venkyhere wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 17:00
diffuser wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 16:46
Ashwinv16 wrote: ↑15 Mar 2026, 10:29
Also want to mentions somethings before we go to Japan
- Mercedes are running at full power now after the sprint race scare thus the massive gap to Ferrari. But customer teams are still on 3.5 on a five scale (As mentioned by Mercedes).
- RBPT is just as unreliable as Honda, but no vibrations and more power.
- Pirelli is secretly Bridgestone
You're another guy that is a liar and cheat. 90% of what you say is complete BS.
1. Homologation forces identical specification
Each power-unit manufacturer must submit one homologation dossier to the FIA that defines the complete design and operation of the PU. That dossier applies to all teams using that PU.
Key implications:
- The internal combustion engine, turbo, MGU-K, energy store, control electronics, etc. must match the homologated design.
- The control software and operating parameters must also be identical.
- The PU must be “identical and operated in the exact same manner” for every team supplied by that manufacturer.
So the rules explicitly prevent a manufacturer from giving the works team a stronger spec engine.
2. Updates must also be supplied to customers
If a manufacturer introduces an upgraded PU spec during the cycle, the rules require that:
- At least one updated PU must be available to each customer team at the first event the update appears.
The only exception is a rare logistical issue (e.g., supply shortage), where one event delay can be granted.
3. What can differ between teams
The regulations allow only a few limited differences:
- Fuel supplier
- Engine oil specification
- Minor installation-related adjustments (wiring, packaging, exhaust positioning, etc.).
These are declared in the homologation dossier and should not change the fundamental performance capability of the PU.
4. What about running lower power modes?
Technically a team could choose to run a more conservative engine mode (for reliability, cooling limits, etc.), but:
- The capability must exist in the PU for the same modes as the works team.
- The manufacturer cannot restrict those modes only to the factory team.
In practice, differences in cooling, installation, and operational choices can still make customer teams appear to run less power.
5. Why this rule exists
Before these regulations, manufacturers sometimes
- supplied year-old engines, or
- restricted high-power engine modes to the works team.
FIA closed this loophole by mandating identical specification engines for all customers.
Question :
- how does the FIA ensure exactly same hardware, are there physical checks before every race ?
- how does the FIA ensure exactly same 'software/firmware' ? via a simple checksum ?
- how do customer teams ensure that whatever FIA does, is 'enough' to ensure parity ?
they seem like dumb questions, but is there any knowledge about the 'checking procedure' in the public domain, other than documents ? The reason I ask, is because FoM is a piranha club (cliche) and the FIA is a 'hired-umpire', they don't run the sport. Regulation changes are driven by the business side and technical inputs for those come from the teams themselves. And the history of FIA is checkered with 'hush settlements' and 'incompetence in finding cheating vide their own technical competence', and often TDs and 'bans' are triggered by lobbying/evidence from the teams themselves pointing out 'sketchy' things about a rival team.
So the 'doubts' about fairness are not that stupid as you make it out to be.
The ECU is a standard that all teams use. The FIA have access to it all the time.
the FIA Regulations Say
Software Version Identification
- Every re‑programmable device on the car (including the FIA Standard ECU) must have a mechanism that lets the FIA accurately identify the software version loaded.
- Teams must present every programmable unit to FIA scrutineers before each event so they can confirm what version is actually on it.
- All on‑car software versions must be registered with the FIA before use in competition.
The technical regulations refer to “acceptable solutions to verify the programmed software” being defined in the FIA’s Appendix to the Technical and Sporting Regulations (often published as FIA‑F1‑DOC‑033), but the main rules don’t specify exactly which checksum or hash algorithm is used. They probably use something like sha-256 or sha-3 which is almost impossible to fake.
While the FIA doesn’t publish the exact algorithm (for security reasons), their scrutineering process typically involves:
1- Connecting an FIA laptop to the ECU before or during the event.
2 - Running their own tool that reads the firmware and computes a verification value (a hash or checksum) of all code sections.
3 - Comparing that computed value against:
- - The version registered in FIA systems provided earlier by the team
- - The permissible versions list maintained by the FIA
- - Known hashes of approved firmware builds
If those values differ, they can flag a discrepancy for further investigation. This is consistent with core embedded verification methods used across automotive and racing electronics — a checksum or hash of the image rather than just a simple version string.
Hardware - Sealing and Identification
- After homologation, FIA compares parts to cad drawing, seals key PU components with physical tamper-evident seals.
- Each PU component has a unique serial number tied to the team and driver.
- FIA uses inspection sheets to track which component goes to which car.
- Customer teams cannot modify, replace, or upgrade sealed components without FIA approval.
4. Event Scrutineering
- FIA technical delegates perform random or scheduled checks during race weekends:
- - Visual inspection of seals
- - Comparison of serial numbers to the FIA log
- - Measuring critical dimensions (like bore/stroke, turbo dimensions)
- - Checking oil, fuel, and cooling system specifications
5. Upgrades and Replacement
- Under 2026 rules, hardware upgrades are highly restricted:
- - Any new or updated PU hardware must be documented(undergo Sealing and Identification process), approved, and shared with all customer teams.
- - Replacement of a failed component must be logged with the FIA and must be from the same homologated batch or approved replacement.
