2026 McLaren Mastercard F1 Team

[venkyhere]

Mercedes provides the ingredients (chopped & diced), the salt and spices, the stove, the pan. "Recipe" is upto the customer ; difference in recipes = what order to add, when, with what flame level. Different 'modes' and 'strats' are just like whether a vegetable is sliced into cubes v/s julienne or whether the flame is low or high, etc etc
We have seen umpteen times how a car goes on 'multiple recharge laps to fill up the battery' when it's on old tyres and a fresh tyred attacker behind is two laps away from a battle. We have also seen last lap battles where both participants drain their batteries before the finish line. So 'deployment' is not a static choice that varies Q v R, but something 'dynamic' across different laps within a race itself. So my take on the whole thing is exactly same as Emag.

The only 'confusing' bit for me is how the deployment strategy is woven into a lap - which corner to drain, which end-of-straight to recharge etc - a combination of switches / 'overtake button' the driver has to press during every single lap, or is it 'automated' ? If it's 'automated' how does the car know which part of the track it's on at any given point in time ?

[koolway]

It's a combination of switches and overrides.
You typically have some predefined "modes" and you can override the selected mode with different objective (by changing engine target, energy target).
You have quick shortcut (recharge on, OT, ...) that may have different consequences depending on the selected mode, press action (single press, double press, hold, ... )

But the regulations explicitly prohibit:
Closed-loop control of engine or hybrid output based on GPS position, DRS signal, ...
“Track maps” that vary torque, deployment, or harvesting as a function of location,
Using historical gear or throttle sequences to infer position and adapt PU behavior automatically.

The PU must respond only to:
Driver inputs,
Selected parameters (STRAT, HPP, targets),
Internal physical states (SOC, temperatures, pressures, RPM, etc.).

[venkyhere]

How about DRS activation ? the driver has to press the button, but it will activate only if the car is 'informed' by some kind of race control transmission, that it is 'allowed' to use DRS, after GPS (or some other custom positioning tech) data from both cars tell the race-control's timing software that the gap is indeed below 1s.
Now, with new regulations, the same kind of data handshake is going to be used for X-mode v Z-mode, isn't it ?

So it's not a case of positioning data not being available for full automation of deployment, it's a case of prohibiting the same, right ? So "selective deployment, selective recharge" (different from automatic recharge on throttle lift & braking or automatic deployment based on x-seconds beyond 10k rpm etc) is indeed 'fully driver action based'.

[Darth-Piekus]

At the mention of batteries considering batteries give now half of the total power, do we expect battery quality and age to play a huge role?

[koolway]

How about DRS activation ? the driver has to press the button, but it will activate only if the car is 'informed' by some kind of race control transmission, that it is 'allowed' to use DRS, after GPS (or some other custom positioning tech) data from both cars tell the race-control's timing software that the gap is indeed below 1s.
Now, with new regulations, the same kind of data handshake is going to be used for X-mode v Z-mode, isn't it ?

So it's not a case of positioning data not being available for full automation of deployment, it's a case of prohibiting the same, right ? So "selective deployment, selective recharge" (different from automatic recharge on throttle lift & braking or automatic deployment based on x-seconds beyond 10k rpm etc) is indeed 'fully driver action based'.

yes, correct. They do have GPS sensors, transponders for lap times & micro sectors, ...
The car knows where it is on track for telemetry purposes.
You just cannot input that into the PU "logic" to alter its ouput.

What the PU logic could do is
- When the driver goes to 100% throttle, ramp up torque over 200 ms
- If full throttle is sustained for more than X seconds and SOC is below Y, bias toward harvest
- After N seconds at peak ICE load, soften the hybrid contribution to protect temperatures

What the PU logic cannot do
- After 3.2 s of full throttle (because we then know this is the back straight), deploy 80 kW
- When full throttle occurs at GPS mini sector 2.5, change torque shaping

But all of that lies within the PU firmware. A team cannot upload a custom "at 100% throttle apply my own torque curve" rule; they can only request behavior through the exposed controls that feed into that logic and may act as X/Y offsets and or dilation factors of the preset curves.

That is why the system can feel “smart” and adaptive without becoming a track-mapped or team-authored hybrid script.

[mwillems]

As a customer you don’t get some factory sealed unconfigurable power unit as a product. All customers come up with their own deployment mappings that best fit their respective cars. This will not change in 2026.

No, they dont. They get mercedes pre-programmed maps with various offsets and that's it. It's all within the scope of the PU package. Customers never re-programmed these things themselves. I specifically remember someone from RBR saying they can't influence renault at all in deployment strategies, even when their calculations said something was better than what renault provided (that was back in the renault days).

I don't know what Renault was doing with RedBull. Perhaps their 2014-2017 software was more locked in. RedBull-Renault partnership its a bit ancient now.

I do know that all Mercedes customers do not have the same deployment maps though. I specifically know about this because I was curious a couple of years ago and I compared by looking into the steering wheel to check energy levels (SOC) on the side and they were different for all customers at specific points of the track during qualifying laps when you assume same engine mode for all. And you're free to look into this yourself, I am too lazy to go back and take screenshots right now.

It's also a no brainer. If a customer only had access to some default mapping that the factory team provides, then McLaren was never going to win any races because their drag/downforce configuration is completely different to that of Mercedes. They would be losing tenths to literally even a full second on some tracks if they ran with un-optimized mappings on a power unit which relies so much on electrical energy.

Also the last time RedBull used Renault was in 2018, which was the first year of the new regulation that forced parity between customers and factory teams. This includes having the same software available, which is what it's used to configure the engine. Before that, it wouldn't be surprising if they had complains.

You can read more about the TD here

The workaround would just be that your map is homologated with other maps, and all available, IF the rules class the map as parr of the software and not an output.

Its not clear from the rules I read the the map is software and not an output of the software

As Lionsheart mentioned, you can clearly see different deployment and clipping for the same engine in different cars.

But that mapping may not be fixed, it may also be relative to conditions based logic, the most obvious being engine modes, deployment modes and state of the battery.

The rules are the only way to answer the question,unless we can find quotes, but the rules aren't explicit and I cant see quotes talking about it.

[Emag]

I tried to find quotes but the internet nowadays is just completely ruined with AI crap. Google doesn't work like it used to do.
I am almost certain James Key talked about it in 2021, but I couldn't find sources when I looked a bit yesterday. Maybe the interview transcription has been lost now, I don't know.
The only things I could find mention the presence of Mercedes representatives on each customer's garages and them working closely with those respective teams. And also some quote by Paddy Lowe clarifying something about Williams in 2018 not being worried about not getting parity with Mercedes in terms of power units. Nothing specific with regards to how tunable PUs are.

In any case, the differences in deployment between customers are there and quite visible. The means on how those differences are achieved, doesn't seem to be public information. If it was ever public information, it seems like it has been lost in the ocean of pre-AI internet. The rules from 2018 dictate that power units between factory and customer must be totally identical in hardware and software. And there are some sources that describe, albeit not in detail, that the software provides tools with which teams can tune (some) PU parameters. I suppose it's fair to assume customers have a fair degree of tuning they can do to the power units in general, not just in how they deploy energy.

[koolway]

"The interaction with Mercedes has been fantastic, they’ve been extremely supportive, recognised the fact that we had short timescales. And we’ve worked with them very effectively over the past few months.

"And I think we’re where we’d expect to be with the maturity of the engine installation and the parts that we’re already making for ’21."

“They have shared all the information we need very quickly,” said James Key, McLaren’s technical director, in an interview with RaceFans.

“They have been open to questions, suggestions and ideas, which was within the scope of the agreement to help us out.”

“Mercedes know we are under pressure and under a short time period as well, with the inability to work on it earlier this year in a big way,” said Key. “So it’s started off very well.

“We’ve been doing some R&D testing with them at their facilities to make sure our systems are installed in a way that works for both. That seems to be going okay and we are fully on top of the programme in that respect.”

These ones ?

[Emag]

"The interaction with Mercedes has been fantastic, they’ve been extremely supportive, recognised the fact that we had short timescales. And we’ve worked with them very effectively over the past few months.

"And I think we’re where we’d expect to be with the maturity of the engine installation and the parts that we’re already making for ’21."

“They have shared all the information we need very quickly,” said James Key, McLaren’s technical director, in an interview with RaceFans.

“They have been open to questions, suggestions and ideas, which was within the scope of the agreement to help us out.”

“Mercedes know we are under pressure and under a short time period as well, with the inability to work on it earlier this year in a big way,” said Key. “So it’s started off very well.

“We’ve been doing some R&D testing with them at their facilities to make sure our systems are installed in a way that works for both. That seems to be going okay and we are fully on top of the programme in that respect.”

These ones ?

Not quite. I specifically remember him saying something like "not receiving a black box from Mercedes" but rather working closely with them to optimize the package.

I am about 90% sure this is not some fever dream

EDIT: To be fair, I think the discussion has run its course anyway. I doubt anyone specifically mentioned "we can play around with deployment strategies", but we can imply they can based on the observed differences in how qualifying laps in particular are driven between customers.

[SilviuAgo]

Seeing this post from Zak I remembered that McLaren F1 signed also MOTUL as official supplier for 2026, so maybe another sponsor to add to the list.




And the news from Sept '25:
https://www.mclaren.com/racing/partners ... la-1-team/

[mwillems]

I tried to find quotes but the internet nowadays is just completely ruined with AI crap. Google doesn't work like it used to do.
I am almost certain James Key talked about it in 2021, but I couldn't find sources when I looked a bit yesterday. Maybe the interview transcription has been lost now, I don't know.
The only things I could find mention the presence of Mercedes representatives on each customer's garages and them working closely with those respective teams. And also some quote by Paddy Lowe clarifying something about Williams in 2018 not being worried about not getting parity with Mercedes in terms of power units. Nothing specific with regards to how tunable PUs are.

In any case, the differences in deployment between customers are there and quite visible. The means on how those differences are achieved, doesn't seem to be public information. If it was ever public information, it seems like it has been lost in the ocean of pre-AI internet. The rules from 2018 dictate that power units between factory and customer must be totally identical in hardware and software. And there are some sources that describe, albeit not in detail, that the software provides tools with which teams can tune (some) PU parameters. I suppose it's fair to assume customers have a fair degree of tuning they can do to the power units in general, not just in how they deploy energy.

Agreed, it is different. The only thing really in question is the mechanism.

And im sure there are many maps the come with the engine based on different customer requirements that are available to all merc teams, one way or another.

And it is beyond doubt that there will be many options to balance and tune the map.

As long as this is available for all, and everything that needs homologation is homologated at the start, then everything you are saying is possible one way or another.

This really all started because someone argued about whether you could essentially build maps trackside (which was never the point), but there is a degree of pedantry there, though it would be interesting to know.

[mwillems]

OK, found this from Binotto in 2020

“Even with fixed power unit modes, there is still significant freedom in energy management, which teams continue to develop through the season.”

[LionsHeart]

I'd like to raise another question. It was previously stated that teams should switch to a single supplier for six-speed forward gearboxes. But when I saw a small preview from Audi, it mentioned an in-house developed eight-speed dual-clutch transmission. So, does that mean F1 will continue to have eight gears?

I don't understand how this topic passed me by. Or maybe it was so long ago that I simply forgot about it.

[Darth-Piekus]

I'd like to raise another question. It was previously stated that teams should switch to a single supplier for six-speed forward gearboxes. But when I saw a small preview from Audi, it mentioned an in-house developed eight-speed dual-clutch transmission. So, does that mean F1 will continue to have eight gears?

I don't understand how this topic passed me by. Or maybe it was so long ago that I simply forgot about it.

Out of curiosity. Might if I ask what position do you have inside Mclaren?

[hollus]

If he told you, he would then have to kill you, or more likely, they would then have to fire him.
That type of question is not helpful, certainly not in public.