2025 McLaren F1 Team

[AR3-GP]

deleted

[bauc]

I have to admit this didn’t cross my mind when Red Bull fitted an entirely new PU.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mcla ... ne-switch/

A month ago, the paddock was whispering about a budget cap breach possibly involving Mclaren or their engine partner (Mercedes). Mclaren (Neither Zak, nor Stella) didn't have a single word to offer during the entire news cycle.

Now there is not a hint of Red Bull doing anything wrong, and Stella wants "answers", to stir suspicion about Red Bull, and start another cost cap saga. Isn't that weird?

There is a fundamental difference here, need VS want.... RBR did not need new PU, they used the situation to get one as they wanted. If a PU or a component has failed, teams are allowed to go over budget, if it has not, which in this case hasn't, then it is a legit question to be addressed, as similar to how Max uses the gray area of the rules to gain or defend a position, the same is done by RBR, a team that is more disgusting than Ferrari in the FIA (Ferrari International Assistance) era with Schumacher.

[Emag]

A month ago, the paddock was whispering about a budget cap breach possibly involving Mclaren or their engine partner (Mercedes), and Mclaren (Neither Zak, nor Stella) didn't have a single word to offer during the entire news cycle.

Now there is not a hint of Red Bull doing anything wrong, and Stella wants "answers" and want to start another cost cap saga. Isn't that weird? Weird to me at least.

Which other team had anything to say during the period? There were rumors going around the validity of which was not really evaluated at all. People were just rolling with whatever they wanted to believe. The cost cap was discussed and solved internally. None of the teams had anything to say about it, because evidently, there was nothing to talk about.

Sauber, Ferrari, and another team commented on it.

I just find it interesting that Mclaren want "transparency" and are casting suspicion now over a bit of nothing but a month prior there couldn't be reached for comment. They were the loudest team in the room during 2022. Not even a call for transparency from the highly noble Zak Brown, after the long delay in issuing the certificates this year? When someone shows a pattern of behavior, and then it goes missing when you least expect it to, it raises an eyebrow.

Can you please link some articles if you have the time. I don't remember seeing anything but rumors on social media. I really doubt this could have been "swept off under the rug" if it was as big of a deal as some people think. Toto did not let the thing go the entire year when we had the "catering-gate", I doubt any McLaren rivals would have let this go without making a fuss about it if there was indeed something to make a fuss about.

[CjC]

Which other team had anything to say during the period? There were rumors going around the validity of which was not really evaluated at all. People were just rolling with whatever they wanted to believe. The cost cap was discussed and solved internally. None of the teams had anything to say about it, because evidently, there was nothing to talk about.

Sauber, Ferrari, and another team commented on it.

I just find it interesting that Mclaren want "transparency" and are casting suspicion now over a bit of nothing but a month prior there couldn't be reached for comment. They were the loudest team in the room during 2022. Not even a call for transparency from the highly noble Zak Brown, after the long delay in issuing the certificates this year? When someone shows a pattern of behavior, and then it goes missing when you least expect it to, it raises an eyebrow.

Can you please link some articles if you have the time. I don't remember seeing anything but rumors on social media. I really doubt this could have been "swept off under the rug" if it was as big of a deal as some people think. Toto did not let the thing go the entire year when we had the "catering-gate", I doubt any McLaren rivals would have let this go without making a fuss about it if there was indeed something to make a fuss about.

They were asked during the team principles press conference in Austin. Again the 3 of them where in a situation were they ‘have to’ give an answer of some sort and can’t just brush off a reporter in the paddock.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/f1-team-p ... cap-breach.

In response AR3-GP, from what I saw Mclaren were there 4th/ 5th team to be ‘cleared’ by the journos to comply. It was mainly the Red Bull thread on this forum who were accusing Mclaren the most to have been in breach of the cap.

[Quantum]

I have to admit this didn’t cross my mind when Red Bull fitted an entirely new PU.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mcla ... ne-switch/

A month ago, the paddock was whispering about a budget cap breach possibly involving Mclaren or their engine partner (Mercedes). Mclaren (Neither Zak, nor Stella) didn't have a single word to offer during the entire news cycle.

Now there is not a hint of Red Bull doing anything wrong, and Stella wants "answers", to stir suspicion about Red Bull, and start another cost cap saga. Isn't that weird?

RB took an extra engine. McLaren didnt grandstand or "stir" anything.

To be honest, these kind of power unit changes, they challenge the regulations," explained Stella.

I will be interested in understanding if the cost of this engine now goes in the cost cap or not. If the engine was changed for performance reasons, it should go in the cost cap.
So let's see if this is the case, not that I will be able to see, as it's all on the Red Bull side.
But this is also one reason why we wouldn't do it, because it would end up in the cost cap.

It's a current and pertinent problem that Stella want's clarity on, and as team boss he will want to know from the FIA if it's legit to go ahead and do so for McLaren. That's just good practice, rather than you know....just doing it if it's illegal.

As for the rumours, baseless nonsense that bears no comparison to what Stella is asking.

[rbirules]

I have to admit this didn’t cross my mind when Red Bull fitted an entirely new PU.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mcla ... ne-switch/

A month ago, the paddock was whispering about a budget cap breach possibly involving Mclaren or their engine partner (Mercedes). Mclaren (Neither Zak, nor Stella) didn't have a single word to offer during the entire news cycle.

Now there is not a hint of Red Bull doing anything wrong, and Stella wants "answers", to stir suspicion about Red Bull, and start another cost cap saga. Isn't that weird?

RB took an extra engine. McLaren didnt grandstand or "stir" anything.

To be honest, these kind of power unit changes, they challenge the regulations," explained Stella.

I will be interested in understanding if the cost of this engine now goes in the cost cap or not. If the engine was changed for performance reasons, it should go in the cost cap.
So let's see if this is the case, not that I will be able to see, as it's all on the Red Bull side.
But this is also one reason why we wouldn't do it, because it would end up in the cost cap.

It's a current and pertinent problem that Stella want's clarity on, and as team boss he will want to know from the FIA if it's legit to go ahead and do so for McLaren. That's just good practice, rather than you know....just doing it if it's illegal.

As for the rumours, baseless nonsense that bears no comparison to what Stella is asking.

From the article linked above . . .

"But Red Bull's decision to go for a new power unit for pure performance reasons has raised eyebrows at title rival McLaren.

The issue revolves around what is understood to be guidelines from the FIA about when engine changes do or do not need to be included within a cost cap figure.

It is an area that is not specifically covered in the published regulations, but falls under the remit of understandings that have been reached between competitors and the governing body.

Some teams, including McLaren, believe that if an extra power unit is used because of genuine reliability concerns then that should not have cost cap consequences.

However, if a team voluntarily opts for an engine swap for pure performance reasons, then that should fall under the cost cap.

The thinking behind this is that having a cost implication deters teams from repeatedly throwing fresh power units onto a car for performance reasons."

How is this not known for certain at this point? Look at the words, or phrases used in the article: "understood to be guidelines", "not specifically covered in the regulations", "understanding between competitors and governing body", "believe" "should fall under the cost cap", "thinking". Why is there any ambiguity in year 5 of the cost cap?

How was Mercedes cost cap for 2021 treated when they took several extra PUs for Bottas to test its limits and then add one for Lewis for the final four races? Or has it changed since then?

To be clear, I completely agree with this line or thinking (expand the cost cap but if you want to take extra PU parts, for any reason, then it goes in the cost cap), my only issue is how are these serious questions without known answers.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Especially important given that, if McLaren don't qualify well in Vegas, perhaps they could consider doing the same thing to give Lando a fresh PU for Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

I don't think they will, but this could feed into the decision making process.

[FittingMechanics]

We've had Red Bull mechanics try and disrupt Lando's starts by removing the tape he uses to line up on the grid, but Stella asking whether Red Bull is abusing cost cap rules is somehow going over the line? Please.

I'm sure Red Bull wish Mekies didn't say they had no worries about reliability and that they added it to the pool because they could.

This is a thing about cost cap that is bad, imagine Red Bull wins the WDC narrowly but breaks the cost cap. When would we find out about it, what would be the penalty in a year? I hope we never get a situation like that.

[Quantum]

How is this not known for certain at this point? Look at the words, or phrases used in the article: "understood to be guidelines", "not specifically covered in the regulations", "understanding between competitors and governing body", "believe" "should fall under the cost cap", "thinking". Why is there any ambiguity in year 5 of the cost cap?

How was Mercedes cost cap for 2021 treated when they took several extra PUs for Bottas to test its limits and then add one for Lewis for the final four races? Or has it changed since then?

To be clear, I completely agree with this line or thinking (expand the cost cap but if you want to take extra PU parts, for any reason, then it goes in the cost cap), my only issue is how are these serious questions without known answers.

To the first part, Stella is rightly asking for clarification. If a team changes it for unforced reasons ie performative reasons, what are the consequences for the budget cap. Some sensitive souls will see it as a protest, but essentially, clarification will allow McLaren to play that trick in the next few races pending FIA outlining what is permissible.

As for Mercedes in 2021, the rules have changed since then.

[karana]

As for Mercedes in 2021, the rules have changed since then.

They actually haven't, at least not the publicly available rules. (Interpretations might have, but I don't know that)

Here are the relevant rules:
From the financial regulations:

3.1: In calculating Relevant Costs, the following costs and amounts within Total Costs of the
Reporting Group must be excluded ("Excluded Costs"):
...
(n) All costs of goods and services within the Power Unit Supply Perimeter for use by the
F1 Team, up to an amount in any Full Year Reporting Period equal to the applicable
maximum price as set out in the Technical Regulations;

For what is included in the Supply Perimeter: (Technical regulations, Appendix 3, Item No. A)

PU and spares for all Competitions in F1 World Championship plus 5000 km testing.
Minimum number of PUs per team to be (number of PUs per driver per season according to
Sporting Regulations) x 2 + Necessary number of units to achieve 5000 km of testing.
Additional PUs or spares required to replace units out of service due to accident damage
or other cause induced by team will be outside the supply perimeter and will incur additional charges

[rbirules]

How is this not known for certain at this point? Look at the words, or phrases used in the article: "understood to be guidelines", "not specifically covered in the regulations", "understanding between competitors and governing body", "believe" "should fall under the cost cap", "thinking". Why is there any ambiguity in year 5 of the cost cap?

How was Mercedes cost cap for 2021 treated when they took several extra PUs for Bottas to test its limits and then add one for Lewis for the final four races? Or has it changed since then?

To be clear, I completely agree with this line or thinking (expand the cost cap but if you want to take extra PU parts, for any reason, then it goes in the cost cap), my only issue is how are these serious questions without known answers.

To the first part, Stella is rightly asking for clarification. If a team changes it for unforced reasons ie performative reasons, what are the consequences for the budget cap. Some sensitive souls will see it as a protest, but essentially, clarification will allow McLaren to play that trick in the next few races pending FIA outlining what is permissible.

As for Mercedes in 2021, the rules have changed since then.

I didn't know the rules had changed. (Have they officially though? The article doesn't seem certain about that, or anything really.)

I have no issue with him getting clarification, I'm just astonished that there is a need for clarification (well not really given it's the FIA) at this point.

[AR3-GP]

We've had Red Bull mechanics try and disrupt Lando's starts by removing the tape he uses to line up on the grid, but Stella asking whether Red Bull is abusing cost cap rules is somehow going over the line? Please.

I'm sure Red Bull wish Mekies didn't say they had no worries about reliability and that they added it to the pool because they could.

This is a thing about cost cap that is bad, imagine Red Bull wins the WDC narrowly but breaks the cost cap. When would we find out about it, what would be the penalty in a year? I hope we never get a situation like that.

It seems kind of random to speculate that an engine will make a team break the cost cap. Tsunoda already took a 5th PU some races ago. Hamilton took a 5th some races ago after poor qualifying as well. Other back markers have done it. I don't recall the scrutiny? Is it any different to assuming all of Piastri's collisions have already put Mclaren over the cap?

It's kind of amusing how terrified Mclaren still are while holding the WCC and a 49 point lead in WDC. Lando can't possibly fumble this right?

[Ben1980]

We've had Red Bull mechanics try and disrupt Lando's starts by removing the tape he uses to line up on the grid, but Stella asking whether Red Bull is abusing cost cap rules is somehow going over the line? Please.

I'm sure Red Bull wish Mekies didn't say they had no worries about reliability and that they added it to the pool because they could.

This is a thing about cost cap that is bad, imagine Red Bull wins the WDC narrowly but breaks the cost cap. When would we find out about it, what would be the penalty in a year? I hope we never get a situation like that.

It seems kind of random to speculate that an engine will make a team break the cost cap. Tsunoda already took a 5th PU some races ago. Hamilton took a 5th some races ago after poor qualifying as well. Other back markers have done it. I don't recall the scrutiny? Is it any different to assuming all of Piastri's collisions have already put Mclaren over the cap?

It's kind of amusing how terrified Mclaren still are while holding the WCC and a 49 point lead in WDC. Lando can't possibly fumble this right?

Don't think Mclaren are suggesting an engine will break the cistern cap. They just want it raised and clarified so that no creative accounting can claim it to be a reliability change.

[Emag]

It seems kind of random to speculate that an engine will make a team break the cost cap. Tsunoda already took a 5th PU some races ago. Hamilton took a 5th some races ago after poor qualifying as well. Other back markers have done it. I don't recall the scrutiny? Is it any different to assuming all of Piastri's collisions have already put Mclaren over the cap?

It's kind of amusing how terrified Mclaren still are while holding the WCC and a 49 point lead in WDC. Lando can't possibly fumble this right?

It’s not about fear or defensiveness. McLaren have every right to ask for clarification when something seems questionable. Red Bull have done the same plenty of times. They challenged McLaren’s mini-DRS and the FIA acted. Max was more than 60 points ahead of Lando when that happened. Were Red Bull so scared of McLaren that they needed to complain back then? Of course not. It’s within their right to call things out when they believe another team might be operating outside the rules. And later, they raised concerns about flexi wings, and again, the FIA acted on their requests. I don’t see how it’s any different for McLaren to exercise that same right now.

The engine issue isn’t random either. Mekies himself said the change wasn’t for reliability reasons, so naturally one will question why it was done and what the cost implications might be. McLaren’s championship position doesn’t mean they should stay quiet, just as Red Bull didn’t last year.

And if anything, Mekies’ openness created the noise, not McLaren for questioning it. He should have been more careful with those kinds of statements. Speculation aside, there’s only been one team actually found and penalized for breaching the cost cap since it was introduced, and that was Red Bull. If I were a rival, I’d keep an extra eye on them too.

[AR3-GP]

We've had Red Bull mechanics try and disrupt Lando's starts by removing the tape he uses to line up on the grid, but Stella asking whether Red Bull is abusing cost cap rules is somehow going over the line? Please.

I'm sure Red Bull wish Mekies didn't say they had no worries about reliability and that they added it to the pool because they could.

This is a thing about cost cap that is bad, imagine Red Bull wins the WDC narrowly but breaks the cost cap. When would we find out about it, what would be the penalty in a year? I hope we never get a situation like that.

It seems kind of random to speculate that an engine will make a team break the cost cap. Tsunoda already took a 5th PU some races ago. Hamilton took a 5th some races ago after poor qualifying as well. Other back markers have done it. I don't recall the scrutiny? Is it any different to assuming all of Piastri's collisions have already put Mclaren over the cap?

It's kind of amusing how terrified Mclaren still are while holding the WCC and a 49 point lead in WDC. Lando can't possibly fumble this right?

Don't think Mclaren are suggesting an engine will break the cistern cap. They just want it raised and clarified so that no creative accounting can claim it to be a reliability change.

I'm not talking about Mclaren. I'm talking about the comment from the poster that I have replied to. They've suggested that this engine must mean they have now exceeded the cap.