2025 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[FittingMechanics]

In your estimate, what will be horsepower advantage of a fresh engine, over another than has run, say 6 races ?

No idea.

[FittingMechanics]

If McLaren qualifies in P16 I'm sure they would take a new engine (if there are no cost cap implications). People are talking like Max would take a new engine if he qualified in P5. He wouldn't.

Redbull have qualified P1 and taken a new engine and the penalty (gamble pays off sometimes, sometimes doesn't) , many times, if my memory serves me right. That's why I said, it's the mentality of the team and am questioning whether Mclaren will do it even if they qualify on the front row.

I can’t remember when Red Bull qualified on pole and then took an engine penalty just to add one to the pool?

I do think they used to do it in Spa, because they needed to put new engines in the pool or they would have reliability issues so they changed the engine in the track that is easiest to overtake.

Not sure if it was on pole, but it was probably up there.

[CjC]

I recall that but isn’t that because components had failed in earlier rounds so they needed to have new components to make it to the end of the season?

Like I say I can’t fully remember all of the nuances of the Red Bull seasons through the years.

[FittingMechanics]

I recall that but isn’t that because components had failed in earlier rounds so they needed to have new components to make it to the end of the season?

Like I say I can’t fully remember all of the nuances of the Red Bull seasons through the years.

As I've said, no one does it because of "mentality". They do it because according to their calculation, they will either: a) have a engine failure or b) lose more performance because engine lost power as it is aging

[f1isgood]

I recall that but isn’t that because components had failed in earlier rounds so they needed to have new components to make it to the end of the season?

Like I say I can’t fully remember all of the nuances of the Red Bull seasons through the years.

Red Bull did it in 2023 at Spa as well without any engine failures. They do it because it doesn't hurt to have an extra ICE in the pool.

McLaren could have almost certainly done it if they wanted to with the car they have. They could have won from anywhere if they wanted to, not too long ago. To make things equal, they could have potentially taken a grid penalty for both Oscar and Lando in the sprint at Spa and added an ICE and no one would have batted an eye.

[Emag]

I don't think it's a matter of mentality, they just don't see the value in doing it. He said it himself that for Mercedes engines at lest, they don't see degradation in power big enough to justify taking penalties to get a new engine into the pool :

"In terms of performance, I think introducing a new engine nowadays – I don't know how this works for Honda, but in general these engines they don't exhibit much degradation with mileage," he explained.

"That's why in general you wouldn't change an engine and accept a penalty or a loss of positions because normally the performance you get back doesn't really compensate for the positional losses.

I don't think it's much different with Honda either to be honest, these engines are quite mature in this regulation now and they've been sort of frozen for a while. Surely having a brand new power unit doesn't hurt, but I doubt it makes a significant performance difference.

[venkyhere]

Redbull have taken engine penalty in Spa in 2022, 2023, 2024 and won the race in 2/3. They didn't do this penalty business in 2025, because the car was super bad.

To the extent that I have understood from the internet, the F1 hybrid engine of the current era, loses approx 1% (some 10-15 hp) of performance (combined ICE and electrical) after around 1500-2000km. Unless the team trust their driver/operations team to execute the overtakes, even after 'calculating' which track will allow easy overtake where this extra power can be utilized, they won't risk starting from the back. It's not just enough if a team has a fast car ; they have to be ready to 'risk' starting grid position, to utilize the extra 1% or so engine performance available (which, for most practical purposes might result in saving 0.2-0.3% of laptime, which might translate to around 0.1-0.2s per lap). That's what I call 'mentality' behind the idea to 'bring extra engine into the pool, even if there has been no engine failure'. Unlike Horner, Mekies was too naiive and admitted that it was for performance reasons, rather than uttering something like 'the engine was showing imminent signs of failure'.

[Emag]

... Unlike Horner, Mekies was too naiive and admitted that it was for performance reasons, rather than uttering something like 'the engine was showing imminent signs of failure'.

This I agree with. A bit of a blunder by him to say such things. I noticed in general Mekies is a bit more open to talk with the media, which is not a bad thing in itself, but perhaps they should give him some media training to be a bit more careful with what he says publicly.

[AR3-GP]

... Unlike Horner, Mekies was too naiive and admitted that it was for performance reasons, rather than uttering something like 'the engine was showing imminent signs of failure'.

This I agree with. A bit of a blunder by him to say such things. I noticed in general Mekies is a bit more open to talk with the media, which is not a bad thing in itself, but perhaps they should give him some media training to be a bit more careful with what he says publicly.

Red Bull have not said that this engine was “free” and there’s no reason to assume they have set out to deceive the budget cap. Stella making a scene and suggesting that this is something which needs “clarification” is just a bit of soreness.

Yuki Tsunoda was also on the back rows, even further away and Red Bull chose not to give him a new PU. This already gives you a clue of how these engines are accounted for. Why would they not give Tsunoda a fresh PU if it was going to be “free”? He needs all the help he can get.

Furthermore if all the boss has to say is “It was going to break down” in a press conference, and they get a free engine, then Andrea Stella would have already done it. Other teams have taken extra PUs in the last several seasons. It is not a new invention.

[Emag]

... Unlike Horner, Mekies was too naiive and admitted that it was for performance reasons, rather than uttering something like 'the engine was showing imminent signs of failure'.

This I agree with. A bit of a blunder by him to say such things. I noticed in general Mekies is a bit more open to talk with the media, which is not a bad thing in itself, but perhaps they should give him some media training to be a bit more careful with what he says publicly.

I think this discussion is silly. Red Bull have not said that this engine was “free” and there’s no reason to assume they have set out to deceive the budget cap. Stella making a scene and suggesting that this is something which needs “clarification” is just the baseless aspersions of a man who is sore because Max Verstappen and Red Bull racing stole the show and will never let him rest.

Yuki Tsunoda was also on the back rows, even further away and Red Bull chose not to give him a new PU. This already gives you a clue of how these engines are accounted for. Why would they not give Tsunoda a fresh PU if it was going to be “free”? He needs all the help he can get.

Furthermore the idea that the words of Mekies have somehow undermined Red Bull is just another one of the fanatical tales because you and others have assumed that the team intended to deceive the FIA and will therefore no longer be able to. If all the boss has to say is “It was going to break down”, give bs excuse and they get a free engine, then Andrea Stella would have already done the same thing whenever he wanted. The idea that the process for exchanging a PU is so un-rigorous is laughable. It is not even worth a discussion because several other teams replaced PUs this year, last year, and the year before that. There is no new invention here (like mini-DRS…). Stella is full of **** on this topic.

Meh, they've been petty on each other for a while now. It's not like the RedBull camp has been without ridiculous insinuations like the "water in the tires" bs. So in that sense both sides need to be careful with what they say if they want to avoid unnecessary complications.

Point of the matter was not how relevant or not the PU drama is, which here (and in general tbh) it's been blown a bit out of proportion. There's no direct accusations, it was a comment that was made as a legitimate concern for clarifying something that is a little bit ambiguous with the budget cap rules at the moment. I don't see it being relevant for this season, but clarifying if you can evade budget cap limits or not on these things going into a new power unit formula is a genuinely useful thing to know.

As for Mekies, I stand by my point. He is a very talkative TP, which from a fan perspective is nice because you hear more about whats going on inside the team. He just needs to be a bit careful with what he says, because even on cases where there's technically nothing to "worry" about, you just waste time and resources clarifying things for no reason.

[search]

Yuki Tsunoda was also on the back rows, even further away and Red Bull chose not to give him a new PU. This already gives you a clue of how these engines are accounted for. Why would they not give Tsunoda a fresh PU if it was going to be “free”? He needs all the help he can get.

same for Hadjar in Austin, although he had to start from pit lane anyway.

[f1isgood]

If Stella wanted a real clarification, he would talk to the FIA, not to the media. I don't even understand why McLaren are being sore here. Best car, WDC locked in, WCC done and dusted and likely going to nail next regulations with likely the best engine. Weird behavior.

[Farnborough]

The critics of this PU swap have entangled themselves in circular logic which detracts from tbe case they're stating.

Note the projection that "these current units suffer almost no drop off in deployment over their life" quote of what they are saying .... if that's true.
Then by default ..... simply a new unit can't gain any significant advantage, either.

They can't, in reality have it both ways.

What they have done at RB is mitigation of any projected failures within these last four races (Brazil included) in which they have established a larger pool to run into the finish line.

There's also absolutely no confirmation from RB that this set of components are not within the cost cap anyway. In which case, tbe point is moot.

Tactically, there's no point in giving it to Yuki before now (unless needed for a failure) as he's unlikely to change any championship outcome, and again that limited capacity to provide tangible advantage from new unit.

If it's in the normal cost cap (possible, but unlikely to be in public domain knowledge) then more useful as deployed here considered the original start position at near back of grid.

Its a little like "banking" that pit stop in 21, for any potential later outcome of circumstances that they can't predict.

[organic]

The critics of this PU swap have entangled themselves in circular logic which detracts from tbe case they're stating.

Note the projection that "these current units suffer almost no drop off in deployment over their life" quote of what they are saying .... if that's true.
Then by default ..... simply a new unit can't gain any significant advantage, either.

They can't, in reality have it both ways.

What they have done at RB is mitigation of any projected failures within these last four races (Brazil included) in which they have established a larger pool to run into the finish line.

There's also absolutely no confirmation from RB that this set of components are not within the cost cap anyway. In which case, tbe point is moot.

Tactically, there's no point in giving it to Yuki before now (unless needed for a failure) as he's unlikely to change any championship outcome, and again that limited capacity to provide tangible advantage from new unit.

If it's in the normal cost cap (possible, but unlikely to be in public domain knowledge) then more useful as deployed here considered the original start position at near back of grid.

Its a little like "banking" that pit stop in 21, for any potential later outcome of circumstances that they can't predict.

But why would they take the engine if it's not for performance reasons? Reliability reasons which could feasibly be investigated. With their comments, McLaren are pushing the FIA to audit the status of red bull's engine pool I believe. If the FIA looks and sees engines with no ongoing issues/niggles and plenty of remaining mileage compared to what Honda expects from a PU (which they presumably analysed from their test bench findings, something that should be available to the FIA?) then it could be a problem for red bull

If reliability reasons are ruled out, then you can only conclude it's for performance reasons unless I'm mistaken. Across the grid engines are not considered in the cost cap and red bull have been silent on the issue, so it's unlikely red bull would come out now and say that it's been considered by them a performance related component all along. They would've shut down the narrative ages ago

[Farnborough]

I'm of course offering gentle speculation.

It would seem injudicious of them (but possible) to shoot themselves in the foot from RB team personnel making statements about performance so far.

They absolutely must know of the boundary in regards to accounting for this in/out of cost cap limitation.

Hypothetical projection, if there were three engine in pool, one with more extensive lifing used, with the other two expected to reach their limits by last race. The "oldest" could be ascribed FP and maybe sprint duties to conserve the other two.
It could look like you can make reasonable arguments in either direction for replacement on one unit on "ultimately" reliability ticket.

They all must look at them in this way, that's all teams, to minimise risk of failure.

How hard do you run a unit at end of projected mileage, how brave are you in that confidence, even though "on the book" it says it SHOULD make it at that deployment rate. Still that's reliability in purest sense, but a little obscure in absolute definition. But then that does define much of these cars in absolute terms, knowing the boundary and just how close you can run to it.

Here it seems, just the words used to describe how you've acted can "blend" it to either side of the cost cap boundary.