So far, no one can prove any technical wrongdoing by Mercedes or Red Bull. If some of the rumors turn out to be true, they involve only gray areas in the regulations. Those protesting today have simply misunderstood the FIA 2026 rules, and that is also a fault in itself.
In the technical underworld of Formula 1’s upcoming era—the one shaped by the major regulatory reset—one familiar dynamic is resurfacing: the often thin line between legitimate innovation and suspected regulatory cleverness. At the center of the discussion are Mercedes and Red Bull Powertrains, informally accused by some rivals of finding and exploiting a “loophole” in the cylinder compression ratios of the new power units.
According to leaks circulating among technical insiders, the advantage could be around four-tenths of a second per lap—an enormous figure in a regulation designed to reduce performance gaps and balance electric and thermal power units. This potential gain reportedly comes from adopting a particular method of increasing the compression ratio, which has already been submitted to the FIA and officially homologated.
FIA oversight and technical interpretation
This point is delicate and often deliberately ignored in superficial debates: the FIA not only knows about the technical solution but has likely pre-certified its compliance with the current regulatory framework. We are therefore not facing an irregularity or a hidden infraction, but an advanced interpretation of the 2026 technical regulations applied correctly and in a timely manner.
Were some teams too conservative?
Ferrari, Honda, and Audi’s dissatisfaction stems precisely from this. It is not that Mercedes and Red Bull have “bent the rules,” but that others failed to identify the same margin for maneuvering in time. Red Bull Powertrains, supported by personnel with experience from Mercedes, has already begun implementing the solution—a clear sign that the technical convergence between the two is not coincidental but based on shared knowledge and a common reading of the regulations.
The FIA, meanwhile, has adopted a position consistent with its historical practice: recognizing the legitimacy of the solution while hinting that future regulatory adjustments or revisions to measurement methods may follow. In other words: legal today, possibly illegal tomorrow. Importantly, any corrective action is unlikely before 2027, making the 2026 season open territory for those who navigated the rules most effectively.
F1 is a battle of technical law expertise
This is where the notion of illicit action falls apart. Modern Formula 1 is no longer just a competition between engineers; it is a complex ecosystem where technical, legal, and regulatory expertise are intertwined. Leading teams have entire departments of legal-technical experts who work closely with designers and engine specialists to scrutinize every regulation, definition, and method of verification, searching for loopholes that can be used without formally breaking the rules.
This meticulous work is often invisible but crucial. It is precisely what Mercedes and Red Bull have done. They did not cheat, hide illegal solutions, or exploit ambiguous checks. They simply read the regulations more thoroughly, identified a gray area left open by the lawmakers, and turned it into performance—assuming all reports are accurate.
Those protesting today are, in fact, paying for conceptual delay rather than technical lag. In Formula 1, winning has never been about passively following the rules but understanding them fully, anticipating consequences, and exploiting ambiguities. From active suspensions to blown exhausts, double diffusers, and controversial hybrid mappings, this has always been the case.
The conclusion
The conclusion is less scandalous than some would like to suggest. There is most likely no illicit activity on the horizon, nor any technical conspiracy against the lagging constructors. What exists, once again, is proof that Formula 1 remains a championship for elite structures, where sleeping on the regulations means falling behind. And where the real mistake is not finding a loophole, but not looking for one at all.
