2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[Jambier]

https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-new ... ompromesso

Earthquake risk
Today's Corriere dello Sport revealed some background of what is happening behind the scenes of Formula 1 in these days: "About 7 months ago a Mercedes engineer hired by Red Bull Powertrain reported the secret and Red Bull tried to reproduce this system". But there is a substantial difference according to the Roman newspaper, because Mercedes - which has already been working on it for a year - would not be able to bring to the track an engine that can comply with parameter 16 of the compression limit, unlike Red Bull.
And the trouble would obviously extend to all Mercedes-powered cars, i.e. world champion McLaren, Williams and Alpine.

What does this mean? Mercedes not having a compliant engine would be an automatic disqualification for them and their customers? This seems made up to me.

Season is not started yet, so FIA can produce something special to fix this before it starts and allow them with this engine .
Maybe put an 95kg/h mass flow or something for them

[vorticism]

Regarding the regulation itself, I notice the wording “geomtric compression ratio” is used, not swept volume. The latter would be much easier to measure. A simple contact or visual inspection of piston travel. The surfaces of both the piston face and the cylinder head however are very complex and not easily measured, but they must be measured to establish the volume. Since we don’t have the testing protocol document, a few guesses toward what it could entail:

-Pneumatic test: compare air pressure at BDC and TDC and infer volume based on the properties of the gas. Seems too innacurate.
-Hydraulic test: fill the cylinder (via the spark plug or pressure sensor hole) with a fluid like oil and cycle the piston, compare BDC and TDC fluid volumes displaced in an external reservoir connected to the cylinder. Could be very accurate. Potentially damaging to the engine if the measuring fluid isn’t fully flushed.
-Observation of piston travel. Doesn’t tell you about volume of the combustion chamber at TDC.
-Observe piston travel + measure combustion chamber volume at TDC with optics or fluid.
-Observe piston travel + CAD file of the CC volume and trust that it is representative of the physical parts.
-Inspect the computer files and not the physical components.

[Martin Keene]

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

https://i.postimg.cc/XqFvFkGc/image.png

How is ambient temperature defined?

Indeed. You could argue the rule means the compression ration is to be measured at the engines ambient operating temperature. Very poorly worded.

[Badger]

https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-new ... ompromesso

Earthquake risk
Today's Corriere dello Sport revealed some background of what is happening behind the scenes of Formula 1 in these days: "About 7 months ago a Mercedes engineer hired by Red Bull Powertrain reported the secret and Red Bull tried to reproduce this system". But there is a substantial difference according to the Roman newspaper, because Mercedes - which has already been working on it for a year - would not be able to bring to the track an engine that can comply with parameter 16 of the compression limit, unlike Red Bull.
And the trouble would obviously extend to all Mercedes-powered cars, i.e. world champion McLaren, Williams and Alpine.

What does this mean? Mercedes not having a compliant engine would be an automatic disqualification for them and their customers? This seems made up to me.

The article makes no sense in how it characterises "compliance". Being compliant according to the rules means meeting the 16:1 CR at ambient temperatures. There's no other type of compliance as the newspaper implies. Italian F1 media is usually terrible so I wouldn't trust anything being said.

[Sylv1]

my question may seem stupid but, what really defines a measurement at room temperature?

If we carry out a measurement in a room at ambient temperature, but on a motor that is still hot, at a temperature close to its maximum operating temperature, can we consider that the value 16:1 remains the norm?

[hollus]

...
What’s frustrating (especially as a Ferrari fan who already swallowed this exact pill in 2022) is seeing people argue that “the measurement is the rule” when the FIA themselves have proven, time and time again, that it isn’t.
...

There is a difference between bypassing the actual sensor doing the measurement, and doing something else in a completely different phisical property that under some conditions results in a geometry that is not what was meant to be measured. Subtle difference, but clear, IMO. Same in spirit perhaps, but affecting the measurement device has a directness and a purposefulness that a loophole does not. One can argue that one cannot stop physics from happening, but not that the ruler just happend to break. Again, IMO.

...
Either:

loopholes that bypass the spirit of a given rule, but pass testing, are acceptable, always …

… or …

the FIA steps in to realign enforcement with intent, as they have many times before. You can’t pick and choose.

Here I am not sure I follow you. History shows that it is not "either", but "and". not always, but 90% of the time. FIA again and again decided that a) they see the loophole beaking the spirit of the rules, but b) they let you keep your points because you met the measurement enforcing the rule as defined on that date (that wing bent too much, that motor burned too much oil). That is a yes for your first statement.
But then, they anounce that from this and that date, the measurment changes so that the final result is closer to the intended spirit of the rules, and from that point on, the car from 3 races ago wouldbe illegal. That is a yes for your second statement.
So I don't see the "you can't have both" part.
This one looks the same to me, likely to "kind of pass" for a few races, but no more from race 9, please. If it is real at all, that is.

Of course sometimes politics result in weird statements like an internal spring being a movable aerodynamic part. But mostly, history with FIA is that you have been naughty and then it becomes a PR problem, we make you stop (from a close future point). Or am I being obtuse and we are basically agreeing and you are only arguing with this last sentence of mine?

At the end of the day, the rules will never be bullet proof. There will always be gray areas and FIA will always have to decide on said shades of gray. Happens in every sport.

[FittingMechanics]

https://www.formulapassion.it/f1/f1-new ... ompromesso

Earthquake risk
Today's Corriere dello Sport revealed some background of what is happening behind the scenes of Formula 1 in these days: "About 7 months ago a Mercedes engineer hired by Red Bull Powertrain reported the secret and Red Bull tried to reproduce this system". But there is a substantial difference according to the Roman newspaper, because Mercedes - which has already been working on it for a year - would not be able to bring to the track an engine that can comply with parameter 16 of the compression limit, unlike Red Bull.
And the trouble would obviously extend to all Mercedes-powered cars, i.e. world champion McLaren, Williams and Alpine.

What does this mean? Mercedes not having a compliant engine would be an automatic disqualification for them and their customers? This seems made up to me.

They are trying to say that RBPT started to design an engine with 16:1 compression ratio and only found out about the trick late in the development, so they have something to fall back to (their original 16:1 design).

Mercedes used this trick from the start and don't have a 16:1 compliant design.

Or at least that's what that rumor is trying to say. I don't buy it.

[bluechris]

I simply don't care what the manufacturers will do if they do a trick like that. They can run a few races with less performance till they found the solution. They played and they lost and FIA must close that trick ASAP. I don't need another Das or oil burning and many other things that has permitted in the past mid season. We have a situation that is unfolding BEFORE the season start so game over.
Things are crystal clear for me, no more fake winners.

[Emag]

What puzzles me, who exactly snitched? Did RBPT find out late and they're the ones who self-reported in a bid to try and damage Mercedes (since apparently they have a standard design to fallback on)? This is way too early to find out about tricks like these. If Mercedes were the only source, and they kept quiet, this thing would potentially go unraveled for a long time since it wouldn't be possible to detect considering they would appear completely normal during tests.

[Matt2725]

It's a pointless exercise IMO.

Every single car will be on the limit at 16:1 at ambient. Therefore, it doesn't take a genius to work out that at operating temparture, not a single engine on that grid will be compliant with the stated compression ratio. Hence why the FIA measure it at ambient.

Mercedes used this trick from the start and don't have a 16:1 compliant design.

Well they will...at ambient. As will every other team. If we're going to be literal with that rule at all times, then as I say, no team will be compliant.

[motobaleno]

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ca ... /10786165/

very easy to tranlate now.
keypoint: trick is not based on simple thermal expansion.

[FNTC]

Is there no definition in the regs of this "ambient temperature"? It can be 5C on one track and 50C on another. And can they measure CR on an engine that is still warm after a race? Lots of questions here.

[Peter Ian Staker]

My problem with this whole deal is they explicitly changed 18:1 to 16:1 in the rulebook.
If they can just use clever tricks to get 18:1 in practice again, what was the point of the rule change?

[ferkan]

My problem with this whole deal is they explicitly changed 18:1 to 16:1 in the rulebook.
If they can just use clever tricks to get 18:1 in practice again, what was the point of the rule change?

Point was to reduce complexity and costs. Circumventing that to get back to 18:1 with even higher costs and complexity was definitely not what FIA had in mind.

I have a feeling RB got a wiff of this and leaked it, I doubt they can make it work on level Merc can and even if they think they can, better not to risk it and get back to more “conservative” target where everyone is for sure at same footing.

[FittingMechanics]

My problem with this whole deal is they explicitly changed 18:1 to 16:1 in the rulebook.
If they can just use clever tricks to get 18:1 in practice again, what was the point of the rule change?

They did that so the new manufacturers have an even playing field. Old manufacturers would need to design new, 16:1 engines.

These changes are to invite new manufacturers and make old ones have to design new parts.