Exclusive: FIA seeking 'black and white' solution to put controversial F1 trick 'to bed'

The FIA is seeking a "black and white" solution to firmly end the growing debate around a controversial alleged F1 engine trick before the start of the season.

Over the winter, reports emerged that some power unit manufacturers, namely Mercedes High Performance Powertrains and Red Bull Powertrains, had developed an engine trick to allow them to run an 18:1 compression ratio limit, exceeding the 16:1 limit prescribed in the technical regulations.

This would allow teams running those engines to enjoy higher power levels, with the ratio measured at ambient temperatures whilst the car is in the pit-lane. Whilst it is on track, the technology does not exist to measure the limit, meaning that with the potential use of heat-expanding metals, a compression ratio higher than 16:1 could be accessed. 

Around Australia's Albert Park, the extra power has been estimated to be worth around 0.3s per lap, or 17.4s in race time over the 58 laps. 

On January 22nd, a meeting took place between the power unit manufacturers and the FIA, where, according to a statement, "a discussion on seeking alignment on the methodology of measurement of compression ratios at hot temperatures" was discussed.

After the meeting, the FIA's single-seater technical director Nikolas Tombazis spoke exclusively to RacingNews365 on the debate.

"I think to probably disappoint slightly, but the meeting, as we said on a few occassions was not a summit meeting where big decisions were made, or intended to be made," Tombazis exclusively told RacingNews365. 

"The meeting had a very clear agenda to discuss the technicalities and methodology of measuring compression ratio; it was a purely technical meeting on how it is measured. It was clear before the meeting to all the participants, and made clear during the meeting to one or two who wanted to stray from the agenda, that this was not the forum to discuss exactly what is happening on that topic. 

"Once this was made clear, all the participating entities were constructive and talked like scientists and engineers with a problem at hand, not in terms of their opinion about the regulation. 

"Now, of course, it is a topic that is attracting headlines, and all I can say is that we absolutely do not want to have a situation where the championship starts, and people are interpreting regulations in slightly different ways."

When asked if the alleged compression ratio trick could be considered as a 'loophole', Tombazis replied that the FIA were seeking a firm solution to put the issue "to bed" before the first race.

"What exactly a loophole is, is a bit of a discussion," he added.

"I don't think there is any discussion of people specifically breaching, as such. Indeed, we don't even know what people's solutions are, so I think there is a bit of some people jumping the gun and making noise.

"I would say the word loophole has quite a few meanings, and I think it is fair to say that there are areas in which the rules are not clear to everybody.

"The number one objective is to make sure this gets completely put to bed in a totally absolute black and white way before the first race, so we don't have any further discussions."

The article continues below. 

'None of the FIA's business'

As a solution is still discussed, there is the possibility that a team could launch a protest if one is not found by the Australian GP. 

As such, Tombazis explained that the FIA was looking to provide "clarity" but had no say in whether a protest was launched by a team. 

"When the regulations are new, inevitably, there are different views about certain parts, and compared to past lives, where, let's say, things would end up in a protest and an international court of appeal or something like that.

"We aim to provide clarity before, following all of the governance processes there are, but we clearly never have any control over anybody on whether they want to protest or not, but we hope to be able to provide enough clarity so that hopefully, it is not a necessary step. 

"But of course, whether a team decides to do that, that is their business; we are still working on what the solution will be."