2026 Scuderia Ferrari HP F1 Team

[sucof]

In thermal terms 0.5mm is a hell of a lot of thermal growth. As I said in my previous post, they would have to run heavier steel rods to get more growth compared to other teams. As I showed a few pages back, even if they used an exotic stainless steel with a high coefficient of expansion allow the rod has to be ~78°C hotter than the surrounding components to grow 0.1mm longer than their competition running titanium rods. To get to 0.5mm, the rod would have to be ~390°C hotter.

Let the magnitude of that number sink in.

Additionally you don't want the piston and the block expanding, you want them kept in a very specific temperature range. The blocks are aluminum, and the pistons are all steels. The rules mandate the pistons must be made from one of the following alloys, AMS 6487, 15cdv6, 42CrMo4, X38CrMoV5-3. Depending on the alloys you are comparing aluminum can expand at twice the rate of steel.

As you might know, the engines have to be warmed up to between 80°C and 90°C, before starting or else they will be instantaneously destroyed. The primary reason for this is because they are holding very very tight tolerances between the piston and the cylinder. They are so tight that at standard temperatures they are effectively seized together.

In other words, if you want your engines to last, you are going to limit their thermal expansion, and keep them in a tight temperature window.

So, of all the components that matter, the heads, rods, and cranks are the only ones you will see some benefit from. The heads expanding decreases the completion ratio, so you want to keep them as cool as possible to minimize expansion. The crank growing would increase displacement and effect the compression ratio. The rods growing would increase the compression ratio.

The problem is how do you get the rods and crank to run several hundred degrees Celsius hotter than in the past, without degrading the oil or causing some other kind of issue. You are talking about doubling or tripling the engine oils operating temperature compared to last year.

It has been debunked that the engine can not run at room temp. Actual F1 engineers said it. But they warm it up beforehand to minimise friction at the start, where every engine has the most abrasion.

And I do not think you need 390 degrees hotter engine parts. I am quite sure they created some meta material, which can be built by 3D printing, that expand a lot more at regular engine temps, than solid materials.

[dans79]

And I do not think you need 390 degrees hotter engine parts. I am quite sure they created some meta material, which can be built by 3D printing, that expand a lot more at regular engine temps, than solid materials.

The manufacturing process has no bearing on any materials thermal expansion coefficient. The coefficient is purely related to the chemical composition of the material.

3d printing lets you create features that cannot be produced via subtractive manufacturing, but that's it. For example you could print complex internal voids to make parts lighter, complex internal coolant/oil passages etc.

[sucof]

And I do not think you need 390 degrees hotter engine parts. I am quite sure they created some meta material, which can be built by 3D printing, that expand a lot more at regular engine temps, than solid materials.

The manufacturing process has no bearing on any materials thermal expansion coefficient. The coefficient is purely related to the chemical composition of the material.

3d printing lets you create features that cannot be produced via subtractive manufacturing, but that's it. For example you could print complex internal voids to make parts lighter, complex internal coolant/oil passages etc.

I disagree. Do you actually know meta materials?
They behave differently, you kan kinda program their behaviour.
It is not just holes in a solid block of metal. You can create for example long thin structures that are not parallel or anything to the surface, but going around like spagetti. Then if their temp is risen, they change shape, so the movement of the part that is connected to their end will be larger than simple thermal expansion of that material.

[dren]

The manufacturing process has no bearing on any materials thermal expansion coefficient. The coefficient is purely related to the chemical composition of the material.

It absolutely does. Forged vs cast, etc.

[dans79]

I disagree. Do you actually know meta materials?
They behave differently, you kan kinda program their behaviour.
It is not just holes in a solid block of metal. You can create for example long thin structures that are not parallel or anything to the surface, but going around like spagetti. Then if their temp is risen, they change shape, so the movement of the part that is connected to their end will be larger than simple thermal expansion of that material.

I do, my degree is physics. The thermal properties of a material are not determined by its manufacturing process.

Their is a big difference between lab demonstrations of a concept, and the real world hell of heat and pressure inside an F1 engine. I'd add that the structures you are referencing can move in chaotic ways if the thermal gradient applied to them isn't extremely uniform, and that not something you want inside a high precision engine.


Take a look at the rules.

C15.7.1 Pistons must be produced from one of the following iron-based alloys: AMS 6487, 15cdv6,
42CrMo4, X38CrMoV5-3.

C15.7.2 Piston pins must be manufactured from an iron-based alloy and must be machined from a single
piece of material.

C15.7.3 Connecting rods must be manufactured from iron or titanium-based alloys and must be machined
from a single piece of material with no welded or joined assemblies (other than a bolted big end
cap or an interfered small end bush).

C15.7.4 Crankshafts must be manufactured from an iron-based alloy.
No welding is permitted between the front and rear main bearing journals.

The material you can use for the pistons is very specific. it is specifically stated that piston pins and connecting rods are to be machined, That means subtractive manufacturing not additive (no printing). The crankshaft is one the most tortured components in the engine I would not 3d print that.

[dans79]

The manufacturing process has no bearing on any materials thermal expansion coefficient. The coefficient is purely related to the chemical composition of the material.

It absolutely does. Forged vs cast, etc.

That depends heavily on the type of material and alloying elements, even in extreme cases i don't recollect it being greater than 4%. And if you are going to perform some kind of heat treatment, you can nullify any gains from the previous step. generally speaking you pick a process to accentuate mechanical properties, not thermal ones.

With that being said we are so far into the weeds now it it's hard to provide any kind of concrete numbers unless we want to specifically call out exact alloys and heat treatment processes.

[sucof]

I do, my degree is physics. The thermal properties of a material are not determined by its manufacturing process.

If you do, then why do you write things like this???
Metamaterials does not change the thermal properties of a material!
And I never wrote that either!
It changes the behaviour of the entire object in certain pre programmed ways.
You can indeed 3D print a meta material, that will expand in a certain dimension more than that material would do if would be solid. This is just a fact.
And then do not shield your argument with how complicated it is... this argument is logically incorrect, as complication in itself does not mean it will not work. This is like saying it is impossible to make more downforce with a car with many wings than without, because it is complicated to calculate and manufacture it...

[erikejw]

This.

And also keep in mind: This can be just smoke and mirrors!!

I think it is quite plausible this ""scandal"" would help hiding some real trick, or is just there to steal the time and effort of competitors away from useful development.

[Schumix]

https://x.com/SmilexTech/status/2019723600601944559

Rumour is a static hot test. It's unclear whether this will impact Merc Engine at all; the advantage might only show up while running, but it is good that something is happening instead of just allowing the advantage for a year before banning. TP talk during the preseason testing will probably confirm or deny whether this new process is of any use in limiting Merc's "potential" engine advantage.

Regardless of whether Ferrari is a frontrunner, it would be good to have some degree of competition among engine manufacturers. Max vs Mcl was good last year, but races with potential winners for 3/4 teams would be great.

Rumors suggest that, for the new procedure currently being discussed, the engine is started and brought to its maximum temperature. It is then switched off, and the compression ratio is immediately measured. I don't know if this testing procedure is reliable, but if engine experts are proposing it, it means they know something. A good indicator of the relevance of this new procedure will be whether the main target team (Mercedes) approves it. Yes, indeed, what we want is a championship with four or five teams that can realistically contend for victory in every race.

[FittingMechanics]

Be careful what you wish for, penalizing Mercedes engine could throw this into hands of one of other engine manufacturers that don't have competition withing the engine group.

[brakeboosted]

https://x.com/SmilexTech/status/2019723600601944559

Rumour is a static hot test. It's unclear whether this will impact Merc Engine at all; the advantage might only show up while running, but it is good that something is happening instead of just allowing the advantage for a year before banning. TP talk during the preseason testing will probably confirm or deny whether this new process is of any use in limiting Merc's "potential" engine advantage.

Regardless of whether Ferrari is a frontrunner, it would be good to have some degree of competition among engine manufacturers. Max vs Mcl was good last year, but races with potential winners for 3/4 teams would be great.

Rumors suggest that, for the new procedure currently being discussed, the engine is started and brought to its maximum temperature. It is then switched off, and the compression ratio is immediately measured. I don't know if this testing procedure is reliable, but if engine experts are proposing it, it means they know something. A good indicator of the relevance of this new procedure will be whether the main target team (Mercedes) approves it. Yes, indeed, what we want is a championship with four or five teams that can realistically contend for victory in every race.

Nevermind reliable, how is it safe for anyone involved. How is the engine started, dissassembled and measured whilst beign kept at a steady temperature. It seem highly improbable to be the solution going forward.

[ryaan2904]

I don't think we should focus on just one part of the engine. Alongside the connecting rod, the piston head as well as the cylinder walls surrounding it get hot enough to expand. Another fact is that you dont actually need too much expansion to reach the 18:1 combustion ratio.

in simple terms If everything expands you are just increasing displacement, not compression ratio. In the real world you would have to run 3d thermal dynamic simulations to determine what changes and by how much. as multiple materials are at play, they have complex geometries and have different methods of being cooled.

Another fact is that you dont actually need too much expansion to reach the 18:1 combustion ratio. I've heard several claims of total expansion just needing to be 0.4-0.5 mm to reach the target ratio.

What I am saying is that there are too many variables at play here. If the titanium rods expand by even say 0.1 mm and the piston head expands some more and you play with the cylinder walls surrounding the piston, its not actually farfetched to think that f1 team can do this.

In thermal terms 0.5mm is a hell of a lot of thermal growth. As I said in my previous post, they would have to run heavier steel rods to get more growth compared to other teams. As I showed a few pages back, even if they used an exotic stainless steel with a high coefficient of expansion allow the rod has to be ~78°C hotter than the surrounding components to grow 0.1mm longer than their competition running titanium rods. To get to 0.5mm, the rod would have to be ~390°C hotter.

Let the magnitude of that number sink in.

Additionally you don't want the piston and the block expanding, you want them kept in a very specific temperature range. The blocks are aluminum, and the pistons are all steels. The rules mandate the pistons must be made from one of the following alloys, AMS 6487, 15cdv6, 42CrMo4, X38CrMoV5-3. Depending on the alloys you are comparing aluminum can expand at twice the rate of steel.

As you might know, the engines have to be warmed up to between 80°C and 90°C, before starting or else they will be instantaneously destroyed. The primary reason for this is because they are holding very very tight tolerances between the piston and the cylinder. They are so tight that at standard temperatures they are effectively seized together.

In other words, if you want your engines to last, you are going to limit their thermal expansion, and keep them in a tight temperature window.

So, of all the components that matter, the heads, rods, and cranks are the only ones you will see some benefit from. The heads expanding decreases the completion ratio, so you want to keep them as cool as possible to minimize expansion. The crank growing would increase displacement and effect the compression ratio. The rods growing would increase the compression ratio.

The problem is how do you get the rods and crank to run several hundred degrees Celsius hotter than in the past, without degrading the oil or causing some other kind of issue. You are talking about doubling or tripling the engine oils operating temperature compared to last year.

Fair enough, i dont know enough about engines to debate this but considering the amount of lobbying that's going on in the background, with new rumors of rbr now joining the protest camp, i doubt its all smoke and mirrors

[ryaan2904]

Be careful what you wish for, penalizing Mercedes engine could throw this into hands of one of other engine manufacturers that don't have competition withing the engine group.

That would be fair

[Schumix]

https://x.com/SmilexTech/status/2019723600601944559

Rumour is a static hot test. It's unclear whether this will impact Merc Engine at all; the advantage might only show up while running, but it is good that something is happening instead of just allowing the advantage for a year before banning. TP talk during the preseason testing will probably confirm or deny whether this new process is of any use in limiting Merc's "potential" engine advantage.

Regardless of whether Ferrari is a frontrunner, it would be good to have some degree of competition among engine manufacturers. Max vs Mcl was good last year, but races with potential winners for 3/4 teams would be great.

Rumors suggest that, for the new procedure currently being discussed, the engine is started and brought to its maximum temperature. It is then switched off, and the compression ratio is immediately measured. I don't know if this testing procedure is reliable, but if engine experts are proposing it, it means they know something. A good indicator of the relevance of this new procedure will be whether the main target team (Mercedes) approves it. Yes, indeed, what we want is a championship with four or five teams that can realistically contend for victory in every race.

This proposal comes from technical experts. They know what they're talking about because it's their area of ​​expertise. There are methods for measuring the compression ratio when the engine is hot: the engine is started until it reaches its maximum temperature and then shut off. A sensor is inserted through the spark plug or fuel intake ports, and the measurement is taken. But there's no guarantee that this is the method that engine specialists will adopt.
Nevermind reliable, how is it safe for anyone involved. How is the engine started, dissassembled and measured whilst beign kept at a steady temperature. It seem highly improbable to be the solution going forward.

[brakeboosted]

Rumors suggest that, for the new procedure currently being discussed, the engine is started and brought to its maximum temperature. It is then switched off, and the compression ratio is immediately measured. I don't know if this testing procedure is reliable, but if engine experts are proposing it, it means they know something. A good indicator of the relevance of this new procedure will be whether the main target team (Mercedes) approves it. Yes, indeed, what we want is a championship with four or five teams that can realistically contend for victory in every race.

This proposal comes from technical experts. They know what they're talking about because it's their area of ​​expertise. There are methods for measuring the compression ratio when the engine is hot: the engine is started until it reaches its maximum temperature and then shut off. A sensor is inserted through the spark plug or fuel intake ports, and the measurement is taken. But there's no guarantee that this is the method that engine specialists will adopt.
Nevermind reliable, how is it safe for anyone involved. How is the engine started, dissassembled and measured whilst beign kept at a steady temperature. It seem highly improbable to be the solution going forward.

Yes but you need to be aware of what the rules govern. It's not effective or dynamic compression, It's geometric compression. You can measure peak cylinder pressures with a sensor indeed, but again the ruls don't govern that. Nor is that a consistent reading because it changes with air density and humidity. Sensors can't determine geoemtric compression. Only mesurements of the physical swept volume at TDC:BDC.

You need to be very specific as to what the rules govern, and that is a massive part the media and friends are missing.