2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[AR3-GP]

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.

[Rodak]

So what do all of you want from technical development in F1 engines? If the engine meets the rules, the engine is legal. No need to consider the 'intent' of the builders, their intent is to build the best engine within the rules. If the FIA measures their engine and it fits, good on them. So much of the engine is defined, materials, bore, stroke, mass, fuel flow, cylinder spacing, fuel delivery, rpm, c.g. et al that all the joy of discovery is being regulated out. Thanks to those who discover things. Call me old, but I loved the days when engines were on the edge.

Really, just have a spec engine if that's what you want, it would be way cheaper. Part of the appeal for engine manufacturers is that they can do better; take that away from them and what's the point? There have been times in the not so distant past when a lot of manufacturers just pulled out of F1. Honda, BMW, Ford, Toyota and others just quit. It could easily happen again is there is not a return on investment. All these auto manufacturers were not chassis builders, they were car manufacturers, and they were in it because of the engines and the press that came from winning.

Make this series a spec engine series, which it is becoming, and they may well just quit again. Sure, F1 is popular now, but how long is Audi or Cadillac going to be around if they don't get some reward? Toyota spent something like a billion (with a 'B') dollars and never won a race; sure, the budget cap is great and prevents teams from doing that again, but any money spent, as Cadillac is doing, along with the huge price of entry, is simply money off profits. Yeah, F1 is popular right now and teams are actually making a profit, but golden goose.

Yeah, I carried on too long and got a bit off topic, but my point is unless F1 wants to simply become Hollywood, which it seems to be heading towards, let there be some ability for designers to design and make, within the rules, better engines and cars instead of stifling innovation and good design.

[catent]

So what do all of you want from technical development in F1 engines? If the engine meets the rules, the engine is legal. No need to consider the 'intent' of the builders, their intent is to build the best engine within the rules. If the FIA measures their engine and it fits, good on them. So much of the engine is defined, materials, bore, stroke, mass, fuel flow, cylinder spacing, fuel delivery, rpm, c.g. et al that all the joy of discovery is being regulated out. Thanks to those who discover things. Call me old, but I loved the days when engines were on the edge.

Really, just have a spec engine if that's what you want, it would be way cheaper. Part of the appeal for engine manufacturers is that they can do better; take that away from them and what's the point? There have been times in the not so distant past when a lot of manufacturers just pulled out of F1. Honda, BMW, Ford, Toyota and others just quit. It could easily happen again is there is not a return on investment. All these auto manufacturers were not chassis builders, they were car manufacturers, and they were in it because of the engines and the press that came from winning.

Make this series a spec engine series, which it is becoming, and they may well just quit again. Sure, F1 is popular now, but how long is Audi or Cadillac going to be around if they don't get some reward? Toyota spent something like a billion (with a 'B') dollars and never won a race; sure, the budget cap is great and prevents teams from doing that again, but any money spent, as Cadillac is doing, along with the huge price of entry, is simply money off profits. Yeah, F1 is popular right now and teams are actually making a profit, but golden goose.

Yeah, I carried on too long and got a bit off topic, but my point is unless F1 wants to simply become Hollywood, which it seems to be heading towards, let there be some ability for designers to design and make, within the rules, better engines and cars instead of stifling innovation and good design.

Did you hold a similar position regarding Ferrari’s 2019 engine?

[lio007]

I'd praise every team that finds clever engineering solutions to get a competitive advantage. And so should the media. It makes F1 interesting (when you are more on the technical side of things)

[AR3-GP]

The rules only define the geometric compression ratio as a measurement that is conducted at ambient temperature. It pertains to no other condition. Thermal expansion can't be avoided. If teams have found favorable applications for materials that are permitted by the regulations, then that's just clever engineering.

[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.

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".

COTA was absolutely not where the scandal broke LMAO, it was going on since basically 2018, they had to fit a 2nd sensor on their split battery as that’s where early speculation was going. 2 years of insane scrutiny on that car. No other car has ever seen this level of intense attempts at finding what’s illegal with it. In Canada 2019 there was more unhappiness and still focus on battery. In December 2019 the engine was seized by FIA to work out what was going on, and they still couldn’t.

Encrypted randomized flow sensor sounds all cool except when the encryption is irrelevant as Ferrari wasn’t replacing data in the sensor actively, you don’t get away without DQ if you do that, normal electro magnetic interference would provide lots of noise, visible from the reading, and as already said synchronizing 2 pumps with a sensor would require some insane levels of technology in the pumps, which would be quite easy to tell when you saw their specs, which FIA had access to. The random jitter makes the synch impossible, but it was still borderline impossible, there’s a reason why they went with a fuel buffer post sensor as their first idea, and updated the rules to forbid.

The fuel sensor can certainly hint at something going on there, but it also can just be intent on FIA to close any possible attempt going forward there now that the whole grid has tried to figure out what Ferrari did and spent millions trying to trick a sensor.

Why this is the same as 2019 to me has nothing to do with the trick. A team got punished for interpreting the rules in a smart way, so smart that nobody could figure it out, even when given access to the technology and blueprint. And yet got punished, do the same now if you are fair, otherwise it’s corrupt. It really doesn’t matter what it is they are doing when the rule intent is 16:1.

Don’t care much about your name calling.

[hollus]

You all can argue all you want and color bias your arguments all you want, but one thing is clear:
The rule intent is 16:1 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE. Not 16:1 at working conditions.
It is explicit, it is written.
There is no reason to try to achieve 16:1 at working conditions, 16.0 is no better or worse than 16.2:1 or 15.98:1. It is a limit, it is arbitrary (literally zero reason for a number without decimals), and it was set at an arbitrary value at an arbitrary temperature, where, incidentally, it is easiest to police.

As somebody pointed above, all engines run, likely, above the maximum allowed displacement due to thermal expansion of the whole engine. And that is OK. And nobody discussed the actual cylinder volume during a Q lap, not even before fuel flow limits.

We should know that F1 is an engineering contest, and if a limit is given with measuring conditions, then those conditions are part of the limit.
And we should know that teams will play politics and that journos will play drama.

But gray is no fun, I suppose.

This is 90% political drama and 10% engineering brilliancy (we don’t even know how much performance gain would be there, maybe it is 0.1%).

Let’s recognize it for what it is and lower the temperature of the discussion, lest the posts expand into personal spats beyond acceptable limits.

[De Wet]

So what do all of you want from technical development in F1 engines? If the engine meets the rules, the engine is legal. No need to consider the 'intent' of the builders, their intent is to build the best engine within the rules. If the FIA measures their engine and it fits, good on them. So much of the engine is defined, materials, bore, stroke, mass, fuel flow, cylinder spacing, fuel delivery, rpm, c.g. et al that all the joy of discovery is being regulated out. Thanks to those who discover things. Call me old, but I loved the days when engines were on the edge.

Really, just have a spec engine if that's what you want, it would be way cheaper. Part of the appeal for engine manufacturers is that they can do better; take that away from them and what's the point? There have been times in the not so distant past when a lot of manufacturers just pulled out of F1. Honda, BMW, Ford, Toyota and others just quit. It could easily happen again is there is not a return on investment. All these auto manufacturers were not chassis builders, they were car manufacturers, and they were in it because of the engines and the press that came from winning.

Make this series a spec engine series, which it is becoming, and they may well just quit again. Sure, F1 is popular now, but how long is Audi or Cadillac going to be around if they don't get some reward? Toyota spent something like a billion (with a 'B') dollars and never won a race; sure, the budget cap is great and prevents teams from doing that again, but any money spent, as Cadillac is doing, along with the huge price of entry, is simply money off profits. Yeah, F1 is popular right now and teams are actually making a profit, but golden goose.

Yeah, I carried on too long and got a bit off topic, but my point is unless F1 wants to simply become Hollywood, which it seems to be heading towards, let there be some ability for designers to design and make, within the rules, better engines and cars instead of stifling innovation and good design.

Spot On...

[Badger]

COTA was absolutely not where the scandal broke LMAO, it was going on since basically 2018, they had to fit a 2nd sensor on their split battery as that’s where early speculation was going. 2 years of insane scrutiny on that car. No other car has ever seen this level of intense attempts at finding what’s illegal with it. In Canada 2019 there was more unhappiness and still focus on battery. In December 2019 the engine was seized by FIA to work out what was going on, and they still couldn’t.

Encrypted randomized flow sensor sounds all cool except when the encryption is irrelevant as Ferrari wasn’t replacing data in the sensor actively, you don’t get away without DQ if you do that, normal electro magnetic interference would provide lots of noise, visible from the reading, and as already said synchronizing 2 pumps with a sensor would require some insane levels of technology in the pumps, which would be quite easy to tell when you saw their specs, which FIA had access to. The random jitter makes the synch impossible, but it was still borderline impossible, there’s a reason why they went with a fuel buffer post sensor as their first idea, and updated the rules to forbid.

The fuel sensor can certainly hint at something going on there, but it also can just be intent on FIA to close any possible attempt going forward there now that the whole grid has tried to figure out what Ferrari did and spent millions trying to trick a sensor.

Why this is the same as 2019 to me has nothing to do with the trick. A team got punished for interpreting the rules in a smart way, so smart that nobody could figure it out, even when given access to the technology and blueprint. And yet got punished, do the same now if you are fair, otherwise it’s corrupt. It really doesn’t matter what it is they are doing when the rule intent is 16:1.

Don’t care much about your name calling.

COTA was where it went from rumours to a formal request for clarification from Red Bull, which led to a TD from the FIA clarifying things on fuel flow. Then suddenly Ferrari lost performance. BTW, the rumours at the time from Dutch journalists was that RB had found a way to interfere with the fuel flow sensor using a hybrid system cable, they could basically lower the reading with electromagnetic interference. They queried the FIA whether this was allowed, the FIA said absolutely not.

The point of an added encrypted randomised sensor isn’t to prevent someone from “replacing the data actively”, it’s to prevent them from knowing when and how the data is collected. That way you can’t work around the sensor because you don’t know when and what it is reading.

If you don’t know the trick you don’t know if it was a smart workaround or a flat out cheat. The comparison to today becomes meaningless.

[dialtone]

You all can argue all you want and color bias your arguments all you want, but one thing is clear:
The rule intent is 16:1 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE. Not 16:1 at working conditions.
It is explicit, it is written.
There is no reason to try to achieve 16:1 at working conditions, 16.0 is no better or worse than 16.2:1 or 15.98:1. It is a limit, it is arbitrary (literally zero reason for a number without decimals), and it was set at an arbitrary value at an arbitrary temperature, where, incidentally, it is easiest to police.

As I wrote, IMHO there’s not much chance this is expansion as the metal involved can be chosen from a small set of compounds determined in the rules. It’s ridiculous to think that only 2 teams thought of choosing a material that expands while the others don’t.

If this is happening it’s likely a different form of trickery, and that’s totally in the same space as Ferrari and its engine trickery.

[etusch]

2019 wasn't ambiguous at all IMO.

Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

I think this was also completely same mentality behind cheating. If it says 100kg/h and you burn more than that, that is cheating. You can give something a new name but it stays same just with a new name.

If it measured in ambient temperature and it naturally rise compression ratio with heat, it is ok. But if you make a design to arise it, this is cheating.

[Tommy Cookers]

unless you have carburettors or continuous flow injection the injection rate must exceed 100 kg/hr some of the time

[AR3-GP]

The Ferrari stories are all alleged, but there was a flow sensor installed to measure and enforce the maximum flow rate at all times. There's not really any interpretation available. Circumventing an FIA sensor that was meant to police the flow rate at all times, would never be legal.

Here we are simply told that the geometric compression ratio will be measured at ambient temperature. Teams have not attempted to interfere with this measurement when it takes place.

[collindsilva]

Can somebody provide an exact extract of the wording mentioning ambient temperature in the rule set.

[f1isgood]

Heat metal, thermal expansion occurs. So even now, in the now finished turbo hybrid era, is it not possible that such things exist? Even though the current ratio is 18:1 but teams will obviously be working with 18+delta:1 in reality but measurements will be done at 18:1