2026 McLaren Mastercard F1 Team

[upsidedowntoast]

Interesting opinion on this engine topic, from our forum colleague VanjaH:

Deployment Power Limit needs to be introduced ASAP!
Reducing Deployment Power from 350kW to 250kW would immediately:
1) reduce battery drain -> reduce harvesting -> increase time at full speed on straights -> reduce dangerous speed differences between cars
2) reduce battery strain -> decrease cooling needs -> small performance improvement
3) reduce driver strain -> increase driver focus -> improve driver performance and racing



And according to an Italian source: What was anticipated on 23th of Feb will come to pass: after the next Chinese GP, the FIA, LM, and teams will sit down at the table to analyze what to salvage and what not from the first two race weekends; this analysis, combined with the tests already conducted in Bahrain, will lead to possible decisions for the good of F1. Even though publicly it seems like everything is going fine, there is enormous pressure behind the scenes on all the players involved #AutoRacer #F1

I generally don't trust Italian sources but given that F1 official socmed has to delete tons of comments from regular fans to the point where they get community noted, I think it's obvious that a change will have to be made.

I'm thinking they will bare minimum reduce maximum deployment to reduce clipping. But then that might make the cars too slow, so hopefully they also allow more fuel flow on the ICE side to make up for it, or something.

[Mansell89]

What’s the situation with Mercedes PU and what they supply to customers guys?

Can someone explain it simply to me?

Is it correct that all teams now have the latest spec engine? But that in testing only the Merc works team had it, so spent 6 days optimising it and mapping it whilst the customers worked with the original spec.

Is it not the duty of the HPP partners to support McLaren and other customers to extract the best from it?

It just feels a bit like that hollow 2014 reg reset if there are fans being played, which would disappoint me as someone who wants to see genuine competition.

It’s likely to take several race weekends for customers to really get to grips with the PU right?

PU final version was homologated week before this first race, so from Race 1, Mercedes is to provide the same spec engine to its customer teams, but prior to that, in preseason testing, they were not obliged to, so all of the mapings and setting Mclaren and others have used in preseason basically are off/not the best match for the latest spec of the PU, so in a way it was a blow under the belt from Mercedes, but it is to be expected, I think the team will need 3-4 race weekends to full understand how to map and operate the new PU, which puts Mercedes in a HUGE advantage, but this is how things are, its nobody fault that we do not produce our own PU.

Thank you

It’s a bit hollow if you ask me. If I want to be the best by beating the best, I’d want my customer competitors to have access to all the same tools.

It’s 2014 all over again.

Sure, it’s not breaking rules. But spirit of competition?

A lot of money is paid to access these engines, I hope we see greater cooperation from HPP, for all customers.

[FittingMechanics]

Interesting opinion on this engine topic, from our forum colleague VanjaH:

Deployment Power Limit needs to be introduced ASAP!
Reducing Deployment Power from 350kW to 250kW would immediately:
1) reduce battery drain -> reduce harvesting -> increase time at full speed on straights -> reduce dangerous speed differences between cars
2) reduce battery strain -> decrease cooling needs -> small performance improvement
3) reduce driver strain -> increase driver focus -> improve driver performance and racing

I've mentioned this in a couple of places but I don't understand how reducing the power to 250 kW would change the amount they harvest? They would still want to meet their 8 MJ allotment per lap because it is fastest way to go around the lap. Only thing that reduced power would do is make these cars more stable in traction zones on power, which would make them easier to drive.

Am I missing something? Is there a ramp down that would make this suggestion work?

Big speed differentials are not because someone ran out of power, 400 kW of ICE power is still plenty enough. Speed differentials are because someone started either super clipping (400-250=150 kW positive power) or lift and harvest (negative 300 or 350 kW power) (if I got my numbers wrong please correct me, I want to memorize the appropriate levels)

To me the decision is clear, either ban super clipping/lift and harvest or reduce recharge limits to a level where at least 90% of energy can be retrieved by heavy braking.

[_cerber1]

[Badger]

Interesting opinion on this engine topic, from our forum colleague VanjaH:

Deployment Power Limit needs to be introduced ASAP!
Reducing Deployment Power from 350kW to 250kW would immediately:
1) reduce battery drain -> reduce harvesting -> increase time at full speed on straights -> reduce dangerous speed differences between cars
2) reduce battery strain -> decrease cooling needs -> small performance improvement
3) reduce driver strain -> increase driver focus -> improve driver performance and racing

I've mentioned this in a couple of places but I don't understand how reducing the power to 250 kW would change the amount they harvest? They would still want to meet their 8 MJ allotment per lap because it is fastest way to go around the lap. Only thing that reduced power would do is make these cars more stable in traction zones on power, which would make them easier to drive.

Am I missing something? Is there a ramp down that would make this suggestion work?

Big speed differentials are not because someone ran out of power, 400 kW of ICE power is still plenty enough. Speed differentials are because someone started either super clipping (400-250=150 kW positive power) or lift and harvest (negative 300 or 350 kW power) (if I got my numbers wrong please correct me, I want to memorize the appropriate levels)

To me the decision is clear, either ban super clipping/lift and harvest or reduce recharge limits to a level where at least 90% of energy can be retrieved by heavy braking.

You do both at the same time. You reduce the K to 200 kW (43% reduction in K power) and you reduce allowable harvest at the same time by a smaller number (say 25%). End result you'll have 30% longer deployment at full power and 25% less harvesting. Cars will be slower and less powerful, but 600 kW (800 HP) is enough with these low drag cars. We can easily afford to lose 2-3 seconds of lap time to make the cars better to watch.

[CjC]

Seeing McLaren this far behind is certainly very surprising to me. Either I overestimated their abilities and last regulation cycle was an one-off, or Emag's theory that they likely chose a different development route late makes a lot more sense.

Er it’s not really normal for a team to carry over their ‘team to beat status’ from one regulation set to another. Examples:

McLaren 99 - 00
Ferrari 04 - 05
McLaren 08 - 09
Red Bull 13 - 14
Mercedes 21 - 22
McLaren 25 - 26

Only team I can remember in recent history to do so was Mercedes 16-17 when they took advantage of a superior budget.

I expected them to be closer not this far behind. Didn't say they had to be Mercedes. There will be some baked in works advantage that Mercedes will enjoy when engines change.

For what its worth, 21 to 22 is misleading as two teams fought every race and one of them with equal resources did manage to transition just fine.

Also 21-22 is the most useful reference as that's the latest proper one under the budget cap.

I am not sure if anyone at McLaren is happy where they are right now.

Can’t believe my reply has only just dawned on me.

If we can only look at 21-22 then, it has many similarities to what we have seen 25-26.
Mercedes the winning constructor in 2021 dropped to the back of the leading pack in 2022, like McLaren just have.
Then the 2 teams who finished P2 and P3 in 2021 ended up being the 2 top teams early in the 2022 season, the caveat now is that there are 4 top teams but the 2 who went for the title in 2025 are the 2 teams trailing the other 2 teams from the top 4 who didn’t duel it out for the title in 2025.

Mclaren or their fans won’t be happy with their current competitive situation however some fans will agree with me that this situation isn’t surprising considering that it’s very rare for a championship winning team from one rule set go into the next set as favourites.

There is nothing to suggest Mclaren will recover- they may never do, if they slip back into the midfield then any criticism sent their way will then be valid.

[FittingMechanics]

Interesting opinion on this engine topic, from our forum colleague VanjaH:

Deployment Power Limit needs to be introduced ASAP!
Reducing Deployment Power from 350kW to 250kW would immediately:
1) reduce battery drain -> reduce harvesting -> increase time at full speed on straights -> reduce dangerous speed differences between cars
2) reduce battery strain -> decrease cooling needs -> small performance improvement
3) reduce driver strain -> increase driver focus -> improve driver performance and racing

I've mentioned this in a couple of places but I don't understand how reducing the power to 250 kW would change the amount they harvest? They would still want to meet their 8 MJ allotment per lap because it is fastest way to go around the lap. Only thing that reduced power would do is make these cars more stable in traction zones on power, which would make them easier to drive.

Am I missing something? Is there a ramp down that would make this suggestion work?

Big speed differentials are not because someone ran out of power, 400 kW of ICE power is still plenty enough. Speed differentials are because someone started either super clipping (400-250=150 kW positive power) or lift and harvest (negative 300 or 350 kW power) (if I got my numbers wrong please correct me, I want to memorize the appropriate levels)

To me the decision is clear, either ban super clipping/lift and harvest or reduce recharge limits to a level where at least 90% of energy can be retrieved by heavy braking.

You do both at the same time. You reduce the K to 200 kW (43% reduction in K power) and you reduce allowable harvest at the same time by a smaller number (say 25%). End result you'll have 30% longer deployment at full power and 25% less harvesting. Cars will be slower and less powerful, but 600 kW (800 HP) is enough with these low drag cars. We can easily afford to lose 2-3 seconds of lap time to make the cars better to watch.

But you don't need longer deployment. These cars are not slowing down because they ran out of power.

In Barcelona Ocon reached speeds above the MGU-K cutoff. SLM drag is low enough that 400 kW is enough to sustain speed.

[AR3-GP]

McLaren are running the same power unit as Mercedes, who put theirs to good use in recording a 1-2 to start the season in style. Stella admitted that Mercedes are also quicker in the corners, with the Woking-based squad needing to understand how they are losing that crucial time.

“Develop the car,” Stella stated as McLaren's main objective now. “This will take a few races, in terms of seeing some major upgrades that can allow us to change a bit the category for which we compete. Therefore, I think in these few initial races, we will have to make sure that we extract most of the car in its current configuration.”

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... PmBb164krT

Another "Miami update"?

[f1isgood]

Er it’s not really normal for a team to carry over their ‘team to beat status’ from one regulation set to another. Examples:

McLaren 99 - 00
Ferrari 04 - 05
McLaren 08 - 09
Red Bull 13 - 14
Mercedes 21 - 22
McLaren 25 - 26

Only team I can remember in recent history to do so was Mercedes 16-17 when they took advantage of a superior budget.

I expected them to be closer not this far behind. Didn't say they had to be Mercedes. There will be some baked in works advantage that Mercedes will enjoy when engines change.

For what its worth, 21 to 22 is misleading as two teams fought every race and one of them with equal resources did manage to transition just fine.

Also 21-22 is the most useful reference as that's the latest proper one under the budget cap.

I am not sure if anyone at McLaren is happy where they are right now.

Can’t believe my reply has only just dawned on me.

If we can only look at 21-22 then, it has many similarities to what we have seen 25-26.
Mercedes the winning constructor in 2021 dropped to the back of the leading pack in 2022, like McLaren just have.
Then the 2 teams who finished P2 and P3 in 2021 ended up being the 2 top teams early in the 2022 season, the caveat now is that there are 4 top teams but the 2 who went for the title in 2025 are the 2 teams trailing the other 2 teams from the top 4 who didn’t duel it out for the title in 2025.

Mclaren or their fans won’t be happy with their current competitive situation however some fans will agree with me that this situation isn’t surprising considering that it’s very rare for a championship winning team from one rule set go into the next set as favourites.

There is nothing to suggest Mclaren will recover- they may never do, if they slip back into the midfield then any criticism sent their way will then be valid.

Red Bull and Mercedes went neck to neck in 2021. The WCC could have swung the other way if not for unfortunate incidents on the track. I hope you are not being intentionally disingenuous here.

I think it's actually pretty surprising really that McLaren chassis is worse than what I expected. I obviously expected them to be at least as good as Mercedes.

Granted, there could be a much bigger snowball effect here because of Mercedes playing games with their customers.

McLaren had the constructors done by race 10 last year and had shifted all resources to 2026 by their own admission as they wanted to "keep winning in the future" and that's why they didn't bring late season upgrades (they couldn't find extra lap time either but anyways this was the official company line).

I just think Emag's theory checks out. Something must have gone wrong or what I am seeing doesn't make sense.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

If they reduced power to 250kW but kept harvesting the same, wouldn't they still need to harvest less because the battery deployment would last longer?

[Matt2725]

Interesting opinion on this engine topic, from our forum colleague VanjaH:

Deployment Power Limit needs to be introduced ASAP!
Reducing Deployment Power from 350kW to 250kW would immediately:
1) reduce battery drain -> reduce harvesting -> increase time at full speed on straights -> reduce dangerous speed differences between cars
2) reduce battery strain -> decrease cooling needs -> small performance improvement
3) reduce driver strain -> increase driver focus -> improve driver performance and racing

I've mentioned this in a couple of places but I don't understand how reducing the power to 250 kW would change the amount they harvest? They would still want to meet their 8 MJ allotment per lap because it is fastest way to go around the lap. Only thing that reduced power would do is make these cars more stable in traction zones on power, which would make them easier to drive.

Am I missing something? Is there a ramp down that would make this suggestion work?

Big speed differentials are not because someone ran out of power, 400 kW of ICE power is still plenty enough. Speed differentials are because someone started either super clipping (400-250=150 kW positive power) or lift and harvest (negative 300 or 350 kW power) (if I got my numbers wrong please correct me, I want to memorize the appropriate levels)

To me the decision is clear, either ban super clipping/lift and harvest or reduce recharge limits to a level where at least 90% of energy can be retrieved by heavy braking.

Note that Vanja has been openly anti-Merc in recent months, so perhaps they think it would bring them back into the pack somewhat.

[Badger]

I've mentioned this in a couple of places but I don't understand how reducing the power to 250 kW would change the amount they harvest? They would still want to meet their 8 MJ allotment per lap because it is fastest way to go around the lap. Only thing that reduced power would do is make these cars more stable in traction zones on power, which would make them easier to drive.

Am I missing something? Is there a ramp down that would make this suggestion work?

Big speed differentials are not because someone ran out of power, 400 kW of ICE power is still plenty enough. Speed differentials are because someone started either super clipping (400-250=150 kW positive power) or lift and harvest (negative 300 or 350 kW power) (if I got my numbers wrong please correct me, I want to memorize the appropriate levels)

To me the decision is clear, either ban super clipping/lift and harvest or reduce recharge limits to a level where at least 90% of energy can be retrieved by heavy braking.

You do both at the same time. You reduce the K to 200 kW (43% reduction in K power) and you reduce allowable harvest at the same time by a smaller number (say 25%). End result you'll have 30% longer deployment at full power and 25% less harvesting. Cars will be slower and less powerful, but 600 kW (800 HP) is enough with these low drag cars. We can easily afford to lose 2-3 seconds of lap time to make the cars better to watch.

But you don't need longer deployment. These cars are not slowing down because they ran out of power.

In Barcelona Ocon reached speeds above the MGU-K cutoff. SLM drag is low enough that 400 kW is enough to sustain speed.

Sure you do, if the car has lower power you’ll need to deploy for longer to reach those same top speeds in a reasonable time. Besides, having too much deployment is far better than whatever we have now.

[FittingMechanics]

Sure you do, if the car has lower power you’ll need to deploy for longer to reach those same top speeds in a reasonable time. Besides, having too much deployment is far better than whatever we have now.

But the cars are not slowed down by the drag when purely on ICE power. They are slowed down when they start to super clip (meaning their ICE is cut from 400 to 150 KW) or when they are LiCo harvesting (negative 350 kW).

If LiCo and superclipping was banned and only thing they could do was brake to recover, there would be no problem if they used 350 kW power of 250 kW or 150 kW. Only difference would be that the higher the power, sooner they reach higher speeds and cross over to ICE power only.

If you lower the power, you slow down the cars and make them easier to drive.

[AR3-GP]

If you lower the power, you slow down the cars and make them easier to drive.

Instead of doing a constant power reduction, they could do a ramp down from 350 so they are still grip limited on corner exits.

[FittingMechanics]

If you lower the power, you slow down the cars and make them easier to drive.

Instead of doing a constant power reduction, they could do a ramp down from 350 so they are still grip limited on corner exits.

Not sure what you get by doing that.

The cars are already limited by energy, they will do their own rampdown much earlier than FIA equation allows them because it is faster to do it that way. No one is deploying energy at 300+ kph. They are deploying as much as they can as early as they can on the straight. The energy at lower speed gives you more kph for the same amount. And then it compounds as you are at higher speed earlier on the straight.

We should probably create a new thread about energy use strategy as it looks like the discussion is in multiple places .