The big news today is Formula 1 Latest’s new look, of course. Well, with all the teams unveiling new cars and colors, it was time for this site to do a bit of showing off too. All comments will be gratefully accepted.

There is a not-so-subtle hint as to my preference this season in the header. Last year I went with Renault (and guess who was right), this time it’s Honda’s turn. The fact that a black car goes so well with the design had a lot to do with it as well, I admit!

Otherwise, the main news is of the first day of testing in Jerez. McLaren continue their recent form with Pedro de la Rosa setting the best time but, perhaps significantly, the new Williams was next up in the hands of Alex Wurz. That is pretty impressive for a car on its first test run and brings to mind other years when Williams were the dominant team.

It is unlikely that we are headed into a similar year, however; the times are so close that the coming season looks to be the closest in years. Just about everyone seems to be on the pace, only the much-vaunted Red Bull RB3 lagging behind somewhat. If that continues, it would seem hardly worth Spyker’s time and money to take Toro Rosso to court over their use of the RB3 chassis, especially as Gerhard Berger says he’s more than ready to fight.

As you would expect, it’s the teams most likely to be affected by Toro Rosso’s and Super Aguri’s customer cars that are protesting loudest: Spyker and Williams. The others are not happy but make no mention of litigation. So it could be time for the four teams most involved to settle this like gentlemen. Patrick Head, Colin Kolles, Gerhard Berger and Aguri Suzuki, behind the bike sheds at noon - be there or be square!

Spyker stayed at home to let the new F8-VII out for its first run at a cold Silverstone. Albers expressed himself delighted with the car’s performance after putting over 100 miles on it. Which means that it’s looking good for reliability at least - if the car is as fast as it looks, there will be yet another team getting into the battle for honors in 2007.

Everyone keeps saying it but I can’t help repeating - this looks like being the best season in years.

The first F1 squabble of the year progresses apace. Having failed to reach agreement over customer cars in 2007 at their recent meeting, the team principals are getting ready for war. Since legal mobilization takes time, it is most likely that scrutineering for the Australian GP on March 18th will be the crunch point. Pity those poor scrutineers!

Good old Bernie Ecclestone was there to suggest a few compromises, all of which were rejected, but at least he tried. But where was Mighty Max? Surely he would have been able to devise a way forward, given his new ability to work in harmony with the manufacturers. But I forget - that is only true when the other side has the power to really mess with him; little players like drivers and independent constructors are beneath notice.

In fact, there does seem to be a widening rift between the two most powerful men in F1, in style at least. While Bernie runs around trying to settle arguments, Max remains adamant that everyone must bow to the whim of the FIA. And given Bernie’s recent criticism of the FIA, it is clear that he is not entirely happy with the way things are run.

The fact remains that, if Max had been there to give a clear ruling from the FIA on the legality or otherwise of Super Aguri’s and Toro Rosso’s plans for the coming season, the threatened litigation could have been avoided. Had SA and STR been told that the FIA will definitely not allow any customer cars to slip through loopholes this year, both teams might have backed down; and, if the FIA’s view is that the cars are legal, Spyker and the rest would know that any protest will be futile.

As it is, we are faced with the prospect of yet another F1 court case and a GP with results pending until a verdict is given. Everyone knows how bad this is for the image of the sport but nobody seems to have a way of stopping it.

Renault’s engineering director, Pat Symonds, has added his voice to those expressing doubts about the idea of customer cars in F1. Like Mario Theissen of BMW, he feels that the legalizing of customer cars in 2008 will create a situation where there are only six manufacturers running two teams each and that the championship could be manipulated as a result.

But just a cotton-picking minute there - that’s two representatives of the manufacturers who fear that their companies will exploit the new rule to favor one driver, thereby winning the championship. Apart from the fact that this is unlikely since, if one manufacturer does it, they all will and that will cancel out any advantage they might have gained, why is it the potential manipulators who are suggesting such a scenario? I hear no complaints from the small teams who apparently face such a dismal future as the pawns of the big guys.

It seems to me that there is more going on here than meets the eye. The potential for devious tactics is not the real reason for the manufacturers’ doubts - that is just an excuse to justify their objection to the rule change. We must look elsewhere to find the motivation of the manufacturers, methinks.

Is it possible that they have looked at the history of F1 and fear the inventiveness, speed of reaction and dedication of small teams? To supply a chassis and engine to a customer team and then find that their customer has devised a tweak that makes their version of the car quicker would be unbearably embarrassing for a manufacturer. It is not beyond possibility.

So let us say that the big boss takes a walk down the pitlane and instructs his customers that, from now on, they must let the supplier’s lead driver win or the supply of chassis and engines will dry up. Well, we all know how leaky F1 teams are - it would not be long before the news made its way to the press and the resulting row would be far more embarrassing to the manufacturer than losing an occasional race to its own products. The Norberto Fontana revelation of last year may have been squashed very quickly by Peter Sauber but doubts linger in many minds, I’m sure.

The argument doesn’t float. In reality, the manufacturers don’t want their task of winning to be made even more difficult by the addition of small teams with competitive cars. It is hard enough already to beat the other manufacturers without having to consider the challenge of customer teams as well.

The suggested collusion by manufacturers raises another possibility that has not been mentioned. If they are prepared to stoop to such underhand dealing, what is to prevent them getting together and deciding to share out the championship between them? It would ensure that no manufacturer enjoys a long period of domination and hogs all the publicity as a result; if they take it in turns to win and get the marketing benefits, everyone is happy and avoids the possibility of never winning, something that they must all dread.

The fact is that the presence of small teams in F1 actually makes the possibilities for collusion much less. They would not be a part of any share-out of the spoils and will ruin any such attempt merely by competing to the best of their ability. And the customer car rule is the one remaining lifeline to such teams - without it they will be consigned to a Minardi-like existence, scrimping and scraping to get enough money together to continue for one more season.

So I’m sorry, Pat, but I just don’t believe you. You have one thing right, however:

“If you say that in 2008 you can do it (run customer cars), then does it really matter about things being pushed forward a year,” he said. “Many other rules have been pushed forward a year, is it really a big deal?

“On that basis, you would say it is a storm in a teacup. But it is easy for me to say that from a Renault perspective. If I was Spyker, I would not be at all happy about it. Rules are rules.”

Spyker may be complaining about the Toro Rosso and Super Aguri cars for the coming season but I haven’t heard that Colin Kolles objects to the 2008 rule change. Maybe that’s because he knows that Spyker haven’t the resources to compete with the really big manufacturers and might have to buy in a customer chassis themselves in future. They are already buying engines, after all.

BMW’s Mario Theissen has come out strongly against customer cars being allowed in F1. The rules are due to change in 2008 to allow this and Theissen is looking beyond the current storm brewing over Toro Rosso’s and Super Aguri’s plans to run something very like customers cars in 2007.

His point is that the rule change could result in a reduction of the number of constructors, with only about six manufacturers producing chassis and supplying them to ‘B’ teams. This would allow manipulation of the championship by concentration of effort on one driver’s car and other drivers within the constructor’s orbit being ordered to support him.

It is certainly one way things could turn out but history would not suggest its likelihood. In the seventies there were innumerable customer car teams, some of which, like Williams, were to go on to become important constructors in their own right, while others fell by the wayside. There was no apparent collusion between constructors and customers; you could buy a McLaren M23, for instance, and be reasonably competitive but there was no support from the supplier - you were on your own as regards development and maintenance.

Of course, the situation is different now that big manufacturers are involved and it may well be that each constructor will effectively run four cars. But, if they are all using the tactics suggested by Theissen to push one driver forward, it evens out and not much has changed. With the extinction of small constructors (which is inevitable in the future mapped out by the FIA), the fight will be between only half a dozen manufacturers anyway.

So, if our hypothetical six manufacturers are all putting their support into one driver, that leaves us with six guys fighting for the championship. Hey, that’s an improvement over the present - there were only two drivers in with a chance this year.

The real problem is not the customer car rule; this is just a bone thrown to the little guys to suggest that the FIA really means its stated intention to keep small teams in F1. Now that the FIA and manufacturers are in bed together, the rules change to suit the big guys and it will become impossible for genuine independents to compete. If customer cars were to remain illegal, the only result would be that you have the same six manufacturers racing but no small teams. Which would mean 12-car grids…

Whether the FIA and the manufacturers like it or not, small teams have always been the lifeblood of F1. All innovation comes from them and they represent the true drama of the sport - the David against Goliath scenario. In the past such teams have dominated in spite of the rules being weighted against them but I fear that the latest proposed changes will exterminate the little guy altogether. F1 is to become a testing bed for road cars and anyone who wants to compete for the sheer joy of racing had better look for another formula.

Customer cars offer the last lifeline to smaller teams. They will be getting a secondhand product without all the latest tweaks available to the works team but it’s better than nothing. And there will always remain the faint possibility that some bright spark will find a way to make the chassis perform better than the supplier’s cars. Let the rule stay, say I.