Poll: 2014 F1 engines

What does everyone think of the new engine sounds?

  • Like them!

    Votes: 124 36.2%

  • Hate them!

    Votes: 103 30.0%

  • Neutral!

    Votes: 116 33.8%
  • Total voters
    343
FrankJH said:
cant see the poll so excuse me if these are indicated;

1) Have all of these (ever) been to a live race previously?

2) Long standing fans or just casual observers (or anyone on the "street")?

Im sure there are some more relevant questions - like Politicians, you can get a survey to say anything you want if "geared" in the right way
Click to expand...

As so many people argue the sound is such an important and vital part of F1 then surely, if that arguement is held true, it wouldn't matter who was polled.

I don't think that it is true but then I don't think sound is as important as some poeple on here make it out to be.
 
Greboth said:
As so many people argue the sound is such an important and vital part of F1 then surely, if that arguement is held true, it wouldn't matter who was polled.

I don't think that it is true but then I don't think sound is as important as some poeple on here make it out to be.
Click to expand...

It adds to the atmosphere. Imagine a giant roller-coaster with the loud sound of people screaming and the
and the load noise of the roller-coaster. You'd want a go YES?

Now turn the volume down by 60% not right is it? Or a heavy metal band concert being quiet? not on is it.

The sound adds to the atmosphere which has been there since day one.
 
FrankJH said:
cant see the poll so excuse me if these are indicated;

1) Have all of these (ever) been to a live race previously?

2) Long standing fans or just casual observers (or anyone on the "street")?

Im sure there are some more relevant questions - like Politicians, you can get a survey to say anything you want if "geared" in the right way
Click to expand...

I think some people lucky enough to have gone to a race are overestimating their numbers.

From memory F1 had around 500m TV viewers last year (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Being generous we can average 100,000 fans track side per race (that's being very generous to some circuits as even the big hitters like Monza and Silverstone don't get far above 100k), which gives a total of around 2m people across a 20 race season.

That's 0.4%.

Throw some demo runs in, things like Goodwood, F1 car appearances at other race events and things and your still likely looking at 95% of the F1 viewing community having only ever heard an F1 car on TV.

When you look at it that way is it surprising the majority of people don't care? As I've said all along, to some this is a disaster, but that 'some' is a tiny part of the whole.

Then when your done, look at how many of that 95% are financing a small turbo hatchback. :p
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Then when your done, look at how many of that 95% are financing a small turbo hatchback. :p
Click to expand...
:D

These people that are vocally complaining over the lack of noise just need to change and start watching top-fuel drag racing.
Very loud, very fast and only last for a few seconds, so even the most casual of viewers can 'get it'.

No need to worry about 'tactics', 'complex regulations' or 'racing' just 'whoo, yeah noise awesome' :)

:)
 
Last edited:
Malt_Vinegar said:
Fan survey from 700 members of F1fanatic.co.uk

hardly an un-initiated bunch ;)
Click to expand...

700 is a TINY sample though (even if they are "initiated")

Whats the average attendance over a year , 50 times that, 100?

Greboth said:
As so many people argue the sound is such an important and vital part of F1 then surely, if that arguement is held true, it wouldn't matter who was polled.

I don't think that it is true but then I don't think sound is as important as some poeple on here make it out to be.
Click to expand...

"So many" comparing to those at a live event, hey compare it to the tv audience and its even smaller percentage of 1% - that poll is rediculously small
 
Last edited:
A sample size of 700 produces a confidence interval of less than 4% at 95% confidence level. Even a 99% confidence level only has a 5% interval (margin of error).

So "that's a tiny sample size" isn't an issue, as at worst those result are accurate to +/- 5%.

Disputing survey results based on thinking the sample size is too small is just a reaction from people who don't know how statistics work (unless of course they sampled 1 person, in which case you have a point :p).
 
Skeeter said:
A sample size of 700 produces a confidence interval of less than 4% at 95% confidence level. Even a 99% confidence level only has a 5% interval (margin of error).

So "that's a tiny sample size" isn't an issue, as at worst those result are accurate to +/- 5%.

Disputing survey results based on thinking the sample size is too small is just a reaction from people who don't know how statistics work (unless of course they sampled 1 person, in which case you have a point :p).
Click to expand...

sorry thats just politician speak imo, complete hogwash

For an instance you can take a poll of 700 people based in London for an issue only related to the 5 million or so based in Manchester and hide it behind similar statistics, still makes it completely ludecrous
 
FrankJH said:
sorry thats just politician speak imo, complete hogwash

For an instance you can take a poll of 700 people based in London for an issue only related to the 5 million or so based in Manchester and hide it behind similar statistics, still makes it completely ludecrous
Click to expand...

Except that argument is in your interest with regards this survey. F1 fanatic members are not reprisentative of the whole population, your right. But they are a sample pool more likely to have been to a race and care about the noise than the whole population.

Dismiss the results as "political hogwash" all you like, but that facts are the sample size is more than enough for a 5% margin of error at 99% confidence, from a sample pool skewed in favour of inflating negative responses. A larger sample size over a more representative sample pool would only see the proportion of negative responses drop.
 
The hardcore group are the people you need to please though, they are the ones who bring in friends and family to watch it as well. Over the years, if you alienate a large proportion of the fans that have been watching it for years and years, naturally the 'sheep' will start to decline as well..|

Especially that you have big time people who are influential in the sport saying left, right and centre that it's a shadow of it's former self. The newish people will soon realise what the crack is by seeing a simple youtube vid, e.g. the comparison vid's in the last few pages..
 
Last edited:
deuse said:
It adds to the atmosphere. Imagine a giant roller-coaster with the loud sound of people screaming and the
and the load noise of the roller-coaster. You'd want a go YES?

Now turn the volume down by 60% not right is it? Or a heavy metal band concert being quiet? not on is it.

The sound adds to the atmosphere which has been there since day one.
Click to expand...

I was poking fun at some people on here, I even said I don't believe who they polled isn't important.

However sound isn't important on a roller coaster, so much so that people screaming get on my nerves and actually put me off. As for a heavy metal band, it needs to be loud enough to be heard, any louder is pointess. Just as an F1 car being so loud everyone wears ear defenders is pointless.

A band is an unfair comparison though, you go to see a band solely because you like the sound of their music. Yes sound is woven into the fabric of F1 but it is not the sole reason you go see it.
 
Skeeter said:
Except that argument is in your interest with regards this survey. F1 fanatic members are not reprisentative of the whole population, your right. But they are a sample pool more likely to have been to a race and care about the noise than the whole population.

Dismiss the results as "political hogwash" all you like, but that facts are the sample size is more than enough for a 5% margin of error at 99% confidence, from a sample pool skewed in favour of inflating negative responses. A larger sample size over a more representative sample pool would only see the proportion of negative responses drop.
Click to expand...

and any pool of less than 1% is not representative either.

Take a 10% poll and results from twitter could very easily swing exactly the other way (or just as easily confirm it)

Taking a 50% sample (while it becomes harder to change, or in other words 1 single vote has a lesser effect on the result) can still swing it back the other way.

Also you have to take into effect different age groups - twitter is on average an 18 -29 year old American female

http://blog.bufferapp.com/social-me...-for-twitter-facebook-pinterest-and-instagram

(yes thats from a year ago admittedly)

Who says those twitter users are representative of f1 fanatic let alone F1 as a whole?

I bet a large part of the f1 community was discouted because they have barely heard of twitter let alone actually use it.

There are several reasons why those are completely un-representative of f1 followers how ever you want to hide behind ridiculous stats
 
I guess you better go and tell every professional statistician in the world that they are wrong then.

I haven't just made up those rules about sample sizes and confidence percentages, they are mathematical principles.

Blindly dismissing them as "ridiculous" because you don't like the answer just shows a lack of understanding.
 
From Ferrari "do you like the new F1"

No (64%, 8,993 Votes)

Yes (36%, 5,136 Votes)

Better then F1fan

Or "Sebastian Vettel has described the sound of the new F1 engines as “****”, saying it is one of the most important aspects of the sport."
 
Last edited:
So we are just finding a survey that we like the results of and stating them as fact now, are we? :p

"Should Skeeter be given £1m?"
Yes - 100% (1 Vote)
No - 0% (0 Votes)
 
Skeeter said:
So we are just finding a survey that we like the results of and stating them as fact now, are we? :p

"Should Skeeter be given £1m?"
Yes - 100% (1 Vote)
No - 0% (0 Votes)
Click to expand...
Can you find a poll saying that people prefer the sound of this years engines to last years?

Even the poll in this thread perhaps doesn't ask the most relevant question :-

What does everyone think of the new engine sounds?

Like them!

Hate Them!

Neutral!
Click to expand...

Perhaps a more relevant question would have been :-

When comparing the sound of this and last year's F1 engines, do you ...

Prefer this year's

Prefer last year's

Have no preference
Click to expand...

Then I think we would have a far more telling result.
 
Pretty odd poll? Someone could like the new engines but answer yes to any one of your 3 options?

Its not a binary thing. Liking them less than last years doesn't mean they hate them, although I expect that's how the results to that survey would be portrayed.

I like burgers more than I like hot dogs. But I still like hot dogs.

The Ferrari poll is equally as odd. "Do you like the new F1?" Yes/No. How do they know what people though about the old F1? 60% don't like the new F1, but it could be that 70% didn't like the old F1, meaning this year is 10% better! Discrete questions are always better. But then I doubt very much that the Ferrari poll was setup to get a clear and concise answer, was it :p.

And to clarify my reply to Frank. I'm not disputing the sample pool wasn't reprisentative, as it wasn't. I was clarifying your comments about results being rubbish based on the sample size, which isn't true. Sample sizes in relation to surveys is a well documented process. 700 is well above the required sample size for a 95% or even 99% confidence result for a population over 1m. I know it seems illogical, but thems the facts. A 95% confidence result actually requires less than 400 survey respondants!
 
deuse said:
From Ferrari "do you like the new F1"

No (64%, 8,993 Votes)

Yes (36%, 5,136 Votes)

Better then F1fan

Or "Sebastian Vettel has described the sound of the new F1 engines as “****”, saying it is one of the most important aspects of the sport."
Click to expand...

Shocking that neither of them have a Mercedes engine. Shocking.

Ferrari and their fans want V12 everything. They didn't want V4 and only relented to a happier medium of the V6. They just want lots of cylinders and always have. They didn't even want to use turbos in the 80s, but were getting left behind (they won sod-all anyway though).

Red Bull have been incredibly vocal about the new engine rules, but that's hardly a surprise given their experience with them thus far.

Conversely, the Mercedes drivers have been vocal about how much they're enjoying the new rules.

I'm sure the drivers couldn't actually give a toss about how loud the engines are. Much of it is likely to be political maneuvering - so long as F1 is seen the pinnacle of single-seater racing, they want to be part of it. If they're winning, they'll be happy, if they're not, they won't be. That's not changed since motorsport was conceived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom