The complexity of Formula 1 is simultaneously its great appeal and the source of its most risible absurdities.

The ADUO process is an example of the latter, reducing the participants to unseemly squabbles about who has done a worse job with their V6 engines. 

ADUO - or ‘additional development and upgrade opportunities' to the less acronymically adept - is a well-intentioned mechanism, but one that proves hell is paved with good intentions.

The rationale is that the focal point of the competitive battle between power unit manufacturers would lie in the electrical components, with the V6 itself more a functional necessity than a performance differentiator. ADUO exists to allow anyone who dropped the ball to catch up rather than being eternally uncompetitive. 

So far, so logical. The trouble is that these are F1 teams that you are dealing with, finely-honed competitive machines that will find every avenue you could imagine - and a good deal more that you can't - in search of an edge.

Confront them with the idea that the electrical components are the only battleground - and remember, while battery efficiency can vary and the software side is influential, the power of the MGU-K is locked at 350kW and harvesting levels regulated - and they will make a mockery of it. It was therefore inevitable that the V6 engines would allow for greater variation than intended. That's exposed one fundamental flaw of the regulations. 

The next weakness is how limited ADUO is. It's bizarre that it is such a narrow metric given the FIA has visibility of so many other characteristics. Even if you could measure the power output with precision (and that's a matter that's up for debate given the differences of opinion between competitors) you're offering a one-dimensional answer to a three-dimensional problem given the myriad interacting factors that shape performance.

Tempting as it is to blame the FIA entirely for an ADUO system that isn't fit for purpose, and it bears some responsibility, it's also clear that the car companies and their representatives now at the forefront of complaining about it and telling the world how bad their own products are played a significant role. 

"We offered whether we wanted to consider certain things like the turbo pressures, or the turbo diameters, or the operating of the plenum temperature, for example, and such like,” said FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis in April.

“The universal position by the PU manufacturers back then was that we should keep it simple. So the fact that it is the current horsepower measurement of the internal combustion has been appreciated right from the start."

Attempting to make something fundamentally complicated easy was always doomed to failure, encouraging competitors to game the system. It's another example of how being in thrall to capricious car manufacturers is a mistake for F1.

While it's going too far to argue the manufacturers should be banished as they are beneficial for F1 - not just financially but also in terms of fan interest - it is a dangerous habit to bend the knee to their misconceived demands. That must be kept in mind when the next-generation engine regulations are shaped, rather than allowing fear of manufacturers walking away to produce another flawed engine formula. Had the FIA stood its ground on the need for a more rounded metric, F1 might be in a better place.

ADUO is a headache F1 is stuck with, one that will flare up multiple times a year and create a baffling public narrative that's all about arguing your own product is not as good as it should be.

If the Red Bull Powertrains V6 really is the best - and it's impossible to say with certainty where it stands - then immense credit is deserved. Instead, it has become a bad thing. If it's not the best, then the whole process is conclusively flawed even before you consider that the Red Bull-Ford power unit as a whole is objectively not the market leader.

Off-track politics are an intrinsic part of F1, but it is a mistake to create an overly simplistic mechanism that can potentially be manipulated, inspires little confidence inside the paddock and is barely understood outside it.

Inevitably, it's interpreted by some as evidence of tilting the playing field, and undercuts what should be the straightforward part of any sporting competition.

F1 should be about being the best, not being the best at looking like the worst.