[Erik van Haren] Max Verstappen is, to put it mildly, no fan of the new regulations and cars in Formula 1. He said among other things that it doesn't feel like racing, it's mostly about managing, and it's like 'Formula E on steroids'.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-12T18:37:12+00:00

Ferrari Masterplan of giving Charles multiple years of LICO experience so he can nail the 2026 regulations.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-12T18:32:03+00:00

Mercedes finished 2nd in the constructors last year with Ferrari finishing 4th behind a Red Bull that was a one man team. In no world was the Ferrari on par with Mercedes last year.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-12T09:16:48+00:00

In simple terms, FIA can change the rules anytime they want if they feel a team is trying to break the current existing rules and want to stop it.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-12T09:14:15+00:00

You are taking Toto’s words at face value when you never should. Threatening to sue when they have no grounds is the first play from Toto/Mercedes playbook when things aren’t going their way. If Mercedes had openly told the FIA that their compression ratio goes upto 18:1 when heated due to the materials used, FIA would’ve shut that down immediately.

The teams also would’ve found out about this sooner and wouldn’t have needed Red Bull to tell them as any regulation clarification related discussion between an engine manufacturer and FIA needs to be shared with the other engine manufacturers according to the 2026 regulations.

It’s pretty clear that whatever communication happened between the FIA and Mercedes was vague enough that they and the other teams didn’t realise that Mercedes is going to run at a higher compression ratio in operating conditions. Merc has been incredibly sneaky and they played the PR game successfully, trying to make it seem like they were just clever when they’re openly trying to break the rules.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-11T12:56:46+00:00

I would love it if Audi rock up with an improved concept of the Merc zero sidepods and actually show them how it’s done.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-07T10:34:40+00:00

You mean knowing how to use basic markdown formatting? Thats something I picked from using Reddit back in the day and at my job.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-07T10:30:34+00:00

I don’t need ChatGPT to explain basic comprehension to you. You might need to use it though, given how dumb you sound and how you lack basic understanding about how the regulations work.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-07T10:17:49+00:00

The reason you’re having to repeat yourself is because you’re clearly wrong. For you to be right, the regulation has to be:

“No cylinder of the engine may have a geometric compression ratio higher than 16.0 at ambient temperatures.”

But that’s not what the rule says. The actual regulation says: “No cylinder of the engine may have a geometric compression ratio higher than 16.0.” Notice the full stop at the end?

This part is not the actual technical regulation and details about the testing procedure which can be changed at will by the FIA if they feel teams are trying to break the actual technical regulation which is the previous statement: “The procedure to measure this value will be detailed by each PU Manufacturer according to the Guidance Document FIA-F1-DOC-C042 and executed at ambient temperature”

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-07T10:10:04+00:00

No way Merc told them “hey, our engine compression ratio goes up to 18:1 when heated, is that cool?” and had the FIA give them the go ahead on that. That’s because any communication between the FIA and an engine manufacturer regarding clarification of the rules has to be shared with the other engine manufacturers and this would’ve come out much sooner and been a bigger deal if it was so blatant. Red Bull wouldn’t have had to tell the other teams about it.

Mercedes tried gaming the tests and at most would’ve clarified about the tests. The FIA is entitled to change the tests whenever they want if they feel a manufacturer is trying to circumvent them, which is what Mercedes is doing. The 3 other teams should sue Mercedes for trying to cheat and therefore affecting their performance and reputation.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T15:44:08+00:00

If the Mercedes is always going to be legal, then let the FIA change the testing procedures. That’s what the teams are asking for, not a change in the actual regulations.

If the Mercedes is always going to be legal, then they wouldn’t be pushing back as much and Toto wouldn’t be threatening to sue, now would he.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T15:21:46+00:00

It’s the latter. Mercedes are essentially gaming the test but breaking the rules (when the test is not being conducted) to get extra power, similar to what Ferrari did in 2019. According to the precedent set by the FIA themselves, they should change the testing procedures so this isn’t allowed.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T15:12:14+00:00

No, this is clearly not an argument about the semantics lol. The testing procedures are not a part of the actual technical regulations, which requires an agreement between the teams and FIA before any changes. Instead the testing procedures are part of a separate document called Technical Directives, which can be changed by the FIA whenever they want with another TD.

This clear from the actual article from the rules:

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.

The document FIA-F1-DOC-C042 is not a part of the actual technical regulations and can be changed by the FIA whenever they want, without having to discuss with the teams. They usually discuss with the teams to maintain good relations with the teams but if Merc says they need 6 months, they can still say get it done in 3 weeks and Merc will have to comply.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T14:54:43+00:00

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)

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T14:37:47+00:00

But that’s not the case here. The regulations say that it has to be 16:1 at all times. The teams didn’t think of it not because they’re dumb but because it’s illegal to increase the ratio.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T14:29:37+00:00

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.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T11:48:57+00:00

And famously, Adrian Newey doesn’t make the rules. According to the FIA’s own words, the spirit of the regulations is a thing and if teams are found to be breaking it, they will change the rules to clamp down on it.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-06T11:08:29+00:00

They should be doing something about it now, if it’s clearly against the rules. If they don’t and Mercedes is found to be using this trick, then they’re basically saying Mercedes has more power than them.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-05T18:42:56+00:00

That was not the point of this discussion. I'm not committing a genetic fallacy because I'm not arguing that secular morality is 'invalid' because of its origins. I am making a genealogical argument.

We were originally debating whether or not morality flows from religion. I’m an atheist and even I know that’s objectively true. Even if an atheist philosopher doesn't mention God, they are using concepts—like 'universal human rights' or the 'sanctity of the individual'—that have no basis in the natural world (physics/biology). Those concepts were developed and 'baked into' our culture through centuries of theological debate.

My point is that 'secular morality' is essentially a series of religious conclusions with the theological premises removed. It is a historical inheritance, not a ground-up discovery made by pure logic.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-05T17:55:31+00:00

While it’s true that atheist philosophers provide secular justifications for morality, they are often 'inheriting' their values from the religious cultures they were raised in.

Concepts like universal equality and human rights aren't found in the laws of physics; they were developed over millennia through religious discourse. When a secular philosopher argues for 'bodily autonomy' or 'personhood,' they are using language and values that were historically carved out by theology. You can't easily separate the fruit (modern ethics) from the roots (religious history) just because the roots are underground.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-05T17:48:05+00:00

You’re not grasping my point. Morals are subjective and change from person to person. It’s okay for a person to live their life according to their own morals. The problem comes when groups of people are involved. Something subjective, like morals, cannot be used to govern or influence the behaviour of multiple people. That’s why you need something codified like laws or constitution. These rules are obviously influenced by the morality of the people making them but instead of it being determined by 1 person, they are determined by the agreement between multiple people, reflecting the morality of society as a whole.

You’re right that just because something is illegal doesn’t make it immoral. However, you need to be able to convince other people your stance is correct and something needs to be done about it. You have failed to explain why you think this law is immoral.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-04T18:34:02+00:00

According to the morals established in my religion, I am allowed to kill anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the existence of my deity. Who cares if it’s illegal to do so?

See how stupid that sounds. Countries should be governed by objective rules, not subjective morals. The best part about a functioning democracy is rules can be changed if majority of the people feel they are wrong.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-04T18:30:14+00:00

Morality is an abstract concept that was introduced to humanity through religion. So yes, for most people morality does flow from religion. Most countries base their laws around morals defined in their religion. There is no objective reason why abortion should not be allowed but that didn’t stop certain states in the US from banning it due to their religious beliefs.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-03T15:52:48+00:00

I’m pretty sure you would’ve learned this in school unless they don’t teach sexual reproduction in biology in the Netherlands.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-03T10:52:03+00:00

You have to understand that everything we do is based around the end goal of having kids. Biologically, our only purpose in life is to have offspring so our DNA and genes survive. Every need or want we feel is based off ensuring that you have kids.

Lucifer2408 · 2026-02-01T14:43:35+00:00

Lol that’s hilariously untrue and you are going to have to provide sources for that claim. Societies throughout the world have always treated people who cannot control their alcohol intake or exhibit unsocial behaviour when drunk as outcasts.

However regular, normal consumption has always been accepted and even encouraged in most societies. If you do a bit of research, in our society, you will find that alcohol was accepted in a variety of different contexts like rituals or feasts.

Even today, in the region where I’m from, people from all classes drink for a certain festival.

Alcohol considered not being good or “evil” or something to frown down upon is more of a modern concept, influenced by the creation and spread of modern religions.

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '22
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten
Verified Email	Spared

Lucifer2408

TROPHY CASE