F1's poor decision making is infuriating

"It wouldn't have been like this in Max Mosley's day," has been a familiar refrain over the years since the more passive Jean Todt took up office as FIA president.

Never has a remark been more apt than over the course of the past few months, as the FIA has performed more u-turns than a stunt driver involved in the making of a Fast & Furious movie.

We've seen a volte face on the qualifying format, radio restrictions, track limits and the halo cockpit protection device. It leaves you wondering - and not for the first time - who really controls Formula 1: the teams or the FIA?

For all his faults, Mosley's dictatorial, authoritarian nature - with F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone as his wingman, and vice versa when occasions merited - more often than not resulted in the teams bending to his will.

When Mosley and Ecclestone sought to make changes, their starting point would often be to impose regulations certain to leave the teams up in arms and demanding changes.

Once a compromise was eventually agreed, Mosley and Ecclestone would then produce a set of rules it had been their intention to implement in the first place.

It was a clever ruse, and the teams fell for it.

Arguably, it would have been the same for the budget cap as Mosley initially set a ridiculously draconian figure of $30million for a team's annual spend, which was later amended to $40m as vehement debates took place.

Unfortunately for Mosley, he was unable to see his plans through to a conclusion as his time in office drew to a close. Todt took up the reins, only to lose the control his predecessor had previously enjoyed.

No doubt if Mosley had stayed in office, he and the teams would likely have found a compromise cost-cap figure somewhere not too far manageably north of the $30m number that initially had the paddock gulping with disbelief.

Certainly when he departed after 16 years in charge, it appeared the teams couldn't wait to seize their opportunity to rebel as soon as his back was turned.

If such a cost cap had been in place today it is fair to suggest the financial quicksand trodden by many teams since then - that has accounted for HRT, Caterham, and very nearly Sauber and Manor - would have been avoided.

Similarly, the begging bowl that has been held out to commercial rights holder Ecclestone and CVC Capital Partners by teams (but shunned of late) would also not have been required.

Todt's attempt to take up the cost-cap cause fell by the wayside as the teams steadfastly refused to play ball, taking advantage of his considerably less strict demeanour.

The Frenchman's decision to also primarily focus his presidency on global road safety, leaving F1 to effectively take care of itself, except on those occasions when he has been compelled to step in, has also played into the teams' hands.

This year, the tone was set with qualifying, and the farce that unfolded on that front led to red faces all round.

A rushed decision to tinker with a format barely anyone had uttered a word of complaint about over the decade it had been in operation was botched and inept.

The suggestion then was that it was Ecclestone who cajoled the race promoters to side with him on the elimination format, suggesting it would be good for the show.

When it ultimately proved an unmitigated disaster, Ecclestone claimed it was the FIA's idea, underlining the lack of unity between him and Todt, especially compared to that he enjoyed with his old running mate Mosley.

After the 2016 qualifying revamp was given a second unsuccessful opportunity in Bahrain, Todt made the remark the FIA "should have complete control of F1", a scenario he felt would be "logical".

There is sense in Todt's comments, as regulation changes should be made by the governing body of a series, not by competitors and others with vested interests, such as promoters and sponsors, as is the case with F1 at Commission level.

But he also made clear on that occasion he was "not a dictator", and therein lies his downfall.

For all intents and purposes, Mosley was a dictator, someone who possessed an autocratic style of management, and who could effectively get things done.

To perform one about-turn in a season you could reasonably forgive, but to then make a second, third and fourth in quick succession is unforgiveable and unbecoming of a ruling organisation, although its hands can often be tied.

Strictly enforcing article 27.1 of the sporting regulations - "that a driver shall drive the car alone and unaided" - was a commendable step.

Rightly, no one wanted to hear a driver be coached, to be told what buttons to press, or settings to adjust, while driving their car.

But the FIA employed overkill on the rule, applying it to the letter of the law, and basically blocking all pit-to-car communication.

Rather than adopting a sensible set of restrictions and allowing some messages to be aired - who doesn't like hearing 'OK Lewis, it's hammertime' because we can appreciate its sentiment? - and others such as 'lift and coast' to be vetoed, instead the FIA veered from one extreme to the other.

Just as with qualifying, common sense and middle ground were abandoned.

It is the same for track limits where the rules this season have changed from one circuit to another, even from one practice session to another, as was the case over the weekend of the German Grand Prix at Hockenheim.

The cars are meant to stay within the white lines, but no matter the type of kerbing in place, time and time again advantages are gained by running wide.

And if you think we have problems now, just wait for next season.

Under the 2017 regulations with wider front and rear tyres - and wings - the cars will be carrying so much speed into and out of the corners, serious consideration will need to be given to making certain turns wider, otherwise there may be safety ramifications.

As for safety and the controversial halo, while there was no hard and fast rule declaring it was going to be introduced next season, the fact Todt opted to apply due process and allow it to be voted upon at Strategy Group level means it is now delayed until 2018.

The FIA could easily have enforced one of its own rulings that a component can be introduced on safety grounds, but chose not to do so.

Can you imagine the uproar next season if there is just one incident where it is proven the halo could have played a life-saving or injury-averting part?

When it comes to the decision-making in F1, it is the inconsistency that is so infuriating.

It seems no matter what the FIA tries to put in place, there is always a dissenting voice or voices, and the rulemakers are damned if they do, damned if they don't at times.

Sometimes you have to wonder whether the messes we have witnessed this year would have occurred if Mosley had still been in charge.

Mosley's brand of totalitarianism once had its place, but not any more. Those days are long gone, but at times F1 is the poorer for it.