Tony George, owner of the Indianapolis circuit, is scheduled to talk next Thursday about “The future of Formula One racing in the United States”. The Indy GP is guaranteed for 2007 but beyond that its continued existence is uncertain and the hope is that George will reveal his plans during his talk.

Much of the doubt surrounding the Grand Prix centers on the events of 2005, when only six cars participated after the Michelin teams withdrew following tire failures on the banked curve. Yet this seems very unfair when it is remembered that the problem was between the tire company and the FIA and it was not caused by the circuit owners. Had the FIA been more flexible in its dealing with the situation, the race would have proceeded as normal. Several solutions, all quite workable, were proposed by Michelin but the FIA rejected them all, insisting that the cars should run on the circuit as it was, even though it was clear that safety was compromised by the likelihood of tire failures. Their own suggestion, that the Michelin-shod cars should slow down for the banked corner, would have made the race as much of a farce as ultimately resulted.

I suppose that it could be said that the banked curve itself was the problem and remains so; it is true that it is the only such corner on the F1 circuits. But in previous years there have been no tire failures and 2005 was a case of Michelin getting their calculations wrong, surely an incentive for tire manufacturers not to repeat the mistake. Now that Bridgestone is the sole tire supplier to F1, any future problems with the corner will be shared by all teams (including Ferrari) and a suitable compromise could be worked out without difficulty.

It should also be considered that F1 is trying to expand its following in the US. If the sport is to run scared of one banked corner, it loses all credibility with Americans, since they are used to so much of their motor sports being held on banked ovals. It becomes important to the future of F1 in America that Tony George decide to continue with the GP, therefore, and he is definitely the man we want to hear from on the subject. All eyes on this coming Thursday.

Apparently there are several F1 teams that would like another GP in the States and I heartily approve of this suggestion. Ideally, such a GP would be held in the west since the east is already catered for and two possibilities spring to mind immediately. Please, Mr Ecclestone, could F1 go back to Long Beach? It is a wonderful street circuit and there were some great races there.

Or, failing that, what about Laguna Seca? Okay, it would need some work done to get it up to F1 safety standards but imagine the cars going through the Corkscrew. If anything will increase the fanbase in America, that would! And it was used for a demonstration run by the Toyota in 2006 so we know it’s possible…

A flurry of news and views from Renault has revealed that they intend to win the championships again in 2007. Fisichella has been assuring fans that he will be champion and Flavio Briatore has stated that Fizzy has the ability to do it. “If he doesn’t step on it this year, we’ll make him do it,” said Flavio.

Which sounds like an ultimatum to me, especially as Renault Technical Director, Bob Bell, agrees that it is a make-or-break year for Fisichella. Nelson Piquet Jnr waits hungrily in the wings to see whether he breaks.

Perhaps more interesting than all this optimism (par for the course before the season opener), are Briatore’s conclusions after the recent tests on Bridgestone tires. He says he understands now why Ferrari instigated the ban on mass dampers halfway through the 2006 season; the dampers just don’t work with Bridgestone tires.

It amazes me that Ferrari’s influence on the FIA seems to be accepted now; other teams raise no eyebrows at Flavio’s sometimes pointed remarks, almost as if it were common knowledge that the rules are made with Ferrari’s benefit in mind. Of course, we all know they are, but it shows a certain defeatism that no-one even bothers to protest anymore.

I love the FIA’s response to any such protests: Formula One’s governing body has dismissed suggestions that world champions Renault have been penalised in recent races to favour Ferrari and Michael Schumacher*. No discussion, you will note; just dismissal. If they were to discuss the matter, Bernie Ecclestone’s open admission that “Ferrari is the only team to get political support from the FIA” might be mentioned. And that could be embarrassing.

Although this comfortable relationship between the FIA and Ferrari has existed for decades, it could be about to change. Now that the governing body has decided to cast its lot with the manufacturers, it may find itself with many more customers to please than just FIAT/Ferrari. All is sweetness and light at the moment but I wonder what will happen when some of the manufacturers see the future differently from others. It’s a difficult business, keeping an alliance of competitors together.

*Autosport magazine.

Many of the teams have been testing at the Barcelona circuit, with Felipe Massa predictably fastest in the Ferrari and the other drivers getting used to the Bridgestone tires. Although the times are meaningless at this early stage, they are listed in an article in Autosport magazine if you’re interested.

Autosport also has a very revealing interview after the first day’s runs with Super Aguri’s new driver, Anthony Davidson. He confirms that the Bridgestones are very different from the Michelins he was used to and that it will take time to adjust the car to get the best from them. Apparently the tires slide more and, although he found this quite entertaining, it is difficult to post good times as a result.

Which would seem to confirm all the talk of last year’s Bridgestone customers having an early season advantage until we remember that these are not the 2006 tires but an older compound that all the teams are going to have to get used to. By the time the season kicks off in Australia next year, I think that everyone will know pretty well what to expect from their tires; it will, in fact, be the proverbial level playing field that was impossible as long as two tire manufacturers were involved in F1.

In spite of Davidson’s troubles with the tires at the test, he was still respectable in the Super Aguri, posting 11th fastest time, ahead of the Toro Rossos and Red Bulls. The news on Aguri is that they will be racing a development of this year’s Honda chassis, the RA106, and will slip through the loophole in the regulations identified by Red Bull with the Toro Rosso car of 2006. As long as components are manufactured by a third party, it seems, it does not matter who assembles them and Aguri has made sure that their car for next year will qualify accordingly.

Clearly the regulations are not stringent enough to ensure that each team builds its own car from scratch and it is probably impossible to achieve this anyway. All teams use parts designed and built by other companies. We now have two teams effectively running second squads under thin disguises, Red Bull with Toro Rosso and Honda with Super Aguri. Why they should want to spread their effort so thinly, I have no idea, but they have made me doubt the wisdom of the regulation in the first place.

Presumably the intent of the rule is to prevent places in F1 being collared by existing competitors when there are other teams waiting for a gap to open up so that they can become involved. This has not happened so why bother with regulating it at all? Running two teams will soon prove too expensive and wasteful for most companies (I doubt that Red Bull and Honda will keep it going for long) and the gaps will appear in the long run.

In the fifties there were no restrictions on how many cars a team could enter and it was quite common for there to be three or four cars run by a single entrant. At the time, there was no pressure on the numbers of cars racing and the arrangement worked well enough, even though it gave larger teams a greater chance of having a car finish the race. But nothing has changed in that respect; the larger teams still enjoy certain benefits over the smaller ones, not the least of which is money.

It all makes me think that there needs to be less regulation in F1, not more. At the moment the rules are so complicated that lawyers are sometimes needed to decide on finer points that arise. That can hardly be good for the sport.

Autosport magazine reports that Toyota wants Bridgestone to allow them to test on extra days during the winter tests. The Japanese tire company are resisting this suggestion as it would break the agreement already reached over testing and coincidentally require them to supply more tires when their facilities are already under pressure.

Although the team deny any knowledge of the request, it appears that it emanates from the highest level of Toyota management. And Bridgestone are adamant that they will not depart from their previous agreement regarding tests and tires to be supplied in their quest to be even-handed in their new role as sole supplier of tires to F1. A Bridgestone spokesperson said: “The problem we have now is that this has gone beyond one team talking to its tyre supplier. In effect they’ve called their dad and we’ve called ours, so it has gone right to the top and got very complicated.”

Which bodes well for the coming season. Many are expecting that previous Bridgestone customers will have an advantage in the new year because they already have a working relationship with the tire supplier. Yet, on this evidence, it seems that Bridgestone intend to be completely fair in their handling of the monopoly. Taking into account that fact that the tire for 2007 will be completely different from those produced this year, it is difficult to see how any team will have much of an advantage from previous experience of using Bridgestone tires.

And that is how it should be; the idea of a single tire manufacturer was to cut the huge costs involved in seeking a tiny advantage over a competing tire supplier. It may seem a step back from the cutting edge of technology so necessary to F1 but in reality a standardized tire formula enables the engineers and drivers to compete on the same terms, thereby allowing the best engineered cars to reap their just rewards.

It will also take away an excuse for poor performance; teams will no longer be able to blame a bad race result on their tires but rather on their use of them. So the best teams will still come out on top, regardless of whether they have used Bridgestones before or not, particularly as the winter tests should wipe away any remaining advantage to being a Bridgestone customer in 2006.

The team that just might be at a disadvantage over tires is Spyker - they have said that they will not participate in the winter tests, preferring to develop the new car within the factory. This might leave them with some ground to make up in the early part of the season but I can’t see it being significant. Once they have the new car dialled in, it should be as competitive as it was always going to be (which is being very coy about how good I think the Spyker will be - well, wouldn’t you have doubts too?).

So I see the Bridgestone/Toyota news as good for the sport; as long as Bridgestone resist any pressure to vary the testing schedule, the likelihood is that they will be just as fair when the new season gets under way.