F1 Formula 1 - 2026 Season

[martinbo]

So, what do we make of the FIA’s sanctioning of Mercedes and Red Bull’s workaround for the new 16:0 (16:1?) compression ratio regulation?

In short, as long as the engine meets the mandated 16:0 compression ratio in static conditions and ambient temperature then it’s within the regulations. Apparently, MB and RBR have a way to alter (increase) the compression ratio during operation, seemingly by exploiting thermal expansion.

I don’t know how this works; I can only guess that the heat expansion of certain components, such as lengthening con-rods, results in a higher compression ratio at higher temperatures. Does anyone here know the correct story?

 

[Matski]

I think that's a fair summary @martinbo.

Same situation as it often is, not legal but passes the test. Unlike when this happens with Flexi wings, it's apparently not so easy to come up with a test to check the compression ratio of the engine whilst in use, so I'd imagine it'll be deemed okay for this season but they'll close the loophole for next year by outlawing whatever the method is, rather than changing the test.

 

[Swissbob]

The Flexi wings made Ferrari unbeatable in Le Mans.

Regarding CR.
Lengthening Con-Rods is exactly how it’s done, rumors say it’s 15bhp difference.

 

[SKY]

So, what do we make of the FIA’s sanctioning of Mercedes and Red Bull’s workaround for the new 16:0 (16:1?) compression ratio regulation?

In short, as long as the engine meets the mandated 16:0 compression ratio in static conditions and ambient temperature then it’s within the regulations. Apparently, MB and RBR have a way to alter (increase) the compression ratio during operation, seemingly by exploiting thermal expansion.

I don’t know how this works; I can only guess that the heat expansion of certain components, such as lengthening con-rods, results in a higher compression ratio at higher temperatures. Does anyone here know the correct story?

I have read the FIA will finally allow MB and RB engines to race as they are now, since there is a clear loophole on the rules that allows for this interpretation. This is said to give MB and RB c.13 PS advantage over the rest of the engines. For reference, in the lowest point of Renault turbo engines, the disadvantage with the top engines was 20 PS.

In a year when the rules will change like never before both for the engines and the aero, I would expect other loopholes to be found by other teams too. Let's not forget McLaren has had 2.5 years when they have dominated and that Newey is also in charge of an entirely new project in AM.

Exciting times ahead.

 

[Sunny]

I frankly don't get the controversy. The rules clearly say "Geometric compression ratio". It was same for even 2014 rules and probably even before. And there is only one way to reliably measure geometric compression ratio - take physical measurements. And you can't really do that while an engine is operating. So really the only way to measure it is when it is not operating, i.e, at ambient temperature. It was a given. And again I believe it was the same way the CR checks were done even before 2026 rule change and probably since whenever FIA started mandating/checking CR. And it is normal for metals to expand and there was always a delta between CR that was measured at rest and what it was at operating temp.

The only difference is before the maximum was 18:1. I think that was a hard target to hit so teams weren't deliberately trying to go much above. But for 2026, it was reduced to 16:1, so there is now enough headroom to take advantage of it.

 

[Matski]

And it is normal for metals to expand and there was always a delta between CR that was measured at rest and what it was at operating temp.

Fag packet maths says it's 0.378mm expansion in the con-rod, that's above what you'd get from a titanium alloy that might normally be used - or at least if thermal stability was the goal (i.e. adhering to the rules) - and it's way above simple manufacturing tolerances for the parts.

It's controversial because it's obvious to anyone the limit set was intended to be a limit, and the FIA knows that in operation the engines will intentionally exceed that limit - but the required test(s) don't show it.

Granted this nothing new for Formula 1, but I'd put money on the idea that if it were Ferrari doing this, and not Mercedes or Red Bull it would absolutely be labelled as cheating from top to bottom, where as there's largely no criticism from Mercedes or Red Bull fans - at least not in the diminished exposure I now to social media.

 

[Sunny]

Granted this nothing new for Formula 1, but I'd put money on the idea that if it were Ferrari doing this, and not Mercedes or Red Bull it would absolutely be labelled as cheating from top to bottom, where as there's largely no criticism from Mercedes or Red Bull fans - at least not in the diminished exposure I now to social media.

That is a given right? If Ferrari was doing this, Merc and RB fans will cry foul vs the opposite now. That is just human nature. More pertinent question is, will FIA itself do something different if it was Ferrari? highly doubt it, given I can't see what they can do.

Which brings me to - what can FIA do?The best I can think of is mandate the thermal expansion of the engine components, much like the wing flexibility tests - "component x should not expand more than y mm when it's temp is raised to z degrees". Seem much easier to just let all the teams exploit it.