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.

Just as I waver in my prediction of Button for champion in 2007, the Honda team get it all together in testing at Jerez, with Barrichello fastest and test driver James Rossiter very close behind him. Clearly the team have got the measure of the Bridgestone tires and that bodes well for the coming season.

Autosport magazine has a full list of the times from the final day and they make interesting reading, even though they should be taken with the usual pinch of salt. These are not next years cars, after all, and each team is trying out different things, not necessarily competing for the quickest time.

But they are racing teams and I refuse to believe that they can ignore the times completely. Competition is in their blood.

Mark Webber and David Coulthard must be a little disappointed to be down in 12th and 14th places, even though they are still running the RB2 with Ferrari engines. How they must long for the introduction of Adrian Newey’s RB3. Scott Speed must be looking forward to the new Toro Rosso as well, especially as there are suspicions that it will be an RB3 too, albeit with a Ferrari rather than a Renault engine. And that’s if the other teams do not manage to put a halt on Toro Rosso’s plans - the protests against their using what amounts to a customer car are beginning to gather.

Lewis Hamilton was third fastest although de la Rosa wasn’t far behind him this time. The young Brit looks as convincing in testing as did Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel.

Toyota and Renault make quiet and confident progress, going fast enough yet without setting the world alight. Steady is the word that springs to mind and that is just what is needed at this stage. The Ferrari times can be ignored - they had a bad day, that’s all.

Note the speed of Anthony Davidson in the Super Aguri, however; he was only half a second slower than Barrichello. That’s not bad considering that Aguri were the bottom team of 2006. I guess it shows one of two things: either Aguri are really getting it together and could be looking at the mid-field next season, or testing times don’t matter at all!

Away from the track, the World Motor Sport Council have issued their take on the changes to come in F1 according to Max Mosley and Burkhard Goeschel. Essentially they agree completely and have added a few tweaks of their own. For instance, for the first time “standardized aerodynamics” has been mentioned. Couple this with the intent that any new technology introduced will be for sale to everyone, and you have a standardized formula. Lola are good at that - why not just get them to make all the cars for the teams?

Most of the F1 news services have decided to focus on Max Mosley’s statements on the future of F1 racing in Europe and the drive from the manufacturers to have races in new markets. Ignoring (for the moment) the clear admission that it is marketing that decides where F1 will race now, it is worth taking a closer look at the blithe assumption made in Mosley’s reasoning here.

Magnificent Max tells us that it’s unfair for Europe to have so many races and the rest of the world so few. He wants balance, it seems. In 2007, there will be nine races in Europe (counting the Turkish race as in Europe although, strictly speaking, it isn’t) and eight in the rest of the world - just over 50% are European therefore. That seems disproportionate unless we take the audience (that’s you and me) into account.

The FIA survey of the F1 fanbase for 2006 returned these figures for completed survey forms:

Europe 63% (59%)
North America 16% (16%)
Asia 8% (9%)
Oceania 5% (5%)
Africa 2% (5%)
South America 2% (3%)

The figures in brackets refer to the 2005 survey - and it seems that support for F1 has actually increased in Europe. Judging from these returns, it looks as though the calendar reflects the F1 audience pretty fairly. The sole anomaly is Africa which has no race at present - but that’s fine, I’ll support any move for a return to the South African Grand Prix (who remembers Kyalami?).

Surveys are not the most accurate way of assessing numbers (there are matters of language and opportunity to be taken into account) but they give us an approximate idea of the numbers watching F1 at least. And, on this evidence, it appears that F1 has got it just about right.

So it is marketing that enforces this determination to take races from Europe and put them in growing markets elsewhere. But even that looks dubious in view of the survey. The continent that has gained most new races over the last few years is Asia. This would make apparent sense when we consider the vast markets that are China and India and the Japanese passion for any form of motor sport. Yet there is an actual decrease in interest (from 9% in 2005 to 5% in 2006) in Asia according to the survey.

I would suggest that the marketing boys do a little more research before committing F1 to the continuing departure from Europe. There are more factors involved in this than sheer size of markets. Relevance counts and F1 is almost completely irrelevant to the lives of those teeming millions in Asia. In time, it may happen that the continent builds a genuine F1 fanbase but it doesn’t look as if it’s happening right now.

Like it or not, F1 is a sport that depends upon a mature economy such as Europe’s and America’s (and Australia and South Africa - I haven’t forgotten you). In countries where the vast majority are only just beginning to see beyond the possibility of a bicycle, F1 is profoundly inappropriate.

Marketing can only be effective when the product is aimed at those who can actually buy it; otherwise it is merely an insult. And it really is time that the manufacturers involved in F1 faced the fact that the market for high performance cars in developing countries will remain tiny for a long time yet. When the market is there, that is the moment to use F1 to sell your product.

Max is right when he suggests that the calendar might have to extend to twenty races, however. The more, the merrier, say the fans. And, from Nick Heidfeld’s statement that he is ready to start the new season now, the drivers would agree too.

But wait a minute - wasn’t it Heidfeld’s motivation that I wrote an article about recently? Oh dear, that looks like it could be more evidence that Nick wasn’t really extending himself in 2006 - he seems to have recovered very quickly from what should have been an exhausting season…

I see the F1 news sites are handling the wealth of information from the Max Mosley and Burkhard Goeschel Q&A session in a similar way to the one proposed by me. There is just too much to be discussed in one brief article so they are breaking it down into bite-sized chunks. The difference is that I can say what I think of the news whereas they are limited to announcing it - and you get to have your say in response to whatever I write. Oh the glories of the blogosphere!

So let’s begin the process of dissecting this huge feast served by the FIA/GPMA alliance. To begin at the beginning:

We want to make the research work done in F1 not just cost-effective but also road relevant. That is to say, new developments in F1 should be those that are directly helpful to the car industry and in particular things which are relevant to perhaps the biggest single issue which confronts the car industry worldwide, namely the reduction of the output of CO2.

That is it in a nutshell. With the marriage of the FIA and the manufacturers, the whole ethos of F1 has changed. It was once a sport, an arena where the best drivers and engineers were involved in a mighty tussle of skill and ingenuity; it is to become a testing ground for road cars. That may suit the bride and groom very well but how does it make you, the F1 devotee feel?

It is our own fault really. For far too long we have attempted to justify the extravagances of F1 by referring to the technological advances that leak out from the sport to the engineering departments of the manufacturers. Which is true but ignores the real reason for F1’s existence: competition. Technological innovation that is useful in road car design is accidental and a by-product only.

The effect of using the technical advance argument has been that the FIA/GPMA have been able to sneak this revolution in F1’s intent under the radar. We had to allow them this or lose our justification of the sport to the outside world. But I am saying that we have bowed to the pressures of those who care nothing for F1 for far too long. We should have had the guts to admit the truth: F1 is a sport that is about titanic struggles between the finest that humankind can produce - if it makes an infinitesimally small contribution to global warming (which is not a proven fact as yet - see this article which is only one of thousands written by reputable and established environmental scientists), then that is just too bad.

If the car industry has bought the propaganda of CO2 emissions (and they are admittedly subject to a great deal more pressure than is F1), then that is their problem. To allow their acquiescence to spill over into F1 is a mistake, however. There are some things that, by their very nature, cannot be subject to the diktats of the global warming theory and F1 is one of them. It is an extravagance, yes, but one that millions feel is worth the tiny effect on the environment it might have.

I know that the argument is lost, indeed, it was never fought as it could have been. The FIA have demonstrated often enough in the past that they will do what they want regardless of the wishes of the little guy - they know best, after all. But at least we can register our disapproval of this fundamental change in the purposes of F1. We are the paying customers and we pay their salaries, therefore.