Mercedes power unit, Vowles: “F1 must reward merit, not have the BoP. Hot ratio measurement? Best wishes…”

Mercedes engine, more controversy Testing has begun in Bahrain, but the 2026 Formula 1 season has started at least a month ago. And it began with the controversy relating to the Mercedes power unit, which, as admitted by the FIA, sees an increase in the compression ratio when hot, only to then return to the parameters permitted by the regulation at room temperature, the conditions in which technical checks are carried out. After the Montmeló shakedown, where evidently all the teams noted Mercedes’ advantage, a rift was created in the paddock. A four against one – if we’re talking about engine engineers – or a seven against four – if we’re talking about teams. A fracture that could lead to a change in the regulations before Melbourne if it finds the backing of the FIA ​​and Formula 1. Vowles’ words Everyone is against Mercedes, and the only ones defending it are naturally its customers: among these is James Vowles’ Williams, who is also a “student” of Toto Wolff and very close to the Austrian team principal. For the boss of the Grove wall, Formula 1 is almost at a point of no return: “Merit must be rewarded, not punished. As a sport we must be careful that this does not become a Balance of Performance championship (the mechanism used for example in the WEC to balance the performance of the cars, ed.). The best engineering results must be rewarded.” “I’m sure the other teams are angry because they couldn’t achieve what Mercedes did, but we have to be careful too,” he added. “My hope is that common sense prevails and that we recognize that we are in a sport where meritocracy exists, where the best engineering solution wins. Change to the rules? First of all, they have to come up with another one, and good luck testing the power units in the conditions in which you are trying to race on the track. Secondly, if you change the rules it means that eight cars will not be on the starting grid. We have to think carefully about the implications of this change.”