Get all your news in one place.

100’s of premium titles.
One app.

Start reading

Get all your news in one place.

100’s of premium titles. One news app.

Start reading

Motorsport

Red Bull defends “legitimate” engine swap after McLaren's cost cap "hand grenade"

McLaren Red Bull Max Verstappen Nikolas Tombazis Paul Monaghan FIA Helmut Marko Honda Motorsportcom Red Bull Racing

Red Bull says it has "no worries" about the controversial engine change made to Max Verstappen's RB21 ahead of the Brazil Grand Prix, despite McLaren raising questions over how such a change fits into Formula 1's cost cap rules.

But although the team insists it is "absolutely within the regulations", the debate has highlighted a grey area that exists within the current set-up.

When Verstappen was eliminated in Q1 at Interlagos two weeks ago, Red Bull not only made substantial set-up changes to his car ahead of the race, it fitted an entirely new power unit – having already used the Dutch driver's full allocation of engine components for the year.

Breaking parc ferme to make set-up changes meant Verstappen would be starting from the pitlane anyway, so the normal grid penalty for exceeding the power unit parts quota would not apply.

But McLaren immediately questioned whether a change for performance rather than reliability reasons should fall within the cost cap. As a customer rather than a works team, it has to pay for its engines, whereas Red Bull's relationship with Honda is more nuanced.

While it was reported that the matter would be discussed at the final F1 Commission meeting of the year last week, Motorsport.com understands it wasn't on the formal agenda, but McLaren planned to raise it under "any other business".

Andrea Stella, McLaren (Photo by: Alastair Staley / LAT Images via Getty Images)

The sticking point is that the issue of whether power unit changes beyond the annual quota should fall under the cost cap isn't formally enshrined within the regulations. This is a known shortcoming that is currently the subject of "understandings" between the FIA and the teams, which enable engine changes for reliability reasons to fall outside the cap.

McLaren's belief is that these guidelines imply changes for performance rather than reliability reasons should be included in the cost cap. But obviously it can be difficult to distinguish one from the other if a competitor were so minded – an even greyer area within an already grey area.

"What we've not been keen to get involved in, is a situation where when there's an engine change, we have to argue with the team or the PU manufacturer whether a bit of telemetry indicates potentially a reliability issue or not," said FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis in Las Vegas.

"We don't feel we have the expertise to argue with them whether it's really a reliability or strategic change. And, again, in some cases it's obviously in one or the other camp. But when you're in that crossover area, it would be difficult.

"So this has been a weakness in the current regulations — the combination of Financial plus Technical and Sporting — and it's been an area where we've adopted this approach where we accept these changes without getting into discussion about the impact on the cost cap."

This loophole is being closed under the next ruleset via the inclusion of a cost cap for engine manufacturers. But for now, those teams that have skin in the game for the drivers' title are still taking swings at one another.

Nikolas Tombazis, FIA Single Seater Director (Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images)

"I'm not surprised someone just sort of rolled a hand grenade into the situation," said Red Bull chief engineer Paul Monaghan.

"If the situation were round the other way we could do the same. What we did is defendable, it's legitimate, and if you go back through even this generation of car – from, say, 2022 to this year – people have made engine changes so there's nothing unusual in it.

"Personally it's a grey area. As far as I'm concerned we justified to ourselves what we were going to do. If we're questioned on it we will justify it."

But when asked explicitly whether he believed the change fell outside the cost cap, Monaghan demurred.

"I'm not going to answer that question because I am not a finance regulation expert," he said. "I know roughly what we need to do and what's in and what's out. But I believe our actions we can defend and there will not be a penalty against us at the end of the year for it.

"That would be an answer with my knowledge on it. I don't want to speculate as to how we're treating it within the financial regulations because I may get it wrong and then look at even more of an idiot than normal – so I'll leave it at that, if I may."

As to the state of the PU which was removed from Verstappen's car to make way for the new one, Monaghan said: "The advice [from Honda] was if we are absolutely backed into a corner it may well do a few more kilometres. So we're sort of delving into team politics here and I don't want to offer too much, but financially I believe we are OK."

Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing, Helmut Marko, Red Bull Racing (Photo by: Mark Thompson / Getty Images)

Red Bull driver advisor Helmut Marko was more definite, speaking to Motorsport.com after FP2 in Las Vegas: "It's not a grey area. No worries, we are absolutely within the regulations."

McLaren's perspective is that the current system of guidelines is inherently unfair. Since customer teams pay for their engines via a clear financial transaction, rather than having a works team relationship such as Red Bull and Honda.

"We are in a bit of a different position [to Red Bull]," said McLaren technical director Neil Houldey. "We can't take a performance engine change because we are not a works team who have a PU supplier who is happy to supply those engines free of charge.

"So it is definitely something that a works team can use that someone like us who is purely independent cannot take advantage of.

"Obviously 2026 is quite different. The PU stuff comes in. But certainly, and you've seen it all the way through this year, through previous years, works teams have an advantage over customer teams because of the regulation or the lack of regulation."

The FIA's position is that the issue will be removed by next year's regulations enshrining a cost cap for power unit manufacturers separate to the one covering teams.

"The PU manufacturers would never find it convenient to make a strategic change," explained Tombazis. "Because each time it's going to cost them approximately the cost of an engine. And that will provide a natural mechanism.

"So we think it's a weakness in the current set of regulations, where there's no PU cost cap, but we think it gets resolved completely next year. It will stop being a topic of discussion."