2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[Farnborough]

Pressure sensors aren’t going to show compression RATIO like you some of uou imagine it will. This has been spelled out several times in this thread.

How many of you actually have experience with these sensors and what they can show you? I do.

Nor will the gas displacement method you are advocating necessarily measure it, which presumably measures gas displaced by the piston between TDC and IVC and/or EVO, or it's comparing compression through that same region. If the latter, it's doing what you say can't be done. Those methods will resolve a certain definition of 'compression ratio,' but that's not necessarily what the FIA aims to inspect. They aim to inspect the GCR which is, I would say, independent from valve timing--a geometric figure, not always derivable from a comparison of gas volumes, gas flow, nor a comparison of pressure changes. How they define GCR is important, and we don't know what their definition is.

No it can't. If you advance ignition timing it will increase PCP, but the compression ratio has not changed.

He's talking about cold cranking the ICE. Ignition is irrelevant. A certain definition of CR can be deduced by comparing pressure changes between valve closing and TDC. That's unavoidable.

There are gas laws that relate pressure to cylinder volume. That the connection between cylinder pressure and compression ratio. There are some minor considerations like valve openings and the TJI to be mindful of, but it can be done.

This is fundamentally correct although it won't necessarily provide the GCR owing to variables such as valve timing (as you say), among others. Ideally the valves can be kept closed through 180* either side of TDC, but if the cams can't supply that, you need some other method. Disconnecting the cam gears would be too time consuming. If they're measuring at the track it's presumably an in-situ type of measurement, not an engine teardown.

So what's left?

They could be defining GCR as "compression/expansion between TDC and valve opening" ie "observed compression regardless of valve timing" in which case they are ignoring GCR in the sense of a true comparison of the total volume at BDC with the total volume at TDC. In which case it becomes easier to measure.

If the engine is disassembled then piston travel and the CC can be inspected with probes and optics. This could be cross-referenced to CAD. CAD might be necessary if there are inaccessible voids, as is being suggested. Such voids, including something like a TJI, would make measurement with fluids difficult. Invert head, fill, wait for air bubbles to escape... seems unlikely.

Using a band saw to inspect inaccessible voids would be a non-starter. The concept of an "unmeasurable CC" is interesting to consider in this context.

Interestingly, to relay a, alleged, story about similar detective work. When the replica Honda six cylinder 250 race engine was replicated, the blue prints apparently were no longer available (lost) for which they x-ray detailed an original from Honda's museum to re-establish internal oil ways and other design details.

An alternate method could be cranking the PU with MGU-K (at any temperature really) with nil fuel/ignition to make record of the electric draw in characteristic of each PU "fingerprint" to establish comparison for FIA. Checked against casting blue prints from foundry and machining to generate typical wave form in analysis. Not a substitute, but possible route of non invasive ad hoc inspection.

The part that's missing out in public discussion is the routine and presentation to the FIA is already disclosed, and approved in the regulatory control of this aspect.
The willingness to disclose and give judgement on their handling of this is down to FIA and its public image for the sport.

Imagine, IF, MB were to make a complete runaway championship this year ..... literally no outside observer is going to believe that the field was equal.

The FIA must be compelled to clear this up. There's no real option.

[vorticism]

Imagine, IF, MB were to make a complete runaway championship this year ..... literally no outside observer is going to believe that the field was equal.

The FIA must be compelled to clear this up. There's no real option.

This was not an issue in 2014, 2015, 2016... So why would it be an issue now?

[venkyhere]

Nor will the gas displacement method you are advocating necessarily measure it, which presumably measures gas displaced by the piston between TDC and IVC and/or EVO, or maybe it's comparing compression through that same region. If the latter, it's doing what you say can't be done. Those methods will resolve a certain definition of 'compression ratio,' but that's not necessarily what the FIA aims to inspect. They aim to inspect the GCR which is, I would say, independent from valve timing--a geometric figure, not always derivable from a comparison of gas volumes, gas flow, nor a comparison of pressure changes. How they define GCR is important, and we don't know what their definition is.

What if the cam is disconnected from the valves, and then using crankshaft positioning sensor, the TDC and BDC points are determined. Close all the OVs. Now, open the IV, replace it with an IV-like solenoid controllable valve (that has a pressure guage attached to it), and pump some gas from a volume-determinable contraption (like they use in refrigerant filler machines) passing into the chamber at TDC position. Measure the pressure(X) and volume(V) that went into it. Now rotate the crankshaft and bring it to BDC position, and repeat the procedure until a volume V" goes in, such that the pressure guage reads the same X. The V"/V will give the GCR, whether a 'secret chamber' is present or not. This can be done at any temperature, with the engine block heated up to any temperature.

Why wouldn't this work ? I thought this is a very simple test to execute with a dismantled engine. May be I am missing something fundamental, since I am unable to understand the 'confusion' about 'how complex' this testing is.

[Farnborough]

Imagine, IF, MB were to make a complete runaway championship this year ..... literally no outside observer is going to believe that the field was equal.

The FIA must be compelled to clear this up. There's no real option.

This was not an issue in 2014, 2015, 2016... So why would it be an issue now?

The FIA & all the other PU manufacturers were completely naive in that period.

Ilmor / MB did an exceptionally good job though, in their mitigation.

I felt it was awful for the history of this sport though.

[bluechris]

If MB insist that they are nominal, can FIA after the 1st race request an engine that had run to be fully disassemble in front of them and measure everything that is exactly like the blueprints that is approved by FIA?

[Hoffman900]

Pressure sensors aren’t going to show compression RATIO like you some of uou imagine it will. This has been spelled out several times in this thread.

How many of you actually have experience with these sensors and what they can show you? I do.

Nor will the gas displacement method you are advocating necessarily measure it, which presumably measures gas displaced by the piston between TDC and IVC and/or EVO, or maybe it's comparing compression through that same region. If the latter, it's doing what you say can't be done. Those methods will resolve a certain definition of 'compression ratio,' but that's not necessarily what the FIA aims to inspect. They aim to inspect the GCR which is, I would say, independent from valve timing--a geometric figure, not always derivable from a comparison of gas volumes, gas flow, nor a comparison of pressure changes. How they define GCR is important, and we don't know what their definition is.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I was explaining how the Driver61 video talking about “dynamic compression ratio” had nothing to do with the issue and it was just word salad to sound smart. I have been very clear about this the whole time.

I proposed taking the clearancevolume out of the equation. The piston can never be closer than 0mm to the cylinder head, regardless of what it starts at at ambient (and consequently any growth from thermal expansion and rod stretch). It’s an extremely easy way to calculate it this way.

[Waz]

Imagine, IF, MB were to make a complete runaway championship this year ..... literally no outside observer is going to believe that the field was equal.

The FIA must be compelled to clear this up. There's no real option.

This was not an issue in 2014, 2015, 2016... So why would it be an issue now?

It was very much an issue in those years, and resulted in several regulations being changed, most notably that customers must receive identical power units to the factory.

There were other regulation changes regarding loop holes around oil burning and special engine maps that were also closed, once brought to the attention of the FIA. That is what is happening now.

There were also regulations around no in season upgrades and use of tokens for upgrading parts between seasons that have been changed to level the playing field.

2014 to 2016 was not a good period for the sport, and it's also worth noting that the entire leadership of F1 and FIA was different. The new leaders have recognized the problems during that era and put changes in place.

[vorticism]

I agree w you Waz, Farnborough. You both say essentially "that period wasn't good for the sport," well it sums up my experience--I stopped keeping up with it in 2014. The cars looked a bit silly with the safety noses and no beam wing, only the very tall narrow wing, they sounded not so great, they were slower, heavier, everyone with the same single boring round central exhaust, Merc could just switch on quali mode during quali, garage barriers prevented photos, etc. Williams with the Merc engine went from 9th to 3rd in the WCC (lol). I had no strong opinions about the sport at that time either, it just all seemed like a step backward, becoming simpler, less daring and more Health & Safety, so I lost interest. It was a boring period for the sport, compared to the preceding eras. The aero simplified and the engines were unseen money sinks. Cosworth left. TBH though I still don't have too much of a stake in it. I wouldn't mind seeing Russell get a WDC.

[nitrotech]

Whether one liked 2014 to 2016 or not, is subjective. If one is a fan of F1 in general and enjoys championship fights, then 2014 and 2016 definitely offered plenty. If one is a fan of another driver or team that was not part of the championship fight, then there is discontentment. 2015, 2019 (post Ferrari nerfing), 2020, 2022 & 2023 were totally rubbish. 2024 & 2025 (in parts) were entertaining. The sports enriched throughout the period. It attracted loads of new fans and sponsors. The cost cap made the teams more profitable and helped sustain the future of sport. Not why this was a good thing for sport. It's not like F1 hasn't seen dominance of a team or driver, ever. In fact, there were very few years where 2 or more than 2 teams fought for championship.

[Badger]

I agree w you Waz, Farnborough. You both say essentially "that period wasn't good for the sport," well it sums up my experience--I stopped keeping up with it in 2014. The cars looked a bit silly with the safety noses and no beam wing, only the very tall narrow wing, they sounded not so great, they were slower, heavier, everyone with the same single boring round central exhaust, Merc could just switch on quali mode during quali, garage barriers prevented photos, etc. Williams with the Merc engine went from 9th to 3rd in the WCC (lol). I had no strong opinions about the sport at that time either, it just all seemed like a step backward, becoming simpler, less daring and more Health & Safety, so I lost interest. It was a boring period for the sport, compared to the preceding eras. The aero simplified and the engines were unseen money sinks. Cosworth left. TBH though I still don't have too much of a stake in it. I wouldn't mind seeing Russell get a WDC.

I totally stopped following F1 around that time and didn't come back until 2017. Total dominance + boring cars is a recipe for disaster for Formula 1 in terms of engagement. You can live with one or the other for a short period of time, sometimes a team will build a great car, sometimes the cars will not be as good to watch, it's the combination that can ruin it.

[Arcanum]

I find it odd that people are seemingly fine when there is a superior car due to aero, but not a superior car due to the engine.

In the 2022-2025 ground effect era, Red Bull dominated the Drivers Championship until last year because they were brilliant at figuring out ground effect, and utterly dominated to the point who won was a foregone conclusion. That was OK for many around here. Merc had a better engine in 2014-2016 and won that way instead, but that isn't OK?

It's also a bit odd that people lost interest in 2014-2016 due to the engine when only a few years prior, the sport couldn't move for arguments about the Exhaust Blown Diffuser.

From Benneton to Williams to Red Bull, Brawn and Ferrari, all have found engine, suspension and aero loopholes over the years. Maybe Merc have gone too far this time, maybe they haven't. But there's a weird double standard on this site when it comes to aero superiority vs engine superiority.

[AR3-GP]

I find it odd that people are seemingly fine when there is a superior car due to aero, but not a superior car due to the engine.

In the 2022-2025 ground effect era, Red Bull dominated the Drivers Championship until last year because they were brilliant at figuring out ground effect, and utterly dominated to the point who won was a foregone conclusion. That was OK for many around here. Merc had a better engine in 2014-2016 and won that way instead, but that isn't OK?

It's also a bit odd that people lost interest in 2014-2016 due to the engine when only a few years prior, the sport couldn't move for arguments about the Exhaust Blown Diffuser.

From Benneton to Williams to Red Bull, Brawn and Ferrari, all have found engine, suspension and aero loopholes over the years. Maybe Merc have gone too far this time, maybe they haven't. But there's a weird double standard on this site when it comes to aero superiority vs engine superiority.

What Mercedes did in 2014-2016 was particularly insidious for Formula 1. Withholding engine modes from customer teams. Hiding power so that the FIA wouldn’t look too closely at the flawed PU token system. They were hellbent on a 2-tier sport. There’s nothing good to say about that era in my opinion.

[marcel171281]

I find it odd that people are seemingly fine when there is a superior car due to aero, but not a superior car due to the engine.

In the 2022-2025 ground effect era, Red Bull dominated the Drivers Championship until last year because they were brilliant at figuring out ground effect, and utterly dominated to the point who won was a foregone conclusion. That was OK for many around here. Merc had a better engine in 2014-2016 and won that way instead, but that isn't OK?

It's also a bit odd that people lost interest in 2014-2016 due to the engine when only a few years prior, the sport couldn't move for arguments about the Exhaust Blown Diffuser.

From Benneton to Williams to Red Bull, Brawn and Ferrari, all have found engine, suspension and aero loopholes over the years. Maybe Merc have gone too far this time, maybe they haven't. But there's a weird double standard on this site when it comes to aero superiority vs engine superiority.

The biggest issue of lot of people have with the 2014 mercedes engine dominance is that Mercedes had a lot of influence in the technical groups leading to the layout and regulations of the engine format. They pushed for something that they were already working on and the others were hold back by the token system in the beginnen of the rules. Allegedly Mercedes had test engine in the format in 2011 or maybe even earlier.

So it is not about engine vs aero, it is about having the same chance for everyone. If not, it really puts fan off.

[Badger]

I find it odd that people are seemingly fine when there is a superior car due to aero, but not a superior car due to the engine.

In the 2022-2025 ground effect era, Red Bull dominated the Drivers Championship until last year because they were brilliant at figuring out ground effect, and utterly dominated to the point who won was a foregone conclusion. That was OK for many around here. Merc had a better engine in 2014-2016 and won that way instead, but that isn't OK?

It's also a bit odd that people lost interest in 2014-2016 due to the engine when only a few years prior, the sport couldn't move for arguments about the Exhaust Blown Diffuser.

From Benneton to Williams to Red Bull, Brawn and Ferrari, all have found engine, suspension and aero loopholes over the years. Maybe Merc have gone too far this time, maybe they haven't. But there's a weird double standard on this site when it comes to aero superiority vs engine superiority.

I don't particularly care if it's due to engines or aero, nor if it's Mercedes winning. But what is the reason to watch if the cars themselves are not entertaining to watch AND you know the outcome beforehand? That is not an issue we had between 2017-2025 IMO, eventhough you had several dominant cars in there (2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2025) the cars were always great to watch in anger.

[Arcanum]

The biggest issue of lot of people have with the 2014 mercedes engine dominance is that Mercedes had a lot of influence in the technical groups leading to the layout and regulations of the engine format. They pushed for something that they were already working on and the others were hold back by the token system in the beginnen of the rules. Allegedly Mercedes had test engine in the format in 2011 or maybe even earlier.

So it is not about engine vs aero, it is about having the same chance for everyone. If not, it really puts fan off.

And the budget cap and aero restrictions held teams back from catching Red Bull during the Ground Effect era. Getting 10-20% more CFD and Wind Tunnel time wasn't going to overcome the huge advantage Red Bull had in their GE car design. Hats off to them, they did an incredible job.

Merc may have been more active in the working groups for the engine regulations, but it was a working group alongside the other teams. Merc just played it better. They were not setting the rules alone. Maybe Red Bull played the GE era rules better in the working group too? Indeed, Merc were pretty foolish when agreeing to the 2021 aero rule tweaks, as that really impacted their car, so it suggests some naivety when it comes to aero prowess compared to Red Bull.

What Mercedes did in 2014-2016 was particularly insidious for Formula 1. Withholding engine modes from customer teams. Hiding power so that the FIA wouldn’t look too closely at the PU token system. They were hellbent on a 2-tier sport. There’s nothing good to say about that era in my opinion.

The withholding of engine modes was broken, I agree, and tightening that up was a much needed rule fix. Though Ferrari were also holding back engine modes from customers as well, they just were not dominant.

Yet back in the day, during the tyre wars, teams like Ferrari had an outsize influence on tyre technology matched to their car. That was a very unequal time between teams.

EBD showed how an almost de-facto Renault works engine could be coupled to the aero genius of Red Bull to dominate the championship, yet anyone without that kind of engine-aero relationship was disadvantaged.

My point being, sometimes engines dominate, sometimes aero, sometimes tyres. 2014-2016 just happened to be skewed to Merc and their engine, but if people walked away from the sport because that was boring, it's hard to equate it to all the other times one team has dominated because of how they've skewed a relationship with a supplier or an interpretation of the rules.