F1 2022 thread - see post 1 for rules

I am in total agreement with that survey.

Only less than a 5th of fans want more sprint races so that is good with me. Hope it stays like that or goes down even abd more people start to see sense and want less to no sprint races.

Rubbish.

In that case I could just as easily say that 81% wants fewer sprint races.

And only 19% want more using your logic.

That's good with me.

Just as a matter of interest, how would you interpret the stats to support the claim that 81% want fewer sprints? I read it as 46% want fewer sprints.

The same you read it that 35 per cent who say keep the current amount might want more sprints I read it that maybe a per centafe if them woukfmd prefer less or no sprints at all but if I use your logic which is the 35% + the 19% equal 54 per cent want more then it also works with 35% + 46% = 81% want less.

Ehhh, that wasn't what they asked them in the survey. So how do you know if people are in favour of keeping them if they had no option to voice that? Odd way of reading into a survey.

So last week Craig Slater, the only presenter on Sky who tends to deal in facts and could pass themselves off as a credible journalist, said his sources reported that the minor overspend from Red Bull was due to differences between Red Bull and the FIA in their interpretation of long term sick pay. In the last day or two some websites have picked up reports that suggest the difference was over Adrian Newey's wages.

If both of those are true, it doesn't take much of a leap to look at the fact that Newey was in a serious cycling accident last July, which left him hospitalised and put him out of work until October. If Red Bull believed sick pay wasn't included and the FIA later decided it should be then that would show the discrepancy between the submission that was under budget and the interpretation the FIA came up with to take it slightly over.

Other theories are that, as the rules state the top 3 highest paid employees are exempt, Newey was obviously one of those and therefore exempt in Red Bull's eyes, but the FIA have decided he shouldn't count as he's not a full time employee and does other work outside of F1, therefore his entire salary counts towards the budget and it's actually their fourth highest paid employee on a significantly smaller wage that is exempt instead, which would again be a different interpretation to take them over the budget.

Still speculation of course. Nobody knows the details except for the FIA auditors themselves and whichever one of them was directly feeding information to Toto Wolff in advance, even Red Bull themselves didn't know as the whole process has been shrouded in secrecy. Hopefully the FIA come clean and shed light on the procedure soon.

C is the lesser of 3 evils, but I do see the point you're making. I didn't take too much notice of the options on the poll being honest

"Less" COULD encompass that, but not always.

Right. And if you were asked to respond to this survey and you want zero sprint races, which option would you have picked from the options in the survey?

Would you have picked C "fewer sprint races" or would the situation have confuses you so much you wouldn't have known what answer to give?

We are, but can we also agree that what you were saying was not what was asked in that survey?

I thought there was breaking news of some kind when I saw this blowing up. Cmon guys ya'll know not to feed it.

Sure. It didn't ask if they're in favour of sprint races. It asked if they want more, the same or fewer. And the plurality want more or the same which I characterised "in favour" of sprint races. I suppose I thought that if they weren't in favour of sprint races, they would have chosen option C and said they want fewer sprints.

Right, but it was over 3 options. You can't just put 2 other options together and say the majority voted one way over the other when the majority actually voted for less...46%, 35% and 19%.

It was a survey of 3 options. Not 2.

I'll summarize by saying you can't draw the conclusion from the poll that more people are in favour when that is not what question was asked. So to draw that as a take away is misleading. There are/could be other factors as well such as why are they polling, Is it to save cash, is it to add excitement, to add money to ticket prices etc.

If it is to just do a pulse check, you can argue that it is to stay the same, but that wasn't the genesis of the survey.

Actually only 19% voted fir more and 81% for less if your looking at it like that as I already said to El_dod09

Mario Andretti will have the last corner of the Circuit Of The Americas named after him. The name of the corner will be 'The Andretti'.