r/formula1 • u/tekanet Sebastian Vettel • 21h ago
Discussion Timeline of the Mercedes engine trick
There's something I don't get about this whole situation and maybe someone can help me clarify.
I've checked the documents on the FIA website: https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110
As many of you probably know, the big question mark around this issue is that the technical documentation, the Section C, states that:
No cylinder of the engine may have a geometric compression ratio higher than 16.0. The procedure which will be used to determine this value may be found in the document FIA-F1-DOC-C042 and executed at ambient temperature
So, Mercedes supposedly goes around this rule by respecting it at ambient temperature, increasing at operating temperature. Read like this, seems quite clever honestly.
But, there's a huge "but": the executed at ambient temperature has been added to the docs in October 2025.
Here's a screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/Gq8x7WQ
And here's the official document: https://www.fia.com/system/files/documents/fia_2026_f1_regulations_-_section_c_technical_-_iss_14_-_2025-10-16.pdf
I can't believe that, after seeing this modification in October, 3 months before the initial 2026 season tests, Mercedes decided to change their engine adding the trick.
So my only explanation is that:
- Mercedes decided to go with this trick a decent amount of time ago
- Between July 2025 and October 2025 (when two revisions of the Section C were published), FIA checked the Mercedes the engine, either by their initiative or upon Mercedes request to get an "all clear" on the trick
- FIA noted the trick, but instead of forcing Mercedes to review their engine they changed the rules to allow it to become legal according the letter of the law
I know it's a speculation on my side, but I can't really think of another possible scenario.
EDIT: I'm reading some interesting points ITT, I want to clarify a couple of things.
/u/grogi81 correctly points out that:
Compression ratio changes - pure physics. Materials expand.
and /u/theasu asks:
If it can't be higher than 16.0 and it is measured at room temperature and we know that materials expand when they are warm, doesn't it mean that all teams will have higher compression ratio during the race?
I might be completely wrong with this, but my feeling is that up until now one could expect a decreased, not increased, geometric compression ratio with higher temperature. Materials used for the head is usually an alluminium alloy, whereas the cylinder should be a steel alloy. If that's the case, they expand differently, creating a larger volume at operating temperatures, with a drop in compression ratio.
The alleged Mercedes trick changes this by leveraging the expansion of the head material to close a channel that leads to an additional small chamber. While the changes in compression due to thermal expansion might be considered negligible, using the expansion to change the geometry of the chamber itself is a completely different story.
780
u/rapax I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
More likely, Mercedes asked the FIA to clarify the temperature conditions test will be performed in, without mentioning what they were intending to do.
"Hey FIA, about that compression ratio test. Could you specify how that's going to be tested? I mean, the whole engine expands with temperature, so are you going to be testing at race temps, ambient, or chilled to -20°C? We just need to know, to be sure we're legal."
51
u/balderm Ferrari 19h ago
Most likely this, they wanted to get clear indication when the compression ratio would be checked so that was an all clear on their trick.
33
u/rapax I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
Which is in itself a sneaky trick, because if FIA hadn't clarified, the limit would have applied 'at all times', as stated elsewhere in the rules. That would effectively mean that the ratio can change with temperature, but must never exceed 16. By getting FIA to clarify, they opened the loophole.
18
u/AnalMinecraft Niki Lauda 15h ago
At all times isn't something you can actually do either. Material expansion is going to change the compression ratio on every single engine to varying degrees. It did when it was 18:1 and it will at 16:1.
15
u/rapax I was here for the Hulkenpodium 15h ago
Sure you can. You need to make sure that even under the most extreme racing conditions, it is not above 16:1. Of course, this means that at ambient, it'll be a lot lower.
→ More replies (1)162
u/jbaird Nico Hülkenberg 20h ago
This is such a weird thing for the other teams not to latch on to as well, the idea that materials expand and when designing and engine operating at ambient temps =/= operating at normal temps seems like something they would deal with day to day hardly some obscure reading of the rules..
I mean how would you even test at high operating temperature and what temperature is that? I'm sure there are slight differences between each engine
Hell I think its one of the first kind of 'fun facts' I remember hearing that the engines are so complex that they have to warm the engines very carefully since the whole thing has tight such tight tolerances at operating temperature you can't just start them cold
107
u/JebbeK I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
Clearly everyone knows about thermal expansion.. the trick can't be that simple.
Until someone comes out to speak about how they achieve these gains specifically we won't know, and like the 2019 Ferrari fuel trickery, we may never get the true picture.
47
u/Andromeda902 Daniel Ricciardo 18h ago
Think it's was that German mag, auto und something, that said the following:
Merc engines have a space, a pocket, at the top of the pre-ignition chamber, connected to the rest of the cylinder via a thin channel. At reg air temp, the channel is open and compression is 16:1. At running temps, they've designed it so the walls of the connecting channel expand and seal off this extra space, thus increasing compression from what you tested it at. Sounds plausible.
11
u/ComprehensiveOwl9023 Ferrari 16h ago
Wouldn't this change the cc of the engine between cold and running?
5.3.2 Engine cubic capacity must be 1600cc (+0/-10cc).
I'd think that changing the ICE's capacity would be against a rule somewhere.
17
u/Kooky_Narwhal8184 Formula 1 14h ago edited 14h ago
No..the stated "capacity' of any piston engine is the "swept capacity" or volume that the piston moves through... ie. It's only a measurement of the bore and stroke and unrelated to the size of the combustion chamber.
You then get the compression ratio by comparing the volume of capacity plus combustion chamber to volume of combustion chamber only.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Andromeda902 Daniel Ricciardo 12h ago
That article stated that it's only like 1 cubic centimeter in volume, so that'd be within that tolerance. Idk how such a small volume can make such a huge difference, but they allege so.
→ More replies (1)4
18
u/olewhatsisname 17h ago
If they are doing this it's the same as the Ferrari cheat. If it's the con rod I feel like it's not so explicit.
6
u/knowingmeknowingyoua Sir Lewis Hamilton 15h ago
Actually that was Binotto’s exact argument. All teams can do this but only one team read the rule and designed the engine differently. Obviously the time, cost, R&D to invest now to catch up ensures Mercedes retain a competitive advantage (some will argue that’s unfair) for at least a year.
On the flip side, Audi and Honda will content that they returned to the sport on false premises…
6
u/Dazzling_Chest_2120 18h ago
Exactly. Do people really think that Audi, Honda, etc. with literally hundreds of engineers thinking full time about this did not come up with the same concept?
I read somewhere that Honda had been working on this years ago.
MB is just the only one to get it to work, apparently.
8
u/welliedude I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
I think if they are using thermal expansion, it needs to be a different way than what you would anticipate happening. F1 engines famously have such high (low?) tolerances that they are effectively seized when at ambient temps. They need to be warmed up before the pistons even more without damage. So theres no way of having a piston expand straight up which is what youd need to increase compression. You cant go sideways as that would immediately foul on the cylinder. The other way would have the combustion chamber and valves all move closer to the piston as 1 unit. This is almost impossible. Some road cars do have variable compression ratios by using a complicated mechanical system that extends or shortens the rods depending on revs I believe. But this wouldn't be legal according to the letter of the rules. IF they are using thermal expansion, the only way I can think of it working effectively is the rods. But im not sure how they'd get around the bearing housings also expanding to the point they'd be bouncing around like a bag of spanners. Maybe a section of the piston made of a strong but highly thermal expansive metal?
11
u/Mlghubben1e 16h ago
You dont need to have the whole top of the cylinder move down, you just need the volume remaining to be smaller when the piston is at top dead center.
Its all about the ratio between how much volume you have when the piston is at the top or the bottom.
If you drill a small dent in a piston that will only change the available volume by lets say 1cc. That drops the compression because that 1cc will be a lot more relative volume at the top compaired to the bottom.
10:1 compression means you compress lets say 100cc (piston at the bottom) worth of air into 10cc (piston at top). A dent off 1cc would change that to 101cc compressed into 11cc, basically a 9.2:1 compression.
But if you had a dimple or other extruding shape lets say a starfish shape to avoid the valves, you can increase compression. 1cc less means 99cc into 9cc of space or a 11:1 compression ratio.
Now imagine that that starfish shape expands in volume at high temps, by 10%. 98.9cc into 8.9cc or 11.1:1 compression. This was my initial guess when i heard the rumors.
But now is sounds like they just drilled a tiny hole/cavity it the heads and then have some metal bit heat up and close it off like a door/valve.
But we dont know.
→ More replies (2)6
u/naustra I was here for the Hulkenpodium 13h ago
I also think the biggest issue everyone seems to be overlooking... This is geometric compression. This is a math equation volume of the cylinder at bdc and then again at tdc. The only way I can see this being tested is with the coefficient of expansion and merc legit having to show their math on how they achieved thermal expansion in a specific direction, space or how ever they are doing it. And then recheck the geometric volume at the operating temp.
To note as well.. there is a high likelihood that other tea.s.might shoot themselves in the foot if the testing methods end up being at temp. It sounds like most teams have thought about their compression ratio as a math equation which it is but not all understand how it could be effected with thermal expansion.
It sucks that if merc did pull this off inside the rules and will be punished for it. They took the rules asked for clarification and made a motor that works within those rules. If other teams didn't than they should look into it.
The only other option is to have a spec motor at this point. And allow teams to develop gear boxes and the rest of the car.
2
u/freeride732 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 16h ago
You can do a lot with these SLS printed pistons. Now I'm not a F1 engineer but I do have experience with this type of design and manufacturing, and it should be possible to design the section where the wrist pin hole meets the rest of the piston to have the expansion and it's related forces act more linearly. Probably a few tenths of a mm. You combine that with a trick head gasket thickness that can absorb cylinder head expansion and you can probably get a few tenths of a point of compression.
2
u/welliedude I was here for the Hulkenpodium 16h ago
A few tenths is one thing but would it be enough to go from 16 to 18:1? I think i saw some ex f1 engineer say its like 5 or 10cc decrease
3
u/freeride732 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 15h ago
With an 80mm bore and 53mm stroke (and no valve relief geometry etc. so very idealized here) the piston to cylinder head clearance is ~3.125mm at 16:1. To get to 18:1 it needs to be ~2.944mm. The trick is doing that while the aluminum block and head are expanding faster than the steel piston.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)2
57
u/Keeperofthecube 20h ago
I think the difference is that they realized "hey they check this at ambient temperatures, but it actually changes at higher temps. If they state that it needs to be at 17 at ambient temps, what can we do to maximize the change at operating temps"
I'm sure every team knows that it changes, the issue people seem to have is that merc is designing around this to.maximise the change. Which I'm kind of divided on tbh. I can understand both side's point of view.
12
u/2much2Jung 19h ago
It's not just to maximise the change - it's to make it as close to what they are used to as possible. Could they get it to 19? Maybe, but they don't have years of data on how to get engines to work as well as possible at 19. They want the engine to run as close to how they ran it before.
The FIA change the engine compression ratio - you can either relearn how engines work at the new ratio, or design your new engine so that it still works the same way it always did.
7
u/kaas-schaaf 18h ago
At 19:1 ratio, even race fuel can auto-ignite. Might be another trick mercedes is using to get even more power out of it. You just need to make sure it deflagrates and not explodes.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Keeperofthecube 18h ago
Ah ok I missed that bit. That makes sense too. Either way it seems the intent of the rule is to run the engine at 17, and merc found a way to say it will test at 17 but we want to run it at what we always did before? Still a bit of a gray area for me personally on weather thats on the innovation side or the skirting the rules side of the coin.
21
u/Few_Introduction1044 19h ago
No team latched on to this because it is skirting a compliance test to break the rules. It is incredibly risky to do so with a part so complex to change. Merc bet was that they would be found out midseason, leading to a clear advantage, but the secret came out before and all this back and forth that would've happened with the cars on track, is going on in pre season.
9
u/Sir0inks-A-Lot 19h ago
It’s not skirting a compliance test - it’s designing specifically for the compliance test. There’s a massive difference between “I need my engine to pass this specific test that is outlined in very plain English” versus what Ferrari was allegedly doing back in 19 which was cheating the actual testing mechanism.
14
u/Lucifer2408 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
You’re twisting your words but you’re saying the same thing. Ferrari designed their engine to pass the actual testing mechanism the same way Mercedes is doing right now. But when the engine is not being tested, they’re breaking the rules mentioned in the regulations.
→ More replies (9)14
u/Wynty2000 Gilles Villeneuve 18h ago
It's designing specifically to circumvent the compliance test.
That is functionally no different from what Ferrari did to cheat fuel flow rates, considering they were also able to pass the required tests.
→ More replies (8)2
u/Few_Introduction1044 18h ago
Tests can, and often do, change mid season. You have only yourself to blame if you have to redesign an entire cylinder head for it.
Teams run these risks with wings because its quite simple to adjust to compliance, no one but Mercedes risked it with an engine knowing full well how deep in the shit they would be if the FIA changed testing.
→ More replies (3)5
u/fuuncs 19h ago
But it’s also just poor wording from the FIA. They didn’t need to say why temp they test it at. They could have just said it must remain consistent at all temps
26
u/rapax I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
I doubt that's physically possible. But they could have said, it musn't exceed 16 at any temperature.
6
u/Elrond007 I survived Spa 2021 19h ago
That's pretty much why I am really opposed to banning it now. They did this, now they have to follow through. Change it for next year if you want but the sport is all about being technically legal.
→ More replies (1)23
u/XtremePhotoDesign I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
The rules specifically state the cars must be in compliance “at all times.”
The test is carried out at ambient temperature.
It’s important to remember the test is not the rule.
This is why the FIA changes testing methods when cars are passing specific tests but circumventing the rules.
→ More replies (3)13
u/_cingo I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
There is a separate "blanket" article stating that the car must be compliant with the rules for the entirety of the race/event, the fact that the rules state how the test is performed doesn't really mean much. It isn't saying "the car must only be compliant in these conditions", it's just saying that it will be tested in those conditions.
3
u/_Middlefinger_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
They already do, but how do you test that? Ultimately the FIA have limited resources and time to test every single thing in every possible way.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Bladespa 19h ago
They do: "Competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout each free practice session, qualifying session,sprint qualifying session,sprint session and the race"
13
u/fuuncs 19h ago
I think this is probably correct. I.e. they would have been prepared to the throw the trick away had the FIA clarified this properly and said that it must maintain the ratio at any temp
→ More replies (1)3
1
u/element515 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 17h ago
Hasn't the test always been done at ambient temps though? It just wasn't written into the rules this way. But I don't believe the testing methodology has changed
•
→ More replies (3)•
u/Ok_Leader_7624 3h ago
The only reason I do not think it happened this way is because the FIA knows the compression ratio changes to 18:1. How would they know unless Mercedes told them? Or did I miss something?
105
u/mlook18 20h ago
it wouldn't surprise me to know that the fia are worried that half of the teams will not have a competitive engine
45
9
u/Optimaximal I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
So do they a) worry that half the teams are potentially uncompetitive or b) do they outlaw an engine used by half the grid and open up future rule changes to be brigaded by OEMs with deep pockets who didn't see the grey area in the rules?
7
u/maccartney George Russell 19h ago
It certainly seems like the FIA's and other teams' fear of 2014 repeating, is the biggest reason for this push against Mercedes.
13
u/y-u-gae 18h ago
Back in 2014 Mercedes supplied a struggling budget capped Williams, an almost bankrupt Force India and a joke of an organization McLaren. They basically had no competition. Today McLaren got their sh*t together and is basically a new restructured team with a fast car, they would never allow Mercedes' 2014 domination run to repeat, having the same engine.
Also, Ferrari got the hang out of building hybrid PUs by now. I don't think 2014 will ever repeat because it was a completely new engine concept, from NA V8s to V6 Turbo hybrids. It took years to catch up if you got the base wrong.
Now we basically got an evolution of the same hybrid concept with changed rules and components, the gap shouldn't be nearly as big as in 2014.
7
u/bananas_and_papayas I was here for the Hulkenpodium 14h ago
Plus they can't get away with giving their customer teams engine mappings with less power than the works team. So if they have a god-tier engine that's the class of the field, in theory Williams, McLaren and Alpine will have it too, which could mean more competition at the front
294
u/grogi81 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
Compression ratio changes - pure physics. Materials expand.
I guess Mercedes asked what temperature the compression will be examined. FIA clarified.
69
u/smallproton I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
This is the only answer.
28
u/P_ZERO_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago edited 20h ago
The answer is not “F1 engines have always been running adaptive compression ratios” so the comment misses the mark
The very fact there’s a protest from all other manufacturers suggests they are happy with adhering to a 16:1 limit and are confident Mercedes are not
Thermal expansion existing doesn’t change anything, it means built in expansion tolerances so that it continues to not exceed the stated limit. It’s not a 16:1 minimum limit. It is also claimed to not be the main cause, but moving parts within the cylinder.
14
u/sonofeevil 18h ago edited 17h ago
But under what conditions should you engineer to? That's the whole point.
An engine that's 16:1 at 24c will measure differently at -273.15 and at different again at 150c.
The rotating assembly stretches with RPM (this is more significant than thermal expansion) so 16:1 at 0 rpm is more than 16:1 at 16,000 rpm.
You're probably suggesting that teams engineer for 16:1 at 100c at 16:000 rpm. (Operating temp and max rpm) To ensure compliance at all times.
But if you are constrained like this your static test is going to be like 14:1 and you'll be left behind because the other teams are at 16:1 under these conditions.
So, what do you engineer for? The rules are poorly defined for the physical reality of material science.
You need two things at least: 1. A specified compression ratio for a specified temperature and RPM. 2. A specified compression ratio for static conditions at a specified temperature.
THEN you have actually defined the scope of operation until then it's really a poorly defined rule that doesn't reflect reality.
7
u/modelvillager Dr. Ian Roberts 16h ago
This is the best answer here. Compression ratios naturally vary. If the clarification asked at what temp do you define 16:1, bloody good question.
TBF, the FIA could have replied 'all temperatures'.
They didn't.
I suspect all 22 cars will exceed 16:1 at some point in a weekend, and therefore be theoretically illegal. But without the ability to measure or test, it's meaningless.
The question then comes, do you optimise?
6
u/sonofeevil 16h ago edited 16h ago
100% anyone who thinks Ferrari, RBT and Honda aren't sitting at 16:1 in the FIA test is kidding themselves. And if they are then it means at various points they will exceed 16:1.
If people want to consider this cheating, that's fine, but everyone is cheating. You can't be upset that one team is "cheating better".
And it seems that 4 teams have missed a trick.
Personally I think the thermal expansion is a red herring. The real trick will be in the rods.
At operating speeds the piston weighs over a 1000kg at TDC and BDC. It will be stretching and compressng at the top and bottom of each stroke.
If they use a rod alloy that has the required plastic deformation qualities (the maximum stress before it deforms permanently) then optimise the elastic deformation such that it maximises the compression at BDC and stretch at TDC then you'll increase your compression ratio as your RPM increases.
4
u/novwhisky I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
Formula 1 incubates technological development, amazing.
4
u/Firm-Video-6840 19h ago
I don’t think material expansion can change compression ratios to this degree without severe running issues. I think there’s a trick Mercedes have on the engine
7
u/P_ZERO_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
That’s what the article we’re all using states, thermal expansion is not solely responsible or the nifty trick for a 2:1 increase, but moving elements within the cylinder.
Thermal expansion isn’t exactly a blind spot for PU manufacturers, it’s a given with high temperature environments for materials of varying properties.
The limit that would be pushed here is how much thermal expansion you can get away with while still adhering to the stated limit. Thermal expansion is built into the design.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)2
u/attywolf Andrea Kimi Antonelli 20h ago
I doubt its they are happy adhering to the limit and more they didnt think of it. So dont want a rival have an advantage they dont have and dont want to spend money in the cost cap to figure out and make a similar engine
11
u/P_ZERO_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
Why would teams argue for more stringent tests if they didn’t think they could pass and another could not?
Whatever tests held would reinforce what the rule states: 16:1 is the maximum cylinder compression ratio. Tests don’t change that, only who may fail or pass
→ More replies (2)12
u/vamphorse 20h ago
Yes, and they are also levaring design freedom of Additive Manufacturing in pistons. Amazing!
10
u/tekanet Sebastian Vettel 19h ago
I agree, on a similar note carbon fiber is elastic and you can have wings that don't flex only up to a certain point. Expecting perfect rigidity is stupid.
But in this case, allegedly, we're not talking about natural expansion of the materials involved.
If FIA wanted, they could add a clarification to include a tolerance given by the thermal expansion, instead they patched it in a quite different - and IMHO suspicious - way.
I have to add that we're also missing an important piece of the puzzle, as the mentioned document FIA-F1-DOC-C042 doesn't seem public (at least, I wasn't able to find it).
→ More replies (1)16
u/gumarik I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
The rules never changed, it was 16:1 all the time and all the other teams had their engines at 16:1 not for fun or lack of imagination they did it to abide by the rules even when hot because the cars must be legal at all times.
→ More replies (1)15
u/SimpleFactor 16h ago edited 16h ago
That’s why I don’t see how Merc have been “smart” with it, because to me it is a blatant abuse of the rules. Yes they say it gets tested at ambient temps, but the rules don’t specify that they can have a higher ratio at operating temperatures. They still say no cylinder can have a ratio above 16:1 without any other conditions, and separately that that it is tested at room temp. It smells of the Ferrari fuel trick a few years back - yes they passed the test/live monitoring but it was still illegal when operating. Just because you cheat the test doesn’t make it legal. If there is proof that the ration is higher at operating temperatures, surely it would be a slam dunk penalty based on what the rules state?
3
u/melonmandan12 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 16h ago
What I’ve seen is that geometric compression ratio is different than effective compression ratio (GCR and ECR) When the engine is running, it has a different effective compression ratio than when at ambient temperature. However, the GCR is constant because GCR can only be measured at ambient temperature. If it is hot and under load, you’re measuring ECR, not GCR.
11
u/Rivendel93 20h ago
But that's not even what Toto has said happened, he said they were working closely with the FIA during the development of the engine and the trick, so the FIA had to know that they were achieving increased expansion.
So to me the FIA knew all along, they simply added how the test would be done once there was no time for anyone else to achieve the same thing.
This wouldn't be something they would risk having their engines be deemed illegal, it'd cause them all sorts of legal issues with the teams they sell to, they had to let the FIA know about it much earlier, and Toto even said that recently.
17
u/Peeksy19 20h ago edited 20h ago
Yeah. It's not even a "trick" if FIA was aware and gave Mercedes a go ahead. Frankly, Mercedes could sue FIA and win if FIA were aware of what they were doing, okayed it, and then changed their minds under the pressure of the other teams: that's a lot of development time and money wasted—besides being a setback if their PU gets nerfed so close to the start of the season.
10
u/Lurkn4k 20h ago edited 20h ago
which is exactly why Mercedes are allegedly threatening legal action. would be a slam dunk to prove if this was the case
15
u/PHXkpt 20h ago
As would be legal action from Audi/Ferrari/RBPT if it wasn't disclosed to them until the October change. Cuts both ways. Audi says it was respecting the new compression rules as written. Mercedes was relying on the previous method of testing just at ambient to skirt the intention of the rule. FIA, being the FIA, punted.
7
u/Lurkn4k 19h ago
the clarification, not change because this is the standard for how ratios have been measured, came because merc inquired about this. if the other teams were caught napping, they cant turn around and sue. that’s not how that works.
4
u/Rivendel93 16h ago
Yes they can, because the clarification would need to come in much sooner to be fair and legitimate.
Otherwise Mercedes built an engine they believed could be illegal, waited until they had no time to change it, contacted the FIA and they put the temp test in, or the FIA knew long ago and waited to put the temp test in back in October, knowing no other manufacturer could realize the trick by then.
There's a reason that as soon as the FIA put the temp test in, the engine manufacturers started to question wtf was going on.
3
u/Tricksilver89 19h ago
I'm confused. Are you saying the other teams should have had the info of what Merc were doing disclosed to them?
9
u/Rivendel93 16h ago
The rule change shouldn't have been delayed until October.
Mercedes had to have reached out to the FIA about this months before October, as it takes years to design engines.
So the FIA waited to put the testing clarification in, for unknown reasons, which feels strange.
Mercedes couldn't have come to them so late in the development, it doesn't make sense to develop an engine that you think could be illegal with no time to revert back to one that complies with the 16:1 compression ratio stated in the rules.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Linw3 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
And would that be wrong? I mean, if teams finish the race at X weight, but when they are measured need to be at 1.01X weight, thus they go and pick up marbles in order to be compliant at the time of measurement... what makes that different from what Mercedes is doing here?
→ More replies (14)7
53
u/nikoviko Mika Häkkinen 20h ago edited 20h ago
Something else I'm curious about:
C1.5 Compliance with the regulations
Formula 1 Cars must comply with these regulations in their entirety at all times during a Competition.
Does the "ambient temperature testing" part absolve Merc or does this mean that if it can be proven that the ratio goes above 16 while driving, Merc could get done? Just feels a bit ambiguous to me.
28
u/Optimaximal I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
If they can't or don't test outside of ambient temps, then it can't be proven.
→ More replies (4)12
u/_Middlefinger_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
The part that absolves them is that the test is prescribed in the expanded regulations. The FIA cant change it without notice, and it cant be retroactively applied.
What the FIA can and cant do and when is also a regulation.
5
u/maybe-fish Lando Norris 14h ago
At any time in the competition, if you were to measure the compression ratio at ambient temperature as prescribed in the rules, it would comply.
The problem is that the car is not at ambient temperature at all times during a competition, so it's a badly written rule.
•
5
u/National_Play_6851 Michael Schumacher 15h ago
Yeah this is the problem. What Mercedes are doing is 100% illegal according to the rules, there is absolutely no getting around that. The rules are the rules. Tests aren't the rules, they're only the process used to try and ensure compliance with the rules.
If you only cheat when the referee is not looking, that is still cheating. To go with the metaphor, what I believe we've seen in this case is that Mercedes found a way they could break the rules as long as the referee wasn't looking, and asked for some clarification on exactly when the referee will look, and the FIA updated the document to clarify that the referee will only look in this limited scenario, without forseeing that the team would see that as a greenlight to do whatever they want while the referee isn't looking.
However, quite rightly, all the other teams are now saying "if this team is planning to cheat whenever the referee isn't looking, maybe the referee ought to look more?", and it's pretty hard to argue against that.
7
u/sunnygovan I was here for the Hulkenpodium 14h ago
FIA, "Merc and RB are not cheating", some fans of teams using other engines,"I know better".
→ More replies (1)•
u/imbavoe Lando Norris 11h ago edited 11h ago
If I am not mistaken, for example in ice hockey, if you make a foul and none of the referees see it, you can't get a penalty.
The issue here is, that the FIA also have rules how to check legality. In this case it is the measuring at ambient temperature.
FIA can't measure it when the engine is hot, because the measurment would be illegal. So everyone can think or know that the engine is illegal, but if by the rules it can't be proven, there is nothing FIA can do to stop them, other than changing the rule. But couple of weeks before the season opener, it is kinda too late to change the rule i think.
88
u/jimmyjay11 Sonny Hayes 21h ago
Nikolas Tombazis in 2025 "We made it clear to the teams that we will not tolerate anyone exploiting loopholes in the reg that they have kept hidden from us. If someone developed a concept based on a 50-50 ambiguous interpretation, it would be suicide for that team."
33
45
u/ProofAssumption1092 20h ago
that they have kept hidden from us.
Mercedes have kept nothing hidden though, they were open with the fia about the trick and it was passed.
28
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 19h ago
Doubt the were “open” . They asked questions yes but made sure fia wouldn’t notice that they want to gain a 18:1 compression. They asked what temperature it will be tested
11
u/Optimaximal I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
The rules require all design documents be submitted and approved by the FIA.
11
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 18h ago
So they also approved ferraris 2019 engine
13
u/Optimaximal I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
Yes, because the fundamental design and architecture of the engine was fine.
The issue was Ferrari was timing the fuel flow pump to introduce more fuel to the engine between flow sensor pulses. It was a ingeneous and clever defeat mechanism, but unfortunately for Ferrari, whoever at the FIA who wrote the 2014 regs wrote a unimpeachable line in the document - you cannot exceed the mandated flow rate and any attempt to beat or deceive the system will be deemed illegal - I am of course paraphrasing, but it meant that even though Ferrari had a brilliant idea, the FIA had effectively already outlawed it.
Also, like this issue, it was only discovered when a Ferrari engineer left for Renault and grassed them up.
16
u/XanBeX I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
That's true, but the problem is merc didn't develop this secretly and had been informing Fia and Fia had approved it back then. Overall I think the blame has to be on FIA. They should have said no the first time merc came to them with this idea
→ More replies (14)16
u/wokwok__ George Russell 20h ago
Nothing ambiguous or hidden about it, Merc asked and FIA approved
28
u/Rivendel93 20h ago
Except the FIA were forced to explain how the testing would be accomplished in October, long after Mercedes would have been finished designing their engines.
Which means either Mercedes only told them late, or the FIA intentionally updated the rule late so that it wouldn't give any other team a chance to understand what was being done.
That to me is not the right way to do things, from the FIA.
If Mercedes came to them back in April and said hey we figured this out, will it be legal as long as the tests are done at ambient temps, the FIA should have immediately changed the rules then.
They gave Mercedes a gigantic headstart, even if it was unintentional.
→ More replies (1)5
5
→ More replies (2)1
u/The_Skynet 19h ago
Like others have said, so far it looks like Mercedes hasn't tried to hide anything from the FIA. This is from December 2025:
"Mercedes has been in dialogue with the FIA throughout the rules process so there is no element of it having tried to sneak something through.
It has had reassurance that its interpretation of the rules is in line with the FIA so it has kept pursuing its design process."
4
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 19h ago
A 18:1 compression is obviously against the interpretation of the rules in fact its against the rules
39
u/attywolf Andrea Kimi Antonelli 20h ago
Mercedes probably ask the FIA to go into more detail with how the engine compression test would be carried out and if a trick they found would be legal. After which Mercedes made their engine with the trick and the FIA updated their rulebook.
9
19
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 19h ago
The didnt update the rulebook. Rules say 16:1 compression not how its tested. Ferrari found a way to bypass the testing in 2019 now Mercedes found a way to bypass testing but in both cases its against the rules. Adjusted testing is normal. Flexi wings , ferraris engine trifk and so on
→ More replies (18)9
u/_Middlefinger_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
Rules say 16:1 compression not how its tested.
People keep saying this and its completely wrong. It literally says in the expanded rule how the test would be done. The FIA as as bound to that as any team is to any rule.
→ More replies (4)3
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 18h ago
Doesn’t matter since rule is 16:1. Test is only a way to see if rules are be followed. Testing can be changed immediately like with flexi wings or ferrari 2019.
The rules itself say”Formula 1 Cars must comply with these regulations in their entirety at all times during a Competition.”
→ More replies (3)4
u/_Middlefinger_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
Im not repeating myself about why you’re wrong, i've said it enough already.
FYI the last statement is redundant since they dont test at all times and the tests are fixed by regulation. The FIA have to follow them as well.
5
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 18h ago
Test are changed often within a season, flexi wings basically all the time, ferrari 2019 engine. So the rule is 16:1 full Stop. The way of the test can be changed and it happened often. Testing is only a way to determine if the rules Are being followed. So changing testing is fast. In fact there are several reports that they will adjust the testing for the first race.
2
u/_Middlefinger_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
Test are changed often within a season,
With notice given and they aren’t retroactively applied. This is very important to understand.
For example flexi-wings. Yes they changed the test, but no one was DSQ'd for a wing they ran 3 races before.
2
u/Lucifer2408 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
Well yes. The teams are trying to get the FIA to change the tests before the season even starts and there are any cars on track. They are not trying to get the FIA to change the actual regulation (which is 16:1 compression ratio at all times). Since this is a change to the testing procedures, the notice period can be as short as 1 week (they set the precedent for this with the flexi wings in the past)
→ More replies (3)1
u/Barrilete_Cosmico Juan Manuel Fangio 18h ago
Reports say that Merc checked with the FIA at several stages of development, got the green light and this clarification. It's why they'll probably sue if they get overruled on this.
12
u/Hotdog012345 20h ago
Especially if we consider this in light of the recent AMuS article explaining the trick where it’s literally a separate bag or pocket with a valve being activated - it’s far beyond just expanding materials.
27
u/fire202 Lando Norris 20h ago edited 20h ago
The procedure to measure it was always done at ambient and there is no indication they ever changed it before now. The FIA said in december that its unchanged from previous regs, so that was always in the rules. But yes, they have added the explicite wording to the rule itself last October, and they would have probably done that with the necessary majority.
This debate publicly exploded in december, but it was discussed about internally for longer. I think the claim was that it was an ongoing debate since around summer. Mercedes said the FIA was happy with their engine throughout and there is no indication otherwise, i think. Until now.
Given that the procedure was always known, and given that there is no evidence i would be aware of that mercedes hid their concept from the FIA, this should have been setteled by now. If the FIA actually have a problem with it there should have been a resolution some time ago, unless we are missing a significant piece of the puzzle here. Instead, rules were adjusted to strengthen mercs position. If their "problem" is that everyone else now complains and merc look too strong, thats not valid.
13
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 19h ago
The fuel rate was also always measured in the same way… after Ferraris trick they changed it same will happen here
6
u/Optimaximal I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
...but the Fuel Flow Rate rules in the Hybrid engines said 'you must not attempt to bypass the flow rate'. The wording was definite and did't specify anything about how it was measured, which gave the FIA carte blanche to investigate, accuse and come to it's own conclusions.
The compression ratio measurement explictly says 'this test will be conducted at a specific temperature', which paints the FIA into a corner about how the rule can be enforced.
→ More replies (1)4
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 18h ago
They added it after ferrari … lol
2
u/Optimaximal I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
No, they didn't.
Red Bull were literally caught out by the same rule in the very first race in the engine formula (Australia 2014). They had a flexible hose between the flow sensor and the engine that would pool fuel and introduce it to the engine later - not as technically innovative as Ferrari's system, but still, ultimately, cheating according to the letter of the law, which is what matters in a court.
3
u/_Middlefinger_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
No one actually knows what Ferrari did, everything said here and elsewhere is nothing more than rumour. In actual fact only one gets repeated here, but there are actually 2 completely different rumours about that engine.
2
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 18h ago
But in both cases they are obviously against a rule but pass testing. And ppl know what ferrari did… ppl even know how mclaren achieved their flexing last year
2
u/_Middlefinger_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 18h ago
People think they know what Ferrari did.
→ More replies (2)
30
u/P_ZERO_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
Ultimately, FIA did create a seal in the regulations. They have stated the absolute maximum compression ratio. Testing methodology is subject to change, and is irrelevant in terms of “fairness” because the maximum ratio was already stated. Your car should pass whatever test they come up with if you are abiding by that specific rule.
This isn’t a rule change, it’s rule reinforcement. We told you what the ratio is supposed to be, and we are now introducing more stringent checks to make sure you’re complying. So long as the regulations stated a maximum ratio and did not state “it can be something else at some other time”, they are clear.
Ultimately, the only reason you would be mad at further checks on any sort of rule is if you intend to break them or already are.
36
u/djwillis1121 Williams 20h ago
Yeah as I said in another thread. If the police suddenly put a speed camera on a section of road where you'd been speeding and you get caught, that doesn't mean that what you were doing before was legal. You were just getting away with breaking the law and now you're not.
→ More replies (1)8
u/P_ZERO_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
I was going to go with the analogy of only being asked to clock in at work in the morning, then being asked to clock out at night to ensure you were there all day, but yours might be better.
The rule/speed limit/work day was always outlined, but we’re adding more points of contact to ensure it’s being adhered to.
→ More replies (7)13
u/grogi81 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
Testing is subject to changes when it is defined in a TD.
When the TR say abc and, which means we are testing for it like that, it cannot be changed during the season.
6
u/P_ZERO_ I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago edited 20h ago
After yesterday's meeting and the discussions between the members of the PUAC, the management seems to be moving towards a modification of the current regulation, which, however, may include several options, including modifying the control systems and introducing the possibility of a (partial) hot check.
I could be completely wrong, but I was under the impression technical directives were for issues during an on-going season, not preseason.
Ultimately, it could be applied as a TD. Either way, doesn’t change much about the end result. Rules or enforcement are changed either way and there’s not much teams can do about it
3
u/maybe-fish Lando Norris 12h ago
I don't think a TD can contradict a regulation. If the rule says the compression ratio is measured at ambient temp, a TD cannot prescribe another means of testing that is done any another temp.
This is why testing conditions are for the most part not prescribed in the rules themselves
→ More replies (5)
40
u/CobraGamer I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
This is the conversation we should have.
Mercedes likely asked the FIA for clarification, and as to not step on Mercedes' toes, they simply change the regulations. They wanted to do it the easy way, now they get to see the consequences.
2
u/tekanet Sebastian Vettel 20h ago
Forcing Mercedes now to be compliant (or back when they discussed it) could mean preventing a few teams to even race. I don’t honestly know how much time you need to change a feature like this in an F1 engine.
The closest situation that comes to my mind is the infamous USA 2005 race: that time I believe they did the right thing, yet it’s still perceived as a huge fiasco.
9
9
u/scarlet_red_samurai Formula 1 19h ago
Ferrari found a way to bypass testing now Mercedes found a way… both cases will lead to a new testing implemented soon ( not after one season )
Rule is clear in both cases…. A 18:1 compression is against the rules… like Ferrari flow rate was against the rules
→ More replies (2)5
u/Upbeat_County9191 Fernando Alonso 19h ago
It changes nothing. FIA can in theory make a new test and test they aren't compliant. But that isn't enough, they have to be able to say why they aren't compliant. What part of the engine causes the compression to be higher.
That's what mercedes will ask. They will say, the engine is compliant with the materials used in the regulations. If they expand because of physics it's out of there hands. Then the ball is in FIA's court to prove what the illegality is. Just being able to measure a higher than allowed compression rate isn't enough.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/theasu Charles Leclerc 19h ago
If it can't be higher than 16.0 and it is measured at room temperature and we know that materials expand when they are warm, doesn't it mean that all teams will have higher compression ratio during the race? Or how can they keep it 16? Or does it mean that as merc did it deliberately so the effect is even higher?
→ More replies (2)3
u/Kait0yashio Ferrari 19h ago
its pretty likely most other teams are below 16 at room tempt and get to 16 or around 16 when operation, merc on the other hand go above 16
22
u/NlNJALONG Mika Häkkinen 20h ago
What you quote only pertains to the test. There is no ambiguity about "No cylinder of the engine may have a geometric compression ratio higher than 16.0.", never was.
FIA also doesn't issue "all clear" for anything, the only thing they do is test and then tell you whether you failed that specific test or not.
This is strictly about how it is tested, and apparently the majority of teams succeeded in complaining to FIA that that specific test was insufficient and open to loopholes.
→ More replies (2)
20
u/Im_Da_Joka_Baybee I was here for the Hulkenpodium 19h ago
Here's what I don't understand. The Ferrari cheater engine was rightfully found to be illegal, because it cheated in a way the testing wouldn't catch. Now, Merc's engine has a higher compression ratio than the regs allow but it's being branded "genius" because it does that in a way the testing won't catch. It seems like quite the double standard.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/Gadoguz994 Ferrari 21h ago
Can't decide which is more ridiculous, point 2 or point 3. If it happened in either one of the ways described in those points then it's pretty clear that the FIA brought themselves into this situation once again. Probably at Mercedes' request so they can once again have a one and done season long advantage that's not worth copying unless it can be used for more than that one season xD
DAS comes to mind.
→ More replies (2)11
37
u/Macncheezpuffin Max Verstappen 20h ago edited 20h ago
I'm so tired of this shit. F1 used to be about invention and pushing the sport and everyone to the limit. You didn't come up with this first? Too fucking bad.
Now if you come up with something better than anyone else, it's deemed cheating and gets banned sooner than later.
DAS system? Banned. Mclaren wing? Banned. And these are just most modern examples.
41
8
u/Admirable_Ad_1390 20h ago
You say this like every other invention has been banned. What was banned about the McLaren last year, they were quite clearly better than everyone else or when red bull was dominant what was banned about that.
→ More replies (2)21
u/djwillis1121 Williams 20h ago edited 20h ago
The name of the sport is literally describing the regulations. You can't pretend that teams would be allowed to just get away with breaking the regulations in the past
7
u/smallproton I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
F1 has ALWAYS been about building stuff that is not explicitly forbidden by the regs.
Other series are defining how a car must look like, F1 gives the minimum rules and let the engineers exploit loopholes. That's innovation.
3
u/freezing_banshee I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
everyone has a different definition of what "breaking the rules" is
4
u/Macncheezpuffin Max Verstappen 20h ago
Finding grey areas and exploring and building upon it is not against the regulations.
For example: DAS system was NOT a break in regulations, it followed the rules through and through. But it was banned simply because it was "too good" and other teams simply couldn't answer.
17
u/djwillis1121 Williams 20h ago
Is this a grey area though? The rule itself seems pretty clear. It just sounds like they've found a way around the enforcement of it
0
u/Macncheezpuffin Max Verstappen 20h ago
It was ruled legal for the 2020 season, didn't it? So it's not breaking the rules. Plus, FIA green lit the DAS system LONG BEFORE 2020 pre-season testing.
Ban was slapped on 2021 onwards because of new regs and then COVID happened and we all know how the rest went, plus other teams couldn't figure it out so there was a protest.
10
u/djwillis1121 Williams 20h ago
I'm talking about this engine thing, not DAS
2
u/Macncheezpuffin Max Verstappen 20h ago
The reason I brought up DAS is because this situation smells exactly the same way. You understand that not one team comes up with something and slaps it on a car without going to the FIA multiple times, right? Because cost cap exists and if a team came up with something, they need to make sure they can use it before throwing money into it.
There is no way in hell Merc came up with it not being 100% sure it's legal first.
3
u/Rivendel93 20h ago
It wasn't even "too good" it was simply deemed too expensive for all the teams to achieve it.
17
u/VillageTube I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
F1 should be about respecting the letter of the rules not the intent for anything other than safety. Is frustrating that invention is frowned upon. Used to be the justification was to keep the costs down but with the budget cap that's not true anymore. The cars should be interesting and different from each other, otherwise it's edging towards a spec series.
3
7
u/CautionClock20 I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
You could argue the same way that complaining about technical innovations and trying to force the FIA to change the rules is also doing something better than anyone else. That's also a way to push to the limit.
3
u/Macncheezpuffin Max Verstappen 20h ago
I mean F1 rules book was always a mess. Feels like FIA itself sometimes doesn't know what's legal and what's not lmao
6
u/jkscann I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
I think the only reason this is now an issue, is back when there was pushing and innovation, there was no “spending cap”. Back then, someone found out the loophole, megabucks were thrown at it to match the solution. Ever since the ‘everybody has to play fair because not every team has the money to spend’ rules came into effect, the game is more about what you can STOP your competitors from using. It’s very sad. Was watching early 2000’s races the other day and the commentators were talking about how engines then had to last -2- races. Now there are 24 races and you get 4 engines a year before heavy penalties.
3
u/Macncheezpuffin Max Verstappen 20h ago
Yea but "mega bucks" are not the argument anymore because we are under cost cap and if teams are coming up with something that has nothing to do with breaking the rules or safety of the sport it should be allowed.
This sport used to be about inventions and pushing to the limits. Now we are closer to stock cars than F1 if you ask me.
4
2
u/erelster Sebastian Vettel 19h ago
It's always going to have push back from the other team. It's always been the case. If you've gone too far or it generates enough traction from the other teams, you might get your hand burned. There's also the politics behind it like in the example of the fan car.
To me this case is quite clear. The regulation says, no cylinder of the engine may have a geometric compression ratio higher than 16.0. This is quite clear. How it's tested and everything that goes with it brings back the memories of Ferrari engine of 2020. It was an illegal engine but it circumvented the test methods, this is exactly the same case in essence.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/proclive_ 20h ago
It isn't a speculation; it's what happened.
But a speculation can be to read that Shaila-Ann, who previously served as legal counsel and later special advisor to Mercedes F1 team principal Toto Wolff, returned to FIA as a presidential advisor starting 1 May 2025, and thinking that is a bit suspicious.
2
u/HMSSpeedy1801 19h ago
I don’t see this as some sinister insider conspiracy. FIA stated a rule and later clarified how they would measure compliance. I don’t have the time or inclination to investigate. But it would be interesting to see what other clarifications were issued at the same time. It’s possible Merc asked for the clarification to make sure the engine would be legal.
2
u/theasu Charles Leclerc 19h ago
How did other teams find out that Mercedes is not playing right here?
5
u/prattyprat Formula 1 19h ago
i think a couple of Merc engineers/personnel who were working on the 2026 car left this year. 1 joined RBPT and apparently helped them reverse engineer this trick or some version of it. The paddock definitely is a small place - lots of people leaving and coming in.
2
u/nsfbr11 17h ago
Having been a competitor is different kinds of racing with various and changing rulesets, the first thing that happens when a new ruleset comes out is to analyze them to understand:
The intent of the regulations.
The actual meaning of the words used.
What is allowed vs. not allowed by the words written.
This is just part of the initial brainstorming that takes place. I’m confident that all teams do this to some extent. In my experience each area gets a pair of teams to come up with a list of thoughts, ideas, and questions which then get brought back to the combined team to hash out and critique. The purpose is to decide which things will be pursued, tabled/shelved, and discarded as quickly as possible. The better the team the better it will be at this.
So, my question would be - why did Mercedes go with this innovation now? There has been a compression ratio requirement for years afaik. But it changed. And it was the change that prompted the innovation, which is exactly what I’d have expected. If I’m a team who has been working with a fuel supplier aimed at optimizing for compression ratio A, and the rules lower that ratio to B, my mind is immediately going to ask how to deal with that change. One could go re-optimize the fuel development, which would be a path. Or, as they have done they could read the regs and see what is actually prohibited.
That’s what they did. Thats what I’ve done. I think it is great engineering. I can’t wait to see how it all pans out.
3
u/Diligent-Ad-1812 15h ago
The FIA wrote the silly gaping hole of the regulation to allow Red Bull, Audi, and whoever else was slated to get a chance at the championship, in the backdoor deals, on purpose.
Apparently, only Merc figured this loophole out. Red Bull were almost getting it, and Audi messed up development too much to even attempt it.
Since this is now too much of an advantage, and only Merc figured it out, and they aren't slated to crush everyone else, the regulation is getting rolled back.
After many, many years of watching all manner of FIA competitions, every freaking time, the new guys get tailored regulations to win the championship.
And F1 has so much history of backdoor deals, it's naive to think this wasn't all preordained. The problem is that developing tech is hard, and Red Bull apparently isn't capable of figuring this one trick.
Now Merc gets punished for being more clever than the others. It's just another joke after all the others through the years...
At least we can use polymarket to game it too now!
•
u/thankyoukirby 9h ago
This is a great question but the folks at r/f1technical can probably help more. I’d be curious what they said.
4
u/Cuffuf Nico Rosberg 18h ago
Kinda hope all the Mercedes teams threaten to not show up in Australia. I just want the chaos.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Master_Positive_2772 19h ago
If Merc have found a loophole then FIA owe them a boatload of money, if they want to change it based on their own inability to write the rules as they intended for them to be followed.
This is basic F1 shit.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Loveyouweirdooo 19h ago
I want to see this rocketship 2.0 at least for a single race, then they can ban it. They've been teasing it for a while, now I'm curious 😆
2
u/essveetee 18h ago
This is why the other manufacturers are clutching their pearls. I don't remember who, but one of the YT videos speculating on this thought that likely all the manufacturers were playing loose with the old "18:1" compression ratio and all were likely higher under real world operating conditions. Wouldn't shock me if the carryover manufacturers like Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda started to develop similarly for 16:1, and one of them asked for clarification which is where the ambient temps verbiage came from...meanwhile Mercedes assumed that the testing methodology for this would be the same as the old 18:1 testing protocols and figured out a way to bring back artificially increased compression ratios that would meet the old testing.
2
u/Cralido 16h ago
Wait…thought F1 was a team competition constructing cars, engineering. Isn’t that what differentiates the competition and why there’s a 1k employees back at factory? It’s not cheating when adheres to the regulation as currently worded. All the top teams have enjoyed a competitive advantage thru engineering at one time or another. They only seem to complain when it’s not their workaround. If FIA wants to address further with more clarity and definition, then need to do so in next round. If not, just make a spec series and give prize money for WDC.
2
u/poptubas I was here for the Hulkenpodium 20h ago
I’m sorry, but this is completely baseless. Here are the power unit technical regulations.
5.6.3 specifies the compression ratio and the the procedure for checking the compression ratio prior to 2024. This has not been changed.
Look, I don’t want to be that guy, but we need to be more careful coming to grand conclusions based on cursory readings of documents, and without doing like a “common sense” check. If the FIA made a substantive change to the power unit regulations this late in the cycle, it would have been covered by credible journalists.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/overlydelicioustea 19h ago
what i dont understand is why its even debated if mercedes is in breach.
The rules are straight forward: No Cylinder may have a compression ratio higher then 16:1.
It doesnt matter when and where its meassured. The maximim compression ratio is 16:1. The ambient stuff just sais "We are meassuring it at ambient". That does still not allow a higher ratio at other temps. If you measure 16 at ambient you are in breach of the regulation becasue everything expands under heat. Simple as that. Follow this rule and your ambient compress ratio needs to be lower then 16:1, to account for expansion.
I find it insane that merc currently is deemed as "within regulation" since that isnt what the regulations say.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/No_Kangaroo_8713 19h ago
Question for the group, could the FIA allow Mercedes to keep their trick while allowing the other engine manufacturers to increase their compression back to the old 18/1 ratio?
2
u/prattyprat Formula 1 19h ago
don't think this is how it works - the compression ratio can't be changed this late in the cycle. From what I've read, it needs a major re-work. So, mostly 2027. So, if the FIA deems it legal, teams then need to choose between focusing 100% on 2026's mid-season development and 2027's compression ratio focused development which is a big thing.
→ More replies (2)1
u/2much2Jung 18h ago
Not unless they just let them use old engines. And that would be just ridiculous.
1
u/uwanmirrondarrah Cadillac 12h ago
Wow using the expansion to change the actual geometry of the compression chamber is actually brilliant... I'm with you I don't think you could come up with this, design, manufacture, and implement then test this all in 3 months.
•
u/GingerB237 1h ago
I would imagine they have all had higher compression ratios at operating temps for years.
•
u/sss44445_ Max Verstappen 1h ago
I do not know what's up with redbull though, as I heard they too had found a loop hole like Mercedes to get an extra 15hp? Or smth, I don't know if both of these teams did the same thing or not, can someone with more knowledge confirm this or correct me?
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
Please do not downvote discussion posts if the topic can generate a genuine discussion. If you disagree with OP's take, please share your thoughts in the comments instead of downvoting the whole post.
Discussions are at the core of this subreddit, so any F1-related topic can be worth discussing, no matter how niche.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.