2, I think there are more to this than only the pu. Merc and Mcl got away with too much in 24-25. there was a lot of movement between teams and factories too, plus the new engine suppliers came. This is a political change and opportunity. We (unless you work for the FIA/merc) only know press releases and crumbs from the media. Nobody will disclose the full issue, because they would have to disclose technical details and propietary info and shoot themselves in the foot (or head)
Psuedopolitics in general are definitely happening. This is generally the case when good-faith interpretations of regulations, or rumoured high-tech solutions are being opposed. (An excellent book about this is Ross Brawn and Adam Parr's Total Competition, which riffs off Sun Tzu's The Art of War to explain, among other things, how the technical and psuedopolitical aspects of F1 interacted in the 2000s).
I don't work for the FIA or Mercedes (having the odd contact with links to F1, and… previous with the FIA, isn't the same).
The ridiculous thing is that this is one issue where it should be possible to disclose the basics of the psuedopolitical issue (if not the technical one), but there's been a distinct lack of interest.
A good clue is the Pat Symonds article about the controversy in Autosport's March 2026 edition. Pat was on the committee that decided the 2022 regulations, and helped with the first draft of the 2026 regulations (it was re-drafted after he left the FIA). He was invited to that committee after decades of being a top F1 engineer who had demonstrated understanding of how the whole car worked together.
He should, therefore, understand that the difference between static and dynamic compression was shown in the regulations as existed in 2022 and the first 2026 draft, that these would affect the engine manufacturers' behaviour (regardless of stance towards interpretation) and that his audience, readers of a magazine aimed at general motorsport fans, might appreciate a quick reminder of all this. Maybe even an explanation of the fact two compression ratios exist in the first place.
None of this happened.
There is an explanation of what a compression ratio is. There is a an explanation of temperature. At no point are these two explanations connected.
This meant that Pat ended up claiming the FIA do not accept Mercedes' explanation, while making it look like the FIA didn't have a leg to stand on in acting at all. Neither is true. The FIA hasn't assessed Mercedes' explanation at all, it is simply voting for something without thinking through the consequences, and then enacting the vote in a thoughtless way. The FIA may not have a very good case, but it is perfectly at liberty to draft a ruleset that meets its intentions better, set a reasonable deadline by which its vision of compliance is met and mete out consequences at *that* point if anyone is not in compliance with the new version.
Pat presented the FIA as whinging because it deliberately misinterpreted a regulation that has had an obvious and well-known definition for many years, despite being one of the people who drafted that regulation. (If you'd written that piece, assuming you weren't known to have literally drafted any of the 2022 or 2026 regulations, I would have read less into it. The ring of hypocrisy wouldn't be there).
This itself suggests what sort of psuedopolitics is going on. It indicates the FIA itself is using the occasion for psuedopolitics (rather than its alleged job of regulating the series). The engine manufacturers may also be psuedopoliticing, but when the organisation meant to set an example of *not* engaging in it does so, it's hard for other players in F1 to resist…
(PS: I need to update part of my response to one of your other asks, thanks to information in the Symonds column).
