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.

Mario Theissen, BMW’s Motorsport Director, has been talking of his decision to swap Villeneuve for Kubica earlier this year. He is unrepentant, saying that his job is to ensure the success of the team and, if he has the chance to put a faster driver into one of his cars, it only makes sense to do so.

Which is true but overlooks the matters of contracts. As it happens, Villeneuve did not sue for the contractual violation involved, presumably because Theissen asked him only to step down from a few races so they could try out Kubica - Villeneuve was not prepared to do that so it could be said that his departure was a mutual decision.

Which is fine as long as the team boss can come up with a request that his contracted driver cannot or will not accede to. It might be interesting to find out what happens when a driver is prepared to do anything to hang on to his seat; does the boss sack him anyway and take the financial consequences? And how good is it for the team to be paying out money in legal fees and damages, money that would be better employed in development of the car?

I suppose it does not matter too much when you have millions to throw around. But not that I am criticizing Theissen - I think his attitude is correct from a team perspective. I’m just pondering on what effect this might have on team and driver morale.

Also amongst Mario’s statements was the news that Heidfeld was asked to let Kubica through when the Pole came up behind him in the Japanese GP but the German driver refused to do so, in exactly similar manner to the Trulli/Schumacher situation in the same race. As I pointed out in my article on the Toyota incident, this cannot be good for the functioning of the team. Once a driver has denied a request intended to help the team, there is always a suspicion that he will do the same again.

It’s a difficult area. Naturally, you want drivers who are determined to experience success and who will drive to the best of their ability. No driver is going to enjoy letting his teammate through - the reflection on their respective talents is obvious, whether fair or not. But, when that personal ambition gets in the way of the team’s success, it becomes counter-productive.

Probably the best way to go about it is to soothe the injured pride of the driver being passed by making it clear that he has a problem with the car. Worn or blistered tires are an understandable reason for being slow, after all. And no-one gets hurt in the process.

Although I think Mario Theissen does an excellent job, this nagging doubt about the handling of his drivers is yet another reason why I favor Honda for the championship next year, rather than BMW. The Japanese manufacturer also has two drivers who are competing fiercely with each other but we hear no rumors of squabbles or disagreements emanating from that camp. And that makes them seem more focused on the job in hand.

The BMW Sauber team has been remarking on how Robert Kubica’s promotion to a race seat has sparked Nick Heidfeld into better performances. Everyone seems quite pleased with his new form but I think it gives pause for thought.

If it is truly Kubica who has spurred Heidfeld to try harder (and I’m not saying that it must be), one has to wonder what his problem was before the young Pole arrived. Often in individual races, we see a driver suddenly speed up when his hopes of a good finish improve through some unexpected event. The inevitable conclusion is that he was not going as fast as he could prior to the event and one has to think that a certain lack of motivation is involved somehow.

It may even be that this is the difference between the competent driver and the great. I do not recall ever seeing Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna suddenly put in faster laps as a response to their chances improving; they gave their all throughout a race, regardless of their position.

The occasional relaxation during a race is excusable at least - racing is hard work and only the superhuman can keep giving at maximum level indefinitely. But when a driver displays an unwillingness to really try throughout most of a season, it has to be worrying for the team manager. How is it possible to assess the progress you’re making with the car when the driver is not taking it to its limits? Is the driver really getting the results that the car deserves?

In Nick Heidfeld’s case, I believe the situation is more complex than a simple spur to greater effort resulting from fresh competition from a new teammate. Say what you like about Jacques Villeneuve, but I don’t think he was ever lacking in a fierce determination to compete to the best of his equipment’s ability. I would guess that the BMW’s poor performance before Jacques’ departure was a genuine case of the car not being good enough to compete against the best. And Heidfeld’s sudden improvement is more likely to have resulted from the many changes to the car actually making it better, rather than a fear of being shown up by a quicker teammate.

But I could be wrong. Mario Theissen, the team manager, seems to think that Heidfeld’s speed of late is all thanks to Kubica’s arrival and, if that is true, he should be concerned. Sure, it’s great to have a young driver like Kubica carving through the opposition (and making a few mistakes as well), but the team needs good input from an older and more experienced driver too. If that “wiser head” has a tendency to relax when the pressure is off, how reliable is his input?

At the Friday Press Conference for the Shanghai Grand Prix, some of the team managers were in the spotlight. Amongst these was Mario Theissen of BMW Sauber and he gave some interesting insights into BMW’s policy on selecting young drivers.

Q: Mario, we’ve seen you use young drivers this year to remarkable effect: obviously Robert Kubica but also latterly Sebastian Vettel as well. What is BMW’s policy regarding young drivers? You have a staircase of talent with Formula BMW, tell us your policy.

Mario THEISSEN: Well, the general policy with our entire Formula One project is to groom the team in-house rather than take on people from the outside. Obviously, if you want to ramp up (your personnel) by 150 people in one and a half years you have to take on people from the outside, but wherever possible, we take young people on the engineering side as well as on the driving side and develop them on our own. On the drivers’ side, there is a particular resource with Formula BMW. Guys go there at the age of 15 or 16 so we have quite a close relationship, get a very good idea of what they are capable of, and then we have them on our screen as they go up through the other formulae, so I think it’s quite a successful approach to watch young drivers and to evaluate them. That led us to taking on Sebastian Vettel which certainly is extraordinary for a 19-year old guy. Generally, I’m not proposing to take on younger and younger drivers into Formula One but in the case of Sebastian, we thought he’s there, he’s ready to take the job and apparently he’s proved that. If you are successful doing so, I think it’s the best approach you can take. You have to be careful to pick the right guys.

It is true that, in both Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel, BMW seem to have chosen two exceptionally talented new drivers. Remembering that Michael Schumacher first came to fame through the Mercedes program for young drivers in the sportscar formula, the wisdom of F1 constructors being involved in lesser formulae is apparent.

This is just a part of my increasing respect for BMW’s efforts in F1. They look like a team that is going places. Their professionalism and design strength is very apparent, they have set realistic goals (and do not become over-excited when they exceed those goals) and their car is the best-looking on the grid (well, it’s important to me - why do you think I supported Minardi from very early on?).

Much of this must be due to Theissen’s organizational skills. I particularly like his realism in admitting quite openly that one of their two podium finishes this year had a lot of luck involved. He is being cautious about the team’s chances in China, too, pointing out that it is a very different type of track from Monza, where they did so well. It’s such a sensible attitude - if they do particularly well, he can give a sly wink as if to say, “Well, you didn’t expect me to tell you we had something special awaiting, did you?” And, if the cars finish out of the points, he can always say that he told us so.

Elsewhere, Friday practice in Shanghai proved very little, as usual. The test drivers were quick, Alex Wurz (Williams) and Sebastian Vettel battling it out for quickest time. Ferrari look to be in a strong position with Renault holding their cards close to their chests. We shall see the true position tomorrow in the qualifying sessions.