Ferrari started an online survey a few weeks ago asking fans if they liked the 2014 version of Formula 1. Today the team have released the results:

Maranello, 3 April –The poll which began a few days ago on to sound out people’s opinion on the show put on by the new Formula 1, has come to an end with over 50,000 fans expressing an opinion.

83% are disappointed with the new format, dismissing it mainly because of the drivers being forced to lift off to save fuel. In addition, the fans don’t like the noise from the new engines and are confused by rules that are too complicated.

Interesting to note that the “no” vote increased dramatically after the Malaysian Grand Prix. The most vociferous in their opinions were the Italians, British, French and Australians, these countries having long links to Formula 1. But there were also plenty of votes from large countries such as the United States and India.

Our own survey showed that 70% of respondents did not like the new sound of Formula 1 with 20% saying they did like it and 10% responding that they were indifferent to the issue.


An F1 fan since 1972, NC has spent over 25 years in the technology industry focusing on technology integration, AV systems integration, digital media strategies, technology planning, consulting, speaking, presenting, sales, content strategy, marketing and brand building.
  • Rapierman

    Mind you, both polls are unscientific, but what they say is telling.

    • Lopek

      They are not telling at all if the methodology is flawed as they are.

      The Ferrari poll is a joke that was easily abused with multiple votes per person to skew the results. It also did not ask people for reasons for their response so the “dismissing it mainly because…” is just made up.

      Utterly pointless.

  • Fred

    Could it be that Ferrari fans are upset because they are not winning?

  • I do wish they would find a remedy. Years ago when GE were developing a new turbine jet engine, they described it as an “unducted fan” engine. One serious aviation expert expressed his disdain it this way: “Don’t tell me what it isn’t… tell me what it is.”
    F1 seems caught in that loop… limited rev engines, limited fuel engines, limited tires, limited downforce, limited race time, limited testing… F1 has become all about limitation not possibilities.

    • Good point Peter.

    • That’s a very interesting perspective; rather than subliminally reinforce the limitations (negatives), elucidate the positives. In order, “wider power band, developing higher power density, more sturdy tires, more driver influence/challenging cars, more mid-race pushing, post-race testing”… something like that?

      An what is an unducted fan engine? Like the propeller of a windmill, or a turbo compressor w/o the housing? sounds interesting, if mighty inefficient in a low density/viscosity medium.

    • I was thinking the other day that by limiting the fuel flow to 100kg/hr the eliminated the possibility of cars running out of fuel.

      Limit-ception has made F1 boring.

  • Yeti

    A survey which only takes yes or no cannot lead to the conclusion that it is mainly because of the drivers being forced to lift off to save fuel, the lack of noise and the complicated rules. This conclusion is just propaganda from Ferrari against the rules.

    Moreover in another poll on the site 47% of the voters think the rules are clear. :)

    Besides, the racing has not really worsened since the last couple of years, where drivers needed to save the tyres (which they still do). Second half of last year the races where boring as well, with the same winner every time. :)

  • Schmorbraten

    Banging a propaganda drum the cheap way isn’t rare, but why does Ferrari stoop so low? If they were interested in fans’ opinions they could’ve done a professional poll, but the way they did it shows they just wanted some applause for their whining. What’s their alternative? Removing the turbos? Increase the fuel limit, throwing away the efficiency gains after trumpeting them? Mandate higher revs, which would decrease the efficiency and therefore make the cars slower overall? They’ll know that the FIA cannot reasonably revert to the old formula, so they just want to deflect the blame, instead of working together with all the other players to market the product they’ve got. There’s a good comment on .

  • I started writing a post scathing the poll (Ferrari website in midst of terrible year, of course Tifosi vote certain way, verbiage, statistical limitation, conjecture, etc.), but realized my irritation stemmed from reading into the title.

    If NC had written something like “Ferrari poll shows…” I’d have accepted the post as is. It’s similar to the “No F1 in Long Beach…” post, which reads as if the city had chosen Indycar over F1 rather than a consideration to encite a bidding war.

    Perhaps further editing and fact-checking, as well as delineation between article and editorial, will help the confusion. Accurately associating the subject line w/ the topic sure would help me.

    As an aside, no surprise the cleverly-worded poll and biased conclusions skew Ferrari’s way; to be fair, any entity’s fans are going to support said entity. I bet if Porsche posited puppy-skin as an alternative fuel source and layered technical mumbo jumbo behind it, the Stuttgart fans would be on forums heatedly discussing the most efficient manner skin a baby retriever. Poor Budweiser Goldie.

    • Edit: I forgot to mention the Long Beach article COULD be accurate, Indycar to LB through 2018; some news sites are saying it’s been ratified, and F1 has right to bid thereafter. Others are saying the vote’s still to come, and the floor’s still open. Clarification would be great here.

    • Lopek

      Totally agree, this post has a very poor title.

      • That’s Ferrari’s words, not mine. The title is very authentic to Ferrari’s own statement.

        • Yes, but you didn’t quote Ferrari or reference them in the titel. It reads as a poll representative of F1 fans, not Ferrari F1 fans. A big difference, and something that influences the minds of the fickle internet public.

          • Well, at F1B, we assume people read more than just headlines. :) IF it’s just headlines folks want, there is always Twitter. :) Headlines are meant to be short gists of what the article says or is about. I usually don’t write disclaimers in all my headlines that absolves me of ownership of the content. :)

            In this case, it is the result of Ferrari’s poll, not necessarily a quote from a Ferrari person so the title isn’t in quotes of ascribed to a voice of Ferrari, just a result that states something about F1 fans.

            Perhaps I should have put them in quotes if folks feel that would have made it more clear in my headline but I freely admit that I am not the best person at headlines and completely missed that whole viral headlines thing like: “you won’t believe what Ferrari discovered about F1 fans” type of thing. I’m not Buzzfeed and clearly my traffic at the site proves it. :)

        • Touche Todd, your article does in fact give context to the title. Believe me, not trying to ride you; rather, doesn’t it make sense to reference the subject in the topic? This subject isn’t about F1 fan disapproval, it’s about Ferrari fan disapproval. Isn’t that a fundamental difference, one which merits distinction?

          My point about audience swaying is many do, consciously or not, form their opinions based upon a majority; the herd and C student mentality. The title of a subject invariably skews perception, no matter the content. Why, for me, I bothered even commenting; if you’d written “Ferrari poll” in the subject matter, I would have ignored it but, thinking some new analysis of the general F1 fan populace had been made, read and then was incited by it.

          I’m nerdy about these things, but you guys, with your readership and fan loyalty, do sway views. Sharing opinion is a wonderful thing. But as the site also seems to inform, I feel those posts presented or titled as news should be presented objectively or at least w/o misleading connotation, unlike that here.

          By all means of course, write what you wish; it’s at least interesting to talk about. In brighter news, a GP this weekend. Unfortunately, it’s Bahrain…

          • I get your point but are we sure that only Ferrari fans participated? It’s an unscientific poll for sure and could be weighted but I bet there are Macca fans that voted. :)

          • Lopek

            Maybe “Rubbish Ferrari Poll reveals nothing” would be more appropriate.

          • I’m sure you’re right, many F1 fans voted, not only Tifosi. But, as your title IMO skews perspective or mindset, Ferrari (in interested party) holding the poll undoubtedly skewed the results. It’s the true objectivist that separates the questions from the intent.

            Looked another way, Porsche sent a release to owners trumping the new Boxter/Cayman GTS. In it, it asked readers submission as to how excited he/she is for the new model, and to notify others about the pending rollout.

            This is a request, coming from a manufacturers to current owners, asking about “excitement.” Like most voluntary questionnaires, the majority who’ll respond will be those w/ strong emotions about the topic host (Porsche) or matter (the cars.)

            The results are internal so we won’t see them, but rest assured, although some will poll negatively, the majority will respond positively, as that’s how the poll is geared, and more importantly to Porsche, owners might refer future purchasers towards the new models.Something as simple as the noun “excitement” skews readers towards that mentality;

            And so it goes; Ferrari’s poll results benefit perception towards it’s plight, underwhelming performance. It can use the results, as you’ve done here, inaccurately as a press barometer for the audience at large. Other people will read the title of your post and maybe think either “F1 does suck, it needs to change, look at what this poll says about ALL fan thoughts” or “it’s not Ferrari’s fault they suck, it’s these stupid artificial regulations. Ultimately both absolve the Scuderia of blame and preven potential brand damage.

            As simple (sarcastically as my writing’s a mess) as that.

        • Perhaps Grace might be the person to talk to regarding both polls and verbiage regarding the title/subject here. Excuse me if incorrect, but from podcast discussions I believe she either works or is familiar w/ polling intent and title/subject transparency.

          We all have motives; I referred to objectivists in an earlier response; unfortunately, I’m not one of them…

  • UAN

    I guess the poll (or title of the post) should be “83% of Ferrari fans who bothered to come to the Ferrari site and vote disappointed…”

    In other news, Ferrari took down another poll showed 98% of Tifolsi are disappointed that Ferrari yet again can’t give Fernando a competitive car…

    • They wouldn’t take a poll like that but if they did, it would 100%, not 98%. :)

      • rambaldi

        The other 2% are sad that they couldn’t get a car together for Raikkonen.

  • I have been banging on about this for a few weeks now. The FIA got it wrong! not about the tech side, they simply took the soul out of F1 (noise) The sound is F1’s trade mark and no matter if you follow F1 or not, if you ask someone to make the sound of an F1 car, it would be loud and high pitched.

  • Horns

    If I was a Ferrari fan, I’d be disappointed, too.

    Incidentally, as someone who’s heard the new cars in the flesh – the sound is fine. This is all about certain elements in the sport angling for a change in the rules that will improve their chances of winning.

  • I really don’t get all the fuss…let them race a couple of races and then see how it all turns out. Granted, if you don’t like the sound, that’s something you can judge from day 1. However, the format is so much more than sound, quite the contrary, sound is incidental.

    I for one blame the media. They love to play up controversies, so the fans have been bombarded by opinions about how terrible this all is. Fuelgate certainly hasn’t helped either as most fans only got a very abridged picture.

  • UAN

    First we have Red Bull pushing back on the flow meters and some folks think that RBR is just throwing their toys out of the pram because they aren’t winning.

    Now we have Ferrari playing their own version of politics to change the landscape of F1. I wonder if the same folks who are criticizing RB will criticize Ferrari for throwing their toys out of the pram.

    I’m incline to give RB a little more benefit of a doubt – at least they are hanging their hat on a very specific technical regulation, not a fuzzy poll :).

    If nothing else, it shows that RB isn’t the only team that is trying to throw its considerable weight around for their own advantage.

    Just a thought.

  • jiji the cat

    i see many people stating the poll was floored due to its wording and answer restrictions etc etc…..

    didn’t the FIA set the standard for F1 polls a few years ago…..;)

  • Ted

    What about Red Bull? I am not going to watch F1 anymore because I believe that the FIA deliberately destroyed the dominate car that Red Bull was able to field! This new format is intended to allow Mercedes and Ferrari to catch up. Well, in my book, that is cheating!! I think that Mercedes and/or Ferrari paid someone off in the FIA to get these rule changes in place. I was an F1 fanatic, but now, not so much!!

    • I take Diertrich’s comments very seriously when he said there is a limit to what hey can accept. They spend $1.2 billion on program and if it doesn’t fit their reason for being there, then why stay? It’s not just carmakers that F1 doesn’t want to lose. Losing Red Bull would be a huge impact.

    • jiji the cat

      oh please…. thats just nonsense.

      Whenever a manufacturer has dominated, inevitably the regs have changed to reset the pecking order. you don’t have to go that far back when it happened to Ferrari, prior it was Williams, prior to that McLaren etc etc. Remember reactive suspension? Traction control? Launch Control? etc etc.