Getting The Weekly Grapevine right every time destroys its purpose, for a strike rate of 100% means its contents constitute hard news and facts, not rumours; getting it wrong week in, week out implies analysis of all the all wrong rumours. Or incorrect analysis of all the right rumours?

Then there is an additional, almost timeless element: a rumour may never actually be proven (or, for that matter, disproven) but merely hang around until it dies a natural death through sheer inertia.

So, in analysing The Weekly Grapevine – New Vintage after its first year, it was satisfying to discover exactly how many rumours had been read right, but equally fulfilling to realise that an almost equal number had turned out to be incorrect, even if there may have been substance to them at some stage.

Of course, the biggest bomb blast to hit the 2004 F1 was FIA President Max Mosley's resignation during the French Grand Prix weekend. At the time he stated that there was no going back, that he did not change his mind as he was not a Formula One team principal. We ended off our analysis of the situation by pointing out that he had been a team boss (with March in the seventies), implying that he could well change his mind. Two weeks later he did just that...

Of almost equal intensity on Formula One's Richter Scale was Ford's withdrawal from the sport, particularly after a weekly magazine (and its monthly sister) had assured their readers that all was well with Ford's effort, and that Jaguar would be rebranded 'Ford', to run in the Blue Ovals colours.

During the same week (that of the Belgian Grand Prix) this column predicted (four weeks ahead of the actual announcement) that Ford would unceremoniously can its F1 effort for financial reasons, and take Cosworth with it. In fact, we started off that feature of 25 August by suggesting that Jordan and Minardi could well end up without engines for 2005. Guess what?

When the bombshell did hit, we analysed it thus: Jaguar and Cosworth were unlikely to find buyers, the former as it contained no real facilities to talk of, even if it could boast extremely capable staff, the latter as it had a questionable client base. Well, to date no deals have been done, and with the FIA's 15 November deadline (for 2005 entry submission) just four days away, it seems increasingly unlikely that the two will grace F1's grids next year.

Jordan made our pages on numerous occasions, mostly at the time of the Trust/Jos Verstappen debacle. Whilst we read a portion of that incorrectly, not least the fact when we forecast that the Dutch computer company's logo would not grace the yellow cars during 2004 (it did, if only in small doses) we were half right when we predicted that the Dutchman would test a yellow car, then decide to walk away from any race drive. He turned down a scheduled test on the basis that his posterior was too big...

Then there were, of course, our various suggestions regarding Silverstone. Two weeks ahead of Bernie Ecclestone's war of words with the track we predicted that it had a 10% chance of hosting a Grand Prix in 2005. When he called off all talks, (on 8 October) this column was first in mentioning the possibility of the BRDC staging a non-championship British Grand Prix at Silverstone, and went as far as suggesting that, if anybody owned the name, the RAC Motorsports Association did.

Of course, as is now known, a British round of the 2005 FIA Formula One World Championship will be staged after a deal was struck with nine of the ten teams, but, as of 25 October, Mosley and Ecclestone were reportedly in favour of an N/C BGP, and admitted that 'British Grand Prix' was a generic term which could be applied to a non-championship event.

In the wake of Suzuka's hurricane we suggested that F1 could well adopt a two-day Grand Prix weekend format, with Fridays being given over to official testing, thus reducing expensive between-event testing and facilitating an 18 or 19 round calendar. Imagine our surprise when the suggested weekend format, as outlined in The Weekly Grapevine, was reportedly used as basis in the matter of Ecclestone and Nine Teams versus Ferrari in Brazil. In fact, a team boss maintains that the feature was attached to a memorandum circulated to all teams!

This week a deal to reduce testing has been struck, but, still, it was good to have confirmation that The Weekly Grapevine is read within the paddock by those who matter.

Whilst on the matter of endangered races, we got Spa-Francorchamps and Magny-Cours wrong. In our analysis we estimated that the former had a 30% chance of surviving into 2005, and put the latter at 60%. After an extremely humble letter to the FIA (over the shocking treatment of accredited photographers by Belgium's over-zealous policemen), Spa moved off the endangered list, whilst the French circuit slid right down to share rock-bottom with Silverstone. But, with both now assured of 2005 dates, we happily admit the errors of our ways.

Returning to Ferrari, we twice questioned the company's long-term commitment to F1, once in May, shortly before Monaco, and then again the weekend after Monza. Sandwiched between the two features was a piece suggesting that Shell and the Italian team could well part come the end of 2005. Sure, that is 12 months hence, and no confirmation has been forthcoming from either party, but, in Brazil, a Shell employee admitted that any extension of the 10-year partnership was far from certain.

As Monza Luca di Montezemolo expressed his dissatisfaction with F1's finances, and, with the company having posted a massive loss in the first six months of the year, one could sense exactly why. Coupled with the GPWC's gathering strength, The Weekly Grapevine steadfastly refused to believe that the manufacturer body was dead and buried despite almost every other media outlet's assertion to the contrary – we could well be right in the long term.

We did, though, get Jenson Button's and Jacques Villeneuve's situations WRONG: at the height of the BAR/Button dispute we indicated that the team could well do worse than take back the French-Canadian even if the two had seemed irreconcilable at end-2003. In common with most journalists we believed that JB would be headed for Williams - regardless of the Contract Recognition Board ruling, whether via compensation payment to BAR or not – and wrote JV into BAR's empty seat. Well, dead wrong on both counts, and without mitigation, either.

But, BAR we thrice did read right: in February, when we stated it would be the most improved team of the year (and how right we were!), and again in August when we were adamant that BAR would run a car in 555 colours in China, despite a cleverly worded release put out by the team which seemed to indicate the contrary. Finally, on 4 August, we suggested that BAR had, historically, a 4% chance of winning its appeal against the banning of its Front Torque Transfer system. A week later we knew we were out by 4%...

Qualifying, too, caught us out. Following mutterings by Ecclestone in Australia, we firmly believed the format would be changed by Malaysia, Bahrain latest. Well, Brazil was run to the same format as that which sent the world to sleep in Melbourne, and, just possibly, the same yawn will continue into next season.

Early on the season, immediately post-Malaysia, in fact, we indulged in some weather forecasting after realising that the 2004 calendar brought with it a complete reshuffle of accepted race sequences. Brazil, for example, was moved from its traditional mid-March slot to October, whilst Bahrain replaced Austria and China entered the fray. In addition, Indy got pulled forward from late September to June, and the European round would be run a month earlier than usual.

We hazarded that the average temperature on race days would be 2°C up on 2003, thus playing to Michelin's strengths, but that 15mm more rain would fall on average – favouring Bridgestone. What we were not to know was that Michelin had ramped up their wet performance and Bridgestone developed rubber better suited to hotter climes. Right and wrong, or maybe wrong and right?