Formula 1 seems scared of common sense

Something has got to give, because events during the Hungarian Grand Prix weekend did not cast Formula 1 in a good light.

There were complaints about track limits, lengthy debates over a potential yellow-flag infringement and the application of the 107% rule. and hefty criticism of the new radio restrictions.

Admittedly, it was against the backdrop of an uninspiring grand prix but it nonetheless highlighted that F1's rulebook is a hindrance. No fan likes talking about the rules or having to wait for a lengthy enquiry, and potential appeal, before they know the final result of a sporting event.

Sometimes it can't be helped, but the concern after Hungary is there are just too many rules causing unnecessary headaches.

Take track limits, for example. In 2013, Lewis Hamilton said it was time to take this problem more seriously because drivers no longer paid the price for going beyond the edge of the circuit, and he was hardly the first to make that call. Three years later, the argument continues unresolved.

The consequence of laudable safety changes is that track limits aren't what they used to be. Out went the gravel traps and in came huge asphalt run-off areas and low kerbs, many of which are not a deterrent to running wide. Toro Rosso's Daniil Kvyat was particularly scathing.

"All we are missing is the next step - like in Top Gear where they use the track for a time trial," he says.

"They just have a car park, and paint the circuit with the lines, and they drive there and that is the next step. It can be only that. We go there, no problems. This kerb is not doing anything to the grip."

Gravel traps were phased out mainly because of fears of cars digging in and flipping, the theory being that asphalt was better at retarding the progress of a sideways F1 car. We don't want drivers getting hurt, but losing time or having a car stop as the result of a driver error is what racing is about.

The electronic timing loops placed in the kerbs in Hungary at least allowed the FIA to track when an infringement was made. After four crossings, a drivethrough penalty would be handed out. But timing penalties should only be stop-gap solutions. There are too many of those as is it.

Adding grass strips or gravel traps will raise questions. In adding grass, the run-off would have to be extended. It also increases the risk of a car spinning, but with the run-off that's not necessarily a bad thing. Either way, the rule needs serious consideration.

When it came to the double-waved yellow flags debate, Nico Rosberg escaped sanction because the stewards judged him to have slowed down sufficiently.

Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and Daniel Ricciardo were among the drivers who felt the FIA's interpretation of the rules was not appropriate for the situation.

"The worst thing about this is that we are an example," Vettel said.

"Next week there will be a go-karting race and there will be a double yellow waved flag somewhere because somebody went off and marshals probably go out and help him and then the way the kids think is, 'Well I don't need to lift off much because in Formula 1 it's OK, because that's the pinnacle and that's how we have to behave'. That's what I don't like about it.

"If you look up a double yellow in the rulebook it means 'prepare to stop'. If you go 2 or 4km/h slower, brake a little bit earlier or drop two and a half tenths, I don't think you are preparing to stop."

There were four hours between the end of qualifying and the start of the Rosberg hearing, which was obviously not ideal. Part of the reason this happened is that the stewards were also adjudicating the numerous infractions of the 107% rule. Also, new information came to light during that period that influenced the investigation.

So perhaps the solution is to simplify the process and say you can't set a personal best in that sector, rather than having to react in a certain way to the double-waved yellow.

This will mean a driver has to back off completely (or at least to the point where he is slower than his best) and, in turn that will improve the safety.

This way, there can be no debate.

The discussion over the 107% rule was nonsensical. By the letter of the law, the 11 drivers who breached the rule should have been demoted and lined up in the order in which they finished practice three.

But common sense, and the intent of the rules, says a qualifying session hit by heavy rain and not one but four red flags is a case of exceptional circumstances. Why it took so long for that realisation is mind-boggling.

You also have to ask the question, is the rule even required anymore? It was re-introduced for 2011, a year after a trio of new teams entered F1 to protect against them getting in the way of the cars on the pace. But this season, there haven't been any occasions where a driver has been close to being outside 107% if you discard times when there was a crash or technical problem.

So why not just bin the rule and replace it with one that allows the stewards, at their discretion, to stop a car starting if they feel it will be a liability out on track?

The radio communication restrictions are complex and have been criticised heavily by the vast majority in the paddock. Their introduction came against a backdrop of fans saying drivers were getting too much help.

But radio communication shouldn't be limited to the detriment of racing. Kimi Raikkonen and Lewis Hamilton had technical problems in the European Grand Prix in Baku last month but their respective teams could not tell them how to fix it. That stopped them attacking and potentially creating an exciting race.

In Hungary, Jenson Button was handed a drivethrough penalty because he was told about a switch change that would solve a sensor problem. But he had already paid the price for the failure by dropping out of the points to the back of the field. Why penalise him further with a drivethrough?

"I completely understand that drivers should not be fed information that helps us drive the car," he said.

"I'm totally with that because it's wrong that we're told every corner where our team-mate is quicker or slower than us, and fuel saving should be down to us, and so many other things should be down to us.

"But when it's a safety concern with the brake pedal going to the floor, you shouldn't be penalised for stopping an accident."

Drivers losing ground because they've not done their homework or aren't able to fix a technical problem because there are too many switches to work through is not what F1 is about and does not enhance the show. If anything, radio communication was one of the highlights of F1 and something that can enhance the experience for fans.

Kimi Raikkonen's "leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" radio message during the 2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix has gone down in F1 folklore.

No one likes drivers being told what do to - but if the racing was better, no one would care so that's what really needs to change. We will have to wait to see if the changes to the 2017 aerodynamic regulations have any effect.

Another issue is the often-lengthy delay in getting a definitive race result. Penalties could be handed out during the race and so the result at the flag stands.

But F1 is so technical, some decisions require testimony from drivers in the car or those key to the team operation in the race. So that's not always easy.

Maybe, then, a fixed period of time after the race should be allocated in which final decisions must be made. That way, there is a physical point in which fans will know when a result will be final. But if you have a complex problem to look into, or multiple ones, this time limit might not allow the process to be as rigorous as it should be.

Altered grids have been present in F1 since the restrictions on engine and gearbox restrictions have existed. That remains a sensible rule, but it can be confusing for fans who switch on the race on Sunday and see that Vettel isn't second but seventh because he had a gearbox change.

Force India deputy team principal Bob Fernley suggests keeping the grid the same but applying the penalty in the race, for example during the pitstops.

"You would get the affect, you get the penalty," he says.

"From a fan's point of view, you want to see what you saw in qualifying the next day in the race. I feel we are missing opportunities. This is about entertainment and about sport."

And that is the crux of the matter. The rules will inevitably be imperfect, but the extent to which they are can be mitigated.

It just needs some common sense and careful thought as to what needs to be changed.

That's something that's doesn't come easy to Formula 1.