Why Villeneuve is right about 'the fans'

When Jacques Villeneuve said "it is dangerous to ask 'the fans' what they want, because a lot of modern F1 is what 'the fans' wanted", he had a good point.

His phraseology was a little clumsy. Had he said "a lot of modern F1 is what the fans said they wanted" or "what F1 understood from what the fans asked for", it would have been a little more accurate. But, even so, he was pretty much on the money.

That doesn't mean that it's wrong to give 'the fans' what they want; after all, if your objective is for grand prix racing to have as broad an appeal as possible and audience figures to be sky-high, you have to do that.

It also doesn't mean 'the fans' are incorrect. By definition, they are right but that is reflecting in their F1 viewing habits.

The problem is, understanding what people want is a very different thing simply to asking them if they want x, y or z.

The reason for that is straightforward: things do not exist in a vacuum. Rather than thinking of F1 in terms of a series of boxes to be ticked or unticked, instead think of it as a series of countless dials - technical, sporting, financial and all the sub-categories thereof - that must be very carefully tweaked to get the perfect blend.

Adjust one dial to the way you want it, thousands of others move a little as a knock-on. Then change another, and the first might reset. It is extremely complicated and doesn't lend itself to the easy answers that many offer.

Villeneuve's words were controversial, but made a good point © XPB

And when 'the fans' offer suggestions to do something, it is not their job to do an in-depth analysis of the consequences of that. That's F1's job, and it does it pretty badly.

In that regard, Villeneuve's statement seeming to blame 'the fans' for what F1 is now is not correct. Instead, it's F1 taking a lack of responsibility and mistaking what is effectively a giant focus group for a technical working group.

To claim that a homogenous group called 'the fans' exists is, in itself, dangerous. Regularly, AUTOSPORT receives correspondence from various self-appointed spokespeople offering their opinion on what is to be done.

Inevitably, they say it's what 'the fans' want. Inevitably, they offer completely different visions. So immediately, anyone referring to 'the fans' as if they are of one mind is already on shaky ground.

After all, who are you talking about? The hardcore fans that watch F1 and other forms of motorsport come hell or high water? The engaged fans who might nonetheless go elsewhere if F1 isn't giving them what they want? The casual fans who watch for 90 minutes on a Sunday? Or those who would watch a few online videos?

So of those, who do you ask? It's not an easy question to answer. Naturally, AUTOSPORT leans towards the hardcore fans that we exist to serve, but the stark reality is that when people are talking about maintaining the millions of consumers of the sport, that extends beyond the dedicated fanbase.

So who you ask is a problem. Even with the kinds of surveys that AUTOSPORT and the GPDA recently launched, those answering are inevitably a self-selecting group. That in itself jeopardises the validity of the answers.

DRS was introduced for 2011 in reponse to a clamour for more overtaking © LAT

Then there is the problem of what you ask, because answers can be misleading. Not only do they lack nuance, but it's very easy to 'lead the witness' or to come up with a series of answers that point to a course of action that isn't as popular or effective as hoped.

Take the DRS as an example. When FOTA was in its heyday, it did make a concerted effort to get fan feedback. And one of the central demands of those fans was that they wanted to see more overtaking.

Take the FOTA survey of 2010 as an example; on page 19 here, there is a clear emphasis of the fact that overtaking is extremely important to a majority of the respondents.

And look, too, at the top of page 22, where it is clear that F1 "needs to deliver exciting racing and overtaking".

It's not an isolated case. Most surveys have always isolated overtaking, in particular the amount of it, as key to the product. These are the kinds of findings that led to the introduction of the DRS.

Analysis showed that, if you follow another car closely in a corner, you lose 20-30 per cent of downforce. That's a fact.

The overtaking working group worked out that to be able to make a passing move without relying on a mistake by the driver ahead, the chasing car needed to be a massive two seconds a lap faster.

So opening the rear wing was the solution, designed to recreate a strong slipstream effect. It certainly dramatically increased the amount of overtaking, although it led to complaints about it being too easy.

This is where things get very complicated. There is a clear pattern of many people wanting more overtaking, but for it not to be too easy. Well, the reality is that the amount of passing and the ease of overtaking will generally be directly proportional.

Overtakes completed with DRS are often labelled as being too easy © LAT

It's all well and good to question the way that overtaking has been created, but the internal logic is perfectly reasonable. You want more overtaking? Here, have the DRS.

Then there's the question of variables. The reason that high-degradation tyres were adopted is that they create a variation in pace. Allow refueling and Bridgestone-style control rubber, and the window in which cars operated was extremely narrow in terms of pace.

If you start the cars in pace order, allow them to operate at close to 100 per cent of their potential throughout a race distance, then there's no reason to expect a huge amount of movement in terms of the race positions.

That in itself is fine. But if the interpretation of what 'the fans' want is exciting, unpredictable racing, then variables are what it's all about. That's why the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix was regarded by many as the best of that season and the template for Pirelli's tyre characteristics.

AUTOSPORT rated Canada as the third-best race of the year - while the F1-based F1 Fanatic website's readership voted it to be the best.

Returning to the topic of overtaking, there is a prevailing opinion that if the emphasis switched to underbody aerodynamics in terms of downforce-generation it would be easier for cars to follow and therefore overtake.

But if that's the case, with other variables eliminated by far more consistent rubber and refueling, if anything the cars will simply get into pace order more rapidly and then drive around in a procession.

Arguably, what is needed is cars that are less critical in turbulence, while maintaining overall downforce to ensure that laptimes are seriously fast, at the same time as allowing variables.

Of course, that is far easier said than done. And it's a tricky balance between allowing the necessary freedom and dictating what people can do to influence the quality of the racing.

Without variables, F1 cars tend to run in pace order unless mistakes are made © LAT

Then there is the argument about the regulations. The rules have gradually become more and more prescriptive, partly to keep costs under control and partly to ensure that the field stays tightly packed in terms of pace.

Philosophically, the idea of having more scope for innovation and variation is a good one. But the suggestion that this will make it easier for small teams to be competitive is a very dangerous one.

In fact, the opposite is often true. Small teams thrive when they pick exactly the right path, commit to it and get it right. Big teams can afford to pursue multiple development paths and gain performance that way.

Usually, the big guns win. A smaller team is always reliant on a large operation messing up to get ahead of them.

There will always be an advantage to be found with greater resources. Even in spec series, GP2 for example, it is generally the better-funded teams that get the stronger results.

There is greater scope for innovation with freer regs, which is a positive, but it's naive to think that Manor will suddenly turn up with a fan strapped to the back of their car and win the Swedish Grand Prix. Innovation now is a more iterative process.

By all means, free up the regs. But don't assume it's an easy answer or a quick fix.

So if you don't ask 'the fans', what's the correct way to do things? The key is, as always, understanding what 'the fans' want. That is distinct from telling them what they want.

So how do you understand? Well-constructed, comprehensive surveys are one way, although it's crucial that the findings are analysed and understood in detail. That requires a very clear and professional skill set.

Then you need to analyse viewing habits. Again, this requires more than simply looking at how many people are watching, and drawing conclusions.

After all, with more and more options for consumers, there is a trend towards slightly smaller, more motivated fanbases. Motorsport in many European countries gained hugely from live television coverage in the past in a far simpler environment with only a few channels. Trying to recreate that is probably a fool's errand.

Viewing habits need to be properly analysed by Formula 1 chiefs © LAT

But by trying to understand what makes F1 popular among a broad enough fanbase to be sustainable, catering both for the hardcore AUTOSPORT reader and the more casual fans, there is at least a chance that a clear and sensible course is set.

As far as I can see, the Strategy Group proposals are based on pulling ideas out of thin air. Various pitches have been made, but little explanation of why.

Why, for example, is it considered that refueling is a good thing? Actually, the strategic variation it offers is of limited value. Most likely, there will be some interesting variation early on, then everyone will default to set strategies.

In the previous refueling era, the strategies were fairly predictable and it automatically led to pitstop strategy being the best means of overtaking.

Yes, there were some spectacular passing moves during that period, but they were rare. To think that the weaknesses in F1's offering is simply a question of deciding whether or not refueling is a good thing reduces the argument to a meaningless one.

That's why asking 'the fans' is a mistake. It produces one-dimensional easy answers, ones that very often create more problems.

Instead, the key is good research. When F1's much-maligned overtaking working group came up with the 2009 regulations, it was based on a contribution of around £50k per team.

Given that it was attempting to create regs that would be worked on by teams with budgets of hundreds of millions, is it any wonder it failed? The group certainly succeeded in cutting back the downforce, but it didn't have the resources or the remit to analyse how those losses would be clawed back.

That's what F1 needs to do properly. Firstly, understand what 'the fans' want and then do the homework correctly in order to deliver it.

Asking is just one small part of understanding. F1 must grasp that fact if it's to stop chasing its tail and deliver what 'the fans' really do want.

But one word of warning to 'the fans'. If you want genuine sporting competition, and most do, then you have to accept that there will be always scope for a team and driver to do a better job than the rest and dominate.

That's an unavoidable fact of life.