Why must F1 keep embarrassing itself?

For six weeks a battle raged back and forth over going to either Barcelona or Bahrain for Formula 1's two pre-season 2017 tests before the final decision was facilitated by the simple expedient of consulting the relevant sporting regulations clauses, then deciding which of two conflicting clauses held sway.

At the heart of the matter lay two opposing agendas: one faction wished to test in hot climes ahead of major technical revisions for 2017; the other cited costs and proximity to their respective team bases as reasons for their insistence on Barcelona as the test venue, as had originally been agreed by all teams and the FIA.

It should, though, never have to come to this, but so convoluted and contradictory is F1's rulebook - certainly in parts - that a group of at least 13 grown men debated two alternatives over four grand prix weekends before eventually settling upon a return to the tried and tested Spanish venue that has served the championship so well for over two decades.

Blame paragraphs d) and g) of clause 10.6 of the regulation for this situation: the former permits testing outside Europe with the permission of the majority of teams and FIA, while the latter permits testing only "on sites within Europe". So the spirit of each clause came into play before the logical decision was taken, but not before F1 again left itself open to ridicule, with the situation being symptomatic of its rule malaise.

Rather than operating to a stable set of unambiguous regulations, clauses are constantly tweaked - often in kneejerk fashion - in the name of 'clarity' whenever something is argued loudly enough. The blue flag rule, which has been around in some form or other ever since race horse gave way to race car, provides a classic case in point: only after enough drivers complained at Suzuka was the matter taken up at Austin.

However, rather than simply applying the existing rule as prescribed by the regulations, a complex procedure was devised and imposed: When gaps between lapping and lapped cars reach three seconds a blue warning light is activated; at the one second mark its flashing signifies the lapped driver must yield at their earliest convenience.

All well and good, save that backmarkers stated they had not seen/noticed/been given the three-second warning...

Whatever, despite constant complaints about blue flags whenever F1 hits narrow or sinuous circuits, no driver has recently been penalised for ignoring those signals. This points to unenforceable regulations and/or ambiguous wording, and hence the need for clarity and Tokyo-by-night dashboards that distract drivers while they are in the heat of wheel-to-wheel battle.

Simultaneously the 'moving under braking' regulation was clarified, but again only after sufficient teams complained following recent incidents. Yet, in the opening stages at Austin, less than three hours after the provisions were 'clarified', precisely such a move went unpenalised when Sergio Perez moved on Daniil Kvyat. "Now I know what's allowed," the Russian said, "but imagine if we all did it."

Fair point, and no doubt another 'clarification' will be issued once sufficient complaints reach race control.

Red Bull team boss Christian Horner reckons there are now four different rules governing overtaking, causing him to caution that F1 "should take care not to over-regulate the sporting side," while his Mercedes opposite number Toto Wolff is concerned about varying interpretations.

"We can invent another 200 rules but the danger is that the racing just becomes more complicated," he said. "If the stewards will intervene only when a driver has to take evasive action, then what we will see in the future is many evasive manoeuvres."

Wolff is, of course, a former driver, as is Horner, so they should know of what they speak from a practicality perspective, but both are also members of F1's rule-framing Strategy Group, yet such issues are allowed to exist. If influential team bosses cannot bring pressure to bear, who can?

Earlier this year, during drivers' briefings at the Red Bull Ring and Silverstone, the talk was all about track limits - particularly as harsh 'shark's teeth' at the Austrian venue viciously rattled cars and drivers when they strayed off the demarcated track.

Yet, as Gary Anderson points out in his latest column, at Austin drivers strayed left and right with impunity. Track limits are surely just that, and any transgressions ought to be heavily punished, not analysed to establish whether a driver gained an advantage (and should be penalised) or not (so gets off scot-free).

Double yellow flags provide a further example of inconsistency: following the Hungarian Grand Prix qualifying debacle, in which Lewis Hamilton led tittle-tattle about team-mate Nico Rosberg, who had slowed just enough (according to the rules) for double waved yellows on the way to claiming pole position, FIA race director Charlie Whiting addressed the media in Germany.

"The procedure now would be to simply red flag it every time there is a double-waved yellow flag," he said. "It just removes the discussion about how much is 'slowing down'".

Yet, four races later, in Malaysia, the "procedure" became a guideline and the sporting code amended accordingly after Sergio Perez was penalised eight grid slots for disregarding double waved yellows during qualifying at the previous race in Singapore. Reds would surely have forced the Mexican to slow down.

Such inconsistencies not only leave teams, drivers and the media bewildered, but are the primary cause of much negativity from fans towards F1, and rightly so.

Hamilton recently highlighted another issue, namely that of starting outside a grid box: "We discussed the start of the last race [at the Austin drivers' briefing]. The rule has always been we've got to be in the grid spot - you can't be half a car out, half a car in.

"At the last race, because we had water on our side of the grid, Daniel Ricciardo [who was behind Hamilton in fourth] placed his car two wheels out, two wheels in.

"It needs to be clear because if that is now allowed, and common sense is allowed to prevail, all of us will just do that and you'll see cars staggered all down the grid."

There are four basic issues: inconsistencies, complexity, ambiguity and vagueness, with some regulations being hardest hit by combining all four negativities in a single paragraph.

That said, the primary cause of inconsistency is vagueness of wording, and, according to a former team boss the situation harks back to the Max Mosley era, when vague wording suited the the-then FIA president to a tee.

"That way he could interpret the regulations as he saw fit," believes our source, "and hence we saw some rather creative interpretations, such as tolerances intended for horizontal surfaces being applied to vertical components" - a clear reference to Ferrari's barge board controversy in Malaysia 1999.

Subsequently the governance procedure was changed from a quasi-autocratic process under the former barrister to rule-by-committee, initially via a complex structure in which the sporting/technical working groups devised regulations on behalf of the F1 Commission, which then escalated approved motions to the FIA's World Motorsport Council for ratification.

In 2013 a Strategy Group, with six teams holding a vote each and the FIA and commercial rights holder FOM each holding six, added another layer added to the process in the name of 'streamlining'. Over the years matters became increasingly convoluted to the extent that earlier this year the Strategy Group agreed to introduce elimination qualifying without considering the full implications of the concept.

Just three races in, the procedure was abandoned to much ridicule, but only after another attempt at rewriting the qualifying regulations failed to improve on what was a tried and tested, simple procedure understood by broadcasters and fans alike.

As F1's regulations became increasingly complex and numerous, so the window for their approval was compressed to ensure that regulations changes for the following year are approved by the end of February of the present season - ostensibly to provide more development time for independents - rather then the end of June as had previously been the case. This change ramped up the pressures.

Regulation changes are therefore the product of committees working to tight deadlines, resulting in ambiguity and compromise, with individual agendas further complicating the process - much to the chagrin of fans, broadcasters, race promoters, teams, drivers and the media - and as such transgressions are regularly left unpunished before becoming the norm until 'clarified'.

F1 faces two choices: continue as it is, tweaking regulations as issues arise, or be proactive by appointing small working groups manned by sporting or technical directors who are able to work through the rules from front to back in order to highlight any obvious discrepancies. Once identified, all problem clauses should be amended or totally rewritten rather being 'clarified' after sufficient noise has been kicked about.

Better still, the FIA should contract retired F1 (and FIA) personnel with in-depth knowledge of all regulatory areas to apply the four-point test out lined above - inconsistency, complexity, ambiguity and vagueness - and flag up any areas that require revision.

Even then the timing problem remains: unless all boxes are ticked and all approvals sorted by March 1 any amendments to the regulations would need to wait for the season after next. Possibly that should be the first rule to come under the spotlight.