Swept volume is only part of the 'geometric ratio'. It's certainly possible to measure head volume and calculate ring land volume to arrive at the total volume, subtracting the swept volume for the ratio calculation. I note that the FIA allows each manufacturer to devise their own test method that would then be certified by the FIA; this would mean each manufacturer might have a different method. There should be laser measurement methods for arriving at head volume, as well as information from CNC machining of the head that might be useful for same.Regarding the regulation itself, I notice the wording “geometric 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:
...The procedure to measure this value will be detailed by each PU Manufacturer according to the Guidance
Document FIA-F1-DOC-C042 and executed at ambient temperature. This procedure must be
approved by the FIA Technical Department and included in the PU Manufacturer homologation
dossier.
I read that article and I have to say, despite the claim that is isn't based on thermal expansion...it also doesn't offer up any clue as to what it is beyond a "geometric solution". Nothing new in that article as far as I can tell.motobaleno wrote: ↑22 Dec 2025, 21:31https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ca ... /10786165/
very easy to tranlate now.
keypoint: trick is not based on simple thermal expansion.
Now let’s seeNikolas Tombazis (3 months ago): « We made it clear to the teams that we will not tolerate anyone exploiting loopholes in the reg that they have kept hidden from us. If someone developed a concept based on a 50-50 ambiguous interpretation, it would be suicide for that team.
Mechanical options:Matt2725 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 00:02I read that article and I have to say, despite the claim that is isn't based on thermal expansion...it also doesn't offer up any clue as to what it is beyond a "geometric solution". Nothing new in that article as far as I can tell.motobaleno wrote: ↑22 Dec 2025, 21:31https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ca ... /10786165/
very easy to tranlate now.
keypoint: trick is not based on simple thermal expansion.
All of those 'options' would be quickly nixed by the FIA as they are on their faces illegal, not to mention inadvisable in a high revving racing engine.....AR3-GP wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 00:12Mechanical options:Matt2725 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 00:02I read that article and I have to say, despite the claim that is isn't based on thermal expansion...it also doesn't offer up any clue as to what it is beyond a "geometric solution". Nothing new in that article as far as I can tell.motobaleno wrote: ↑22 Dec 2025, 21:31https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ca ... /10786165/
very easy to tranlate now.
keypoint: trick is not based on simple thermal expansion.
https://i.postimg.cc/029Lmss8/image.png
I struggle to think of a mechanism beyond thermal expansion. Could there be an inertial or centrifugal phenomenon?Rodak wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 00:36All of those 'options' would be quickly nixed by the FIA as they are on their faces illegal, not to mention inadvisable in a high revving racing engine.....
Fuel flow sensor took measurements at 2200 hz. Ferrari found a way to inject more fuel in between those measurement points.dialtone wrote: ↑22 Dec 2025, 09:24COTA 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.Badger wrote: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.dialtone wrote: ↑21 Dec 2025, 21:52
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.
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".
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.
End result: 15-20 kmh and more than a second lost straights compared to 2019, even on a short track like red bull ring:“The new device incorporates anti-aliasing technology and full data encryption,” according to Sentronics. “The anti-aliasing technique randomises when the device makes its measurements, ultimately making it impossible to synchronise any ancillary parts to the measurement frequency. Full encryption ensures the authenticity of the data and privacy to the FIA.
F1 fuel flow sensors
The new blue FIA fuel flow meter is encrypted
“This eliminates the possibility of the data being used as part of a feedback system to gain a competitive advantage.”
I do not agree with this simple interpretation.Juzh wrote: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
