would pick this as my one large "wow" moment.

* Strong support for customer cars, but not spec cars.

* Fans don't give a flip if Red Bull or Ferrari quit. I am more shocked at the Ferrari part of that, and I hope that can potentially drive more equitable distribution of funds and I should show the value of Ferrari as a brand in F1 is (while still strong) over-hyped/over-valued.

Richard

[S griffin]

I voted on the survey and while I'm not surprised by most of the results, I am that people want refuelling back. It was hardly conductive to pure racing and added unnecessary danger, so I hope that remains a no-no

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I expect people will focus in on parts of the survey that speak to them personally and I am no different....

What is your age?

18-40 59.3%
41-60 27.3%


so i turn 41 in a couple of years ...does that mean chances are that i will stop watching f1 or does it just mean i will stop filling out surveys?

i imagine there are more detailed reports but i would be interesting to know what the responses were if additionally broken down by age group.

also bit surprised by how many want additional info on screen but how few in comparison to those who watch a race on TV without a second screen/live timing.

Which of the following would give you more insight into F1?

Better on-screen info graphics 29.8%

vs

When watching a grand prix do you use a second screen to access live timing through the F1 app or formula1.com website?

No 49.8%

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

...also bit surprised by how many want additional info on screen but how few in comparison to those who watch a race on TV without a second screen/live timing.

Which of the following would give you more insight into F1?

Better on-screen info graphics 29.8%

vs

When watching a grand prix do you use a second screen to access live timing through the F1 app or formula1.com website?

No 49.8%

So, I noticed that as well. I think I have read posts on this forum before that people don't want the screen covered in infographics and a lot of data during the race. I get that. So you would "think" that using a second device (tablet for example) might add value. I am torn between "build it and they will come" and "being immersed in the race means having the time to focus on just one screen"

At the moment, I suspect the issue is that the value of a second device just isn't known yet. That they need a real "killer app" that will revolutionize things. If you dig back into a post I made months ago, I think what should be done is to expose a lot of the data that teams are sending back to the pits to the fans. I think it would be interesting to see what is going on with respect to ERS levels, when and where on track they are using it, fuel flow rates, comparative analysis between team mates plus the cars that are around a given driver (position battles). Basically the type of analysis that you see after the race by data nerds, but done live during the race. I think the roadblocks are... (1) It would expose data that is (currently) proprietary to teams (2) It would be a large investment to create good analytics without any really understanding if it would be well received by fans or not.

This is an interesting topic for me as I handle data and analytics in my day job. I can imagine the types of things that could be done in real time with this data.

Richard

[chillibowl]

the teams have already given FOM permission to use a lot of other data streams during the television broadcasts so i would be curious to know where they draw the line between what they already share and what is proprietary.

but ill go with door number 2, given what we know about FOM they are probably just waiting for someone else to eat the huge development costs of such an app and then charge them a licensing fee for the trouble of doing it.

[chillibowl]

to add to that, could be a smart move if one of the teams just took the initiative, say merc, and provided those details for themselves and their customers.

in the absence of anything else i would use their app and essentially my interest/focus would be directed towards the merc powered teams. good for branding and social media footprint with the added benefit of people paying less attention to their competition.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The thing is, if each question had a space for a comment or caveat what would those likely to be.... These are my own caveats or comments

Better on-screen info graphics 29.8% ... but not all at the same time

Using a second screen for info No 49.8% ... because the data runs about half a lap behind

Return of refuelling 61.3% ... only if it means they can drive flat out the full race and not have to lift and coast for 10-15 laps in the middle of the race.

Artificial methods to tighten up F1 No 73.9% ... depends on what they are, given we already have spec tyres, DRS, common ECUs etc.

Third Cars yes but only for young Drivers 39.5% ... would that be in the main race, or as a seperate qually and race within the weekend? I'd prefer the latter.

There are still loads of shades of Grey in these mutiple choice questions.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Looking at the on screen Graphics that I think could be added without too much difficulty and using what information already appears to be available.

In Free Practices
The tower graphic could alternate the current best lap times set, with showing the number of laps completed by each driver. Or in addition to whether in the Pit or out lap, the number of laps into a run. This could be combined with a coloured market for the tyre type.

In Qually it would be good to have a visual on who is running on a new tyre, or doing for example, a first attempt of Q2 on the same tyre as they used for Q1.

Other Motorsports during Qually show "purple Sectors" on their tower graphics, not sure if I'd want that for all the cars all the time, Perhaps for the Drop Zone cars in Q1 and Q2 whereby their splits are on target to lift them clear of the zone could be indicated on the tower. (This could even help the TV director catch some of these exiting the last corner and crossing the line).

In the race, they currently when focusing in on one driver put tyre progression onto their graphic.
How about using the tower to show tyre progression*, so on the formation lap it shows each drivers name in their position and their starting tyre. Perhaps after every 10-15 laps depending on the race obviously, show the tower again those that have changed tyres at that point will now have 2 marks besides their name, the same colour of the kept the same compound, and different if they have changed. Latter in the race some drivers may have made a second stop and have 3 marks.
This would also allow the viewer to keep in mind the midfield runners who are perhaps trying to one stop when others are doing more.
* I think FOM may have done this previously but not with the current graphics set.

[Paradise City]

I'd like the elimination of in-race car-team telemetry and pit-to-team radio. A very simple way of injecting some excitement into the sport whilst staying within the boundaries of being a sport. That'd accomplish more than reintroducing in-race refueling and some of the other garbage they've gotten up to. Of course the teams kicked and screamed trying to resist modest attempts to go in this direction.

I'd also like the slight majority who voted to keep DRS unmasked, rounded up and publicly horsewhipped. I'm a peacenik. But sometimes the clowning around breaks a certain threshold where the only response to nonsense of that kind is to crack down on it - Saudi-style.



Info graphics. Keep it simple. A fixed element highlighting the top three and a near-by - but distinct - graphic scrolling through the order.

The Fox NASCAR people does this - except they don't leave it distinct for whatever reason and it looks like some goofball slowcoach in 39th is 4th when the timing gets to the back of the order. But the general idea is sound.

I actually struggle to remember if they persisted with this - but depicting drivers' names with three letters is NOT something that should be presented to a televised audience. It's not a big deal to put a surname there and it means less working out for the casual viewer.

I watch DTM occasionally with their three letter thing but I don't know half the drivers and the three letter info graphic just leaves me twitching with frustration.

Asking a question with the term 'artificial' is a meaningless question as the term 'artificial' is vague and negatively loaded. 'Cutting edge of technology' is also an unimpressive question. Another question unnecessarily used the term "two tier" which destroyed what otherwise would have been a good question about manufacturers and independents.

But I'm of the school of thought that says most people think they know what, actually don't know what they want and will often reject the very thing they had wanted when they actually get what it is that they had wanted in the first place!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I expect people will focus in on parts of the survey that speak to them personally

* Slightly surprised at amount of support for more freedom on technical regulations and crazy high (90.1%) that F1 should be cutting edge technology. Given so many here feel the opposite, we must have a very vocal, but very much in the minority population here. I sometimes feel in the minority by saying it should not revert to decades old tech in an effort to spice things up. I would pick this as my one large "wow" moment.

Richard

The things that get me about the apparent support for cutting edge technology:

It is not cutting edge, we have read the rules!

Nobody in the fan base actually knows what Mercedes are doing different that gives them such a massive advantage, "they are just doing everything better" just plain does not wash as a reason, and it certainly does not feed into my "oh wow look at how clever that is button!" It is all secret, so what is the point?

Currently nobody is allowed to test, develop or change anything worth a damn, so how is that technology?

How on earth can you say you are watching F1 because it is cutting edge technology?

As ScotsBrutesFan says, the survey is so full of grey areas you can draw any results you want to from the responses, so why anyone bothers to fill in the survey is beyond me!
Triumph of hope over experience I guess!



I want to see cars race! Make it so!

[VIVA GT]

Back to the having more information on screen as opposed to having a second screen showing live data question. Obviously this only works when you are watching the race live.
Those who can only watch the highlights, or those who record the live coverage to watch when more convenient (Always 17.1% Sometimes 52.9%) are not able to have the data on a second screen whilst watching the race.
(As always there are lies, damned lies and then statistics!)

[Sodemo]

I posted a thread about the lack of on-screen data about a year or more ago.

All of a sudden in around 2014 or 2015 it all vanished. No rev gauges, no speed indicators, no brake indicators, no G-Force meters.

Why has it all vanished?

My original thread...
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=143990

[Gingers4Justice]

When Mr Villeneuve said you should be careful asking the fans what they want, I think he might be on to something here. These answers are very confusing from where I'm sitting.

Do you think F1 has to be environmentally friendly?

Yes 41.1%
No 50.9%
No opinion 8%

Do you think it's important that Formula 1 is at the cutting edge of technology?

Yes 90.1%
No 7.6%
No opinion 2.2%

And

Do you think F1 benefits from having car manufacturers competing in the sport?

Yes 88.4%
No 6.4%
No opinion 5.2%

So we want car manufacturers in F1 using greater technical innovation, but we don't think F1 needs to be environmentally friendly? Can anyone else spot the problem here?

Formula One is not about car manufacturers, with the exception of one. It is not about Renault, or Honda, or Toyota, or whichever mass-production manufacturer that makes its money selling cars you run to the shops in. It's about the drivers, the personalities, and the boffins building cars that go fast just for the sake of it.

I want to tear my hair out every time I hear the word "road relevance" used in the same sentence as F1 regulations. Does anyone know how the Prost/Senna rivalry influenced the design of the Honda Accord? Did anyone come away from the film Rush thinking "I wonder how the technology employed in James Hunt's various machines has trickled down into my Fiesta?".

F1 fans want fast, sexy cars. Manufacturers want road relevance and a huge platform to prove that they're capable of making efficient, clean and high-performance vehicles. These two objectives, to me, are entirely at odds with each other.

If manufacturers want to race technology that they think will one day be used on the road, build a prototype and take it to Le Mans. If they want to prove their existing technology is fast, sexy and/or reliable, tune the engine up of one of your road models, stick a wing on it and take it to the Monte Carlo rally or race it in a touring car championship. But Formula One is not the place to do it, and its popularity has never been based on this.

Formula One has got itself in a right two-and-eight about what it's meant to be, and half of it could be solved (in my opinion) by accepting that it doesn't need car manufacturers other than Ferrari, which are of course an entirely different kettle of fish. In this survey, fans were calling for greater technical innovation, but their idea of technical innovation I would guess is very different from that of a road car manufacturer. The six-wheeled Tyrell, twin-floor Lotus, be-fanned Brabham Alfa Romeo, ground effect, heck even wings...most of it is entirely useless to a mass-volume car manufacturer, and while they have a say in the direction of the rules, these fans will never see the rulebook opened in the way they want it to be. Major manufacturers might accept the costs of the endless pursuit of designing the perfect fiddly front-wing endplate as part of the game, but beyond that, spending money chasing an advantage in areas that can never be used on a Megane or a Civic is just wasted R&D money to them and unjustifiable to skeptical board members, so you can forget it.

I would very much like to hear the other side of the argument though. What good has come from the influx of car manufacturers into the sport since the turn of the millennium?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

So we want car manufacturers in F1 using greater technical innovation, but we don't think F1 needs to be environmentally friendly? Can anyone else spot the problem here?

IMHO, I think you are reading too much into this, in that you have quickly equated technical innovation to environmental improvements.

While that could go hand in hand, it doesn't have to be that way. For example you could bring back active suspension + active aero of which neither are environmental in nature (such as lower fuel usage would be). Same thing regarding road relevancy. Manufactures will always need a bit of that to tie in from a PR side of things, but again it really is a separate topic.

Richard

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

IMHO, I think you are reading too much into this, in that you have quickly equated technical innovation to environmental improvements.

While that could go hand in hand, it doesn't have to be that way. For example you could bring back active suspension + active aero of which neither are environmental in nature (such as lower fuel usage would be). Same thing regarding road relevancy. Manufactures will always need a bit of that to tie in from a PR side of things, but again it really is a separate topic.

Richard

All teams running active suspension and active aero would be underwhelming in my book - that technology has been around since before I was born, and simply writing it back into the rulebook isn't particularly technically innovative. I'm talking about the space in the rulebook to do things we don't even know is possible yet, or that absolutely nobody else would have thought of yet.

I think I should have expanded my point more - fans like to see the next "it", the next thing a team comes up with that's so good they either have to ban it, or that the other teams spend a couple of years trying to perfect themselves.

For the record, I find the new Power Units extremely interesting but they remain deeply unpopular with fans. If we had Ferrari, Cosworth, Judd and AER sat around the table discussing rules with teams and the FIA, I doubt they would have come up with the same formula, or anything even close to it.

"Same thing regarding road relevancy. Manufactures will always need a bit of that to tie in from a PR side of things, but again it really is a separate topic." Richard I might have agreed with you a decade ago, but I think this is no longer true. Manufacturers simply have to be seen as being greener and more efficient (and rightly so, in my book), and road/brand relevance is more than just incidental these days because simply having your name in F1 will not do anymore. As it stands the manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in efficient, clean and mightily impressive power units in comparison to what we had before, and most fans care not one jot. I simply think that with car manufacturers in Formula One, the energy, time and money is invested in areas which aren't as appealing to the common man and woman on the spectator bankings or sofa.

[wolfhound]

If one looks at who is following F1 then the situation looks pretty healthy with about 86% of those that follow F1 in the 18 to 60 age bracket. these would tend to be people who are most likely to have some cash and be healthy enough to go to GP's. The other thing that comes out seems to be that F1 followers tend to be loyal as over 60% of fans have been around for over 15 years.

There are however some other things I noticed.
Spa is the most popular GP yet it is not financially viable and needs a subsidy from Government. The top ten popular GP's are all in strong motorsport countries with the exception of Singapore.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

All teams running active suspension and active aero would be underwhelming in my book - that technology has been around since before I was born, and simply writing it back into the rulebook isn't particularly technically innovative. I'm talking about the space in the rulebook to do things we don't even know is possible yet, or that absolutely nobody else would have thought of yet.

Maybe the active suspension and aero was a bad example on my part. If I knew what the next "it" thing would be, I would use that as an example (or be making money off of it!) My point was that what "it" is, it doesn't have to be environmental in nature. That can resolve the conflict you see in the survey.

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

For the record, I find the new Power Units extremely interesting but they remain deeply unpopular with fans.

IMHO, I think you are overstating the unpopularity. While those survey results can be tortured to produce any results, it shows a pretty even split on the current engine spec. Now I don't say that means it is a success and I agree it may not be what they would do in hindsight, but... The spec by itself doesn't appear to be the problem. Now don't get me started on the inability to development them however...

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Richard I might have agreed with you a decade ago, but I think this is no longer true. Manufacturers simply have to be seen as being greener and more efficient (and rightly so, in my book), and road/brand relevance is more than just incidental these days because simply having your name in F1 will not do anymore. As it stands the manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in efficient, clean and mightily impressive power units in comparison to what we had before, and most fans care not one jot. I simply think that with car manufacturers in Formula One, the energy, time and money is invested in areas which aren't as appealing to the common man and woman on the spectator bankings or sofa.

I don't think we are actually that far apart. I agree that as a whole the larger manufactures need to be seen as "greener" and I also wholly support that (even if it makes me look hypocritical with respect to my support for carbon fuel based racing!). However, to a degree, I think manufactures can sort of have it both ways with respect to racing. They could if they wanted continue to use them as marketing tools without converting F1 into Formula E (even if we may get there eventually and I suspect a fear of that is a strong driver on the slim "no" majority on the environmental question).

Overall, my point was that road relevancy will be there, but it still can be put into it's own category (mostly). Sadly what is happening these days is that the power unit is the main way they get any road relevancy out of F1. And this is maybe where we might agree the most and that is it is highly unlikely that we will reverse course on something like the power units. It is probably here to stay.

Richard