2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[AR3-GP]

50kg is not unreasonable. The C4 is 7-8 tenths faster than the C3 that will be used in Bahrain. Considering that he did a few low 1.32s on the C3, then the C3 runs were likely done with less fuel than the C4 run.

Bahrain is the optimum circuit for exploitation of 2026 cars. 2026 car accelerates faster in all traction zones, is very similar in low and medium speed, and only slower in high speed but there’s only 1 high speed corner in Bahrain.

I'd be highly surprised if the C4 was as much as 7-8 tenths faster than the C3. I don't recall roughly what the difference between those 2 compounds was last year or the year before, but I can't help but feel that with these 2026 cars, whatever that difference was it will now be smaller.
While extra grip allowed you to go faster yesteryear, today's 2026 cars have less down force & the extra problem of having to deal with limited power output over even a single lap.

Pirelli changed the tires. It is 7-8 tenths.

[Emag]

But in general, it wouldn't make sense to have less delta between tires anyway. Less downforce means over-reliance on mechanical grip. You would expect the tire compounds to have a bigger difference, not smaller. Add in the fact that these cars are more aggressive on traction, you're even more at the mercy of your rear tires than before.

[Luscion]

Smilextech from Autoracer about people not believing them about Charles having 50kg of fuel onboard

There were even those who grabbed me by the b*lls when I wrote that Red Bull PT didn't have the Mercedes trick on the compression ratio. Then who knows why Red Bull allied with the other engine manufacturers

[SoulPancake13]

Smilextech from Autoracer about people not believing them about Charles having 50kg of fuel onboard

There were even those who grabbed me by the b*lls when I wrote that Red Bull PT didn't have the Mercedes trick on the compression ratio. Then who knows why Red Bull allied with the other engine manufacturers

He mentioned that Leclerc went back into the pits to refuel after every push lap, but that they also in turn pushed their engine a bit and covered some more aggressive mappings.

[dia6olo]

50kg is not unreasonable. The C4 is 7-8 tenths faster than the C3 that will be used in Bahrain. Considering that he did a few low 1.32s on the C3, then the C3 runs were likely done with less fuel than the C4 run.

Bahrain is the optimum circuit for exploitation of 2026 cars. 2026 car accelerates faster in all traction zones, is very similar in low and medium speed, and only slower in high speed but there’s only 1 high speed corner in Bahrain.

I'd be highly surprised if the C4 was as much as 7-8 tenths faster than the C3. I don't recall roughly what the difference between those 2 compounds was last year or the year before, but I can't help but feel that with these 2026 cars, whatever that difference was it will now be smaller.
While extra grip allowed you to go faster yesteryear, today's 2026 cars have less down force & the extra problem of having to deal with limited power output over even a single lap.

Pirelli changed the tires. It is 7-8 tenths.

I stand by my feeling, I'm well aware that 7-8 tenths was Pirelli's target but i suspect the actual result is a lot closer to 5 tenths than it is to 7-8 tenths.

[LM10]

I'd be highly surprised if the C4 was as much as 7-8 tenths faster than the C3. I don't recall roughly what the difference between those 2 compounds was last year or the year before, but I can't help but feel that with these 2026 cars, whatever that difference was it will now be smaller.
While extra grip allowed you to go faster yesteryear, today's 2026 cars have less down force & the extra problem of having to deal with limited power output over even a single lap.

Pirelli changed the tires. It is 7-8 tenths.

I stand by my feeling, I'm well aware that 7-8 tenths was Pirelli's target but i suspect the actual result is a lot closer to 5 tenths than it is to 7-8 tenths.

But it’s not about feelings.

[dia6olo]

Pirelli changed the tires. It is 7-8 tenths.

I stand by my feeling, I'm well aware that 7-8 tenths was Pirelli's target but i suspect the actual result is a lot closer to 5 tenths than it is to 7-8 tenths.

But it’s not about feelings.

Nor does it mean that because the target was 7-8 tenths it has been achieve, all teams aim to be number one at the start of a new season or at the very least the big 4 or so do. That is also a target that is not met by most of them.

[Wouter]

Well, it looks like Charles and Alex are married this morning at 11 AM in Monaco. Video:

[CRazyLemon]

One source saying 1 June for new tests. Only 7 races in.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/fia-compr ... 6-mercedes

[deadhead]

Well, it looks like Charles and Alex are married this morning at 11 AM in Monaco. Video:

Bit of a flex that car!

Good stuff

[Wouter]

Well, it looks like Charles and Alex are married this morning at 11 AM in Monaco. Video:

.
Bit of a flex that car!

Good stuff

.

[f1316]

The Ferrari still has a benefit off the start despite these changes - it was clear from the practice starts they did in testing. Not sure what the big drama is.

The compression ratio is a pain because it is illegal but I also think the FIA stuffed up by telling them it was ok and now there was no time for Mercedes to make a legal engine before start of the season. I think this is an ok-ish compromise - of the FIA’s making - so long as the test they eventually do implement is sufficient to close down the trick.

I think we should all take a breath and calm down a bit though - the car seems decent at worst and I’m sure we’ll win some races at the very least.

Is it ok'ish? Depends on the advantage really. How much damage to the championship could be inflicted in 6 months?

How about getting Mercedes to determine a value in HP or KW and limiting their engine in someway?

That seems fair, you can't redesign the engine overnight but you can't keep your advantage.

Well today’s news brings it forward a bit: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-2 ... s-earlier/

The questions for me are still:

(1) is this new test actually sufficient in testing what the engine does on track? The talk is that Mercedes already passed a hot test but, if so, I don’t know why they wouldn’t introduce it immediately.
(2) The other bit of gossip I read (in the comments to the above) is that Mercedes’ trick isn’t about increasing CR to 18:1 but rather preventing it falling below 16:1 (since that’s normally what engines would do) - but then, that wouldn’t contravene any part of it the regs (letter, spirit, measurement- whatever) so then I can’t believe that’s right as simply maintaining 16:1 is absolutely fine
(3) is the advantage Mercedes has from this significant? Toto says no, others say yes (I’m inclined to believe the latter, of course). If it is more a question of maintaining the 16:1 limit then it’s not as significant as increasing it
(4) since the cold test will be dropped for 2027, how will this influence the other ICEs? Presumably everyone will build engines that are above the limit when cold and drop to exactly 16:1 when hot. Is that really a good outcome? Seems messy - I would have preferred a solution for 2027 that includes some form of sensor to measure it “at all times” (albeit I’m sure that’s much more difficult than I’ve made it sound)


So to answer your question: I think it’s all a bit unsatisfactory for everyone and, tbh, that’s what makes it ok-ish. Bad would have been do nothing and to reflect the opinion of the (biased) British press - ie Mercedes have been clever and the rest just have sour grapes because they didn’t think of it. Good would have been to measure it properly at all times from race one - but tbh that’s not especially feasible and the FIA are to blame for not shutting it down when in consultation with Mercedes. So imho it his is ok-ish, yes.

[bluechris]

The Ferrari still has a benefit off the start despite these changes - it was clear from the practice starts they did in testing. Not sure what the big drama is.

The compression ratio is a pain because it is illegal but I also think the FIA stuffed up by telling them it was ok and now there was no time for Mercedes to make a legal engine before start of the season. I think this is an ok-ish compromise - of the FIA’s making - so long as the test they eventually do implement is sufficient to close down the trick.

I think we should all take a breath and calm down a bit though - the car seems decent at worst and I’m sure we’ll win some races at the very least.

Is it ok'ish? Depends on the advantage really. How much damage to the championship could be inflicted in 6 months?

How about getting Mercedes to determine a value in HP or KW and limiting their engine in someway?

That seems fair, you can't redesign the engine overnight but you can't keep your advantage.

Well today’s news brings it forward a bit: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-2 ... s-earlier/

The questions for me are still:

(1) is this new test actually sufficient in testing what the engine does on track? The talk is that Mercedes already passed a hot test but, if so, I don’t know why they wouldn’t introduce it immediately.
(2) The other bit of gossip I read (in the comments to the above) is that Mercedes’ trick isn’t about increasing CR to 18:1 but rather preventing it falling below 16:1 (since that’s normally what engines would do) - but then, that wouldn’t contravene any part of it the regs (letter, spirit, measurement- whatever) so then I can’t believe that’s right as simply maintaining 16:1 is absolutely fine
(3) is the advantage Mercedes has from this significant? Toto says no, others say yes (I’m inclined to believe the latter, of course). If it is more a question of maintaining the 16:1 limit then it’s not as significant as increasing it
(4) since the cold test will be dropped for 2027, how will this influence the other ICEs? Presumably everyone will build engines that are above the limit when cold and drop to exactly 16:1 when hot. Is that really a good outcome? Seems messy - I would have preferred a solution for 2027 that includes some form of sensor to measure it “at all times” (albeit I’m sure that’s much more difficult than I’ve made it sound)


So to answer your question: I think it’s all a bit unsatisfactory for everyone and, tbh, that’s what makes it ok-ish. Bad would have been do nothing and to reflect the opinion of the (biased) British press - ie Mercedes have been clever and the rest just have sour grapes because they didn’t think of it. Good would have been to measure it properly at all times from race one - but tbh that’s not especially feasible and the FIA are to blame for not shutting it down when in consultation with Mercedes. So imho it his is ok-ish, yes.

Well from 2027 at least the advantage to have 16.1 in hot conditions will be the same for everyone and MB trick will be nullified.
Now let's not discuss the elephant in the room that for the whole 2026 MB will have something better than the others. Same old story.

[PlatinumZealot]

Well, it looks like Charles and Alex are married this morning at 11 AM in Monaco. Video:

Bit of a flex that car!

Good stuff

Congrats Charles!

May you live happily ever after and don't be mad if you are 2 tenths slower! Hehe

[upsidedowntoast]

Is it ok'ish? Depends on the advantage really. How much damage to the championship could be inflicted in 6 months?

How about getting Mercedes to determine a value in HP or KW and limiting their engine in someway?

That seems fair, you can't redesign the engine overnight but you can't keep your advantage.

Well today’s news brings it forward a bit: https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-2 ... s-earlier/

The questions for me are still:

(1) is this new test actually sufficient in testing what the engine does on track? The talk is that Mercedes already passed a hot test but, if so, I don’t know why they wouldn’t introduce it immediately.
(2) The other bit of gossip I read (in the comments to the above) is that Mercedes’ trick isn’t about increasing CR to 18:1 but rather preventing it falling below 16:1 (since that’s normally what engines would do) - but then, that wouldn’t contravene any part of it the regs (letter, spirit, measurement- whatever) so then I can’t believe that’s right as simply maintaining 16:1 is absolutely fine
(3) is the advantage Mercedes has from this significant? Toto says no, others say yes (I’m inclined to believe the latter, of course). If it is more a question of maintaining the 16:1 limit then it’s not as significant as increasing it
(4) since the cold test will be dropped for 2027, how will this influence the other ICEs? Presumably everyone will build engines that are above the limit when cold and drop to exactly 16:1 when hot. Is that really a good outcome? Seems messy - I would have preferred a solution for 2027 that includes some form of sensor to measure it “at all times” (albeit I’m sure that’s much more difficult than I’ve made it sound)


So to answer your question: I think it’s all a bit unsatisfactory for everyone and, tbh, that’s what makes it ok-ish. Bad would have been do nothing and to reflect the opinion of the (biased) British press - ie Mercedes have been clever and the rest just have sour grapes because they didn’t think of it. Good would have been to measure it properly at all times from race one - but tbh that’s not especially feasible and the FIA are to blame for not shutting it down when in consultation with Mercedes. So imho it his is ok-ish, yes.

Well from 2027 at least the advantage to have 16.1 in hot conditions will be the same for everyone and MB trick will be nullified.
Now let's not discuss the elephant in the room that for the whole 2026 MB will have something better than the others. Same old story.

> Is the advantage Mercedes has significant

The whole time the press was reporting something like 18:1 and then now they're saying the real number was closer to 16.3:1, which after accounting for noise and normal inefficiencies does actually correspond to a single-digit horsepower advantage like Wolff was claiming rather than the 20-30 that Max was claiming. Which, from a purely technical/engineering perspective, seems far more realistic to me. FWIW I never subscribed to the "secret chamber" theory because, again, the origin of that theory was the auto-motor-und-sport.de article that literally went on to say in the sentence right after [paraphrased], "we asked an FIA engineer about this and they said nah that would get spotted and banned immediately".

If it actually was super significant I'm sure there would be a lot more lawsuits and bribery going around. Not to mention going from 18:1 back to 16:1 would completely screw up their aerodynamics and fuel, after live testing was already complete.