Yet another student survey.... with a difference!
Discussion
Hi guys,
Well it’s time again for yet another dissertation survey (mine being on the transference of composite technology between aerospace and motorsport), and I’m very much aware that this forum has been figuratively raped by various students (some from my own course).
So rather than just post and wait for the inevitable replies of “oh god, not another one” I thought I’d post something constructive and show the results from a survey I carried out last year on opinions on aerodynamics in formula one (that I also posted here and a couple of other forums I regularly frequent). I ended up with over 300 responses so I am very grateful for everyone’s help!
So I won’t post the link to the new questionnaire until the end of the post as otherwise this whole exercise would have been pointless.
Anyway, on with the old survey results.
For the first question I asked whether or not people thought there was too much or too little emphasis on aerodynamics in formula 1.
Clearly, most people thought the balance was about right, but interestingly, almost all other respondents thought that there was too much emphasis. I guess this is partly down to the controversial nature of things like DRS but also possibly due to the lack of development in other areas.
For the second question, I asked whether aerodynamics had a positive or negative impact on the racing.
Most people again, were generally in favour of aerodynamics, saying that it was positive, but the difference between positive and negative respondents was not as dramatic as the difference between too much and too little in question 1, but this may well be my own fault as I didn’t include a “no impact” or “don’t care” option as in the first.
For the third question, I asked if increased cornering speeds caused by aerodynamics was a safety concern.
Now this question in hindsight may have been a little irrelevant due to the advances in safety in other areas (i.e. track safety as well as car safety like HANS and improved crash structures). Although it was still interesting that 83 people out of the 307 respondents thought that there was an issue.
For question 4, I asked if people thought that aerodynamic features on cars were aesthetically important.
A clear split here although a slight majority of people saying that aerodynamic features are important aesthetically. Again though, this may have been affected by the lack of a middle ground “slightly important” option.
Question 5 was a bit of a speculative question, asking people if they thought the racing would be made more or less exciting by a change to minimal downforce regulations.
Interestingly, clear majority saying that yes it would be more exciting. This could be skewed by the majority of respondents being from Pistonheads (many of whom may have a purist view of racing and the importance of driver skill over engineering). An even split of respondents going for the less exciting or no change options.
Question 6 was just a quick survey to see how long the respondents had been following formula 1.
With most people following for more than 5 years, I could at least be certain most people would have given a fairly informed view.
The final question I asked (other than demographic details like age and gender [If you must know, 11 females answered]), was about whether the respondents would be more likely to follow the sport based on regulation changes to development freedom in aerodynamics.
I must admit, I was expecting most people to want more developmental freedom, but as you can see, most didn’t care, or (with a very slight majority) wanted more restriction to aerodynamic development.
So those were the results I obtained from last years survey. Make of them what you will, but I think I gained some decent results from a wide range of motor enthusiasts across pistonheads and other forums.
And finally onto the point of this post.
I’m carrying out a survey for my final dissertation, which is titled “The Transference of Composite Technology between Aerospace and Motorsport, and what is the Future?”
The survey should take no longer than 5-10 minutes to complete, and it asks questions about the use of composites in motorsport, and the practical, environmental and safety implications of the increasing use of composites in various industries.
Here is the link to the survey: http://tolu.na/13lMnyc
Again, like the last survey, all of your responses are hugely appreciated, and in due course (i.e. after final grading and graduation), I’ll release these results too.
Thanks again in advance everyone!
Well it’s time again for yet another dissertation survey (mine being on the transference of composite technology between aerospace and motorsport), and I’m very much aware that this forum has been figuratively raped by various students (some from my own course).
So rather than just post and wait for the inevitable replies of “oh god, not another one” I thought I’d post something constructive and show the results from a survey I carried out last year on opinions on aerodynamics in formula one (that I also posted here and a couple of other forums I regularly frequent). I ended up with over 300 responses so I am very grateful for everyone’s help!
So I won’t post the link to the new questionnaire until the end of the post as otherwise this whole exercise would have been pointless.
Anyway, on with the old survey results.
For the first question I asked whether or not people thought there was too much or too little emphasis on aerodynamics in formula 1.
Clearly, most people thought the balance was about right, but interestingly, almost all other respondents thought that there was too much emphasis. I guess this is partly down to the controversial nature of things like DRS but also possibly due to the lack of development in other areas.
For the second question, I asked whether aerodynamics had a positive or negative impact on the racing.
Most people again, were generally in favour of aerodynamics, saying that it was positive, but the difference between positive and negative respondents was not as dramatic as the difference between too much and too little in question 1, but this may well be my own fault as I didn’t include a “no impact” or “don’t care” option as in the first.
For the third question, I asked if increased cornering speeds caused by aerodynamics was a safety concern.
Now this question in hindsight may have been a little irrelevant due to the advances in safety in other areas (i.e. track safety as well as car safety like HANS and improved crash structures). Although it was still interesting that 83 people out of the 307 respondents thought that there was an issue.
For question 4, I asked if people thought that aerodynamic features on cars were aesthetically important.
A clear split here although a slight majority of people saying that aerodynamic features are important aesthetically. Again though, this may have been affected by the lack of a middle ground “slightly important” option.
Question 5 was a bit of a speculative question, asking people if they thought the racing would be made more or less exciting by a change to minimal downforce regulations.
Interestingly, clear majority saying that yes it would be more exciting. This could be skewed by the majority of respondents being from Pistonheads (many of whom may have a purist view of racing and the importance of driver skill over engineering). An even split of respondents going for the less exciting or no change options.
Question 6 was just a quick survey to see how long the respondents had been following formula 1.
With most people following for more than 5 years, I could at least be certain most people would have given a fairly informed view.
The final question I asked (other than demographic details like age and gender [If you must know, 11 females answered]), was about whether the respondents would be more likely to follow the sport based on regulation changes to development freedom in aerodynamics.
I must admit, I was expecting most people to want more developmental freedom, but as you can see, most didn’t care, or (with a very slight majority) wanted more restriction to aerodynamic development.
So those were the results I obtained from last years survey. Make of them what you will, but I think I gained some decent results from a wide range of motor enthusiasts across pistonheads and other forums.
And finally onto the point of this post.
I’m carrying out a survey for my final dissertation, which is titled “The Transference of Composite Technology between Aerospace and Motorsport, and what is the Future?”
The survey should take no longer than 5-10 minutes to complete, and it asks questions about the use of composites in motorsport, and the practical, environmental and safety implications of the increasing use of composites in various industries.
Here is the link to the survey: http://tolu.na/13lMnyc
Again, like the last survey, all of your responses are hugely appreciated, and in due course (i.e. after final grading and graduation), I’ll release these results too.
Thanks again in advance everyone!
Edited by Slinky1989 on Thursday 28th February 21:38
Pothole said:
Why does your dissertation title have the word 'and' in it? It doesn't make sense.
If I'm honest, I'm still deliberating over the wording of the title a little. I know exactly what it's about but there are just a few different ways I could word the title.So for the sake of this thread I just put it in there as it's not quite final.
Anyway, trust the first post to be about some form of wording or grammar haha
t mattersSlinky1989 said:
Pothole said:
Why does your dissertation title have the word 'and' in it? It doesn't make sense.
If I'm honest, I'm still deliberating over the wording of the title a little. I know exactly what it's about but there are just a few different ways I could word the title.So for the sake of this thread I just put it in there as it's not quite final.
Anyway, trust the first post to be about some form of wording or grammar haha
Pothole. It does make sense with both "and"s in there. Admittedly you could replace the second and with a semi-colon, but a) there are many ways to skin a cat, and classical English would actually err towards the extra "and", and b) There is a good chance that the person marking this will have a poor understanding of semi-colons anyway.
Gaz. said:
Pothole said:
Why does your dissertation title have the word 'and' in it? It doesn't make sense.
This is the 2nd post of yours that I've seen where you add nothing other than to jump on the spelling, grammar or punctuation of another poster. Give it a rest.tristancliffe said:
Pothole. It does make sense with both "and"s in there. Admittedly you could replace the second and with a semi-colon, but a) there are many ways to skin a cat, and classical English would actually err towards the extra "and", and b) There is a good chance that the person marking this will have a poor understanding of semi-colons anyway.
This post has helped a surprising amount. Semi colon it is! But you're right, I'm not sure of the potential marker's understanding of them One thing I do need a little help with, I've just discovered a shortfall of the survey website I used for this. It doesn't let you see individual responses as far as I can tell, so I can't match peoples email addresses with their profession (if they worked in any of the professions I asked about at the end).
What's the best way to word an email to the people who left there's at the end of the survey [for potential interview] when I can't even tell what they do or how they can help me?
What's the best way to word an email to the people who left there's at the end of the survey [for potential interview] when I can't even tell what they do or how they can help me?
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff