2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[richardn]

He says that it was beyond what they felt was the intention of the rules.

That isn't what he said at all.

"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."

I think they missed commas in the quote, which makes it hard to parse, but he can only be saying that they didn't feel it was something beyond what they felt was the intention of the rules.

If the FIA doesn't like to openly talk about something being illegal, then why say "there wasn't any discussion of anything illegal"? He is either lying, or there was no discussion of anything illegal.

If the FIA's opinion was that it was not beyond the intention of the rules, then we would not have anything more to discuss because in that case the FIA would simply declare it legal and close this topic. They're the governing body and it's their rule.

A couple of weeks ago there was an interview in which Tombazis for the first time spoke about this matter. He said that what they wanted with these new regulations (decreasing the compression ratio from 18:1 to 16:1) was to attract newcomers. They wanted the newcomers to join the sport on a fair-playing-field (especially with the budget cap in mind).
Talking about the weak areas of new rules, he said, quote: "It's invariable that amongst those many thousands [the engineers in the teams] that sometimes they will come up with something that nobody else thought.". Another quote: "When regulations change a lot, a lot of unforeseen circumstances come about."
What's more, he said that they want this to be a championship of best drivers and best engineers, but not the smartest rule interpreters.

So especially looking at the bold parts, in my opinion it's pretty clear that their intention in fact was NOT the compression ratio to be increased by smart rule interpretation while it's foremost intention was to attract newcomers.

They FIA can't really declare it legal as it exposed a hole in the regulations. I'm also certain that Mercedes doing whatever they are is extremely unwelcome to the FIA. He said it was "wrong" after all. All the manufacturers have their agendas and for the other four, getting parity with (or exceeding) Mercedes at the lowest cost is what they are after. A hot only test was the easiest way. Replicating what Mercedes did not so much.

[dialtone]

Personally, I like all the loophole type stuff, it's interesting, Double Axis Steering etc etc. If the FIA want to then ban it, yeah, fair enough, 'it's a fair cop, guv' type response and we all move on is also fine.

There is a line between exploiting a loophole and potentially cheating, but in a sense that's largely decided by how the FIA react to it, rather than an absolute, hard line. If they tell a team something is legit, they're obviously going to crack on until told otherwise.

Liking it is a completely different topic.

If I tell my kid to clean his room every day, and he chooses to clean between 23:55 and 00:05 and claim 2 days, I’m going to high five him for the cleverness, and then tell him it doesn’t work like that.

[dans79]

The fundamental problem is the FIA runs F1 like it's a daycare where peoples feelings matter, instead of a multi billion dollar business.

If something is against the rules then it should be banned immediately, not half way through the season or for the next season.

[Frank73]

Teams will always exploit loopholes, yes, and this is also what Tombazis said when mentioning the thousands of engineers, but the question about the intention of the rules will remain. And in case of compression ratio in my opinion it's crystal clear what the intention was.

Also, best engineers are not necessarily the ones looking for grey areas, though I know that it's the nature of engineers to look for some. But the SF26 is a good example - neither the blown rear wing/diffuser nor the rotating rear wing was done by exploiting a loophole. It was making best use of written rules.

Loopholes are badly written rules, ultimately, as is assigning 'intent' to black and white legal documents. The 'macarena' rear wing is a good example of that; did the FIA 'intend' for the teams to run with an upside down rear wing? Probably not, but that doesn't matter, because whether they thought of it or not, the rules allowed it, and well done to someone at Ferrari that really thought outside the box on that one!

Read the rules, they absolutely intended for that to happen.

They made changes specifically around when the bounded boxes are checked for wing compliance (i.e. not in SL Mode), added a time limit to the movement of the wing and so on.

The rule explicitly allow more freedom on movable aero, Tombazis said they wanted to incentivize lower drag solutions.

Ferrari worked with what the rules were giving everyone.

There is a big deal of difference between "thinking out of the box" and coming up with dirty tricks. On the one hand you conceive new design concepts that can prove generally useful, on the other you put in a place something that is going to be useless once rules are better specified to avoid winning by means of a dirty trick.

[SB15]

If the FIA cuts the battery power, then the drivers complaints would only benefit Mercedes the most because of the extra horsepower running from the ICE

[LM10]

Could certainly argue best engineer / smartest rule interpreter is often the same thing, I mean, much of what the cars do is to defy regulations, or certainly the intended goal of them, in the quest to go quicker.

Which isn't to say that some things should be clarified or even banned, but, F1 is a constructor championship, teams are always going to cook up things that exploit gaps and loopholes in the rules.

Teams will always exploit loopholes, yes, and this is also what Tombazis said when mentioning the thousands of engineers, but the question about the intention of the rules will remain. And in case of compression ratio in my opinion it's crystal clear what the intention was.

Also, best engineers are not necessarily the ones looking for grey areas, though I know that it's the nature of engineers to look for some. But the SF26 is a good example - neither the blown rear wing/diffuser nor the rotating rear wing was done by exploiting a loophole. It was making best use of written rules.

Loopholes are badly written rules, ultimately, as is assigning 'intent' to black and white legal documents. The 'macarena' rear wing is a good example of that; did the FIA 'intend' for the teams to run with an upside down rear wing? Probably not, but that doesn't matter, because whether they thought of it or not, the rules allowed it, and well done to someone at Ferrari that really thought outside the box on that one!

Yes, the FIA actually eased the regulations around drag reduction and it was their intention for teams to come up with clever solutions.

Tombazis: "We have, generally speaking, encouraged solutions that reduce drag. That's why the DRS regulations of last year, which were limiting the amount of opening, those have not been maintained this year in order to give more freedom. And the Ferrari solution, we believe, is OK."

So like I said, this is not a loophole. Neither is the blown rear wing/diffuser. The compression ratio trick, however, is a loophole at best, if not illegal (which is not only my opinion, but also that of all the other PU manufacturers).

[venkyhere]

The fundamental problem is the FIA runs F1 like it's a daycare where peoples feelings matter, instead of a multi billion dollar business.

they have to, the parents of the F1 daycare kids, FoM, pay money that forms the largest chunk of 'FIA revenue'.
FIA is not the military general to the teams, FIA is the 'paid watchman' to the teams.