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.

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…

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?

I said it would take an engine failure for Michael to lose this one to Alonso. That was sticking my neck out a bit, considering Michael’s Ferrari engine hasn’t let go since 2001. Not that Ferrari have been totally reliable since then - the number two drivers have had their share of engine-related retirements. But, until yesterday, Michael’s luck had ensured that he would not be the one to suffer.

There was plenty of angst over Michael’s sudden departure from the race but the man himself took it very well, it must be admitted. Perhaps he, more than the rest of the Ferrari team, understood how it went some way towards evening up the score for Alonso’s engine failure at Monza. And, although Michael himself has owned defeat in the championship, anything can happen in motor racing and often does; there is one scenario left that could allow Michael to be champion this year. I refuse to name it for fear of jinxing the Brazilian race.

Alonso looked very good in this race. After hauling the Renault into second place, he drove with confidence and precision, never allowing Michael more than a few seconds lead. I doubt that he could have passed the Ferrari if fate had not intervened, but he was certainly keeping his title hopes alive with such a masterful drive.

Jenson Button had another unspectacular but very competent race to finish fourth. And Kimi Raikkonen did wonders with the off-form McLaren to grab fifth spot. But let us not forget that these two and Fisichella owe their good finishes to the Toyota team, to some extent, at least.

The Toyotas are an enigma - how do they manage to throw away so many good chances so consistently? At what point in the Suzuka race did they go from serious contenders to also-rans? Sixth and seventh are poor returns after having stayed with the leaders for the first stint.

Part of the answer is that they were running light and so had to pit before the rest, thereby losing their track positions. And their second set of tires was not as effective as the first. But they seemed to give up without a fight and let themselves be passed by poor strategy alone. In the end, it was another story of bright promise in qualification fading away in the race itself.

Heidfeld got the point for BMW Sauber but it was Kubica who looked good. After the Pole had recovered from his little trip across the gravel, he closed inexorably on his team leader and seemed quite capable of passing him, had he dared to risk it. The fact that he slotted in responsibly behind Heidfeld is another point in his favor; considering the praise that has been heaped upon his shoulders in his short F1 racing career, it is good to see that he is maintaining such a level head and sense of team effort.

Overall, the race proved that there is less to choose between the dry Michelins and the Bridgestone tires than we thought after qualifying. And that is how I like it, with everyone being on pretty much equal rubber so that we can see the true state of competition between the cars and drivers. The result was a race that may have lacked a little overtaking drama (well, let’s face it, we’ve all seen engine failures before) but held us spellbound even so.

And oh, Christijan Albers treated us to an explosive driveshaft failure on his Spyker. Now that’s something of a rarity these days - takes me back to the sixties, it does…