After Red Bull Powertrains aligned itself with Honda, Ferrari and Audi, the balance of power has shifted in the search for a solution to the controversial Mercedes compression ratio. During the latest meeting of the Power Unit Advisory Committee, a convergence reportedly emerged in an effort to avoid protests and counter-protests. Let’s take a closer look at what is happening.
No one wants a political war in Formula 1 at the debut of the new regulations. And after a period marked by rather radical and opposing positions, it appears that a compromise has been identified to avoid protests at the first Grand Prix of the season. During yesterday’s PUAC (Power Unit Advisory Committee) meeting, the manufacturers, following lengthy negotiations, are understood to have reached a synthesis: the compression ratio of the internal combustion engine should be verified at 16:1 during static checks, but at operating temperature rather than at ambient temperature, as currently stated in the Formula 1 technical regulations.
The PUAC, however, is not a decision-making body, but a consultative one. As a result, the proposed solution will still need to pass through the Formula 1 Commission and then be officially ratified by the FIA World Motor Sport Council before it can become operational. In short, this is not something that can be resolved overnight.
The key shift in this complex situation appears to have been driven by Red Bull Powertrains. The Milton Keynes-based engine division, following the Barcelona tests, is believed to have decided to side with the opponents of Mercedes, as it would not be able to benefit from the advantages that the Silver Arrows could theoretically gain by increasing the compression ratio to 18:1 at operating temperature, after the power unit had already been deemed fully legal during cold FIA checks with the 16:1 limit.
Honda, Audi and Ferrari therefore appear to have found the support of RBPT, changing the balance of power and leaving Mercedes isolated. It was the Japanese manufacturer that first sent a letter to the FIA, immediately receiving backing from the other two manufacturers in requesting clarification from the International Federation, which had initially given the green light to the solution. Mercedes is understood to have finalised its engine concept only after receiving written approval from the FIA technical delegates.
According to paddock rumours, Mercedes would be using a cylinder head design in which each cylinder incorporates a second micro-chamber that is active only when cold, while at operating temperature it would be isolated thanks to pressure levels never previously reached.
The legitimate question at this point is how long it would take for Mercedes in Brixworth to approve an alternative solution that complies with the new interpretation of the regulations. It is possible that a suitable timeframe will be needed both for the FIA to reach formal approval and for Mercedes to revise the project, unless a “plan B” version is already under development. And it is far from guaranteed that the process will ultimately receive the green light at the end of this complex procedure.
Some sources suggest, as previously hinted, that if Mercedes were initially to run the disputed power units, it could consider starting the season using a fuel with a lower calorific value than what Petronas would otherwise be able to homologate. This would be an attempt to offset the theoretical ten-horsepower gain attributed to the contested solution. Fuel research, in fact, is believed to be capable of delivering benefits far greater than the power difference linked to the Mercedes concept.
The objective that seems to have emerged from the PUAC discussions is a shared desire to avoid a direct confrontation between manufacturers through a series of protests and counter-protests, with the awareness that a hardline approach would ultimately harm everyone involved.
The idea would therefore be to avoid winners and losers, and instead accept a revision of regulations that are currently too open to interpretation, inevitably leading to a text approved by all parties. This would be an extremely difficult operation, but not an impossible one if open cooperation prevails. Otherwise, avoiding chaos would be virtually impossible.
To be continued…
Leave a Reply