2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[PlatinumZealot]

I'm not going to pretend to understand the compression ratio stuff, but how is this tested?

Is it even feasible for the FIA to test it with the PU running at full temp?

Many ways to test the compression ratio. Cant measure parts, measure pressures, get measuremement from sensors etc.

[bananapeel23]

Redbull PT and Merc PT has same trick. Redbull have many people from Merc engine department. So what about current merc engine ? Only flaw of my theory is Andy Cowell. If it is my theory's flaw, or these two manufacturer's flaw.

If rule says 16:1 exceeding it is not a gray area. If so why they banned ferrari to use their well knows very powerfull engine ? It was just a gray area. At the end if you can decieve tests, it is legal right ? Legality is all about not being catched.

The rules here clearly state that the measurement is to be taken at ambient temperature. If the compression ratio increases at higher temperatures, they are still clearly in the green if it's compliant at ambient. It would also be really hard to actually measure the compression ratio in any other way, since thermal expansion is always going to be a factor.

What Ferrari was doing in 2019 was much, much grayer. In addition to oil burning (like Mercedes were likely doing to an even greater extent), Ferrari were allegedly also tricking the fuel flow sensor by increasing fuel flow above legal limits between the fuel flow sensor measurements, then reducing it back to 100 kg/hr just in time for the next measurement to be taken.

Now I'm partial to the 2019 Ferrari strategy actually being fair and fully legal within the technical regulations as written, prior to technical directives being issued after Red Bull lodged a complaint. but the strategy was still undeniably much more sketchy than what is allegedly going on now.

[Badger]

Redbull PT and Merc PT has same trick. Redbull have many people from Merc engine department. So what about current merc engine ? Only flaw of my theory is Andy Cowell. If it is my theory's flaw, or these two manufacturer's flaw.

If rule says 16:1 exceeding it is not a gray area. If so why they banned ferrari to use their well knows very powerfull engine ? It was just a gray area. At the end if you can decieve tests, it is legal right ? Legality is all about not being catched.

The rules here clearly state that the measurement is to be taken at ambient temperature. If the compression ratio increases at higher temperatures, they are still clearly in the green if it's compliant at ambient. It would also be really hard to actually measure the compression ratio in any other way, since thermal expansion is always going to be a factor.

What Ferrari was doing in 2019 was much, much grayer. In addition to oil burning (like Mercedes were likely doing to an even greater extent), Ferrari were allegedly also tricking the fuel flow sensor by increasing fuel flow above legal limits between the fuel flow sensor measurements, then reducing it back to 100 kg/hr just in time for the next measurement to be taken.

Now I'm partial to the 2019 Ferrari strategy actually being fair and fully legal within the technical regulations as written, prior to technical directives being issued after Red Bull lodged a complaint. but the strategy was still undeniably much more sketchy than what is allegedly going on now.

2019 wasn't ambiguous at all IMO.

Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

There's little room for interpretation there, there are no caveats stating it applies "when measured by the sensor". There's also this rule from 2019 (before discovery) which further shuts down any tampering with the fuel flow.

Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow
rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

They tricked the sensor which was clever but once it was found out what they were doing they had no leg to stand on in the rules.

[sucof]

Yeah, let's just stop the competition and give everyone spec engines. That wouldn't be political at all

Everyone is building an engine according to the same rules, it doesn't mean everyone will find the same solutions. That's the sport. You miss a trick you lose out.

You think a max power limit on the engines will kill competition??
As if there are no other million factors that affect who will be the fastest?
It seems you are simply partial and now like those who might gained some advantage, and do not care about fair competition.
Because, newsflash: Sports is about competing in fairness.
Setting a max power for these engines for a while is making the sport fair.

(btw: was 2025 unfair, or not sport? Just mentioning because this year engines were farily close in performance to each other. I have seen better competition this year to be honest than in 2014...)

[Badger]

Yeah, let's just stop the competition and give everyone spec engines. That wouldn't be political at all

Everyone is building an engine according to the same rules, it doesn't mean everyone will find the same solutions. That's the sport. You miss a trick you lose out.

You think a max power limit on the engines will kill competition??
As if there are no other million factors that affect who will be the fastest?
It seems you are simply partial and now like those who might gained some advantage, and do not care about fair competition.
Because, newsflash: Sports is about competing in fairness.
Setting a max power for these engines for a while is making the sport fair.

(btw: was 2025 unfair, or not sport? Just mentioning because this year engines were farily close in performance to each other. I have seen better competition this year to be honest than in 2014...)

Yes. What's fair about artificially limiting the power because some have done a better job than others? What you are suggesting is to remove the engine competition entirely because your team of choice is rumoured to have gotten the short end of the stick... whilst accusing others of being partial. These manufacturers didn't spend hundreds of millions on brand new engines to end up with BoP.

What about 2025? Did we have artificially imposed BHP limits in 2025? The manufacturers reached relative parity through natural development prior to the freeze, that's called competition.

[sucof]

Yes. What's fair about artificially limiting the power because some have done a better job than others? What you are suggesting is to remove the engine competition entirely because your team of choice is rumoured to have gotten the short end of the stick... whilst accusing others of being partial. These manufacturers didn't spend hundreds of millions on brand new engines to end up with BoP.

What about 2025? Did we have artificially imposed BHP limits in 2025? The manufacturers reached relative parity through natural development prior to the freeze, that's called competition.

wow...
EVERYTHING in F1 is artificially limited bro! Everything is regulated!
You are getting this all wrong...
Also there is a clear rule here, by which some teams might not adhere. And you deem this 100% legal, not even questionable? )))
Your statement implies, that this rumoured grey area trick is completely legal.
Sorry but that is YOUR OPINION. It is not a fact!!!
But I stop here, I will not drag myself down to this level of arguing....

[dialtone]

I don’t think this is material related, the rules specifies which compounds can be used, presumably all teams tested their mechanical properties.

Even the thought of a different manufacturing process to have crystals better aligned for expansion leaves me somewhat skeptical.

If a trick exists it has to be in the integration and geometry of the cylinder, valves and piston.

[bananapeel23]

Redbull PT and Merc PT has same trick. Redbull have many people from Merc engine department. So what about current merc engine ? Only flaw of my theory is Andy Cowell. If it is my theory's flaw, or these two manufacturer's flaw.

If rule says 16:1 exceeding it is not a gray area. If so why they banned ferrari to use their well knows very powerfull engine ? It was just a gray area. At the end if you can decieve tests, it is legal right ? Legality is all about not being catched.

The rules here clearly state that the measurement is to be taken at ambient temperature. If the compression ratio increases at higher temperatures, they are still clearly in the green if it's compliant at ambient. It would also be really hard to actually measure the compression ratio in any other way, since thermal expansion is always going to be a factor.

What Ferrari was doing in 2019 was much, much grayer. In addition to oil burning (like Mercedes were likely doing to an even greater extent), Ferrari were allegedly also tricking the fuel flow sensor by increasing fuel flow above legal limits between the fuel flow sensor measurements, then reducing it back to 100 kg/hr just in time for the next measurement to be taken.

Now I'm partial to the 2019 Ferrari strategy actually being fair and fully legal within the technical regulations as written, prior to technical directives being issued after Red Bull lodged a complaint. but the strategy was still undeniably much more sketchy than what is allegedly going on now.

2019 wasn't ambiguous at all IMO.

Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

There's little room for interpretation there, there are no caveats stating it applies "when measured by the sensor". There's also this rule from 2019 (before discovery) which further shuts down any tampering with the fuel flow.

Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow
rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

They tricked the sensor which was clever but once it was found out what they were doing they had no leg to stand on in the rules.

I'm not going to argue with you on this, because interpretation is ultimately a matter of opinion.

All I can say is that the way the fuel flow limits work at increasing RPMs below 10500 RPM pretty much requires you to interpret the rules differently. Specifically in a way that allows fuel flow to temporarily exceed the limits, as long as it settles below the limit at the measurement point. The fuel flow limit below 10500 can't reasonably be expected to increase only after every sensor measurement, since the mathematical formula in 5.1.5 specifically ties it to RPM with no reference to the sensor measurement interval.

If you interpret the limits below 10500 RPM that way, then the identically worded 100 kg/hr fuel flow rate can very reasonably be interpreted the same way.

[Badger]

Yes. What's fair about artificially limiting the power because some have done a better job than others? What you are suggesting is to remove the engine competition entirely because your team of choice is rumoured to have gotten the short end of the stick... whilst accusing others of being partial. These manufacturers didn't spend hundreds of millions on brand new engines to end up with BoP.

What about 2025? Did we have artificially imposed BHP limits in 2025? The manufacturers reached relative parity through natural development prior to the freeze, that's called competition.

wow...
EVERYTHING in F1 is artificially limited bro! Everything is regulated!
You are getting this all wrong...
Also there is a clear rule here, by which some teams might not adhere. And you deem this 100% legal, not even questionable? )))
Your statement implies, that this rumoured grey area trick is completely legal.
Sorry but that is YOUR OPINION. It is not a fact!!!
But I stop here, I will not drag myself down to this level of arguing....

There are rules (which are artificial) that the participants sign up for. Then there's the competition, which isn't artificial, where the participants compete over who can make the most out of the rules. What you're suggesting is that we completely eliminate the competition because your team didn't think of something bold in the rules. No thanks I say.

Yeah it's my opinion after reading the rules that it's legal. I never said I worked for the FIA, we are all just giving our amateur opinions.

[Badger]

I'm not going to argue with you on this, because interpretation is ultimately a matter of opinion.

All I can say is that the way the fuel flow limits work at increasing RPMs below 10500 RPM pretty much requires you to interpret the rules differently. Specifically in a way that allows fuel flow to temporarily exceed the limits, as long as it settles below the limit at the measurement point. The fuel flow limit below 10500 can't reasonably be expected to increase only after every sensor measurement, since the mathematical formula in 5.1.5 specifically ties it to RPM with no reference to the sensor measurement interval.

If you interpret the limits below 10500 RPM that way, then the identically worded 100 kg/hr fuel flow rate can very reasonably be interpreted the same way.

The engines don't stop at 10500 RPM so clearly the 100 kg/h fuel flow is more than enough to reach that RPM and more, there's no reason you'd need to exceed it even briefly. And assuming that Ferrari did do that in the way it is speculated, it would be in direct breach of both the regulations I listed.

The gearing on these cars is basically done so that when you shift on the straight the car goes down to around 10500 RPM, you don't want to go below 10500 because you lose fuel flow and power. And if you recall 2019 it was on the straights that the Ferrari entered hyper-drive. So it would be my strong suspicion that this excess fuel was added above 10500 RPM, implying they were in breach of 100 kg/h.

[dialtone]

There's little room for interpretation there, there are no caveats stating it applies "when measured by the sensor". There's also this rule from 2019 (before discovery) which further shuts down any tampering with the fuel flow.

Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow
rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

They tricked the sensor which was clever but once it was found out what they were doing they had no leg to stand on in the rules.

Since there is no such thing as a continuous flow sensor your statement is a bit wild. Like there is no perfect sensor, there is no perfect pump. To stay always below 100kg/h means you need to spend more time below that threshold and have a lower average. The same buffeting that air has in a fan applies here equally.

Thinking that somehow you can measure with precision something that depends on the discrete injection action is obviously wrong. Injectors don’t do it continuously.

Furthemore nobody knows what happened so this is all speculation on what Ferrari did.

[catent]

If the rules objectively state that engines are not to exceed a compression ratio of 16:1 (which they do), and if the rules objectively state that cars must be in compliance with rules/regulations at all times (which they do), then there exists a fundamental inconsistency/conflict here (should this rumor be true).

The reality is that the “measurement/test” /=/ the “rule”, and we now have a situation where the test cannot effectively measure/enforce the rule. This isn’t a new phenomenon in F1, but in (most) previous instances the FIA have intervened to amend the testing process and/or wording of the regulations, in the interest of competitive fairness.

I won’t go so far as to call this “cheating”, but it certainly undermines the purpose of the ruleset and creates a competitive imbalance on the basis of this fundamental inconsistency between the rule and the test, which absolutely compromises competitive integrity and must be addressed.

[Badger]

There's little room for interpretation there, there are no caveats stating it applies "when measured by the sensor". There's also this rule from 2019 (before discovery) which further shuts down any tampering with the fuel flow.

Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow
rate or to store and recycle fuel after the measurement point is prohibited.

They tricked the sensor which was clever but once it was found out what they were doing they had no leg to stand on in the rules.

Since there is no such thing as a continuous flow sensor your statement is a bit wild. Like there is no perfect sensor, there is no perfect pump. To stay always below 100kg/h means you need to spend more time below that threshold and have a lower average. The same buffeting that air has in a fan applies here equally.

Thinking that somehow you can measure with precision something that depends on the discrete injection action is obviously wrong. Injectors don’t do it continuously.

Furthemore nobody knows what happened so this is all speculation on what Ferrari did.

I beg to disagree, an encrypted fuel flow sensor that randomises its samples is practically perfect for stopping what Ferrari was suspected of doing. Which is precisely why F1 adopted just such a sensor for the 2020 seaonhttps://motorsport.tech/formula-1/encry ... ula-1-2020

Nobody knows what happened? Ferrari and the FIA does for sure. And I think laymen like you and me can get a pretty good idea about what happened by looking at the circumstantial evidence. What exploit is an encrypted randomised fuel flow sensor trying to solve? Pair that with a secret deal and a precipitous drop off in engine performance and it's not exactly a mystery what happened, at least not to someone being honest about it.

[dialtone]

I beg to disagree, an encrypted fuel flow sensor that randomises its samples is practically perfect for stopping what Ferrari was suspected of doing. Which is precisely why F1 adopted just such a sensor for the 2020 seaonhttps://motorsport.tech/formula-1/encry ... ula-1-2020

Nobody knows what happened? Ferrari and the FIA does for sure. And I think laymen like you and me can get a pretty good idea about what happened by looking at the circumstantial evidence. What exploit is an encrypted randomised fuel flow sensor trying to solve? Pair that with a secret deal and a precipitous drop off in engine performance and it's not exactly a mystery what happened, at least not to someone being honest about it.

Ferrari had a drop already in COTA before the new FFM which was fitted from 2020.

https://motorsport.tech/formula-1/fuel- ... it-be-done

And there were 2 pumps involved anyway in the process so syncing both of them would have been quite the challenge to go unnoticed.

FIA had access to the fuel system from Ferrari and still couldn’t figure it out and needed Ferrari explanation. I refuse to accept that it was something trivial because FIA would have figured it out themselves.

Anyway this is OT, to close my position remains that this is the same situation as 2019 and should be banned if it’s happening, any other outcome is corrupt to me.

[Badger]

I beg to disagree, an encrypted fuel flow sensor that randomises its samples is practically perfect for stopping what Ferrari was suspected of doing. Which is precisely why F1 adopted just such a sensor for the 2020 seaonhttps://motorsport.tech/formula-1/encry ... ula-1-2020

Nobody knows what happened? Ferrari and the FIA does for sure. And I think laymen like you and me can get a pretty good idea about what happened by looking at the circumstantial evidence. What exploit is an encrypted randomised fuel flow sensor trying to solve? Pair that with a secret deal and a precipitous drop off in engine performance and it's not exactly a mystery what happened, at least not to someone being honest about it.

Ferrari had a drop already in COTA before the new FFM which was fitted from 2020.

https://motorsport.tech/formula-1/fuel- ... it-be-done

And there were 2 pumps involved anyway in the process so syncing both of them would have been quite the challenge to go unnoticed.

FIA had access to the fuel system from Ferrari and still couldn’t figure it out and needed Ferrari explanation. I refuse to accept that it was something trivial because FIA would have figured it out themselves.

Anyway this is OT, to close my position remains that this is the same situation as 2019 and should be banned if it’s happening, any other outcome is corrupt to me.

Well COTA was the weekend the scandal broke IIRC, they may have dialled it back as a precaution to not risk being protested. Whether the FIA figured out the details on their own or Ferrari told them as a part of the secret deal, the encrypted randomised fuel flow sensor was added for a reason. Can't get away from that.

First you argue that we don't really know what happened in 2019, then in the next paragraph you claim that the current situation is the same as 2019. If you don't know what happened then that is obviously nonsense. This seems more like advocacy rather than a reasoned opinion, especially when you conclude the whole contradiction by saying "any other outcome is corrupt".