sergio romagosa
On September 1, FIVA published the first battery of survey results on the European movement in support of the old vehicle that he carried out before summer in 15 European countries and of which we inform and invite you to participate in April. Specifically, the 220-page report has been compiled based on survey responses filled out by hobbyists who own vintage vehicles; The part relating to clubs and companies is therefore pending.
Go ahead my praise to FIVA for this initiative and, in general, for its determination to be an effective tool for the defense and conservation of the old vehicle. Having said this, in view of the testimonial response it has obtained from the European fans already revealed in the first pages of the extensive report, I think it might have been better not to publish it.
The crux of this issue is in the number "19.432". That is the number of European fans who have completed and submitted the survey. This figure is only two percent of the target population and, in some countries (such as Spain, from which only 338 surveys have been received), it does not even reach two PER THOUSAND.
Slippery ground
With these starting figures, the study should have been aborted immediately, as the sample did not reach the minimum size necessary to be able to draw conclusions representative of the reality studied. This is so and, therefore, extrapolating the data provided by that 2% to the entire group is a meaningless exercise that can jeopardize the credibility of the entity that carries it out.
As a button shows: on page 131 of the report, it is indicated that almost 80% of the 338 Spanish fans affirmed that they belonged to at least one vintage vehicle club; However, based on information available to me from a sample 100 times larger, the reality is precisely the opposite: only 20% of Spanish owners of old vehicles are registered with a club. What sense, then, does it make to include that figure or any other in the report?
However, the worst thing is not that we have paid for a useless report full of data that only chance can approximate reality, but that this report allows FIVA interlocutors to question its representativeness and, therefore, its competence to defend our interests.
Demobilized or defenseless?
Because, dear friends, not having shown our effective support for an action of such importance to our interests and that cost us so little, may not become an express rejection of the work of FIVA, but it is a clear demonstration that this institution it is not capable of mobilizing us. And I am afraid that the latter - for the purposes of our adversaries - is almost the same.
When an action is carried out in support of an objective but it ends up being, not only useless to achieve it but counterproductive, the smart thing is to try to forget it ... and not proclaim it to the four winds, as has been done. Anyway, I hope that the reports on the information provided by the federated clubs themselves and the professionals are conclusive enough to counteract this first "fiasco".
