I don't think it will be long before all the curcuits, regardless of where their money comes from, will be saying no to F1 unless the event is self financing. I can't see any rich Barons or Governments wanting to support a loss making event in todays financial climate.

Robson, Don't forget that Jenson, who had a valid contract with Williams, was dumped by them in order to make way for Montoya. The money paid by Jenson to Williams to get out of his contract with them was merely the handing back of the compensation he was given a few years earlier.

Unfortunately Jenson has had a lot of practice being positive in difficult times. The Honda crew must be gutted after abandoning 2008 so early and putting so much effort into designing a car, to be a world beater, that might never get to run or may not get enough funding to reach it's potential.

With a major manufacturer pulling out and circuits pulling out, this is dire. Curcuits make a loss hosting races and the revenue from F1 mostly goes to Ecclestones companies. Teams do not have enough money coming in from the sports revenues to sustain their budgets and sponsors are suffering in the economic crisis. Will F1 exist in 2009?

I am totally against the medals idea. It gives no incentive to mid-grid teams. They might as well pack up and go home after the first few laps. I agree that the points differential for a win should be higher and that it was a mistake to only award points to the first eight places when the points system was changed in 2003. They should look at the points system in Moto GP

It does make sense to keep JB and dump Rubens although it doesn't seem fair. R B has performed well against Jense this year and it would seem the right thing to do to keep them both. The sense in it is that Jense has been at Honda longer and has more years left in him. To bring in a young gun alongside him is to look even further ahead and / or pick up an undiscovered / potential future champ. It's absolutely the sensible way to go forward. Jense is now the "banker". He might or might not be WC material but the young gun could be too and Honda can't pull a proven championship contender. Rubens day is done and Honda don't need two bankers. It's definitely not fair - it's F1.

In my view the F1 fraternity is riddled with things that would be regarded as conflict of interest and against the interest of the sport in any other sporting discipline. You have the commercial rights holder (Bernie Ecclestone) and one of the competitors (Ferrari) having voting rights in matters of adjudication. It was the Ferrari lawyer who was asking questions at the appeal by McLaren into the Psuedo Drive Through Penalty given to LH in Spa. How many other sports allow competitors to act as umpires? Imagine Nastazie or McEnroe umpiring their tennis matches! How can you allow someone with a financial interest in the outcome of adjudication be involved? The Chief Steward, albeit a role with no vote, is a former business associate of Ferrari. Regardless of his right to vote, he wouldn't be in that position (it would be pointless) if he had no influence. His impartiallity, which may be of the highest integrity, cannot be accepted or guaranteed. Flavio Briatore Manages several Drivers as well as acting as Team principle for Renault. While Renault are obviously willing to accept this I would think it can't be a situation they are deliriously happy with. As long as these types of situation exist in F1 then how can it be regarded as a fair sport?

Canada is a good race. Indy was good too. No Indy and no Canada? Doubly bad for F1. It kinda doesn't fit too well with me for Bernie to squeeze blood from the stone while Mad Max is fighting so hard to cut F1 costs. Soon F1 will be cheap to compete in but will have no American or European circuits to compete at. So I agree with the other comments - Bernie should ease up, he's rich enough already.

Mark Webber is a straight talker and I don't remember him ever apologising before. So if Mark said he was misquoted then I am prepared to accept it. I don't beleive that "dezbo1960" or "GPunsalan" are correct or fair. So I say good luck to Mark in Brazil but I am rooting for Lewis and McLaren Mercedes to take both titles.

Kimi's qualifying and race performances over the last two races have been 1st class. I suspect that it was the car/tyres and not Kimi that was the problem earlier in the season. Felipe has had his fair share of bad luck this year but he has been able to get more out of the package than Kimi up until the last two races. I guess that Ferrari have fixed the problems that slowed Kimi but the fix doesn't work for Felipe. Whatever the outcome in Brazil, both Lewis and Felipe would be a worthy champion - I just want it to be Lewis.

Good for you Felipe. I am rooting for Lewis, not you but I appreciate the way you have taken a non partisan view. It shows real integrity which seems to be lacking in a lot of the F1 fraternity. It would be great to see a good clean fight between Lewis and Felipe over a whole season without all the dozey FIA decisions we have seen this year.

I think that points should be awarded for Pole and fastest laps and that a 3 point differental should be given for a race win so that a win is given proper reward. We need a balance of the old differential which was too large and the current system where the difference is too small. I also think that points should be awarded down to 10th place so that we dont have the situation where the top 3 teams lock out the majority of the points. With the current system its often down to luck to determine the order of 4th - 10th in the constructor tables.

Hick Heidfeld won the F3000 title with a huge margin. Up until this year he has always been known as quick Nick. I don't think he has lost any of his skill or speed. He has been let down by BMW and Bridgestone who have not provided him with the right package. I think if Goodyear or Michelin were still competing in F1 that Bridgestone would have had to pull their fingers out a lot more. I think they have become complacent and arrogant, expecting the drivers to adapt their style rather than providing the drivers with a tool that they can use. Its a pity that drivers can't choose their tyres in the way that golfers choose their clubs and footballers choose their boots.

As a rule, I don't think its right to serve a penalty anywhere other than the race where the foul is committed. In my view, the fact is that, the Spa penalty was just totally wrong. Interesting to see the FIA re-establish the precedent for a drive through penalty for unsafe release in the pits in a case where it would make no difference to the result (for Ferrari). I should feel sorry for Massa but he was gifted an undeserving win in Spa so I don't. This Ferrari pit fiasco in Singapore just helps to put right another wrong. I guess you could say, "What comes around goes around". I think Ferrari are still well in front in terms of advantage gained from the imbalance of fairness but I think we are now closer to where we should be for this season. I don't think Kimi's driving has fallen away, I think Ferrari have let him down in the same way that BMW have let Nick Heidfeld down. I am worried about the apparent lack of performance from Heikki though. I think Lewis is going into the last three races on his own and I think Kimi is much more likely to affect the outcome of the championship than Heikki.

It was a fall-back. I beleive that McLarens arguments were sound so rather than overturn the stewards decision the FIA ruled the appeal inadmissable. McLaren were never going to win. It was a forgone conclusion. I think the FIA only heard the appeal in the hope that they could refute McLarens arguments and make them look silly.

A few ideas from me. McLaren should consider refusing to pay the costs of the FIA on the grounds that the appeal was inadmissable and therefore unnecessary. The FIA should have ruled that the appeal was inadmissable before agreeing to hear it. (I presume the ruling given was reserved for the event that McLarens argument was sound, as would seem to be the case). In any event the penalty was not a drive through penalty, it was a time penalty whatever the reasoning behind it may have been. As I understand it, the teams have to carry out a drive through penalty within 3 laps and since the penalty was awarded after the race then it could not be carried out and so no time was lost? So surely if it is a drive through penalty then the FIA cannot add the time of something that did not happen? McLaren should also refuse to pay the costs of Ferrari since the appeal was lodged against the FIA stewards and not against Ferrari. I don't understand why Ferrari's lawyer was questioning Lewis Hamilton. Alan Donnely's position of chief Steward should be contested on the basis of his previous business relationship with Ferrari. Ferrari's position on the WMSC should be contested on the basis that a competitor can not act as an Umpire for a sporting event in which they are competing. According to the TV comentators Ferrari were told by the Stewards in the Italian GP to tell Massa to cede a position after cutting the chicane. Why? Surely its up to Ferrari to ensure that they follow the rules and not the position of the stewards to give advice, or if it is, then why wasn't the position in Spa made clear to Mclaren during the race on an equal footing? I don't understand the workings of F1 or the FIA and would love to see where the same standards are used in any other......er.....sport?