2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[AR3-GP]

I think the fact they put in writing that the test is at ambient means they will look favorably to teams protesting.

I don't understand the connection.

[f1isgood]

They'll say all of this and fold. Its the FIA lol.

[AR3-GP]

Brown has played down fears that a change to the rules could force the Mercedes-powered teams out of the season opener in Melbourne on March 8.

He told PlanetF1.com and other media outlets: “I can’t imagine that you wouldn’t have Mercedes teams on the grid in Australia.

“We’re not privy to those conversations and so I wouldn’t even know from a power unit point of view what would be required to change the regulations.

“But we’ll have all the Mercedes teams on the grid in Australia, I’m sure.”

https://www.planetf1.com/news/zak-brown ... grand-prix

[FittingMechanics]

I think the fact they put in writing that the test is at ambient means they will look favorably to teams protesting.

I don't understand the connection.

They went out of their way to remove flexibility from the way they can test this. They could have left it ambiguous, it is tested and not specify at which temperature or in what way. To me this change means they are fine with the solution.

Tombazis now saying they don't want this to be about rules interpretation means they don't want to be challenged on this. At least that is how I would take it. They added "at ambient" so they don't care what happens at other temperatures.

[AR3-GP]

I think the fact they put in writing that the test is at ambient means they will look favorably to teams protesting.

I don't understand the connection.

They went out of their way to remove flexibility from the way they can test this. They could have left it ambiguous, it is tested and not specify at which temperature or in what way. To me this change means they are fine with the solution.

Tombazis now saying they don't want this to be about rules interpretation means they don't want to be challenged on this. At least that is how I would take it. They added "at ambient" so they don't care what happens at other temperatures.

Okay, but I think you were not saying the same thing before and I was confused.

I think the fact they put in writing that the test is at ambient means they will look favorably to teams protesting.

It sounds like you wanted to say "they will not look favorably"

[f1isgood]

I think the fact they put in writing that the test is at ambient means they will look favorably to teams protesting.

I don't understand the connection.

They went out of their way to remove flexibility from the way they can test this. They could have left it ambiguous, it is tested and not specify at which temperature or in what way. To me this change means they are fine with the solution.

Tombazis now saying they don't want this to be about rules interpretation means they don't want to be challenged on this. At least that is how I would take it. They added "at ambient" so they don't care what happens at other temperatures.

Its still vague but this seems to be a bit of a red herring. How was it measured previously? In the previous regulations? I think thats the only way there can be a reasonable comparison.

[venkyhere]

Nothing very revealing but I must admit that some of the points put forward sounded more in favour of a conservative interpretation of the rule.

1. Saying engines were not exceeding 18:1 before, more cons than pros at higher levels.

2. Saying they lowered it to 16:1 to reduce the advantage of established manufacturers, wanting to attract/retain manufacturers.

3. Saying they don't want the sport to turn into rules interpretation.

He summed up what I was trying to say all the time. There will be people interpreting the rules their way, but it might be different from the intention of the FIA - which was to have a level-playing field, reducing cost and simplifying things for newcomers instead of doing the opposite.

all the "intention" in the world is useless, if "enforcement" is toothless.
Is there a clear yes/no from FIA w.r.t to :
1) we will test the engines for geometric compression ratio not just comparing the data in the CAD files with vernier caliper geometric measurements after opening engine head ; but with actual fluid/oil displacement method
2) if anyone is found violating the above test 'at ambient' , we have an enforcement/mitigation plan by penalizing electrical energy usage limits.

Or are we in for a farcical "sentenced to 20 yrs imprisonment" followed by "suspended sentence".

[AR3-GP]

2) if anyone is found violating the above test 'at ambient' , we have an enforcement/mitigation plan by penalizing electrical energy usage limits.

It's a technical regulation. They would be referred to the stewards and disqualified.

[venkyhere]

2) if anyone is found violating the above test 'at ambient' , we have an enforcement/mitigation plan by penalizing electrical energy usage limits.

It's a technical regulation. They would be referred to the stewards and disqualified.

Will Liberty be ready to run 14 car races instead of 22 car races ? For how long ? Can the 'rules' stand un-bent against the pressure from "money" ?

[chrstphrln]

Nothing very revealing but I must admit that some of the points Tombazis put forward sounded more in favour of a conservative interpretation of the rule.

1. Saying engines were not exceeding 18:1 before, more cons than pros at higher levels.

2. Saying they lowered it to 16:1 to reduce the advantage of established manufacturers, wanting to attract/retain manufacturers.

3. Saying they don't want the sport to turn into rules interpretation.

Yes, that's the way to look at it. And I believe it's the only right way.

The 16:1 rule exists for good reason.
Mercedes' development contradicts both the spirit and the letter of this rule.
That's not clever; it's simply cheating.
Just because the engine meets the testing criteria doesn't mean it complies with the regulations.

It's right that the FIA ​​is intervening here.

[dialtone]

2) if anyone is found violating the above test 'at ambient' , we have an enforcement/mitigation plan by penalizing electrical energy usage limits.

It's a technical regulation. They would be referred to the stewards and disqualified.

Will Liberty be ready to run 14 car races instead of 22 car races ? For how long ? Can the 'rules' stand un-bent against the pressure from "money" ?

Sorry but that’s on Mercedes. You choose to go to gray areas, at some point you step too far and have to face consequences.

That being said, it won’t happen, they’ll find a compromise because everyone wants a compromise here.

[FittingMechanics]

I don't understand the connection.

They went out of their way to remove flexibility from the way they can test this. They could have left it ambiguous, it is tested and not specify at which temperature or in what way. To me this change means they are fine with the solution.

Tombazis now saying they don't want this to be about rules interpretation means they don't want to be challenged on this. At least that is how I would take it. They added "at ambient" so they don't care what happens at other temperatures.

Okay, but I think you were not saying the same thing before and I was confused.

I think the fact they put in writing that the test is at ambient means they will look favorably to teams protesting.

It sounds like you wanted to say "they will not look favorably"

Yeah, my bad. I wanted to say they don't want teams protesting.

[MV8]

Mercedes knew that they were going against the "spirit of the regulation"; we can't justify them because they can pass the measurement tests. All the parties involved will find a common ground I guess for the upcoming races, what I am sure about is that we are not seeing any DSQ for Mercedes powered teams in Australia.

[AR3-GP]

2) if anyone is found violating the above test 'at ambient' , we have an enforcement/mitigation plan by penalizing electrical energy usage limits.

It's a technical regulation. They would be referred to the stewards and disqualified.

Will Liberty be ready to run 14 car races instead of 22 car races ? For how long ? Can the 'rules' stand un-bent against the pressure from "money" ?

I don't understand the question. If they fail the test at ambient, then the engine isn't legal, no ifs or buts. No one is going to fail the test at ambient so this is academic.

What the engines do above ambient is another topic (and the current debate)

[gearboxtrouble]

I think the question is if any engine was designed with a feature/device (thermally isolated pocket) purely to allow it to pass compliance at ambient temperature. In that case the engine is illegal though I agree it's unlikely anything Mercedes have done is that black and white.