Start, Red Bull Ring, 2015

Survey shows fans want closer but gimmick-free F1

2015 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Start, Red Bull Ring, 2015A fan survey backed by the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association has given wide-ranging insight into what Formula One viewers want from the sport.

While a strong majority expressed a desire for closer racing – 89% agreed F1 needs to be “more competitive” – many felt this could be achieved by reversing some of F1’s recent rules changes. A significant number – 80% – wish to see tyre competition opened up again, while 60% voted for a return of refuelling.

DRS, introduced in 2011 to aid overtaking, appears to have fallen out of favour – just 40% believe it has improved racing in F1. There was little appetite for the introduction of gimmicks such as success ballast too, something only 26% want to see.

The calls for three-car teams appear not to have won many over either. Despite declining numbers of teams, a mere 14% agree F1 would be “better served by fewer teams running more cars”.

“You believe that the championship structure and grand prix weekends are well formatted with few changes required,” noted the executive summary of the results.

“However, the health of the sport can definitely be improved; there is a recognised need to attract new fans and retain existing fans who are in danger of being lost to other sports. This is due to in part to changes in TV broadcasting contracts and the increasing perception of (over) influence of business interests within F1.”

The point about television broadcasting was emphasised by the fact over half of those who responded said the increase in pay television deals had made them less likely to watch races live.

“More than ever, F1 needs to feature the best drivers and you are looking to drivers to take a lead in engaging with fans to revitalise the sport; drive technical and sporting change to improve the spectacle and appeal of F1,” it noted.

“Your key areas for change in the short-term are to the sound and power output of F1 engines, with more emphasis placed on driver skill, a return to re-fuelling and the re-introducing tyre competition.

“There is also a desire to see increased competition through a relaxing of technical regulations and the implementation of team budget caps.” The latter point was supported by more than half of the responses which were counted.

The survey findings were drawn from a weighted sample of 133,000 responses from a total of 217,756 submission.

2015 F1 season

Browse all 2015 F1 season articles

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 2015 F1 seasonTags , , , ,

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

  • 109 comments on “Survey shows fans want closer but gimmick-free F1”

    1. Reading the report are some very interesting points:
      Countries were F1 has a big tradition got the more respondent (England, Brazil, France…), but USA with have a tradition with motorsport also got lots of answer. To get conclusion U really would like to see cross data with age and country.

      The association with terms most be really worring for the marketing department. Te positioning of F1 should really take actions to take change this ideas.

      I would not run to made any changes until or unless there is a more detailed report of this survey (I bet there is).

      As online survey slant tent to be higher that in face to face/ telephone or other methodologies.

      1. Good points @celeste, but I understand that this is exactly why they used a weighted sample of “just 133.000” from a total of 217,756 filled in surveys they received.

        1. Is more about the way a respondent understand the question and the access to the survey.

          First is a question was not understand by the respondent as the way the designer of the instrument intended to, there is no way he can be assisted as in a face to face or telephone survey, some people will say that this should never or almost never happen but in this survey was translated to spanish, portuguese and japanese, so as simple as a problem in translation could have affected the respondent answer. Even when you have neighbor countries a problem in the communication could happen.

          Second is the access to internet, as a meaning to access to the survey. Let say in UK a 100% of the people have access to internet, but only 1 every 2 fans partipate in social media, the chances you have a representative sample is getting lower. Let´s say the Mexican market, I have read that almost 59% of poblation have habitual use of internet, pluss the access to survey keeps getting lower, and so.

          The note: RESULTS BASED ON THIS NUMBER AND WEIGHTED TO BE
          REPRESENTATIVE OF F1 FANS BY REGION AND INTEREST– could mean a lot. By example you weight the survey to reflect the number of television number? Of the real world population?, did they disscard countries that have answer and have low incomes to be important to F1? or did they disscard people with low income in general no matter the country? You will need a more profound methodology explanation to be able to correctly read the results of the survey.

          There a lot of way to read the results of a survey, a expert can give a negative twist to a positive result and sometimes you only feed the public what you want them to know and so they start making stament like “see I was right F1 should have refull” or start to wonder and questioning your own decision.

          It is assumed a lot in the desing stages of the design of a investigation, so in the end is only a references. As @mazdachris say you assume the respondent have at least a general level of knowledge, but you can only trust.

          Finally market research is not perfect.

          By example a billionare gave his product to be tasted in the market and this was rejected in every market researc it participate, the man didn´t care and decided to launvh his product. Now is one of the most drinked beverage in the world, you may know it, it´s name it´s RED BULL. ;)

          1. @bascb sorry forgot to putyou in the answer.

          2. Yes, @celeste, setting up market research was one of my majors, I know what it is about and that it is not all that easy to get a good and representative group.

            However, as its evident that only about half of the actual surveys were used, and the driver association mentions with the results that they used a weighted sample, they at least did their best to filter out some of these effects to get closer to a representative picture of the views of the F1 fan base.

            As always, its an interesting imput but it still needs someone in F1 do actually DO something.

            1. I agree with you @bascb, this exercise seems to have impeccable methods.

            2. not sure I would call it impeccable (the actual questions were sometimes a bit too much structured in a manner that influences to certain answers), but they did do a very solid effort IMO @faulty

            3. @bascb I wonder if they knew that the average F1 fan wouldn’t answer the survey due to its length. Hence, they wanted to get a proper look at interested fans.

    2. Unfortunately the man running F1 now (Toto Wolff) will not be interested in these results

    3. Unless I missed it, I can’t see anything on reducing the dependency on aerodynamics. We know this has affected overtaking and close quarter racing for the last few years. Drivers are complaining this year that if they get too close to the car in front they ruin aerodynamic performance and therefore destroy their tyres faster. The changes to the front wing / nose this year seems to exacerbated this problem compared to last year.

      Ultimately something needs to be done in this space to improve the spectacle, IMHO.

      1. I agree. The racing in 2014 was of a higher quality. I put that down entirely to the virtually identical noses and the increased number of winglets and aerodynamic surfaces on the front wings in 2015. This year has definitely regressed in terms of how close cars can get to each other; the racing is in danger of becoming processional again throughout the pack.

    4. This is the problem with these surveys. F1 fans are pretty ill-informed on the whole, and have triple-thickness rose-tinted glasses. I remember the days of tyre wars and refuelling. Did it make the races exciting? Not in the slightest. They were the most boring years for F1, dominated by the teams with the best tyre contracts, with no overtaking. People get into this mindset of “everything that went before was better” but it absolutely wasn’t. The reason we have the ugly cars, the Pirrelli tyres, the DRS, is all because of how boring everyone said F1 was. Do people really not remember all the years of trulli trains, and genuine processions from lights to flag?

      1. Sense. You’re talking it. The comment above should begin every argument about how to make f1 ‘better’.

        1. I’d shorten it to: “If you want to improve your product, DON’T listen to its fans.”
          Mostly agreeing with your opinion.

      2. I agree with you about refuelling and tyre wars, they lead to processional races. The survey was carried out at the beginning of the debate about refuelling, if it were carried out now that the negatives of the idea have been widely discussed I don’t think it would have the same level of support. The GPDA survey itself seemed to be biased towards ideas that the drivers support. The worst people to ask how to improve F1 are probably the engineers, the drivers and frankly the fans. I’m no fan of Christian Horner but I think he may be right that giving to one person who understands the sport in depth like Ross Brawn might be the way to get a coherent and informed set of proposals. The Strategy Group don’t seem able to think through the consequences of their proposals.

      3. Yup @mazdachris

        The survey was well-meaning but useless IMO. It’s either statements of the obvious or supposition.

        I thought 40% for DRS was quite a lot though. But it all depends if the cars NEED it to get past, of course… so that doesn’t tell us anything. We’ve all love the cars not to NEED drs, obviously!

        They gave it to a market research company, clearly.

      4. If they read this survey looking for actionable solutions, then they are doing it wrong. But, the survey is a good signpost of what the fans think is wrong with the sport. Hopefully it can guide F1 toward real solutions to the problems of the sport, even if it doesn’t come down to refueling or tire wars.

      5. I guess you forgot that the cars were often called ugly too :)

      6. @MazdaChris: COTD surely.

        Listening to what fans what reminds me a bit of the Simpson episode where Homer is asked what he would like the ideal car to be: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Homer

        1. “If Henry Ford had asked people what they wanted, they would have told him a faster horse”

      7. +10000. Everything I’ve wanted to say. Personally, I feel as though DRS is one of best things in F1 since I’ve started watching in 2005

        1. If people think DRS is one of the best things from the last ten years, then I can no longer relate to my fellow F1 fan. This is really ridiculous, I think I’m going absolutely bonkers these days.

          1. The comment above about F1 fans being ill informed. Really? F1 fans on the whole are die hard. I don’t know a single “casual” f1 follower. Is there really such a thing anymore? Maybe in the past. If f1 races in the past were “boring” when they were actually trying, there was a plethora of teams and names, what is the racing now? Artificial passing and down to the minut e coaching from the pit wall. It is hilarious when they show replays of DRS passes on Sky, and good ole Crofty points em out. Whats the point? I don’t even consider them to be passes, just a re assignment of the order. I don’t know if it is a younger fan mentality, but yes, there have been a few good races over the last few years, but really, Hamiltion vs Rosberg at Bahrain, THE BEST race ever? I have seen the sentiment on here quite a few times. Yes it was a good race, compared to the other bore fests of the last five years, but come on. If F1 in the past was boring, just what exactly have we been witnessing the last five years???

            1. Up until 2013 I would watch usually at least one practice session, all of qualifying, and would not even think about skipping through a race. I NEVER watch practice or quali anymore and quite often will fast forward now. Have I changed? Or has F1?

            2. Ibrahim, qualifying is more exciting than race. Probably because driver mistakes might be punished big time compared to race somehow. And lately I think practice sessions are also more exciting than races.

            3. I think there is something wrong with you. Because last 5 years include 2010 and 2012. I think up until Mercedes started winning by a mile, F1 was at its finest.

          2. @john-h DRS is artificial, true, but it al least makes overtakes happen. 2010 and 2007 were exciting championships, but with no stand-out races (without mixed conditions) because 9/10 the top five at the start, were the top 5 at the finish. Now think to 2011. Boring, dominant championship. But with exciting races such as China, Silverstone (the dry bit), Spa etc.

            Now I am a avid follower of F1. Most of my family and friends aren’t, because “it’s pretty boring, mostly about tactics and not much racing”. Now during the 2013 Chinese GP, one of my family members watched F1 just because there was nothing else to do. And you know what? He loved it. Because it was exciting with all the overtaking happening. And it hold true for some of my friends too. Now think about it. If you were watching an F1 race for the first time, would you rarher see a race similar to 2004-2010 where there were barely any overtakes, or a race with plenty of overtakes due to DRS. I know I would prefer the latter. Maybe other won’t.

            People also complain that DRS is artificial, and that we must find a way to get the cars to follow each other closely, which would render DRS useless. Now, the only way I’ve heard people come up with solutions for this are to reduce downforce by colossal amounts and make simpler front wings. But that would be even worse for the sport, I feel. Not only will the cars be 7-8 seconds slower, they will also have reduced tow from the car ahead, once again making overtaking harder.

            And THAT’s why I feel DRS is one of the best things that happened to F1. Now I am a young fan, but I have been watching for over 10 years. Now I believe that the people who hate DRS are fans who have followed F1 for a long time. Now, from what I’ve noticed, F1 fans usually think of the time close to when they started watching as the golden age of F1. An example of this, is that when I look at a McLaren-Honda MP4-4, it doesn’t appeal to me at all. The 2014 cars looked better in my opinion. But, then again, it is my opinion.

            1. DRS was needed because no car could get close enough to the cars in front, to overtake. The air behind the car is so disturbed that you cannot go for slipstream anymore. And I doubt this is by accident and not by aero engineers designing the cars like that on purpose. So common sense should dictate a rule making it mandatory that the air behind the car should be “clean” without turbulence, in certain parameters defined by FIA.

      8. I disagree that a return to tire competition (it’s not a war any more than it is between car makers and engine makers), and refueling, would guarantee a return to the Trulli train, and boring processional races.

        Much of the makeup of that era had to do with the heavily skewed MS/Ferrari era that was designed for him to end the Ferrari WDC drought. They spent and tested endlessly, and other teams had to do the same to try to compete. The regs were those that Ferrari had a huge say in.

        Today there is not unlimited testing nor the bottomless pits of money there was then. Today, due to there being one mandated tire maker the tires are garbage and need to be the overwhelming factor or else Pirelli would feel no marketing impact from being in F1. Today we have fake gadgets, mainly DRS, that has only harmed the integrity of the sport, and we have processions anyway.

        If we must have processions I would at least prefer they be ‘real’ as in driver’s on tires they can push themselves and their cars on, and in cars that are lighter with fuel and therefore faster. But that is not to say I even think we need the refueling, but I certainly think they need better tires and no DRS.

        I don’t know what the answer is but I certainly don’t agree that a second tire maker and refueling HAS to mean processions. The circumstances are different now as are the PU’s. They could start by greatly improving the mechanical to aero grip level ratio, provide specific (but better) parameters for both tire makers as they do for the one now, get rid of DRS…ie. there are umpteen combinations of regs they could instigate to improve things, and certainly I wouldn’t fear the Trulli train of the past when already enough things have changed that a duplication of that would not likely happen and even if it did it would be better than the fake F1-light Pirelli trains that we have now….drivers not even taxed, but just there monitoring systems and conserving everything at all times. Starting by kicking the addiction to downforce would go a long way to ridding themselves of processions. Processions come from dirty air effect being an overwhelming factor, not from tires or refueling, as evidenced by the fact that we still have processions today.

        1. Thank you, this is it.

        2. “Starting by kicking the addiction to downforce would go a long way to ridding themselves of processions. Processions come from dirty air effect being an overwhelming factor, not from tires or refueling, as evidenced by the fact that we still have processions today.”

          Robbie, the far greater source of the “dirty air” effect are the open wheels themselves, which generate the bulk of the drag and turbulence in the wake of an F1 car. If you really wanted to reduce the aero wake effect, you would move towards enclosing the wheels, as has happened in Formula E, though the idea has rarely been widely supported by F1’s fans.

          Equally, there are very few avenues which offer the sort of potential performance gains as aerodynamics – we’re seeing it now, because most engineers in the sport believe that most of the dominance of the W06 comes from its aero performance, not from their powertrain (even Ricciardo has admitted that Red Bull, who used to excel in that area, don’t have the best chassis designs any more).
          It’s been a key performance differentiator for decades and something that designers from the past, such as Chapman, Rudd or Forghieri, chased just as hard as the likes of Prodromou and Costa today – the idea that it is somehow a modern addiction doesn’t match with the development history of the sport.

          Furthermore, would we necessarily see that much of a change in the sport anyway if we did implement your suggestions? The regulation changes from 2008 to 2009 were designed to do exactly what you want – aggressively cut downforce levels and increase the mechanical grip of the cars – and yet many complained at the time that things were just as processional and predictable as they had been before.

          1. @anon My understanding is that it doesn’t matter that tires themselves make a wake, ie. the dirty air. What you are pointing out will have been a constant all along. The problem is when cars are so dependent on wings and clean air, said wake is too disruptive to their performance and the driver trailing becomes handcuffed. Reduce the dependency on wings and dirty air has a relatively less negative affect on a car’s performance and thus the driver’s confidence in it when trailing a car. I don’t believe that in 08 and 09 they went far enough, and as I say there are many combinations of regs they could implement.

            Somewhat related to the tires creating drag and a dirty air wake as you have pointed out, I’ll again paraphrase Jacques Villeneuve’s opinion from over 17 years ago, when they introduced grooved tires, and he called them a joke and got hauled to Paris to confront the FIA over his inflammatory remarks. He said basically…Give us back the big fat slicks of the 70’s/80’s. They created so much drag that in order to achieve any kind of respectable straight line speeds you had to run less wing, thus killing two birds with one stone…greater mechanical grip and smaller wings, making the dirty air effect less severe in altering a trailing cars behavior, due to said smaller wings. Ie. a better mechanical grip to aero grip ratio that left drivers with some confidence in the car while in dirty air.

            1. Spot on @robbie, in fact that extra turbulence from the fat tyres gave the car behind a boost (drafting) in the days before wings appeared.

        3. @robbie

          I understand what you’re saying and it’s a valid point about the levels of testing. But of course it would be a tyre war, how could it not? The tyre manufacturers aren’t going to be content merely to turn up with tyres of equal performance to their rivals, so they will continue to develop the tyres regardless of the restrictions. The only way to prevent that would be to mandate just one tyre range for each supplier, to be homologated at the start of the year and then remain unchanged until the following season. A nice idea in principle but then you simply end up hobbling whichever teams end up running the inferior tyre. Either there needs to be all out war, or one tyre supplier. There simply can’t be any middle ground without adversely affecting the competition. And I’d argue that the last thing F1 needs right now are yet more rules which lock in an advantage for one team over another. We have enough of that with the power unit restrictions – as it stands we face the stark reality that the rules designed to cut costs have effectively guaranteed that Mercedes will win every single championship from now until 2020.

          And they wonder why people are switching off?

      9. I’ve been missing Mazda Chris.

    5. Good point on broadcasts being more expensive. If mum or dad aren’t interested in F1, they won’t pay extra to watch it, and the potential fan is left there without chances to watch races live, as it should be. If parents can’t afford ticket prices, kids are left without the experience of watching cars on a live track racing each other, with the sounds, and the smell, and the vibrations.

      How can you get more fans if you put so many restrictions to the best things a racing fan can experience? you won’t engage anyone by telling them that if they want to watch, they have to pay premiums.

      1. I guess the kids just gotta hope for a cool uncle or a savvy teacher along the way. As always.

      2. Well people who complain about the noise not be heard miles away don’t consider much that mum and dad won’t take the potential fan to such a ear harmful event.

    6. A significant number – 80% – wish to see tyre competition opened up again, while 60% voted for a return of refuelling.

      Those two alone show fans should not be let in with deciding. Sure we want closer racing but if we’re honest we also don’t have the answer.

      Tyre competition WILL result in one team having the best tyres and dominating. Refuelling will most like have no impact whatsoever as it’s almost as simple for the teams to find the ideal setup as a few calculations alongside the tyre wear.

      What we need are independent people deciding the future, people like Brawn, Domenicalli,…

      1. @xtwl well… I don’t like it at all, I’m one of the 40% that voted no for refuelling. But if the fans want it, we’d have to accept it.

        Maybe instead of criticizing the result, we have to point the finger to the way the survey was done, the population surveyed maybe isn’t representative of the whole fanbase because not everyone uses the internet, and not everyone had the time for such a MASSIVELY LONG questionnaire.

        1. (I’m not trying to find ways to criticize because I don’t like the result, I’m just pointing out that one criticism could well be the survey itself)

          1. @fer-no65, I agree, I completed the survey but refused to accept the invisible terms and conditions, I think newer, younger fans probably have no such reservations and likely formed the majority of those surveyed.

        2. No, we don’t have to accept it! Bernie Ecclestone said it himself, multiple times, that Formula 1 is not a democracy! Fans can revolutionize this system, but the powers that be will inevitably continue to B.E.

      2. Why WILL [sic] it result in one team getting preferential treatment? I don’t recall anyone getting better tyres when Goodyear and Bridgestone were fighting in the late 1990s and it would be quite easy to frame the rules to prevent a recurrence of the one occasion (Ferrari and Bridgestone) when it did actually happen in the early/mid-2000s. And despite Ferrari’s #1 status, they were still nowhere in 2005, let’s not forget.

        1. On the contrary, the testimony from engineers within some of the smaller teams at the time indicated that Goodyear was definitely favouring specific teams during the 1990’s.

          One engineer from Tyrrell recounted that he asked Goodyear for specific information relating to the stiffness of the tyre carcass. The reply he got back was “Forget it – we only give that information to Category 1 teams”, which were Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Benetton. The tyre companies have more subtle ways of favouring certain teams, and providing preferential technical support was certainly one method that was endemic in the 1990’s and beyond.

          There were later instances of those issues too, and it was not only Ferrari who were getting preferential treatment from their tyre suppliers. Newey, for example, bitterly complained in the mid 2000’s that Michelin were increasingly biased towards Renault because they wanted to produce a “French national champion”, and similarly we saw how, when Alonso called for a return to tyre wars, Williams’s response was “Of course he has good memories of that era, because his team was the one favoured by Michelin”.

    7. Omar R (@omarr-pepper)
      1st July 2015, 17:36

      Processional races during tyre war? I remember Kimi in McLaren, Montoya and Ralf in Williams and Alonso in Renault (his first stint at Renault I mean) were strong rivals to Schum. That Ferrari/Schum had the best package is undeniable, but to claim all the races were boring or equal to Indy 2005 is to have some sort of selective memory about anf against “tyre wars” years.

      1. There were good races during that era…. Just not many of them & thats why fans did nothing but complain about the racing during that time which is what started the push from the FIA/FOM to mix things up with the various changes that were introduced from 2003-2009.

        Its also worth remembering that most of the most memorable races from that era were caused by variables (Usually in qualifying) that mixed up the grid. One of the most memorable races from that era was Suzuka 2005, A race that was only as great as it was because the fast guys were starting at the back after single car qualifying was affected by rain.

        In fact many of Kimi’s classic drives in 2005 were caused by engine/gearbox penalty’s dropping him down the order & forcing him to try & come through the field. Without those penalty’s he’d have started at the front & most likely walked away with things because the McLaren was the faster car for most of that year.

      2. @omarr-pepper we also tend to remember the best of the worst. Nostalgic thoughts of past times, in which we were also angered by the races we were watching, but nowadays it feels better. I cannot remember a single race appart from Monaco 2004 that threw an unpredictable result or showed good bits of proper emotion in the first half of that season. And it was because Ferrari had the best car with the best tyre, and the only other teams supplied by Bridgestone were Minardi and Jordan and they hardly mattered. If you wanted to beat Ferrari you needed Michelin to work with you as closely as Bridgestone worked with Ferrari. And that proved difficult, and needed a whole new set of rules for 2005 where, again, the Michelins were great but Ferrari couldn’t do anything.

        2003 was great but 2004 was horrible, and so was 2002 and 2001. And then 1999 and 2000 were very good because 2 teams were almost equal in the same rubber. Same with 2007 and 2008.

        The most recent tyre war era certainly wasn’t the best ever, and they also weren’t the worst ever. But it’s closer to the latter…

    8. So funny, the fans clearly say we want refuelling and tyre war. So response of the minority come with see that is why the fans should be ignored.
      Euh the fans are what drives this show, no fans no show.

      And show yes show. Getting a top view of the report clearly show that F1 a sport that happend to also be a show has become a show that happens to be also a sport. Things are no longer decided for the sport, no things are decided for the show.

      1. That is your minority opinion that the survey represents the minority of F1 fans.

        1. indeed the polling & comments on sites such as this, autosport, the viewers on bbc/sky who express there opinions via twitter questions & poll’s on the broadcasts clearly show the opposite of many of the results of this survey.

          that survey shows 60% want bore-fueling… the poll here showed the complete opposite as did the autosport forum poll, all of the article comments sections on several motorsport websites i vist & polling/comments on 3-4 fan forums i am a member of.
          i can honestly say i have not seen any f1 related website where the majority have voted in favor of bore-fueling.

          david croft the sky commentator asked for opinions on bore-fueling during a race broadcast and 70% came back & said they didn’t want it. they asked fans in the studio during the f1 show about it & again most voted no.

          so where are all these so called fans that want bore-fueling to come in & kill the racing again?????
          overtaking plummeted, close racing plummeted & all of the action was in the pits, is that really want most fans want???

          if so, count me out!

          1. While I do fully agree with your take on refuelling, let me tell you where those fans are: different language-circles. The debate is usually quite homogenous when visiting different sites of the same language, and is surprisingly different as soon as you visit forums of other languages. And that effect is there on lots of things, not only F1, not only refuelling.

        2. Surveys are malleable, comrade.

    9. AUTOSPORT’s Edd Straw rightly points out that “understanding what people want is a very different thing simply to asking them if they want x, y or z.” So if 80% of fans want a tyre war, it does not mean that Todt, Ecclestone and team bosses should immediately forget about the financial situation, safety and all the other aspects and bring it on. The thing is that tyres have mostly been a source of negativity in F1 over the last years so perhaps that is what should be changed.

      GPDA seem to have understood the main message – no more gimmicks, give the fans proper racing. It can be achieved in several ways but I sincerely hope that things like Fanboost, success ballast and mandatory pit stops are now out of the question.

    10. The refueling bit is surprising (And disappointing) given how every online discussion & poll I have seen has put the majority against it. Even the twitter discussions & live F1 show on Sky the past month or 2 had most comments/hands raised in opposition.

      The funny thing is that they could bring it back & within a few years everyone would be calling for it to be banned again….. Especially if it affects the racing the same way it did before (Which it would) when everyone was complaining that there was no racing on-track & that all the action was in the pits with all the passing done in the pits.

      I remember someone from a team gathered some fan data from a bunch of websites around 2004 or 2006 in which he suggested something like 80% of fans wanted refueling banned & thats what really got the ball rolling in terms of the very few people who were opposed to a ban previously changing there opinion & voting for the ban when it was put to FOTA in 2009 (Along with data on cost’s & how it was affecting the races).

      There is an interesting opinion in the BBC article from Alex Wurz who ponders that fans tend to look back at the period they 1st got into F1 as been what they think F1 should be & I think there’s some truth in that. Fans that grew up watching in the 90s tend to see those cars as the best looking, Those who started in the 2000’s see those as the best. Same with thing with other things like refueling, sound, tyres etc…. People always tend to look back on the era they started watching as been better than what we have now. It was the same in the 90s when people who grew up watching the turbo’s & the cars of that era would look at the current era (Then the mid/late 90s) & say it was better the decade before. Those who grew up in the 90s were saying the same when we got to the mid/late 2000’s & now those who grew up 10 years ago are saying the same of things today. Those who were watching the 1989-1995 period harp about V12’s while those watching from 1996-2005 always talk about V10’s been the best engine.

      Final word for now on refueling. I wonder if the sudden push from a lot of fans to get it back is just because were hearing a lot more about fuel saving now than we did even last year & I wonder if many of those in favor would have given the same answer 3-4 years ago when we were not hearing so much about fuel saving (And most seemed generally happy with the racing).
      Likewise I wonder if a poll before this years Canadian Gp would give the same answer as a poll afterwards given how that race sparked the most discussion about fuel saving.

      I also want to jump into the tyre durability answer. People ask for tyres that can be pushed & are more durable most fans seem to rate those races worse than the races where the tyres are not so durable.
      Look at early 2012 for example, Many of those races were praised for a lot of action & unpredictability…. All of which was brought on thanks to the tyre wear & how each team/driver managed it at each given circuit which different cars/drivers managing the tyres better at each race.
      Drivers were still managing tyres (And fuel) in those races & the tyres were “falling of a cliff” every race & at the time most fans seemed to love it because it was mixing things up & we had what 7 different winners over the 1st 7 races or something?

      If we had that happening in 2015 would people still be asking for tyre wars & more durable tyres…. Not sure they would.

      So to end I think that people maybe tend to give knee-jerk answers based on what they perceive as happening now & what they think of that & as such I think you would get different answers at different times…. Even at different points during the same season.

      1. Regarding teams coming out & refuting calls for refueling…. Its not that they have clearer memories or have run simulations…. Its just that they have more data & also know how they ran races at the time we had refueling & how that affected things.

        Fans can look at the statistics & argue about why overtaking figures declined from 1994-2009 & why they went back up in 2010 when refueling was banned & all that….. But the teams have that & so much more to base there views on.

        The teams will know how they used to plan & work refueling strategy & how they would run there races around refueling & what they were asking there drivers to do to maximize there race strategy around refueling. They will all know that fuel strategy was decided on Saturday & locked in with very little room to change it should there race circumstances change & they will know how that affected the way they went racing & the way they got there drivers to race. They will know that they at times discouraged drivers from trying to overtake on-track because they believed they were running a fuel strategy that would gain them x spots in the pits & they will know why the stats on overtaking on-track & in the pits were as they were during that era.

        To be honest I think if the teams put out all of there data & really explained why they see it as a bad idea & why they believe it would have a negative effect on things I think a lot of those in favor would consider changing there mind (As some within F1 did back in 2008/2009 when they unanimously voted to ban it).

      2. Safety is the priority, not what fans want. Everyone accepts drivers wearing crash helmets without question, the same needs to happen with cars and refueling. If you want to bring it back, then it has to be done safely. When there was refuelling, it was plainly unsafe: People trying to refuel the car with a giant anaconda type hose faster than the next team, an engine running, hot exhaust pipes and brake discs, and no automatic transmission disable.
        If teams want refuelling, then it needs to have the correct safety systems: Mandatory minimum refuelling time, e.g. 12 seconds, and a mandatory automatic transmission disable system that prevents the car from being driven off with the bowser hose attached, and maybe even minimum exhaust and brake temperatures before refuelling.
        I don’t see any reason why refuelling is necessary. People keep talking about the need for skill, and doesn’t the changing weight of the car during require the driver to adjust their driving style during the race? Also, refuelling is an unnecessary extra cost for teams on a tight budget because, while I don’t know if this is true, my suspicion is the refuelling rig would have to be completely stripped down and be air dried so all traces of fuel removed before it would be allowed on an aeroplane.
        With the current system the fuel supplier at the race track could fill up the cars tanks from the back of a small tanker.

        1. @drycrust If teams want refuelling

          Which they don’t, No Refueling is probably the only thing the teams are in unanimous agreement about.

          As I said just after it was 1st mentioned, In that startegy group meeting it got support from only 2 people. It was put forward by head of CVC Donald Mackenzie & got some backing from Ferrari Chairman Sergio Marchionne.

          I know its contradictory to say teams are unanimously opposed if the Ferrari chairman was in support but Sergio isn’t part of the race team & the Ferrari F1 team people who are at all the meetings (And in the technical groups) at race weekends voiced opposition along with all the other teams.

        2. @drycrust, I hated refueling, still do, but I’m not going to bring out the safety hammer, during those years of refueling no driver suffered serious injury from burns iirc. Every time you bleat on about safety it’s like Peter and the Wolf. save it for when it’s really needed or be truthful and say you really want motorsports banned.

      3. @gt-racer Using the banning of refuelling example, it would be best to pursue only what gets at least 80% support. There’d still be a lot to act on, e.g. reversing all the recent gimmicky rule changes.

        The ‘tyre war’ must surely be grippier tyres, for more mechanical grip? That would improve race pace, along with making it more competitive and easier to overtake.

        Not sure how to keep the focus on grippy and degrading vs. durable yet still fast enough, maybe by opening up tyre selection choice? That could work even with only one tyre manufacturer.

        1. @fastiesty, I don’t recall the wording of the tyre question but I suspect the support for a tyre war is more likely a vote against the current tyres than a yearning for exclusive supply contracts between teams and tyre suppliers.

          I also think the results are otherwise suspect, I remember the question on overtaking, did I want more ? yes or no, no qualification as to how it was to be achieved, a yes vote could be interpreted as pro DRS a no vote could have been interpreted as pro pit-stops.

    11. Great to see an executive summary published by the GPDA. However, I’m not sure how well these results represent the true audience of Formula 1. The sample size is 133,000 and then they “weighed” the results “to be representative of F1 fans by region and interest”. I’m not questioning Repucom’s ability to host and interpret surveys, but I thought it was a little odd. Also, it says that “over half watch at least 12 races a season” – and you are asking these people whether “an annual Team Budget cap must be introduced and
      policed”?

      Anyways, let’s work with the data they give us. Most points can essentially be summed up by ‘just go back to the way it was ten years ago’: reintroduce refueling and multiple tyre manufacturers, louder and more powerful engines, less technical regulations, get rid of gimmicks. I think this is a very clear statement and it is supported by the fact F1 audiences are dwindling worldwide.

      It’s probably not a coincidence that the GPDA published this summary on the same day the Strategy Group has a meeting. I hope a representative of the GPDA presented their findings in a report (I’m assuming their is a report, else their wouldn’t be an executive summary, right?) to the Strategy Group today, so they have something to work with.

      Keith, is it possible to see how the percentages mentioned in the summary stack up against the data you have collected on F1F?

      (as a sidenote a ‘top 3 drivers of all time’ without either Fangio or Clark is just plain wrong but never mind)

      1. ‘just go back to the way it was ten years ago

        anyone that really thinks the racing was better 10 years ago with re-fueling, tyre wars & all that has a very small memory.

        if you go back 10 years you had just as many cries about how boring it all was as you have today. at the time most fans hated the tyre war (because they felt teams were been favored), most hated re-fueling because it was seen as moving racing to the pits with less happening on the circuit & whenever we have more durable tyres most complain that races are boring.

        this survey & its results are completely opposite to everything i read on here and elsewhere around the web…. (i literally see no poll where most want re-fueling) i question its legitimacy because of this!

        i honestly say that if re-fueling does come back and it creates less overtaking with everything happening in pit lane i will turn off f1 for good because that whole re-fueling era was to me the worst i have ever seen and i do not wish to watch those pit races again!

        1. 10 years ago the corner speed was much higher and it was much harder to overtake. For me the best era for refuelling was maybe the late 90s. Back then it was more relaxed and you could decide what fuel load you wanted to run (unlike in 2007 were you had to qualify with race fuel onboard). I much preferred that approach and i find today’s regulations too restrictive with everyone pretty much running the same strategy. Let the teams run whatever strategy plays to their strengths and the racing will improve.

        2. Couldn’t have said it better myself

        3. And what exactly are you watching now? If not pit races, HELLO

          1. @ibrahim the races nowadays are not ‘pit races’. there is a lot less passing in the pits than we had during the re-fueling races.

            there is also a lot more racing on the track now compared to then and most of the racing is now determined on the track and not in the pits. there is also a lot more on track overtaking now compared to the re-fueling times when 90% of all position changes were done in the pit lane.

            re-fueling was awful, it killed on track racing from the very 1st race it was introduced. the racing was better before it was allowed & it has been better since.

            it coming back would kill the sport for me just like it would once again kill the ontrack racing!!!

            if they introduce it again then i’ll sit on the sidelines as fans again complain that all of the racing in been done in the pit lane and that there is no overtaking happening on track and then i will laugh as all those in favor of re-fueling as they have there tail between there legs apologizing for what they turned f1 into.

    12. Apex Assassin
      1st July 2015, 18:22

      Give the REAL fans what we want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    13. AMEN to the responses! cant emphasis enough, get rid of DRS, make the cars louder, faster and harder to drive. BRING BACK better tires!!!!

    14. Fans have no idea what they want until they are given it. Even then, many will complain. The best seasons in the past were a result of pure luck. Unless F1 becomes a spec series, we will always get something like 3 rubbish seasons in 4.

      Fans need to grow up, and appreciate a pearl when they find it.

      1. “Fans need to grow up”

        Lol. Ok, we’ll try our best ACx, that’s all we can promise

        Something has changed to F1 since the introduction of DRS. Many of us could see it coming 5 years ago and now we see the results. Next we’ll have Horner getting Geri to tweet Danny Ric more fanboost.

        Seriously, can anyone else not see what’s happening to F1? We need to get back to basics, or else resort to “I’m an F1 driver get me outta here” or whatever else us zombies are watching these days.

        *sigh*

    15. Ok I kinda newbie to formula I started watching on 2014 , I understand tyre war is bad by the comment but can someone please explain why refueling is bad ? (I’m kinda a noob)

      1. A) tyre war is not bad.

        Why not.
        Racing should be go as fast as the driver dears, go as fast as the car can go, go as fast as the track/trye/weather will let them go.
        Better grip fast cars means all cars on the other manufacturer tyre will be slower.
        As an average range of wuick and slow cars will on one manufacturere and the other group on the other it means there will be a natural selection of overtaking possibilities.

        I will also mean the other manufacturer will work hard during the season to get on top again.
        The only way this can give a bad result is if selective teams are going to test for the tyre manufactures then you get tyres that match that cars specification and not the other teams in that tyre group.
        But rules already prevent that as the teams are note allow to test (or must have special permission) and the testing needs to be done with a car that is at least 2 years old. So no relevant data for their current cart can be gotten.

        B) refueling is not bad.
        It add to the strategy. The top teams will calculate the quickest strategy for them, making N pit stops during the race. But with refueling a sub team (or even a top team) can decide not to go for refueling which will slowly move them up during the race. Now it is not their fastest possible way, but they do need to be overtaken screwing the perfect strategy of the other teams and by that giving them a chance to get end higher then they normally would. In the olden day this happened and gave surprise results. Adding to more excitement, racing and unpredictability on the track.

        1. They are clearly not *THE* solution but definitely *PART* of the solution.

      2. @ax3lz

        but can someone please explain why refueling is bad

        In my view refueling was bad because it moved the focus of races off the track & more towards the pits which in turn reducing the amount of close racing & overtaking that was happening on the track.

        You had races during that era where literally nothing at all happened on track during a race because all of the interest, action & passing was been done in the pits.

        You have those pro-refueling often bringing up the 2004 French Gp as way refueling strategy is good because in that race Ferrari put Schumacher on a 4-stop strategy to win the race. However while the strategy was mildly interesting as an actual race is was one of the worst I’ve ever seen because you had 2 drivers fighting for the win (Schumacher & Alonso) who after the initial pit stops where nowhere near each other on the track with the eventual pass for the lead happening in the pit lane.
        This video sum’s up the ‘action’ from that race nicely:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMzJwW_NTKg

        Also bear in mind that in those early stints Schumacher made no attempt to get close to/let alone even have a go at overtaking Alonso on track because he knew what fuel strategy he was on & that since that strategy should get him out ahead there was no point risking the car by trying to overtake on track & that was a general trend throughout the 14 years we had refueling, Drivers not risking the car to overtake because they knew what there strategy was & the team had calculated what the other drivers strategy was & figured a pit pass would be a better option.

        Both before & after refueling the main focus was/is on the racing on the track & overtaking on the track. Yes we still see some passing done in the pits for its a lot less common than it was with refueling & thats why the overtaking stats declined when we had refueling & went back up as soon as it was banned (In 2010 with pre-dated DRS/High-deg tyres remember).

        I was watching before refueling & have been watching after & I always felt the racing was better before & its definitely been better after.

        1. Mr win or lose
          2nd July 2015, 18:46

          I think it’s a little harsh to blame drivers for not trying to overtake in the refueling era. Overtaking was almost impossible, so the pitstops would always be crucial. Before the introduction of DRS races were usually processional. In the 2004 French GP Ferrari changed Schumacher’s strategy from 3 stops to 4 stops to give him some clear air so he had an opportunity to get past Alonso. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

    16. Just to point this out, two tyre manufacturers (as in the 2000s) ain´t a tyre-war. The 1966-1970-era is a far better representation, with Firestone, Dunlop and Goodyear all being able to win. And there were times in F1 with 6 different tyre-manufacterers.

    17. Refueling and tyre war back?

      Just look at the results of those same topics in surveys here at F1Fanatic to see that the so called ‘F1 fan’ is a very ambivalent and confused entity, that don’t have a clue about what to do to make F1 more exciting.

      So, fans shouldn’t be involved in the decision making.

      1. The FIA and teams clearly do not know also.

        So lets stop with F1 as no one knows?

    18. As I see it, F1’s current problems are simple: (I) The engine costs are too high; (II) One team quickly dominated the new aerodynamic package, and made by far the best car; and (III) Two drivers from the same team are dominating the series, which makes the entire sport look boring. Furthermore, Hamilton is clearly better than Rosberg , which robs us of a Senna/Prost like rivalry (Rosberg may have improved, but for me it feels like a just matter of time before Hamilton gets his act together and wins).

      Having said that, what about simply freezing all technical regulations and aerodynamic restrictions for 5 years, and negotiating cheaper engine deals? The cars may look the same for a while, but at least other teams will have better understood them and maybe have reached Mercedes dominance. Every time a major aerodynamic package has been introduced, we’ve seen one team dominate until the others played catch up, we just need to give them more time and money (by making the engines cheaper).

      1. No! No! we have to be seen to be doing something, we have huge salaries to justify, and investors wanting more, more.

    19. Basically:

      Closer racing.
      No gimmicks.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        2nd July 2015, 13:16

        Plus:
        217,756 people who care enough about F1 to fill in the survey (well done to all who finished it).
        @rgbargie

    20. The thing I find utterly laughable is that there are obviously many who seem to believe refueling would make the racing better.

      We had refueling for about 15 years last time and it certainly didn’t make the racing better as it shifter the focus away from the actual racing and more towards fuel strategy which in my view was a massive detriment to the racing…. Something every stat i’ve seen has backed up (With overtaking declining with refueling & going back to where they were before when it was banned).

      I just don’t get the need for it or the push for it from those fans, OK you hear the ‘strategy’ argument which is all well & good but surely strategy should not come at the expense of the on-track racing which based on past evidence would be the case with refueling.
      Also you can open up the strategic variance & all that without refueling by just letting teams do what they want with the tyre compounds & ditching the silly forced stop to use 2 compounds in a race.

      Refueling simply isn’t the answer to any of the questions been asked, It never was & never will be.

      I’m not going to sit here & say i’ll automatically stop watching or whatever, But if it was to come back & was to have the same effect on the racing that it did before I would be more likely to walk away & do something else with my weekends because it was bad enough sitting through refueling races the last time & i’m not keen to do it again.

      1. With you all the way.

    21. Tyre competition isn’t going to improve anything.

      I don’t see what refuelling is going to add other than costs?

      DRS would be better being replaced with ‘fan boost’ imo.

      1. DRS would be better being replaced with ‘fan boost’ imo.

        @alan77 Its better replaced by P2P.

        Give them all x uses of it to attack or defend like in Indycar, Works fine there & doesn’t generate the easier passes which DRS tends to.

    22. My take on refueling is simple, I was open to it back in 1994 but fairly quickly started to feel like I didn’t like it, I went on to hate it throughout those 14 odd years & was glad to see the back of it for 2010 & I still don’t like it now & don’t want to see it come back.

      Backing up in that bit…… I started watching F1 in 1989 when I was 5 so my early F1 years were refueling free. But as I say I was open to it for 1994 & didn’t really have an opinion on it at the time. I read various bits & pieces in newspapers/magazines giving reasons for/against but decided to just see what happened before judging. By the end of 1994 & as 1995 went on I was starting to feel like it was doing more harm than good because it just seemed like a lot less was happening on the track with more of the interest/excitement & passing occurring in the pits. My irritation with refueling just seemed to get worse as the next couple years went on & by the time I had the internet in early 1998 & found places to talk to & get the opinion of other F1 fans I was firmly against it & hoping to see it banned & it always seemed to me based on interactions with fellow fans that most felt the same.

      When I heard it was been banned for 2010 I was ecstatic, It was something i’d been hoping for for years so to see it finally happen was great. Since then DRS aside I think the racing has generally been way better, I loved 2010 & felt like everything i’d always said about refueling & what it did to the racing had been totally justified & my view on that hasn’t changed & the various stats & facts about overtaking etc… from that period has just further backed up what I already felt based on watching those races.

      When its possible return was mentioned after that strategy group 2 months ago I was horrified & gutted that it seemed to have so many fans in agreement but then let out a sigh of relief when the polling/discussions on sites such as this seemed to put most against. I let out a further sigh of relief when the teams also voiced opposition & felt the issue was dead so there was no need to worry.

      Now i’m actually back to worrying, If as this survey suggests most fans do indeed want it back & it does indeed come back I’ll be massively sad & disappointed but guess i’ll just have to accept it through gritted teeth.

      My snap reaction when it was 1st discussed was ‘i’ll stop watching’, Now my opinion is that i’ll watch & decide what to do after the 1st year or so…. If I don’t like the impact it has maybe I will walk away from F1, Maybe I won’t, I’ll wait to see what happens & how things play out before deciding one way or the other when the time comes.

      Other things like tyre wars, Durable tyres i’m less bothered about either way, Refueling is the biggest issue of contention for me.

      1. I don’t know why “fans wanted refueling”, but it could simply be the nature of the question. I don’t see why the survey had to be so big. My understanding of surveys is small and well done beats big and poorly done. The size of this one meant that organisers had to ignore about half the results.
        This is a safety issue, not a popularity issue, it shouldn’t even be being debated.

        1. @drycrust My guess is that its because fuel management/Lift & Coast has been a talking point recently & the perception from a lot of fans is that refueling would fix that which they believe is wrong.

          Its the same with the tyre war/durability question, Many see the tyre management of the past few years & feel thats wrong so they see a tyre war with more durable tyres as a way to fix that.

    23. I’ve had more fun watching GP2 for the last few years than F1. Close racing, lots of overtaking, excitement all over the place and in the end the best driver gets the wins and the title. Instead of moving GP2 closer to F1, it could be a good idea to bring F1 back to the original philosophy of racing. Room for innovation, new ideas, exploring the limits of the regulations (set up by an independant organism) and being able to catch up with the best ones.
      It is utterly nonsense that Ferrari, Renault and espescially Honda have to fight with their hands tied on their back. Why would a manufacturer be interested to join this series, knowing that he has no chance for at least 3/4 years to catch up?
      FOM and FIA should take responsibility for the rules, as soon as possible and the teams should have no part in this. As long as this so called ‘strategy group’ is dictating what must happen, there will be no major change.

      What I like about GP2:

      Same Chassis, with lots of room for setup
      Same Engine, room for mapping
      Two races, feature and sprint, with reverse grid for the sprint race
      Mandatory pit stop in feature race (both tyres have to be used)

      Just my opinion, but as F1 is going these days, the neutral an occasional fan is not interested any more and will not come back.
      Last but not least: a fairer distribution of the money and a maximum budget for everyone. F1 lives and has always lived thanks to small teams, that’s what makes the charm of it.
      Sorry for my poor English…

      1. You might really like Indycar… It fits all of your criteria, except that they only have a couple of multi-race weekends. Oh yeah, a Honda engine (V6 turbo) won the last race! Also, Indycar doesn’t seem to employ the same practices as FOM when it comes to catching up on races in the free stream, making it easier to enjoy for us hoi-poloi.

      2. Your English usage is exemplary.

    24. I’m happy with these results, except maybe for the refuelling.

      I don’t understand how people can be against a tyre war. Pretty much everything would be better than the current ‘Pirelli=sole tyre supplier’ situation.

      1. @paeschli, I think your take on the tyres is what drove the vote for a tyre war, I think the real vote was just for better tyres at any cost.

    25. I wanted fill this survey, but I missed it. :(

    26. Summing up the problems with F1 in a series of nos:
      No tyre saving
      No fuel saving
      No limit on fuel used
      No V6s
      No DRS
      No gimmicks
      No tarmac run-offs
      No Tilkedromes
      No ugly cars
      No budget cap
      No strict technological regulations

    27. So many opinions and some I agree with, others I don’t. I look at it this way: what if F1 started completely from scratch with all regulations thrown out and a set of overarching guidelines as to what we all want from F1?

      I’d say we want the following: cool looking cars which are very, very fast; the best drivers in the world wanting to be in F1; a full 26 car grid; a sustainable 26 car grid at that!; close, ‘pure’ racing without gimmicks; a platform for companies to demonstrate their products such as engines, tyres, fuel and oil; a formula which allows manufacturers some road relevant technology transfer.

      In my mind who cares if the cars have tons of downforce if the racing is poor quality and no-one can pass without DRS? I’ve said it before but look at MotoGP and the fight between Rossi and Marquez last weekend. Two completely different bikes, two great riders, one great race. Overtaking without gimmicks, bikes sliding under braking and acceleration, the riders being allowed to be the determinant factor in ultimate performance. When can F1 last say that was the case?

      So in short try the following: big, wide, sticky tyres & go back to 2m width regs for more mechanical grip; downforce to be by limited ground effect and a tiny set of wings like an indy oval course package to allow close following of other cars (hell if indy can manage it on 200mph+ ovals why can’t F1 manage it through a 150km/h corner?); engines to be 2.0 litre turbo of free capacity and cylinders + up rated 2013 style KERS systems for 1000hp BUT budget limited; use Gary Anderson’s idea of four upgrades per team per year instead of unlimited upgrades throughout season; and finally ensure racing on tracks which will generate atmosphere through big crowds instead of asphalt ghost towns in whichever countries are willing to give Bernie and CVC lots of cash. And maybe try the points for quali and start the race in reverse grid order idea, after all, fast cars starting at the back was basically what made Suzuka 2005 still the best ever F1 race I’ve seen.

      Enough crying about what sucks about F1 now – we all know what the problems are – let’s move forward for 2017 with a series so awesome that no-one will be comparing it to WEC or anything else…

      1. Edit! – Free layout and cylinders – not capacity…

    28. The calls for three-car teams appear not to have won many over either. Despite declining numbers of teams, a mere 14% agree F1 would be “better served by fewer teams running more cars”.

      I don’t agree that you can derive that conclusion from the question. what would the response have been if the question was would f1 be better served by the same teams running three cars rather than less.

    29. Regarding the sound of the engines, for most people the sound they hear comes via a broadcast medium, e.g. TV, so the sound has had to be filtered and massaged to fit inside the technical limitations of that medium. We can’t even be sure the sound we hear is from the camera producing what we are seeing. There isn’t any reason why someone couldn’t just dub in V10 or V8 sounds instead of V6 sounds. Only authenticity stops this from happening. The only place where you get the full sound would be at the race track, and attendances there seems to be related to the popularity of the racing series. So saying that people don’t like the sound is almost meaningless if they aren’t actually there.
      I guess that really is the important thing: Most fans want to watch real cars on a real race track with real drivers and real sounds, otherwise you could just dump the whole lot and have a glorified race arcade, with the drivers sitting inside consoles racing virtual cars on virtual tracks. I’d rather watch a McLaren-Honda with a sick engine sound than one with a healthy V10 sound dubbed in.

    30. just go’s to show how hopeless F1 fans are with the history of F1,
      to the Fans its all about the drivers,
      what the Fans don’t understand is drivers have no F1 without the Manufactures,
      Manufactures Rule, Manufactures want to win the Constructors Title before they even think about the drivers Title,
      that is what makes F1 so different and way more interesting than any other type of motor racing,
      hence the reason its not about to change as much as the Fans would like ever, if it do’s you can Kiss F1 agood bye…

    31. just go’s to show how hopeless F1 fans are with the history of F1,
      to the Fans its all about the drivers,
      what the Fans don’t understand is drivers have no F1 without the Manufactures,
      Manufactures Rule, Manufactures want to win the Constructors Title before they even think about the drivers Title,
      that is what makes F1 so different and way more interesting than any other type of motor racing,
      hence the reason its not about to change as much as the Fans would like ever, if it do’s you can Kiss F1 good bye…

    32. Just remove DRS. Refueling wouldn’t make much of a difference. I’ll probably have it just because it’s an added parameter in the strategy and cars. Let’s go back to 2007-2009 or 2010 configuration. Not as exciting but good enough and less artificial. We had really exciting championships in that era and most of the races were good enough.

      Tyre wars are stupid. But if takes tyres wars to stop Mercedes dominance, i will take that too.

    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'.