2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[upsidedowntoast]

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ra ... /10803786/

is it a joke? (not april 1 though).

"...It has not been explicitly disclosed, for instance, that the reached agreements have introduced a tolerance in the measurement of the compression ratio, extending the maximum permissible value to 16.7:1, to be measured at a temperature of 130°C. Regarding this specific aspect, a further clarification is warranted: the reference is to the oil temperature within the six-cylinder engine"

Very strange. Maybe it's because that is where Mercedes is running.

So the limit is 16.7:1

With Wolff saying they will have to make changes to their PU in order to comply with the June 1 change (according to an above post; I didn't personally hear him say that), it makes you wonder if they are currently above 16.7:1 right now, since that seems to be the agreed-upon compromise post-June 1 (if that reporting is accurate).

If that truly is the case, the FIA really should activate a more liberal form of ADUO for all manufacturers this season. If you're going to allow Mercedes to take full advantage of this trick during the first several months of the season, and then continue to - perhaps to a lesser extent - for the rest of the season, it only seems fair to allow others to replicate it ASAP.

And if this is true, how the hell does it square with this, which is also in the June 1 rule amendment?

"Any component, assembly, mechanism, or integrated arrangement of components that is designed or functions to increase the compression ratio in operating conditions beyond 16.0 is prohibited."

Sheesh.

I've only seen the 16.7 number on a few motorsport articles, not verified anywhere else.
Actually I've stopped trusting all the numbers. I've seen 18, 16.3, 15.5...at this point everyone is just "I saw it in a dream".

Considering Williams isn't winning 3rd based off the PU alone like in 2014-2015 I'm really doubting the higher numbers.

[GSBellew]

I've only seen the 16.7 number on a few motorsport articles, not verified anywhere else.
Actually I've stopped trusting all the numbers. I've seen 18, 16.3, 15.5...at this point everyone is just "I saw it in a dream".

Considering Williams isn't winning 3rd based off the PU alone like in 2014-2015 I'm really doubting the higher numbers.

I think Williams have other issues beyond the PU to contend with

[Alexf1]

[/quote]With Wolff saying they will have to make changes to their PU in order to comply with the June 1 change (according to an above post; I didn't personally hear him say that), it makes you wonder if they are currently above 16.7:1 right now, since that seems to be the agreed-upon compromise post-June 1 (if that reporting is accurate).

If that truly is the case, the FIA really should activate a more liberal form of ADUO for all manufacturers this season. If you're going to allow Mercedes to take full advantage of this trick during the first several months of the season, and then continue to - perhaps to a lesser extent - for the rest of the season, it only seems fair to allow others to replicate it ASAP.

And if this is true, how the hell does it square with this, which is also in the June 1 rule amendment?

"Any component, assembly, mechanism, or integrated arrangement of components that is designed or functions to increase the compression ratio in operating conditions beyond 16.0 is prohibited."

Sheesh.
[/quote]

Think they came to this number because Merc can get their ICE down to 16.7 in the hot test by killing the CR increasing mechanism/assembly. With it they would probably be even higher in the hot test (while still meeting the 16.0 in the ambient test).

[autodoctor911]

Actually the technology will always have value. Wether it is to circumvent a rule or do something completely unrestricted but new makes little difference. Most breakthroughs are happy accidents anyway

[autodoctor911]

If the additional chamber is off the main chamber I don't see measuring it at full oil temp getting any different reading than ambient or lower even. They must be gonna actually measure it as if it just is closed geometrically. Rather than actually pouring a liquid

[amr]

So the manufacturer of the most performant ICE gets to modify their engine before June, while the other ones are locked in.

How is FIA making sure Merc does not sneak in any other reliability/weight/ outright performance improvements while they "try" to align to the compression ratio regulation?

You can't make this up!

[upsidedowntoast]

So the manufacturer of the most performant ICE gets to modify their engine before June, while the other ones are locked in.

How is FIA making sure Merc does not sneak in any other reliability/weight/ outright performance improvements while they "try" to align to the compression ratio regulation?

You can't make this up!

1. Merc already was passing the tests without modification
2. Everyone else is allowed to update their engines outside of ADUO for reliability or rule change purposes, not just Mercedes.
3. Sneaking in performance boosts disguised as reliability or responses t has been a part of the sport forever and is not limited to Mercedes. The FIA has experience reviewing these things. If they still manage to get fooled then hats off to the teams.

[amr]

1. Merc already was passing the tests without modification
2. Everyone else is allowed to update their engines outside of ADUO for reliability or rule change purposes, not just Mercedes.
3. Sneaking in performance boosts disguised as reliability or responses t has been a part of the sport forever and is not limited to Mercedes. The FIA has experience reviewing these things. If they still manage to get fooled then hats off to the teams.

1. If everything was fine and in the spirit of the rules why are they keep adding new test in an effort to close loopholes. And why are this test not from yesterday and FIA gave Merc until June 1st to comply with new test.
2. No they are not, they are locked to the engine/fuel that got certified by FIA before start of season. Honda would sort their issues if they were free to do so without ADUO.
3. FIA has zero experience to review and approve this things. If they did they would have banned Marc's compression trick when they got asked in the first place by Merc themselves. Now they try to fix things by changing test.

[upsidedowntoast]

1. Merc already was passing the tests without modification
2. Everyone else is allowed to update their engines outside of ADUO for reliability or rule change purposes, not just Mercedes.
3. Sneaking in performance boosts disguised as reliability or responses t has been a part of the sport forever and is not limited to Mercedes. The FIA has experience reviewing these things. If they still manage to get fooled then hats off to the teams.

1. If everything was fine and in the spirit of the rules why are they keep adding new test in an effort to close loopholes. And why are this test not from yesterday and FIA gave Merc until June 1st to comply with new test.
2. No they are not, they are locked to the engine/fuel that got certified by FIA before start of season. Honda would sort their issues if they were free to do so without ADUO.
3. FIA has zero experience to review and approve this things. If they did they would have banned Marc's compression trick when they got asked in the first place by Merc themselves. Now they try to fix things by changing test.

1. The test was added after formal protests from other teams in response to rumors about the compression ratio trick. Nobody knows exactly what Mercedes is doing or how they've accomplished it. So the other teams can only throw darts blindfolded and hope they get a hit. As for why the test wasn't given yesterday, who knows, but it was voted on unanimously.

2. ADUO only applies to performance upgrades. Reliability, cost, etc. upgrades are permitted at any time provided they are signed off on by the FIA. Honda are literally sorting their issues as we speak. They'll be bringing their fixes to Suzuka, long before the first ADUO-permitted timestamp at the 6th race. A simple google search would tell you this.

3. I agree that the engineering capability of the FIA is less than that of the teams, but they are not completely useless. They've been doing this for a long time. Anyone is allowed to slip through a performance upgrade disguised as a reliability fix if they can get away with it, not just Mercedes.

Ultimately, your initial claims:

(Mercedes) gets to modify their engine before June, while the other ones are locked in. How is FIA making sure Merc does not sneak in any other reliability/weight/outright performance improvements while they "try" to align to the compression ratio regulation?

were false. EVERYONE gets to modify their engines for reliability improvements at any time. If they can sneak in a performance improvement at the same time that's theor call. It is NOT limited to Mercedes.

[amr]

1. The test was added after formal protests from other teams in response to rumors about the compression ratio trick. Nobody knows exactly what Mercedes is doing or how they've accomplished it. So the other teams can only throw darts blindfolded and hope they get a hit. As for why the test wasn't given yesterday, who knows, but it was voted on unanimously.

2. ADUO only applies to performance upgrades. Reliability, cost, etc. upgrades are permitted at any time provided they are signed off on by the FIA. Honda are literally sorting their issues as we speak. They'll be bringing their fixes to Suzuka, long before the first ADUO-permitted timestamp at the 6th race. A simple google search would tell you this.

3. I agree that the engineering capability of the FIA is less than that of the teams, but they are not completely useless. They've been doing this for a long time. Anyone is allowed to slip through a performance upgrade disguised as a reliability fix if they can get away with it, not just Mercedes.

Ultimately, your initial claims:

(Mercedes) gets to modify their engine before June, while the other ones are locked in. How is FIA making sure Merc does not sneak in any other reliability/weight/outright performance improvements while they "try" to align to the compression ratio regulation?

were false. EVERYONE gets to modify their engines for reliability improvements at any time. If they can sneak in a performance improvement at the same time that's theor call. It is NOT limited to Mercedes.

1. FIA knows, RBPT knows and unofficially the whole paddock knows. The test being voted unanimously is FIA PR and does not mean that they also agree on the implementation date, only that they all agreed on what to test and how, since ... you know... they all know what's what.
2. I stand corrected, you are right, they are allowed to change for reliability and safety. However, I still see this as a Merc advantage as they still get an extra chance to add changes without having to make the case for reliability or safety, which anyone apart Honda might struggle. And as you agree above they have an opportunity to push further improvements in disguise.
3. We both agree that this is a chance for Merc to sneak in improvements to their engine.

Regarding my initial claim, maybe I should clarify to underline the spirit of the comment and avoid getting misunderstood by the technicalities of it: Mercedes gets an extra chance compared to the other OEMs at pushing performance updates to their ICE, and FIA will approve them since Mercedes need those changes to comply with the regulations past June 1st.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

1. The test was added after formal protests from other teams in response to rumors about the compression ratio trick. Nobody knows exactly what Mercedes is doing or how they've accomplished it. So the other teams can only throw darts blindfolded and hope they get a hit. As for why the test wasn't given yesterday, who knows, but it was voted on unanimously.

2. ADUO only applies to performance upgrades. Reliability, cost, etc. upgrades are permitted at any time provided they are signed off on by the FIA. Honda are literally sorting their issues as we speak. They'll be bringing their fixes to Suzuka, long before the first ADUO-permitted timestamp at the 6th race. A simple google search would tell you this.

3. I agree that the engineering capability of the FIA is less than that of the teams, but they are not completely useless. They've been doing this for a long time. Anyone is allowed to slip through a performance upgrade disguised as a reliability fix if they can get away with it, not just Mercedes.

Ultimately, your initial claims:

(Mercedes) gets to modify their engine before June, while the other ones are locked in. How is FIA making sure Merc does not sneak in any other reliability/weight/outright performance improvements while they "try" to align to the compression ratio regulation?

were false. EVERYONE gets to modify their engines for reliability improvements at any time. If they can sneak in a performance improvement at the same time that's theor call. It is NOT limited to Mercedes.

1. FIA knows, RBPT knows and unofficially the whole paddock knows. The test being voted unanimously is FIA PR and does not mean that they also agree on the implementation date, only that they all agreed on what to test and how, since ... you know... they all know what's what.
2. I stand corrected, you are right, they are allowed to change for reliability and safety. However, I still see this as a Merc advantage as they still get an extra chance to add changes without having to make the case for reliability or safety, which anyone apart Honda might struggle. And as you agree above they have an opportunity to push further improvements in disguise.
3. We both agree that this is a chance for Merc to sneak in improvements to their engine.

Regarding my initial claim, maybe I should clarify to underline the spirit of the comment and avoid getting misunderstood by the technicalities of it: Mercedes gets an extra chance compared to the other OEMs at pushing performance updates to their ICE, and FIA will approve them since Mercedes need those changes to comply with the regulations past June 1st.

Bold claims.

Got any links to your evidence?

[amr]

Bold claims.

Got any links to your evidence?

Obviously, there is no public space evidence for this, like there is no public space evidence for the 2019 Ferrari engine. This is a closed information sport. All we know is what happens on the track, what the sport figures say, and the little information that transpires from the paddock.

However, it is up to us to use our pre-AI reasoning and mental capability and piece together the little information available into a working concept that could explain the informational gaps.

In 2019, the Ferrari engine was legal per the rules. Whenever the fuel flow was measured, the engine was within the rules. They were passing the scrutineers; they were passing the tests. Between the measurements?! We are not sure. FIA knows, and because FIA was not asked by Ferrari: "Can we do this or that when you don't measure?", whenever FIA caught up with the trick, it was not happy, and we know what happened. Next year, fuel flow rules were changed to measure not only every second, but with a much higher frequency, and rules were amended that no fuel can be stored past the fuel flow meter.
Ferrari read between the lines, but IT DID NOT ask for FIA approvals. That was the only mistake.

This year, Mercedes read between the lines and asked FIA: "can we do this? This design passes the ambient ratio test, as you can see from the drawings."
Now, FIA are not an engine OEM, and did not look past the drawings, simulating the design in different conditions, and picking up on the intention of the design. So FIA said, yes, the math is mathing, go ahead.
Merc went ahead; the know-how has leaked in RBPT through personal moving companies. RBPT applied the intention, but maybe with lesser success, and so it thought it would get more competitive advantage if it challenged the design instead of replicating it fully.
Suddenly, FIA is told it got tricked, but can't back out now. 4 teams are using that engine. It will be a PR nightmare to say to Merc, "You can not run that", and that with a few weeks before the start.
So what happens: FIA announces new tests, starting 1st June.
Merc gets to say that they pass the test and that the FIA approved the engine. And with the current ICE it passes the current ambient test, and with the new ICE it will pass the 130 degC test with some modifications.
It so happens that the deadline is after 2 races, where usually OEMs introduce new ICEs, Miami and Canada. So that Merc gets a chance to update the ICE and not be penalised by the 4 ICE limits for 2026.

The merit here for Merc is that they were able to pass clever things under FIAs nose. Ingenious ideas within the rules, as Toto says. Clever of them for putting this on FIA by getting the approval, rather than on them.
Merc read between the lines, and IT DID ask FIA for approval. That is the merit.

Did it happen exactly like I'm saying? who knows? It fits based on the public domain information, in my view.
What is your take? What do you think? I'd like to hear more than an 8-word sarcastic/dismissive reply.

[Farnborough]

Bold claims.

Got any links to your evidence?

Obviously, there is no public space evidence for this, like there is no public space evidence for the 2019 Ferrari engine. This is a closed information sport. All we know is what happens on the track, what the sport figures say, and the little information that transpires from the paddock.

However, it is up to us to use our pre-AI reasoning and mental capability and piece together the little information available into a working concept that could explain the informational gaps.

In 2019, the Ferrari engine was legal per the rules. Whenever the fuel flow was measured, the engine was within the rules. They were passing the scrutineers; they were passing the tests. Between the measurements?! We are not sure. FIA knows, and because FIA was not asked by Ferrari: "Can we do this or that when you don't measure?", whenever FIA caught up with the trick, it was not happy, and we know what happened. Next year, fuel flow rules were changed to measure not only every second, but with a much higher frequency, and rules were amended that no fuel can be stored past the fuel flow meter.
Ferrari read between the lines, but IT DID NOT ask for FIA approvals. That was the only mistake.

This year, Mercedes read between the lines and asked FIA: "can we do this? This design passes the ambient ratio test, as you can see from the drawings."
Now, FIA are not an engine OEM, and did not look past the drawings, simulating the design in different conditions, and picking up on the intention of the design. So FIA said, yes, the math is mathing, go ahead.
Merc went ahead; the know-how has leaked in RBPT through personal moving companies. RBPT applied the intention, but maybe with lesser success, and so it thought it would get more competitive advantage if it challenged the design instead of replicating it fully.
Suddenly, FIA is told it got tricked, but can't back out now. 4 teams are using that engine. It will be a PR nightmare to say to Merc, "You can not run that", and that with a few weeks before the start.
So what happens: FIA announces new tests, starting 1st June.
Merc gets to say that they pass the test and that the FIA approved the engine. And with the current ICE it passes the current ambient test, and with the new ICE it will pass the 130 degC test with some modifications.
It so happens that the deadline is after 2 races, where usually OEMs introduce new ICEs, Miami and Canada. So that Merc gets a chance to update the ICE and not be penalised by the 4 ICE limits for 2026.

The merit here for Merc is that they were able to pass clever things under FIAs nose. Ingenious ideas within the rules, as Toto says. Clever of them for putting this on FIA by getting the approval, rather than on them.
Merc read between the lines, and IT DID ask FIA for approval. That is the merit.

Did it happen exactly like I'm saying? who knows? It fits based on the public domain information, in my view.
What is your take? What do you think? I'd like to hear more than an 8-word sarcastic/dismissive reply.

To offer a contrary view on this, and from engineering perspective:- its entirely normal practice to specify, design, build in "Ambient" framework. Going as far as saying it's defacto, with exceptions very specifically noted, then its not unreasonable to believe the rules were written as such, and without any mention of deviation from accepted norm.

Now if MB simply asked the FIA a question of "is the compression ratio calculation at ambient" and nothing else, then that could have triggered a late "close off" by FIA by defining it in rules.
We don't know if any design intention was shared with the FIA. They could just as much thought that component and design could be made at lower or higher temperature, and moved to prevent that eventuality. Ultimately to unintentionally "grant" a free pass to what people think is happening now.

As we still don't know exactly what is in there (the MB PU) that makes it hard to even understand if its even heat related. Thats just floating around out in general commentary as if it's fact, we don't know that it is.

[amr]

To offer a contrary view on this, and from engineering perspective:- its entirely normal practice to specify, design, build in "Ambient" framework. Going as far as saying it's defacto, with exceptions very specifically noted, then its not unreasonable to believe the rules were written as such, and without any mention of deviation from accepted norm.

Now if MB simply asked the FIA a question of "is the compression ratio calculation at ambient" and nothing else, then that could have triggered a late "close off" by FIA by defining it in rules.
We don't know if any design intention was shared with the FIA. They could just as much thought that component and design could be made at lower or higher temperature, and moved to prevent that eventuality. Ultimately to unintentionally "grant" a free pass to what people think is happening now.

As we still don't know exactly what is in there (the MB PU) that makes it hard to even understand if its even heat related. Thats just floating around out in general commentary as if it's fact, we don't know that it is.

In this day and age, nothing, or very little, is manufactured until it is proven in simulation or approved by the regulatory body.
So I do believe that the simplest way to get approval of the 16:1 ratio would be to share the design, which, 100% I agree, was specified at ambient temperature. And I think all OEMs did the same.
I do not believe FIA went past simple math calculation to prove the ratio, no tolerance staking, no expansion coefficient of the material, just volume BDC and TDC. After all, why would they? It was generally accepted that the compression ratio decreases with temperature... for a normal engine design.

And I agree that we still don't know what is happening in MB PU.
However, we do know that the CR test was changed to measure the CR at ambient and at 130 degC. And that the wording was amended to add: "Any component, assembly, mechanism, or integrated arrangement of components that is designed or functions to increase the compression ratio in operating conditions beyond 16.0 is prohibited."

So I'm reading that as MB needs to change a "component, assembly, mechanism, or integrated arrangement of components" in order to comply with the new test. And I fear that when they change that, they will be able to sneak past FIA other performance updates.

[Kiril Varbanov]

Loophole or not, they did better job than everyone else. It is good that they have Ferrari as rival, we could have been witnessing Merc 1-2 for the rest of the season.
Let's see what happens.