2026 Drama: Alleged engine loophole

[dialtone]

Aerodynamic surfaces can't be designed to move for aerodynamic reasons, yet that is exactly what flexi-wings are. According to the literal interpretation of the rules it's not allowed, but both you and I can see that there is a need for pragmatism in that scenario. The question is why you can't understand the same concept when it comes to the engine and thermal expansion? Sure as the sun rises the engine will change its dimensions slightly depending on the temperature, so if the FIA has specified that the engine be measured and homologated at ambient temperatures that seems like a very pragmatic solution, no?

Going the lengths of designing your engine to have a significantly higher compression ratio while in operation is one thing and giving your best to stay within limits (and accepting minimal changes due to thermal expansion) is another. Sure as hell the FIA could enforce tests to prove what the intent was.

So you don't think the front wings that bend like a banana were designed with that intent?

This is a bad faith argument…

Wings aren’t frozen in development.

This horse is been beaten to death at this point. If anyone thinks teams will treat a disadvantage like this in a frozen area on the chin you are not being reasonable.

The rule was badly written, acting like Toto does here is out of place, at least he has a political role to play, people here are just looking unreasonable.

[Badger]

Going the lengths of designing your engine to have a significantly higher compression ratio while in operation is one thing and giving your best to stay within limits (and accepting minimal changes due to thermal expansion) is another. Sure as hell the FIA could enforce tests to prove what the intent was.

So you don't think the front wings that bend like a banana were designed with that intent?

This is a bad faith argument…

Wings aren’t frozen in development.

This horse is been beaten to death at this point. If anyone thinks teams will treat a disadvantage like this in a frozen area on the chin you are not being reasonable.

The rule was badly written, acting like Toto does here is out of place, at least he has a political role to play, people here are just looking unreasonable.

Everyone looked at the same rules, everyone could have queried the FIA on this topic and they would have gotten the same answer. If some engine manufacturers didn't see it or bother to ask that is on them.

[bluechris]

Yet no one replied why FIA changed in the rules the "ambient" and who the FIA helped with that?

[hollus]

We’ve never seen the document detailing the measurement procedure(Document FIA-F1-DOC-C042), so that point might be moot. Or superimportant and new. There is no way to know for sure.

[amr]

Everyone looked at the same rules, everyone could have queried the FIA on this topic and they would have gotten the same answer. If some engine manufacturers didn't see it or bother to ask that is on them.

Let's not diminish the cognitive capability of the other engine manufacturers. All of them saw the loophole and considered it.
I'm of the opinion that the Brits (Merc HPP and RBPT) were the only ones that were able to exploit it due to the advanced capability in material science/precision metallurgy in the area/UK. Probably the others could have done it, but at a higher cost/risk, and it was not worth pursuing for now.
All of them took an opposite bet on the rule. Brits thought it would fly and spent money on it, the others thought is not worth spending money, as if someone uses the loophole, they will be able to get it shut down.

If the rules are left as they are, the others will catch up; if the loophole is closed, development will go in another area. I don't think Merc or RBPT is all about this trick.

[FW17]

Yet no one replied why FIA changed in the rules the "ambient" and who the FIA helped with that?

Wasn't it the same way of measuring as in the previous years, i.e 2014?

18:1 could have been 20:1

[bluechris]

Yet no one replied why FIA changed in the rules the "ambient" and who the FIA helped with that?

Wasn't it the same way of measuring as in the previous years, i.e 2014?

18:1 could have been 20:1

Sure but why the change in the rule? Anyway nothing is certain so we wait.

[FittingMechanics]

Yet no one replied why FIA changed in the rules the "ambient" and who the FIA helped with that?

I think this is why it is unlikely FIA will clamp down on this. They were obviously asked to clarify the testing procedure and went out of their way to specify it is ambient. They could have left this ambiguous. The fact that they did not means that they understood this could happen and okayed it.

[catent]

Dial back the outrage a bit and actually look at the facts. The FIA has come out and explicitly said that the measurement procedure has remained the same. They added verbiage to the regulations for clarification, but they did not change the procedure. It was always ambient.

It does not change the fact that the CR must not exceed 16:1 at all times. It’s simple as that really. If the measurement is what counts, Ferrari’s 2019 engine was as compliant as Mercedes’ current one.

Double standards… no other explanation.

Ferrari tampered with the fuel flow sensor, there was a rule expressly prohibiting this. Totally illegal.

AFAIK, what Ferrari was doing was kept under wraps and hasn't been publicly disclosed, ever, and is likely only truly known by a small handful of people at Ferrari and the FIA.

So, source your definitive claim that Ferrari "tampered" with a fuel flow sensor in 2019, or rightfully be called a liar.

[koolway]

You can easily connect the dots by looking what changed in the fuel consumption rules. That’s not far fetched. Truly know exactly how they were doing it, no. But the conclude what they were doing, read between the dots :
- Introduction of a 2nd fuel flow sensor that operates independently and is inaccessible to teams, preventing potential manipulation of fuel flow data
- standardize the fuel system components to eliminate the possibility of fuel storage between the tank and engine
- TDs were issued to clarify that any method of manipulating fuel flow measurements, such as using electromagnetic interference or exploiting sensor sampling rates, would be deemed illegal
+ oil consumption limitation from 0.6 to 0.3l/100km that is more likely linked to controversies regarding Mercedes and others

[FNTC]

Not definitive evidence, but it's been suggested that they fed more fuel in the intervals between the sensor readings, it measured in pulses, not continously. Or manipulating the sensor readings themselves. After the settlement they changed the sensor type so its encrypted etc. Example: https://motorsport.tech/formula-1/fuel- ... it-be-done

[AR3-GP]

Drama

[SpecialOps]

Drama
https://i.postimg.cc/xC838BDx/image.png

Not surprised. One of the key reasons FIA reduced the compression ratio was to encourage other manufacturers into F1. That’s why I think the FIA has shown serious incompetence this time. What were they thinking allowing such a thing to go unchecked?

[Hoffman900]

Drama
https://i.postimg.cc/xC838BDx/image.png

Not surprised. One of the key reasons FIA reduced the compression ratio was to encourage other manufacturers into F1. That’s why I think the FIA has shown serious incompetence this time. What were they thinking allowing such a thing to go unchecked?

Compression was reduced to make the engines less prone to knock, and to get away from running in-situ pressures sensors to control the fine margins of knock whenver the engine was running (on track and off), and instead of rely on knock sensors.

This is kind of silly because you still use all these pressure sensors on every test bench except actually on track, and set your knock sensors based on that.

Ultimately was about reducing costs as running in-situ pressure sensors in every cylinder, for every session, is massively expensive. That said, they’ve now forced teams to simulate more and more variable on test benches to tune there and “lock them in” for the track, so teams will spend this money regardless.

Hell we even use them to develop things in (competitive) vintage amatuer road racing now.

As I have shown here with math and examples, this is nothing new at all and why you have to set piston - head clearance 1-1.5mm at ambient (which depending, may be 0.1mm running clearance). That’s up to 2pts extra compression just there alone for common engine packages.

Why ambient? Because this something that can only be read at redline on a firing engine, wich requires in-situ pressure sensors (which F1 wants teams to get away from on track). Otherwise you check it in the pits with a Katech Whistler device, or you dismantle the engine and measure it (most accurate way). Both don’t account for the forces involved or the heat involved on a firing engine. The ONLY fair way to do this is to measure compression from BDC to 0mm piston to head clearance. The piston can never be any closer for very obvious reasons.

As others on the teams pointed out the last set of rules was 18:1 but in a firing engine were higher, because it always is. Nothing is infinitely stiff.

The fact that this is even an issue is silly and really comes down to politics.

There is a famous trope in racing: “they must be cheating because I’m cheating and they’re beating me”

[FW17]

Mattia hates toto