F1's backwards thinking is idiotic

Perhaps the most shocking thing about the Formula 1 qualifying farrago is that so many people wave their hand and suggest it had to be tried to see what happened.

If that's the sole basis for any decision-making, you could justify any old randomly generated format. That's not how this kind of process should work. This is not trial and error.

There is something called prior probability. At its most basic, conceptual level it's a way of quantifying the likelihood of something being effective and is a key part of the scientific method. To hijack the phrase, the prior probability was that this change would lead to qualifying being worse.

Here's some things that were very clear from the start. Firstly, the tyre regulations and specification and that qualifying format were never compatible. Not even close. Only an idiot could not see that.

Secondly, the most likely consequence was that, far from building to a climax, you frontload the action in each qualifying segment.

Well, guess what happened? The only time it was in any way successful was that the beginning of Q1 was actually quite lively.

So the very start was the best bit, the very end the worst. That is the definition of backwards thinking.

If you want to spice up the start of qualifying at the expense of a great battle for pole playing out in the dying seconds, you got exactly what you wanted.

The consequence? The first serious day of the season was overshadowed by dismay at a system that previously worked very well being ruined. The fact that Lewis Hamilton's pole-position lap was so rapid at a time when everyone blithely claims the cars are slow was ignored.

F1's process for doing things can be summarised as 'load gun, point at foot, pull trigger'. Try saying 'well, you don't know how positive it will be until you've shot yourself' and you can see how shaky a position that is.

These failings are seen time and time again when it comes to the process of making the rules. While getting the regulations correct is incredibly difficult, what would be a great start would be to understand the objective properly.

Bernie Ecclestone says the aim of this rule change was to mix up the grid. So if we say that was indeed the objective and set aside arguments about whether it should be, then why do it in such a half-baked manner?

If you want the fastest cars at the back, put them at the back. Scrap qualifying and make them 'burn from the stern' like in short-oval racing. And if you want some action on Saturday, come up with a qualifying race or heat format.

But if you want to mix up the grid, don't create a slightly unusual qualifying format that might possibly, if you're lucky, trip someone up.

Put it this way, if you decided your objective was to upend someone in the street, would you spend your day wandering around with your leg sticking out in the hope they might blunder into it, or do you actually think about where and when to ambush them?

This is all symptomatic of a sport in which rule-making is too often done in an off-the-cuff manner. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with evaluating a change to the qualifying system or even coming up with a set of rules you think works. But it's not difficult to then have a think about what the consequences will be.

In some areas, motorsport is brilliant at considering unintended consequences. Safety measures, in particular, exemplify this.

Look at the history of the sport and you see hay-bales being used as crash barriers. Not a bad idea, until they catch fire. So you've tackled one problem and created another, potentially horrific, one.

The same with catch-fencing, which briefly became de rigueur. It's fine until people are hit in the head by fence posts.

The aim of this new qualifying system was to have more on-track action throughout the session and more excitement. What it created was more often than not uncontested 90-second knockout periods and a very flat Q3.

That was not the intention of those who proposed the rules, but it was the obvious consequence.

You can blame the tyre rules if you want, but bear in mind that they were there first. The Pirelli tyres are conceived with a very specific objective, and running around endlessly without a drop-off in performance is not one of them. Even if they didn't, you would still have the fuel effect on laptime to consider.

That's perhaps why the vague suggestion that cars would have to be on track throughout each qualifying segment (so on the same tyres with no pitstop) was abandoned, because it would mean everyone would go out, set a time and park. Even worse.

Allowing tyre changes was needed to counteract that, but then you end up with people more prone to running out of tyres and a mundane Q3.

This is the definition of thinking that isn't joined-up. If you want some kind of rolling knockout format for qualifying and you have a good reason for doing so, then put some effort into it and try to get your ducks in a row.

This criticism could be aimed at any number of recent rule-change measures. Take the 2017 aerodynamic regulations, which are still not published. Everyone was promised faster, more spectacular cars and better racing (on the flimsy premise that each of those things is directly related to the other) but the half-baked end result will not deliver on that.

Even if the fully-baked version had come to pass, it would not have led to better racing.

It's a backwards process, one in which no individuals take responsibility and everything is done in a cloud of collective cluelessness. You can blame the Strategy Group and those on it, but there are plenty involved in that process who have lots of negative things to say about the way things work. It's fundamentally flawed.

So, what's the solution? It's not difficult. Right now, what F1 needs is not easy answers, quick fixes or qualifying tinkerings - it needs a change of mindset.

Understand the objective, analyse, gather data, run simulations. Apply the same rigour that's applied to safety measures. After all, while the health of the drivers is paramount, the health of grand prix racing as a whole is also to be looked after.

What's not acceptable is a rule change that has allowed one of the most exciting parts of the season - the first qualifying session when we see the true pace of the cars for the first time - to be compromised.

The story now becomes not that F1 is back, but that F1 is bad. Again. Which is frustrating, because for all the criticism there is still much to celebrate in grand prix racing - as Sunday's exciting Australian GP showed.

The commercial rights holders, the teams, the promoters, the drivers, the sponsors - everybody will blame each other for what's happened. And there will surely be a change to the qualifying rules as a consequence.

But that's not the result that's really needed. What must happen is for those involved to realise that enough is enough.

It's time to stop tossing ideas into the mix and approving them before they're properly analysed and, more importantly, for F1 to make damned sure it understands what it's trying to achieve.

Until that happens, it will keep going round and round in circles. And not in the good way that we all love about motorsport.