Farnborough wrote: ↑27 Sep 2026, 12:19
They, RBPT, appear to be evolving their own interpretation of most effective deployment "landscape" in running this PU.
As other teams are realising, there's different focus that's been forced by these rules now in place for production of most effective method and resources.
It's pretty boring watching algorithm in performance sport, but essential if they are to succeed under this rule set.
Genuinely dont think that addresses the elephant in the room.
What about Red Bull having their best performance of the season at the calendars most power sensitive track?
The tied next Venue for power sensitivity is Canada, where Max finished 3rd despite having "car degradation" (Mekies and Max's words) due to the bouncing and Max disagreeing with the team on set up direction but taking the teams choice to show it didnt work in the race.
3rd at Monza too which has high demand for power sensitivity and carrying a rear axle issue which made the car lack low speed compliance(Max's words).
4 podiums at 3 power sensitive tracks despite 2 of those races carrying chassis related issues.
RBPT "evolving their own interpretation of most effective deployment" has no relevance.
Because RBPT are the only entity that should be interpreting their deployment.
It's their engine after all.
And teams being forced by the rules to find the most effective method and resource is an F1 constant, not a 2026 variable. I unfortunately do not see how this explains outlying results for Red Bull at power sensitive tracks.