I knew it! FOTA have been wanting three car teams for a while now so Ferrari and the other manufacturers can dominate the front of F1 and drive the independents out. All they want is to have Formula 1 to themselves! Why does everyone see FOTA as the good guys and the FIA as the bad guys in this? Sure the FIA are no saints but I am sick of all the major corporations in F1 spending their rivals out of business and turning F1 into an 'elitist' club. F1 needs more independent teams to add to the racing and the show, and non-corporate teams will also be more in touch with the public. This is because show that new blood can succeed in F1 on enterprise and you do not have to be a $200 million corporation in order to compete. However the manufacturers/FOTA will not be happy until they have 3 car manufacturer teams racing each other, which they can dominate financially for themselves. Saying that however their numbers are falling so the remaining manufacturer teams instead of allowing Lola or Prodrive in instead think putting more of their own cars on the track will solve the problem. It's all about greed.

I knew this would happen! As the FIA gave into the pressure of FOTA a few weeks ago and dropped the budget cap now FOTA have just interpreted it as a sign of weakness and demanded more. It is true the FIA are trying to engineer support from new independent teams, free from the manufacturer control of FOTA to weaken their growing power and in doing this are perusing a ruthless 'ends justify the means' agenda. However the manufacturer teams and FOTA want to stop the new teams from entering F1 by delaying the political process in the 2010 regulations so they can keep their share of the F1 prize and television money and potentially have three car teams between them. They may talk of an agenda in touch with the fans of F1 but in reality this is pure PR to hide FOTA's real agenda, which is to control F1 on a financial and political front. It's like cigarette company having too much lobbying power on a government health agenda policy!

Jacques is right on this! As much as FOTA would like to believe all F1 fans are Ferrari lovers I am sick of drivers who constantly tread the corporate PR line in F1 these days and never speak their mind! Villeneuve was probably the only driver of the modern era who was prepared to do so. In terms of Jacques record and what he still has to prove it must be noted as well when he was removed from BMW Sauber in 2006 he had outqualified Heidfeld 7-4 and been unlucky with reliability in the races. (USA GP 2006 being the best example) However, when reality bites I do find it unlikely that many F1 teams would want to take on a 38 year old. I understand Jacques is also looking around for sponsorship to help persuade a potential team. It might be a good move for USGPE though to bring in an experienced driver to help them develop their first car if they move into F1. I doubt they would be so restrictive in just limiting themselves to drivers from the USA. Jacques has ditched Craig Pollock as his manger to and this may open a few more doors for him! It would be great to see Jacques back amongst F1 world!

Well if the team is going to be on the grid in 2010 I expect an agreement has already been reached as to who it will be. De la Rosa/Senna/Pantano?

I knew it was all getting to good to be true. I was looking forward to a battle of engineering ingenuity in F1 rather than the 'spending arms race' which we currently experience, and which only benefits the manufacturer teams. Yes Manor are close to Mosley/FIA which is why FOTA want to stop their team but as much as FOTA talk about their desire to encourage "new blood", in reality they want to stop any hope of the prize and television money being divided between any more teams! FOTA, the Ferrari lead group want three car teams I¿m afraid and self-interest is once again determining the political agenda! And if they do not get that they will just have to try and take F1 through politics.

I suspected this a long time ago when Manor were first given a grid slot in the 2010 entry list. It is well known that Mosley was a former shareholder in Simtek and has been in a situation like this with Andrea Moda in 1992. When Moda bought a chassis design from Simtek early that year Mosley drummed up support for the team¿s inclusion despite the fact they refused to pay the then $100,000 entry fee. But it was rather funny that Mosley was so keen on Moda's involvement in F1 considering they were in a partnership with Simtek at the time. It is fairly obvious manor will be politically inclined towards the FIA and Mosley. For example, on the Wirth Research website the FIA was listed as an official client until it was conveniently taken off a few weeks ago. Nick Wirth also worked on the committee for improving rear ring designs to encourage overtaking in F1, as well as the FIA¿s road safety campaign! Maybe this is Mosley¿s way of infiltrating the growing threat of a complete unity of teams under the FOTA umbrella. However I do not really care because I have been longing to see more teams in F1 for a while now to add another interesting element to F1, as well as more racing and competition. To be fair Nick Wirth deserves another chance in F1. After all Simtek had potential as an F1 team which was shown in the 1995 Argentinean Grand Prix when Jos Verstappen raced Berger¿s Ferrari for position! Nick Wirth was also once touted by some people in the F1 community as the next Adrian Newey, so I am interested to see what Manor can do on the track!

Where does this leave the budget cap then? If there is not one there is no way the new teams will continue to plan or 2010. There are still many unanswered questions.

Please bring back Canada for 2010. I hope Bernie is not demanding too much money which drives non-government funded races out of business.

Am I the only F1 fan that sides with the FIA and Mosley on this issue? Don¿t get me wrong, the FIA are no saints after their treatment of McLaren and Mosley's "private" antics. However what is going on here is a struggle of power which has existed before Mosley was in charge of the FIA, so political war in F1 is not a modern phenomenon caused by Mosley. Ruthless politics existed in F1 before Max Mosley was around evident in the 1981 FOCA/FOTA disputes and the war at the end of the 1989 season between Senna and FISA. When Bernie announced in 2001 he was selling shares in F1 to Kirch for example the manufacturers 'freaked out' because they wanted F1 and they still do now. These greedy corporations (BMW, Mercedes, Fiat, Toyota) etc are looking to seize power away from the FIA and Mosley is one of the remaining politicians who is willing to stand up to corporate might they impose, whereas most politicians have given in the last 20 years to private enterprise. FOTA do not want to remove Bernie however because he knows how to fun F1, but they certainly want more of the commercial income. And if the FIA compromise now, like everyone expects them to on the budget cap FOTA will interpret this as a sign of weakness and just demand more. I am sick of all the major corporations in F1 spending their rivals out of business and turning F1 into an ¿elitist¿ club. F1 needs more teams to add to the racing and the show, and non-corporate teams will also be more in touch with the public. This is because show that new blood can succeed in F1 on enterprise and you do not have to be a $200 million corporation in order to compete. I am therefore fully in favor of the budget cap. However the manufacturers/FOTA will not be happy until they have 3 car manufacturer teams racing each other, which they can dominate financially for themselves. The FIA are the lesser of two evils in this.

Can someone please tell me why Kimi was not penalised, like every other driver who has even slightly impeded another driver in qualifying in the last few years? I mean there is no doubt, Kimi was on the racing line? I know the love-in between Ferrari and the FIA has ended recently but maybe the FIA were afraid of annoying Ferrari anymore, even on the track.

Surely Kimi has to take a grid penalty now then? Why has it not been mentioned yet?

I do hope both Lola and Prodrive find a way into F1. Both these teams are more than capable of making the grade so what I hope the FIA would consider is the qualifying system which existed in the early 1990's. This was the system where 30 cars would compete for 26 places on the grid, which could work under the current knockout form of qualifying. The potentially exciting spectacle for the first part of qualifying would be a real knock out where one mistake could see a driver not making the grid, which would increase the level of competition even further!

Team Superfund says it is already "negotiating a collaborative deal with an established F1 team", which can only be Toro Rosso. With customer cars due to be outlawed in 2010 Mateschitz has been looking to sell the team since July 2008. So as Wurz is a fellow Austrian who better to sell whole or part of team to, or even sign a chassis building supply deal with?

The great thing about having more teams in F1 is that is does open more doors for drivers who really do deserve more of a chance in F1, such as Pantano, Liuzzi, Senna and Davidson. The 'elitist' club will be no more and the additional teams will create more competition and more racing, which is only great for the fans. For too long many good drivers have been denied the chance to shine in F1 and I am a very happy F1 fan to hear that the grid will extend to 26 cars! The quality is still going to be more than good enough to!

Simtek had potential as an F1 team, but not the luck so I was delighted to hear today that Nick Wirth is returning to F1! It was strange however that both he and Manor were so quiet about their application for a slot on the 2010 grid. We seemed to have a press release every week from Litespeed/Lotus for example. I am sure Wirth's connections with Max Mosley and the FIA's road safety campaign also helped in securing Manor's successful application! Do not forget Mosley used to be a shareholder in Simtek Research Technology. If these applications also managed to defeat such well run and credible applicants such as Prodrive and Lola surely the quality of entrants is more than good enough to encourage a fight for qualifying where 30 cars compete for 26 places on the grid? That would surely add an extra exciting element to Formula 1?

Now Nick Wirth is returning to F1 a campaign should start to bring the Simtek name back to F1! I am sure his connections with Max Mosley and the FIA's road safety campaign also helped in securing his and Manor's successful application! Do not forget Mosley used to be a shareholder in Simtek Research Technology. If these applications also managed to defeat such well run and credible applicants such as Prodrive and Lola surely the quality of entrants is more than good enough to encourage a fight for qualifying where 30 cars compete for 26 places on the grid? That would surely add an extra exciting element to Formula 1?

Please find a compromise on the budget cap for 2010! F1 does need new teams to add to the spectacle and competition, and also give more drivers a chance! I am sure the new teams coming in will be of a good enough standard. Do not also forget Nick Fry was less than complementary about independent teams when Honda dumped Super Aguri this time last year! How funny his opinion has changed now he is a part of Brawn GP!

This is an unusual move by the Ferrari PR office. PR is supposed to enhance the public image of your company, not create a view that your team believes it is above everyone else and looks down it's nose at organisations they consider are not amongst their elite class in motorsport. Once again Ferrari has shown they believe they are God's gift to Formula 1 and it is insulting that they are trying to make the fans believe this! We have to remember in a situation like this that sport is based on the idea of a fair and equal competition and no team or competitor is above the sport or the rules. Obviously some members of FOTA most notably Luca di Montezemolo and Ferrari are currently wrangling with Mosley over the 2010 regulations in an attempt to delay the application process, so the prospective 2010 F1 entrants will eventually have not enough time to prepare and be forced to withdraw their applications. Ferrari does not want new teams anyway because it is in their self interest to have as few competitors as realistically possible. This naturally results in them receiving a larger share of the TV money, and their desire for unlimited spending will eventually drive other teams out of business and force the FIA to impose three car teams, which is has been their goal all along as it was with Ron Dennis to. Ferrari is also using this debate over budget capping as a scapegoat to detract the public from their poor performance on the track this season. Of course, their arrogant PR statement smearing teams like Wirth Research certainly enforcers their arrogant image further and contrary to their beliefs I am one of probably more than a few F1 fans who would not shed a tear at their potential withdraw from F1. More drivers =more competition = more racing =more entertainment! I am sure the standard would be still more than good enough for Formula 1 to.

It would be great to see Jacques back amongst F1 world in an increasing corporate, PR, and almost brain dead driver environment. It must be noted as well when he was removed from BMW Sauber in 2006 he had outqualified Heidfeld 7-4 and been unlucky with reliability in the races. (USA GP 2006 being the best example) However, when reality bites I do find it unlikely that many F1 teams would want to take on a 38 year old. It might be a good move for USGPE though to bring in an experienced driver to help them develop their first car if they move into F1. Also note; he is a recognised 'North American' driver which may help a bit with the Marketing and PR. He has ditched Craig Pollock as his manger to and this may open a few more doors for Jacques!

Can we really take these comments seriously. All this is a stunt by Ferrari's Marketing and PR derpartment, which is probably speaking on behalf on the drivers anyway. These days F1 drivers can hardly ever say anything with the explicit permission of the team first so it is funny how the 'drivers' suddenly have an opinion in line with something Ferrari are against. The only reason Ferrari are opposing the budget cap is because it threatens their one strength; the ability to outspend its rivals to the title. We have to see through the corporate and PR rubbish the fans are fed these days.

F1 should remember the fans but their obligations to them should be about creating exciting and FAIR contest. Comments like this will only lead to Ferrari suggesting they are so iconic they deserve a greater share of the television money, just because they are "Ferrari"! If Heidfeld and Fisichella's comments are to be completely perceived the way they have been reported to then we should all be reminded, fans and drivers alike that NO team has a divine right to be in Formula 1, or is above the sport. Frankly its comments like these which are rather insulting the intelligence of F1 fans round the world, which hint we have believed all the marketing rubbish we have been force fed over the years where Ferrari is a "magical" team with a "family" atmosphere and has winning in its DNA! The reality is the organisation has a ruthless policy which has existed under different leaders over the years of a completely self-centred political agenda solely to undermine its rivals. You could argue that Alfa Romeo, Mercedes and Jaguar are just as iconic names to motorsport. Despite this Ferrari still receives preferential treatment from Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA in the form of extra prize money and status and because of this 'warped' view of Formula 1 Ferrari have used it to their advantage over the years to keep them at the front. I do accept none of the other F1 teams are saints either, but the fact is Ferrari are only going to leave F1 under the most extreme of circumstances and the budget cap is certainly not one of these. Ferrari already has the largest budget and they like to spend their way to success, as a result the budget cap is not advantageous to them. Therefore Ferrari will argue against it because it is in their self-interest to do so.

I was hoping this would happen! I know it is very early days but Lola certainly have unfinished business in F1 after what happened in 1997 with the collapse of the MasterCard Lola project after one race. However, even Damon Hill struggled to qualify in the 1997 Australian GP and because Villeneuve's qualifying performance was so dominant that day it made the Lola's seem worse than they actually were. I do know I am just an Armchair F1 fan but if they are serious they must learn the lessons of 1997. They must make sure they don't give themselves only three months to prepare for the new season once the project gets the green light, (If it gets the green light) and they must not believe their own hype and decide they are so good they can build their own engine when they obviously do not have the resources to do so. On a lighter note, I hope they come up with another stylish livery like they did in 1997!

F1 politics has now reached a new low! How dear anyone challenge the might of Ferrari and if anyone believes they have a case they are accused of suffering from "supreme arrogance". Does anyone seriously think if Ferrari had designed the double decker diffuser we would even be in a court room now? I know F1 is remarked at being the 'Piranha Club' but this is just dirty politics.

Well let¿s give legard a chance! The chemistry between him and Brundle was almost like an F1 car which had only just had its first test. Let us not forget how bad James Allen was in his first Grand Prix, but he did improve. Legard may take time but he did emphasize some of the dramatic moments well. Eddie Jordan also has a good inside knowledge of the world of F1 so he will be able to give us a valuable insight into the future political wars. He also pointed out rather interestingly that Bernie may have had a hand in the Virgin/Brawn deal!

Why are the new front wings not on the losers list? I know they were introduced to give the drivers more front end grip and allow them to follow other cars closer, thus increasing overtaking but they just look horrible! Bridgestone with their "two step" tyres will produce more variables and overtaking in the races as you pointed out, especially in the hot GP¿s. Do we need F1 cars looking like "snowploughs" to increase overtaking?

I wonder what Bernie thinks of this because in terms of image Richard Branson could be competition for him on the face of F1! Virgin could also be looking to exploit the same marketing opportunities that Benetton successfully initiated in F1! What they need to do now is to link up with Prodrive and Mr Richards, which would enable them to get the team back to running in the same efficient way that they did in 2003 and 2004! Although could this create a power struggle between David Richards and Ross Brawn?

If Red Bull and Toro Rosso are in need of extra income, why don't they try putting some sponsors on their cars instead of 'sacrificing' good drivers? Everyone knows it is a Red Bull team so we don't need pretty logos to tell us that. Benetton always managed to market themselves in F1 whilst also finding extra sponsorship for their cars so why can¿t Red Bull?

Buemi can only dream of receiving any comparisons with Vettel. It has to be said that the only reasons he won the Toro Rosso drive was because of his money and his contacts with Red Bull. This is the man who only finished 6th in GP2 last year and I don't see anyone rushing to sign Pastor Maldonado, for example who finished ahead of him in GP2. Toro Rosso have also been topping the pre-season testing times because they are the only team left running a 2008 spec-car. The unfortunate thing is that Buemi has not made it to F1 completely on talent.

To be honest, this is not Hamilton talking here. This is the political clout of Mercedes going public against Mosley's plan for a single engine supplier. Instead of releasing a statement through a PR person Mercedes get to do their PR offensive through the more interesting image of Lewis Hamilton. Maybe Hamilton does believe in Mercedes cause against Standardised Engines, I don't know, but does anyone else seriously believe that he would be allowed to raise such an opinion on an important issue in F1 without the blessing of Mercedes first? I really do think that we have to take everything Hamilton says in the press these days with a 'pinch of salt'.

The irony is that this is the man who both Williams and BAR Honda fought so fiercely over in both 2005 and 2006! Now he finds himself fighting to stay in F1. Don't Williams want Button back at all now he is completely available? It is fair to say that Button is better than Nakajima but I am sure the corporate bosses at Toyata still believe that he is their potential Lewis Hamilton!!

Hang on a minute. If Honda do not find a buyer then will we not have to go back to the issues and mess of late 2004? This being the situation where under the terms of the Concorde Agreement, if the field drops bellow 20 cars we will have to have some teams running three cars?

"David Butler has written to Honda's sponsors", what sponsers? Don't forget they have been running the 'Earth Dream' banner in 2008 because they can't find a title sponsor. Tells you something about the team considering that Williams, on a fraction of their budget have actually managed to produce a pretty healthy list of backers.

Another driver talking about his "dreams" of driving for Ferrari. This is more PR waffle to put his foot in the door of F1 I'm afraid

2008 was a great season, but don't also forget 1997 in "all the talk". I was great to see the two championship rivals going head to head on the final race and ending up with one 'cracking' in a dramatic on the track incident. Am I the only one who believes that was a more dramatic finish than this year?

Force India has become what Prodrive were supposed to be in 2008. Has anyone else noticed that Force India effectively becoming the Mclaren B team is a complete contrast with their earlier arguments against customer cars, Super Aguri and Junior teams. It is funny how points of view can be flexible when politics are close by. Clearly Force India saw Super Aguri as a threat and wanted to get rid of them.

What was wrong with Tony Jardine?