Blimey, who'd have thought it? You pick up your laptop for the first column of the year and find the world of F1 unrecognisable from five months ago. It's amazing what a global financial crisis can do to a sport that isn't football.
The event that changed the future face of F1 was Honda's decision to quit the sport. It came out of the blue, linked to Honda's problems in the real world. Like all carmakers, it is being battered by the world's economic problems. Unlike the other manufacturers, it decided spending hundreds of millions a year on F1 was ridiculous.
And so the stampede to cut costs started. The teams, chastened by the unthinkable actually happening, started the bidding by looking to halve costs. Last week the Max/Bernie/FIA axis played its hand, proposing a ?30 million-a-year (HK$340 million) voluntary cap from 2010. Those who stay within it will get advantages such as higher engine revs and better aerodynamics.
There are two big problems with this. Firstly, how on earth are you going to police team budgets? In a sport rife with subterfuge, this is just asking for trouble. Though it's laudable to help smaller teams and encourage new ones to the grid, having in effect two sets of rules is against the spirit of F1.
Of course, this wouldn't be the sport we love without Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley contriving to lob a hand grenade from left field. The duo decided the winner of the most races would win the championship. Fans will be thankful the teams managed to get it thrown out on a procedural point.
Sorry Bernie and Max, but in this case winning isn't everything. What about a driver racing out of his skin in an average car, like Robert Kubica last year? What about consistency? To win you would have just needed a blindingly fast but unreliable car. No matter if it breaks down every other race, just as long as it wins the others. The season could be over long before the end with one driver racking up enough wins to go on holiday for the last two months and still be world champion.