Red Bull claims it has "no concerns" regarding the disputed engine update implemented on Max Verstappen's RB21 before the Braz...
Red Bull claims it has "no concerns" regarding the disputed engine update implemented on Max Verstappen's RB21 before the Brazil Grand Prix, even though McLaren has questioned whether this change complies with Formula 1's budget cap regulations.
However, despite the team's claim that it is "completely in line with the regulations," the discussion has brought attention to a ambiguous zone present in the current system.
After Verstappen was knocked out in Q1 at Interlagos two weeks back, Red Bull implemented significant adjustments to his car before the race and installed a completely new power unit—having already exhausted the Dutch driver's full quota of engine parts for the season.
Changing the parc ferme to adjust the setup meantVerstappen was going to start from the pit lane anyway., so the standard grid penalty for going over the power unit components limit would not be applied.
But McLaren quickly raised the issue of whether a modification aimed at improving performance, rather than addressing reliability, should be included within the budget limit.. As a customer rather than a works team, it is required to cover the cost of its engines, while Red Bull's connection with Honda is more complex.
Although it was stated that the issue would be addressed at the year's last F1 Commission meeting last week, okay1 understands that it did not appear on the official agenda, but McLaren intended to bring it up under "other business."
The main issue is that it's not officially stated in the rules whether power unit modifications exceeding the annual limit should be included in the cost cap. This is an acknowledged flaw that is currently being addressed through "understandings" between the FIA and the teams, allowing engine changes due to reliability reasons to remain outside the cap.
McLaren's view is that these guidelines suggest modifications aimed at performance, rather than reliability, should be accounted for within the cost cap. However, it is clearly challenging to differentiate between the two if a rival were intent on doing so – an even more ambiguous territory within an already unclear domain.
"We have not been eager to get involved in scenarios where, following an engine change, we find ourselves debating with the team or the power unit manufacturer about whether certain telemetry data suggests a potential reliability problem," said Nikolas Tombazis, FIA single-seater director, in Las Vegas.
We don't believe we possess the knowledge to debate with them regarding whether it's truly a reliability or strategic change. Once again, in certain instances, it's clearly aligned with one category or the other. However, when you're in that overlapping zone, it becomes challenging.
This has been a vulnerability in the existing rules — the mix of Financial, Technical, and Sporting aspects — and it's an area where we have taken this approach of accepting these modifications without debating their effect on the budget cap.
This gap is being addressed in the upcoming rule set by introducing a spending limit for engine suppliers. However, for the time being, teams that have a stake in the drivers' championship continue to compete fiercely against each other.
"I'm not taken aback that someone essentially tossed a hand grenade into the scenario," remarked Paul Monaghan, chief engineer at Red Bull.
If the circumstances were reversed, we could have done the same. What we did is justifiable, it's lawful, and if you look back at this generation of car - from, say, 2022 to now - people have made engine changes, so there's nothing out of the ordinary about it.
Personally, it's a bit ambiguous. As far as I'm concerned, we convinced ourselves that what we were going to do was justified. If we are asked about it, we will defend our actions.
But when directly questioned if he thought the change exceeded the budget limit, Monaghan hesitated.
I won't be answering that question since I'm not an expert in financial regulations," he stated. "I have a general idea of what we need to do and what is included and excluded. However, I believe our actions can be justified, and there won't be any penalties imposed on us by the end of the year.
That would be a response based on my understanding. I don't wish to guess how we are handling it under financial regulations because I might be incorrect and appear even more foolish than usual—so I'll stop here, if I may.
Regarding the condition of the PU that was taken off Verstappen's car to install the new one, Monaghan stated: "The advice [from Honda] was that if we are completely forced into a difficult situation, it might last for a few more kilometers. So we're kind of getting into team politics here, and I don't want to reveal too much, but financially I believe we are fine."
Red Bull's driving consultant Helmut Marko was more explicit, commenting to okay1after FP2 in Las Vegas: "It's not a gray area. No concerns, we are fully compliant with the rules."
McLaren believes the existing set of rules is fundamentally unjust. As customer teams cover the cost of their engines through a direct financial agreement, unlike the works team arrangement seen between Red Bull and Honda.
We are in a somewhat different situation compared to Red Bull," said McLaren's technical director, Neil Houldey. "We aren't able to make a performance engine change because we aren't a factory team with a power unit supplier willing to provide those engines at no cost.
"So it is definitely something that a work team can utilize, which someone like us, who is completely independent, cannot benefit from.
Clearly, 2026 is quite different. The PU elements come into play. However, as you've observed throughout this year and previous ones, work teams have an edge over customer teams due to the regulations or the absence of them.
The FIA's stance is that the matter will be addressed through next year's rules, which will establish a budget limit for power unit suppliers distinct from the one applicable to teams.
Tombazis explained, 'The engine manufacturers would never find it practical to implement a strategic shift. Because each time, it would cost them roughly the price of an engine. And this would create a natural mechanism.'
Therefore, we believe it is a flaw in the existing regulations, as there is no limit on PU costs, but we expect this issue to be fully addressed next year. It will no longer be a subject of debate.
Read Also:
COMMENTS