F1: so that's that, then. F1 is officially dead.

Many of the changes in this year's Formula One regulations will actually aid racing. And that's a good thing. Slick tyres, a bolt-on from last year's banning of most driver aids, is a positive step. And the ban on little areo-add ons is also good - in part because it will reduce the cost of wind-tunnel testing: there is little point unless changes can be made to the body work.

But the surprise (perhaps we should not have been surprised) announcement that the demonstrably pro-Ferrari Bernie Ecclestone's suggestion for changing the way the championship is won has been accepted by the FIA is one of the last nails in the coffin of Formula One.

The rot set in with the decision to ban team orders to satisfy gambling interests who bet on the results of a race without understanding the rules.

Then came the sacking of the permanent steward who made the huge faux pas of (quite correctly) penalising Michael Schumacher and Ferrari for cheating.

Last year, the extent to which stewards went out of their way to support Ferrari was a disgrace that was out-disgraced only by the "court" proceedings that supported an outrageous decision in favour of Massa and Ferrari.

And the fact that Lewis Hamilton won the championship by a single point gained on the last corner of the last race stuck in the craw of those who had spent a whole season trying to ensure that didn't happen.

So, Ecclestone came up with a ridiculous idea: the championship would no longer be decided on points but, instead, on the number of wins. In the event of a draw, points would be counted.

No one thought this was a good idea, and no one took it seriously. Except, it turns out, the FIA. And today the FIA adopted it as policy for the 2009 season. But they did not do so until it was clear from recent testing that Ferrari were likely to be the fastest car for 2009 from a major manufacturer - helped by McLaren's admission that their car was not fast enough.

Whilst the manufacturers have come up with a variety of schemes to save costs and to retain the spectacle, the FIA has acted to limit the total cost of running team of two cars for 2010 to euro 33 million per year, including driver salaries. Whilst that's a lot of money, it's not a lot in Formula One - in fact, it's about a third of what Honda estimated it cost them - and their expenditure was after sponsorship.

But there's a wrinkle: the cost cap is voluntary. And given Ferrari's habit of going to - or beyond - the edges of the regulations, it's hardly likely that they will agree if other teams do not.

The change to the way that the Championship is won will raise a number of issues: if coming second is the same as coming nowhere, where is the incentive to race if someone streaks off ahead. That bring F1 to the same as US racing where points are awarded for turning up and so long as the car is present, it's not worth risking crashing just to gain a small number of points. Why, if there is nothing to be gained, would anyone drive on the limit just to be fourth, for example?

The end result of the changes is this: a driver could come second in every race in the season but lost the championship to a driver who wins one race but fails to finish in all the others.

But the real reason for the change may be a difference in approach between Ferarri and other teams. Ferrari traditionally have a number one driver who gets all the glory and a number two driver who rides shotgun. McLaren and Williams allow their drivers to fight it out with a formal decision to favour one driver only when his lead is secure. The new rules favour the Ferrari approach.

And, of course, if a driver racks up the necessary 9 wins early in the season, why would he bother turning up, much less putting himself at risk by driving as hard as he can?