2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[dialtone]

Some say it's elegant engineering, not cheating. But at the moment the intention forms the thought "No. I take a different path." the entirety of the context automatically becomes cheating. The rule is the 16:1. If someone decides AGAINST it, he/she doesn't accept the RULE, therefore makes something illegal. Cheating. Fraud. Immoral. Call what you want.

And when the rules define that for example variable compression engines are prohibited/banned/not allowed (just to get used to the definition), AND the compression ratio MUST BE 16:1 MAX during the entire competition, then... you can't get that trained squirrel, my dear Veruca, no matter how intensely play the convulsively convincing egomaniac part of your playbook, cramping and screaming on the ground...

Sow the wind, reap the whilwind.

We all know the sport is about gray areas and engineering creativity, that’s why we like it.

The sentiment here is absolutely not about mercedes being bad or cheaters, it’s about FIA being corrupt and deeply inconsistent, particularly when british teams are involved they typically rule in their favor and it has been like this for 2 decades now, if not longer.

I also don’t expect a lot of competence from the guy that designed the absolutely disgusting F14t.

[FittingMechanics]

But lets simplify this.

If all engines are 16:1 at ambient and then at working temperatures they are 16.2 or so with Mercedes at 17.4, are all these engines illegal? Are they ready to face the music if FIA has to measure temperatures (and all various sizes proscribed in the engine) at both ambient and working temperatures?

Are any engines legal at all temperatures in all dimensions? I highly doubt that.

Measuring compression ratio at working temperature invites you to try and get every other measurement (especially if you are slightly smaller) measured at working temperatures as well. This is opening a huge can of worms that I don't see FIA accepting. What I find much more realistic is that FIA maybe adds a change that makes this trick unviable (ban some materials, or ban a certain design) but that they keep that the measurement is done at ambient temperatures.

[Vappy]

It would depend on their approach to achieving closer to 18:1 than allowed. If their method for achieving higher compression can be removed without much cost impact, i.e. not a whole engine redesign from the ground up, then they'll push their luck and if it gets banned they go to the already-anticipated 'non 18:1' engine configuration and carry on. When designing these things in gray areas, you anticipate how it might be combatted. In this case, the FIA.

[catent]

But lets simplify this.

If all engines are 16:1 at ambient and then at working temperatures they are 16.2 or so with Mercedes at 17.4, are all these engines illegal? Are they ready to face the music if FIA has to measure temperatures (and all various sizes proscribed in the engine) at both ambient and working temperatures?

Are any engines legal at all temperatures in all dimensions? I highly doubt that.

Measuring compression ratio at working temperature invites you to try and get every other measurement (especially if you are slightly smaller) measured at working temperatures as well. This is opening a huge can of worms that I don't see FIA accepting. What I find much more realistic is that FIA maybe adds a change that makes this trick unviable (ban some materials, or ban a certain design) but that they keep that the measurement is done at ambient temperatures.

If there is some natural variability in compression ratio as a result of thermodynamics, fair enough, but given how tightly engine parts are regulated, it seems any manufacturers achieving 18:1 (or close to it) at operating temperature are employing a specific engineering trick others are not, given the other manufacturer's respective PUs are (presumably) not also rising towards 18:1 at operating temperature.

Should the rumor be true that RBPT has managed to build two PUs, one that effectively reaches 18:1 at operating temperature and one that does not, I think that would rather definitively establish that a specific engineering trick is being utilized to achieve this.

If it's inevitable, then build in an allowed tolerance window +/- 16:1.

[Badger]

But lets simplify this.

If all engines are 16:1 at ambient and then at working temperatures they are 16.2 or so with Mercedes at 17.4, are all these engines illegal? Are they ready to face the music if FIA has to measure temperatures (and all various sizes proscribed in the engine) at both ambient and working temperatures?

Are any engines legal at all temperatures in all dimensions? I highly doubt that.

Measuring compression ratio at working temperature invites you to try and get every other measurement (especially if you are slightly smaller) measured at working temperatures as well. This is opening a huge can of worms that I don't see FIA accepting. What I find much more realistic is that FIA maybe adds a change that makes this trick unviable (ban some materials, or ban a certain design) but that they keep that the measurement is done at ambient temperatures.

The cold measurement is how the rule is enforced and has been enforced for a long time. The FIA don't care what the compression ratio is at operating temperatures so long as the engine follows their other proscriptions regarding materials etc. They want a simple test that they can perform consistently, not some ultra complicated test at 12000 RPM on a dyno, something which they could never verify at the track. This is just another whinge from team "next year" who may be looking at another "next year" season if these rumours prove to be true (which we don't know).

[Martin Keene]

But lets simplify this.

If all engines are 16:1 at ambient and then at working temperatures they are 16.2 or so with Mercedes at 17.4, are all these engines illegal? Are they ready to face the music if FIA has to measure temperatures (and all various sizes proscribed in the engine) at both ambient and working temperatures?

Are any engines legal at all temperatures in all dimensions? I highly doubt that.

Measuring compression ratio at working temperature invites you to try and get every other measurement (especially if you are slightly smaller) measured at working temperatures as well. This is opening a huge can of worms that I don't see FIA accepting. What I find much more realistic is that FIA maybe adds a change that makes this trick unviable (ban some materials, or ban a certain design) but that they keep that the measurement is done at ambient temperatures.

Indeed. The FIA need to clarify what they mean by ambient temperature first, is the ambient weather temperature or ambient engine operating temperature. If it is the former and they measure all engines hot CR, they will likely all be above 16:1, some by more than others.

Then they would need to prove that the one with the highest CR when hot, was above the rest for deliberate reasons.

They have made a real mess with this rule.

[FDD]

Pure corruption mixed with bottomless incompetence.

Rules state 16:1 compression, but if you really want to run 18:1 it’s ok, just need to ask nicely.

Yeah

[Espresso]

So Red Bull tried to replicate the 18:1 compression ratio, after 7 months of trying failed and ONLY THEN decided to snitch on Mercedes

Might read the OP First Post…something about Merc and RB…

[etusch]

Shared my thoughts on the topic elsewhere; copying/pasting here, as well.
-
What’s driving me insane about this compression ratio debate isn’t even the potential loophole itself; it’s the logical inconsistency in how some fans (and potentially the FIA) are treating it.

The rule is very clear: Engine compression ratio must not exceed 16:1. That’s the rule. The measurement procedure (checking it at ambient temperature) is not the rule, but rather the FIA’s chosen method to enforce the rule. Those two things are not the same, and Formula 1 history makes that distinction painfully obvious.

We’ve been here before, repeatedly. Take flexible aero. Teams passed static load tests, but the FIA could clearly see wings deflecting at speed in ways that violated the intent of the rules. The FIA didn’t say, “Well, you passed the test, fair play.” They changed the tests because the measurement wasn’t properly enforcing the rule.

Or take Ferrari’s 2022 floor. Ferrari found a clever way to comply with the existing plank tests while still achieving effective floor flex. Completely legal under the measurement procedure, but once it became clear that this violated the spirit of the rule (no underbody flex), the FIA stepped in with TD39 and changed the tests. Ferrari lost a massive performance advantage overnight. That was the precedent set by the FIA.

In this case, the spirit of the rule is obvious: compression ratio is capped at 16:1. If teams have found a way to be compliant during inspection but effectively run ~18:1 once the engine is hot, then yes, they’re passing the test, but they’re still violating the intent of the regulation. And the FIA has repeatedly shown that passing a test does not guarantee long-term legality.

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.

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.

If Ferrari’s floor solution deserved intervention, then so does an engine concept that effectively bypasses a hard compression cap. If the FIA allows this to stand without adjustment, it will be a blatant double standard.

The FIA still has time to act. But if they don’t, and let this slide after past interventions, then it’s not just unfair, it’s logically incoherent. Consistency matters. Going by the FIA’s own precedents, this absolutely warrants intervention.

Great comment

[Rodak]

Well, the compression ratio being measured is the geometric ratio, not the running ratio. How about this? Teams are required to submit to the FIA their test method to determine the ratio, which the FIA can then either accept or reject; measure the ratio at a colder temperature, say 0°C (or whatever) so that the con rod actually shrinks compared to its running temperature. Then when the engine is running the higher ratio is in effect; hence the requirement of measuring at ambient (room) temperature.

[AR3-GP]

The interventions, in fact, risk affecting the budget cap, reducing the economic availability for other developments. There will therefore be those who will wait for the first verification of the ADUO (Miami GP) to introduce the innovations by resorting to the extra budget that the FIA will grant and those who, perhaps, do not want to waste time and will try to intervene by introducing what some call the "second combustion chamber".

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-su ... /10786593/


A clue? A second combustion chamber? Its counterintuitive (volume-wise), and I'm aware of the prechamber charging, but is it possible that the rapid expansion of air in a secondary chamber could create a compressive effect that imitates the higher compression ratio? Not to be taken literally, but perhaps the effect of colliding shockwaves?

[Matt2725]

Either way, the FIA are not going to intervene at this time and Merc/RBR are free to run the engines they have developed.

[Holm86]

You cannot expect a volume to be constant through all temperature ranges, that's like believing a wing can be infinitely stiff

[vorticism]

...what some call the "second combustion chamber".

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-su ... /10786593/

Ah, dang. That’s what I was expecting. Painful. Well, I guess something similar to what I was working on seven years ago is about to enter the public domain...

...I think I have a pretty good idea of what they might be doing as it reminds me of a concept I was working on a few years ago that I wanted to patent. I try not to post anything online that could have direct market value, though.

I’ll say this much at this point. It has nothing to do with the geometric compression ratio nor thermal expansion, and it in no way contravenes the regulations, including their previous drafts. The “measured at ambient temperature” addition to the regulations is a red herring and could conceivably make the test more stringent. The press do not understand the concept and some are using it as an excuse to engage in mafia tactics and slander.

What it is though is clever. Split-turbo or RB7 levels of creativity.

[AR3-GP]

...what some call the "second combustion chamber".

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-su ... /10786593/

Ah, dang. That’s what I was expecting. Painful. Well, I guess something similar to what I was working on seven years ago is about to enter the public domain...

...I think I have a pretty good idea of what they might be doing as it reminds me of a concept I was working on a few years ago that I wanted to patent. I try not to post anything online that could have direct market value, though.

I’ll say this much at this point. It has nothing to do with the geometric compression ratio nor thermal expansion, and it in no way contravenes the regulations, including their previous drafts. The “measured at ambient temperature” addition to the regulations is a red herring and could conceivably make the test more stringent. The press do not understand the concept and some are using it as an excuse to engage in mafia tactics and slander.

What it is though is clever. Split-turbo or RB7 levels of creativity.

It's going to be a two-tier Formula 1 in 2026. The haves, and the have-nots.