2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[basti313]

The Hughes article doesn't make any sense. He's a Merc fan. If they vote down the test, then it will just remain a cold test at 16:1 and they won't be able to run above 16:1 at ambient so that it comes down to 16:1 hot. So what is the benefit of voting it down?

If test becomes cold and hot, then there's potential to actually hinder Mercedes.

I guess either;

They want to push for a purely hot test, to the advantage of that faction.

They don't think their own engine would pass the proposed 130C oven test.

No, I think it is as in the report: They drop in the CR when getting warmer. While Merc has an expansion mechanism that works the opposite direction, that keeps or raises the CR. So it was most likely wrong that they use some extra chamber/volume, which was my bet.
So Merc just needs to reduce the effect of the trick to stay at 1:16 all the time. While the others are simply not helped by the warm and cold test, nothing changes for them.

I think this is again super fishy if it is true...a only warm test would level the field and everyone would run 1:16 when it matters. So it sounds to me as if the FIA and Toto have a perfect curve ball thrown at all other manufacturers with this.

[vorticism]

So, a new angle to speculate on. Fails at ambient, passes at operating temp. More chaff? If not, it might imply that beyond 16:1 truly is hard to achieve, to the extent that you want a CR that reduces, not increases. Inclusive of rod stretch and crank warp, a block that grows more than the reciprocating parts. That is, a more normal alu & steel incongruency. Also the other concepts might be adapted: voids, deforming parts, etc. --This ends my prompt of Chat-F1T.--

...For 2026, there is ~30% less fuel in the cylinder per cycle, and the engine has the same displacement (swept volume per FIA), which implies less fuel per CC volume although the boost pressure is now limited as well (4.8bar iirc). The leanness of the a:f ratio may or may not be reduced depending on what that figure is. If it's leaner then exceeding 16 may not be as easy as you think, hence that regulation--i.e. the charges are in fact leaner and it is too R&D intensive to exceed 16.

Sidenote: that the displacement is the same but the GCR is reduced means that the TDC CC volume is larger than last year.

[AR3-GP]

FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis explained the reason for the 1 August date for any changes, if voted on, to be implemented.

“We felt it was feasible, because we felt there wasn’t any discussion of anything illegal. We think people have spent time designing their engines and solutions,” he said. “We didn’t feel it was fair to do something for the start of the season.

“We felt it was wrong, but we also didn’t feel it was something as it was beyond what we felt was the intention of the rules.

“We felt it was correct to also not let it go on too much. There’s a degree of subjectivity there. I can’t say that is the only solution that a human can think of, but we felt it was a balanced approach; as I say, ultimately, we haven’t decided anything.

“We’ve decided to, after a lot of discussions, to launch this vote. The result of the vote will determine whether that thing happens or not.

“If the vote gets approved by the PU manufacturers and by the World Council, then the engines that run from August onwards will have to be legal to that parameter.

“If somebody is beyond that level in Melbourne, then they will have to make adjustments. But I don’t want to comment on what people’s technical solutions are in Melbourne, but I do also stress that I think this matter isn’t really something that is anywhere near as important as people make out.”

https://www.planetf1.com/news/fred-vass ... s-loophole

[f1isgood]

FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis explained the reason for the 1 August date for any changes, if voted on, to be implemented.

“We felt it was feasible, because we felt there wasn’t any discussion of anything illegal. We think people have spent time designing their engines and solutions,” he said. “We didn’t feel it was fair to do something for the start of the season.

“We felt it was wrong, but we also didn’t feel it was something as it was beyond what we felt was the intention of the rules.

“We felt it was correct to also not let it go on too much. There’s a degree of subjectivity there. I can’t say that is the only solution that a human can think of, but we felt it was a balanced approach; as I say, ultimately, we haven’t decided anything.

“We’ve decided to, after a lot of discussions, to launch this vote. The result of the vote will determine whether that thing happens or not.

“If the vote gets approved by the PU manufacturers and by the World Council, then the engines that run from August onwards will have to be legal to that parameter.

“If somebody is beyond that level in Melbourne, then they will have to make adjustments. But I don’t want to comment on what people’s technical solutions are in Melbourne, but I do also stress that I think this matter isn’t really something that is anywhere near as important as people make out.”

https://www.planetf1.com/news/fred-vass ... s-loophole

He gave up so quickly. That FIA video made it look like he was semi serious.

[AR3-GP]

They are clearly not wanting to touch the narrative that the Mercedes engine is "abnormal". F1 has too much commercial interest in keeping things quiet.

[bluechris]

FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis explained the reason for the 1 August date for any changes, if voted on, to be implemented.

“We felt it was feasible, because we felt there wasn’t any discussion of anything illegal. We think people have spent time designing their engines and solutions,” he said. “We didn’t feel it was fair to do something for the start of the season.

“We felt it was wrong, but we also didn’t feel it was something as it was beyond what we felt was the intention of the rules.

“We felt it was correct to also not let it go on too much. There’s a degree of subjectivity there. I can’t say that is the only solution that a human can think of, but we felt it was a balanced approach; as I say, ultimately, we haven’t decided anything.

“We’ve decided to, after a lot of discussions, to launch this vote. The result of the vote will determine whether that thing happens or not.

“If the vote gets approved by the PU manufacturers and by the World Council, then the engines that run from August onwards will have to be legal to that parameter.

“If somebody is beyond that level in Melbourne, then they will have to make adjustments. But I don’t want to comment on what people’s technical solutions are in Melbourne, but I do also stress that I think this matter isn’t really something that is anywhere near as important as people make out.”

https://www.planetf1.com/news/fred-vass ... s-loophole

He gave up so quickly. That FIA video made it look like he was semi serious.

Yeah totally, for a moment i thought that for the 1st time in history they will do something but apparently not.

[upsidedowntoast]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/merc ... -proposal/

So in the end it's all going to fall apart because some / all of the rest want to break the compression limit when cold?

Not sure how they didn't see this coming, if you make having a max compression ratio at any temperature, not just at ambient, the basis of your argument, why would you think the FIA's answer would be to just test at a hot temperature!

This article doesn't make sense to me. Everyone knew the CR would be measured cold. Everyone should already have a passing engine when cold. How would you configure your engine to pass only the hot test with so little time remaining? And even if you could why wouldn't you rather nerf Mercedes?

[catent]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/merc ... -proposal/

So in the end it's all going to fall apart because some / all of the rest want to break the compression limit when cold?

Not sure how they didn't see this coming, if you make having a max compression ratio at any temperature, not just at ambient, the basis of your argument, why would you think the FIA's answer would be to just test at a hot temperature!

This article doesn't make sense to me. Everyone knew the CR would be measured cold. Everyone should already have a passing engine when cold. How would you configure your engine to pass only the hot test with so little time remaining? And even if you could why wouldn't you rather nerf Mercedes?

What does "cold" mean? The "ambient" language was quietly slipped in October 2025, and "ambient" is not an objectively quantified metric.

Elsewhere in the regulations, it is very clearly and explicitly stated that compression ratio is not to exceed 16:1, full-stop.

So, no, I don't think that the regulations and how they cooperate with the compliance procedure(s), were clear such that every team/manufacturer should have obviously known how to approach development.

I will said, I find a lot of what Tombazis said to be nonsense (not disagreeable, but quite literally incoherent, as in I don't really understand what he is trying to communicate; maybe it's a language thing).

He certainly hasn't done himself any favors in shaking the notion that he (or the FIA generally) are particularly friendly with/sympathetic to Mercedes. I don't know how anyone reconciles the way the FIA operated during 2022 re: Ferrari's allegedly flexible floor and the rapid implementation of TD-39, with how they operated re: flexi-wings in 2024/2025, which weren't alleged, but clearly visible, and yet the FIA sat on their hands and dragged their feet for many months. And now this (admittedly, the impact of which still isn't fully understood as we haven't seen the cars running during a meaningfully competitive session, so I suppose this situation could still change/evolve as the season gets underway).

[bluechris]

What the competitive sessions has to do with the rules? FIA and all the rest manufacturers must feel sorry for a team if it isn't fighting for the championship and is "alleged" doing something?
Where were FIA in the Honda bad years for example? The years that Ferrari was crippled? The year that AM was crippled? Etc
Come on, these is the normal trend that is always happening for a specific team. It's not the ruling now to ban it from next year or years as was the norm before but in 6 months. Let's give them time to help the poor guys.

[upsidedowntoast]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/merc ... -proposal/

So in the end it's all going to fall apart because some / all of the rest want to break the compression limit when cold?

Not sure how they didn't see this coming, if you make having a max compression ratio at any temperature, not just at ambient, the basis of your argument, why would you think the FIA's answer would be to just test at a hot temperature!

This article doesn't make sense to me. Everyone knew the CR would be measured cold. Everyone should already have a passing engine when cold. How would you configure your engine to pass only the hot test with so little time remaining? And even if you could why wouldn't you rather nerf Mercedes?

What does "cold" mean? The "ambient" language was quietly slipped in October 2025, and "ambient" is not an objectively quantified metric.

Elsewhere in the regulations, it is very clearly and explicitly stated that compression ratio is not to exceed 16:1, full-stop.

So, no, I don't think that the regulations and how they cooperate with the compliance procedure(s), were clear such that every team/manufacturer should have obviously known how to approach development.

I will said, I find a lot of what Tombazis said to be nonsense (not disagreeable, but quite literally incoherent, as in I don't really understand what he is trying to communicate; maybe it's a language thing).

He certainly hasn't done himself any favors in shaking the notion that he (or the FIA generally) are particularly friendly with/sympathetic to Mercedes. I don't know how anyone reconciles the way the FIA operated during 2022 re: Ferrari's allegedly flexible floor and the rapid implementation of TD-39, with how they operated re: flexi-wings in 2024/2025, which weren't alleged, but clearly visible, and yet the FIA sat on their hands and dragged their feet for many months. And now this (admittedly, the impact of which still isn't fully understood as we haven't seen the cars running during a meaningfully competitive session, so I suppose this situation could still change/evolve as the season gets underway).

Traditionally, geometric compression ratio has always been measured at ambient temperature. That was the assumption even when the rules didn't explicitly state it.

Anyway, my comment that the article didn't make sense was because of that. If compression ratio is always supposed to be 16:1 full stop, and the whole argument was you can't go above that when it's warm, then why would any team plan to design or tune their engine to go above that when ambient? For that matter, why would any team vote against a new testing procedure that will nerf Mercedes, which is assumed to get a better advantage from going over 16:1 when hot than they would get going over 16:1 at ambient?

[fourmula1]

Elsewhere in the regulations, it is very clearly and explicitly stated that compression ratio is not to exceed 16:1, full-stop.

They have to test for that then. My take is the FIA, F1, the teams, etc. all accept that the tests govern legality. And the tests are pass fail. If you pass the test, you are good to go. Only when you are blatantly hiding the way you are cheating does it get messy (Ferrari engine fuel flow is the only thing I can think of recently). In this case it was probably as simple as Merc asking when/where the tests will be done.
FIA says bench tested and adds the ambient wording.
Merc says, ok so if we pass we are good to go right? Here is our CAD, this is why we were asking.
FIA says, yes, clever.

Look at all of the wing stuff. Wings aren't supposed to flex. We all saw them move. They implemented some tests right away like the gap tests, and the front wings were a little further out, but all they can do is test for it.

[dialtone]

They have to test for that then. My take is the FIA, F1, the teams, etc. all accept that the tests govern legality. And the tests are pass fail. If you pass the test, you are good to go. Only when you are blatantly hiding the way you are cheating does it get messy (Ferrari engine fuel flow is the only thing I can think of recently). In this case it was probably as

I think what you meant to say is: Only when a team that I don't support does it, then it's illegal.

[f1isgood]

Tombazis went from we wont make it a rule interpretation championship to it doesnt really matter Mercedes have the FIA fully controlled

[fourmula1]

They have to test for that then. My take is the FIA, F1, the teams, etc. all accept that the tests govern legality. And the tests are pass fail. If you pass the test, you are good to go. Only when you are blatantly hiding the way you are cheating does it get messy (Ferrari engine fuel flow is the only thing I can think of recently). In this case it was probably as

I think what you meant to say is: Only when a team that I don't support does it, then it's illegal.

I’d say I am a very long time Ferrari fan. Please provide more examples to support either way. RB Cost cap was black and white breach? Ferrari bypassing fuel flow sensor is pretty black and white? Also my hypothetical conversion that you removed from quote between Merc and FIA contextualizes the other comments. The best part of all of this is we still have no idea what is really going on.

Oh also I’m not saying that is how they SHOULD do it, i’m making an observation.

[dialtone]

They have to test for that then. My take is the FIA, F1, the teams, etc. all accept that the tests govern legality. And the tests are pass fail. If you pass the test, you are good to go. Only when you are blatantly hiding the way you are cheating does it get messy (Ferrari engine fuel flow is the only thing I can think of recently). In this case it was probably as

I think what you meant to say is: Only when a team that I don't support does it, then it's illegal.

I’d say I am a very long time Ferrari fan. Please provide more examples to support either way. RB Cost cap was black and white breach? Ferrari bypassing fuel flow sensor is pretty black and white? Also my hypothetical conversion that you removed from quote between Merc and FIA contextualizes the other comments. The best part of all of this is we still have no idea what is really going on.

There's nothing to contextualize. I repeat again that words like: "blatantly hiding the way you are cheating" are COMPLETELY out of place. We either choose that being legal means respecting the test procedure, or we choose that being legal means respecting the rule how it's written. What we cannot do is flip flop between the 2 and claim that someone is cheating more blatantly than another, because especially us forum goers know nothing of how "blatant" anything is. If Ferrari cheating was so blatant then they would have been found out without all the fuss that was generated.

Any car is illegal if you check it long enough. This is not a moral stand, or some teams being more evil than others, they all do their job of finding an advantage.