2026 McLaren Mastercard F1 Team

[Xero]

McLaren have the same tools available but it’s up to them to use it to create deployment settings that are as good as Merc’s. Merc can’t do everything for you.

The point at he moment is that Mclaren do not have the same tools. You're getting a bit confused dear. Pay attention.

No need to get upset. McLaren have the same settings available they just made different choices with their mappings that turned out to be not as good.

I still think you missed the point, the software is designed to operate the PU within it's intended scope. Having older software may have prevented the customer teams from doing that. The comments from McLaren and Williams seem to suggest it given the obvious frustrations. As I said, I get withholding data and they're within their right to do so. This staggered release of specs though feels like a premeditated choice rather than one of need, hidden behind reliability concerns. They have not had the same tools at any point this year so far.

[Badger]

The point at he moment is that Mclaren do not have the same tools. You're getting a bit confused dear. Pay attention.

No need to get upset. McLaren have the same settings available they just made different choices with their mappings that turned out to be not as good.

I still think you missed the point, the software is designed to operate the PU within it's intended scope. Having older software may have prevented the customer teams from doing that. The comments from McLaren and Williams seem to suggest it given the obvious frustrations. As I said, I get withholding data and they're within their right to do so. This staggered release of specs though feels like a premeditated choice rather than one of need, hidden behind reliability concerns. They have not had the same tools at any point this year so far.

There's no suggestion from McLaren or Williams that they have older software or aren't allowed to operate the engine within its intended scope. What they are saying is "we don't understand how to do that yet". Mercedes have given them the same engine and software spec that they have and told them "go ahead and use it". It is up to the customer teams in partnership with their embedded HPP engineers to figure out how to optimise their package. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Mercedes should optimise their deployment mappings for them, on a chassis that they don't even know.

[Ground Effect]

No need to get upset. McLaren have the same settings available they just made different choices with their mappings that turned out to be not as good.

I still think you missed the point, the software is designed to operate the PU within it's intended scope. Having older software may have prevented the customer teams from doing that. The comments from McLaren and Williams seem to suggest it given the obvious frustrations. As I said, I get withholding data and they're within their right to do so. This staggered release of specs though feels like a premeditated choice rather than one of need, hidden behind reliability concerns. They have not had the same tools at any point this year so far.

There's no suggestion from McLaren or Williams that they have older software or aren't allowed to operate the engine within its intended scope. What they are saying is "we don't understand how to do that yet". Mercedes have given them the same engine and software spec that they have and told them "go ahead and use it". It is up to the customer teams in partnership with their embedded HPP engineers to figure out how to optimise their package. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Mercedes should optimise their deployment mappings for them, on a chassis that they don't even know.

Getting it all, new PU spec and software during the Bahrain tests would have help a great deal, Mercedes knew that, so I strongly believe the delay was deliberate.

[Xero]

No need to get upset. McLaren have the same settings available they just made different choices with their mappings that turned out to be not as good.

I still think you missed the point, the software is designed to operate the PU within it's intended scope. Having older software may have prevented the customer teams from doing that. The comments from McLaren and Williams seem to suggest it given the obvious frustrations. As I said, I get withholding data and they're within their right to do so. This staggered release of specs though feels like a premeditated choice rather than one of need, hidden behind reliability concerns. They have not had the same tools at any point this year so far.

There's no suggestion from McLaren or Williams that they have older software or aren't allowed to operate the engine within its intended scope. What they are saying is "we don't understand how to do that yet". Mercedes have given them the same engine and software spec that they have and told them "go ahead and use it". It is up to the customer teams in partnership with their embedded HPP engineers to figure out how to optimise their package. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Mercedes should optimise their deployment mappings for them, on a chassis that they don't even know.

I blatently stated (twice) Mercedes are well within their rights let customer teams to figure out for themselves and not share optimum data, I don't dispute that at all. My argument is entirely based off reports are coming out today suggesting the customer teams did not have the latest software, if true. You're skirting around it.

[upsidedowntoast]

Pretty sure Merc did the bare minimum that was legally required.

Same engine hardware? Yes...delivered after testing was over.
Same base software? Yes...also delivered after testing was over.

Knowledge on how to interact with that software for the optimal handling? No, as the optimization will be slightly different for each car depending on setup, aero, track, etc.

So right now the disadvantage to Mclaren is:
- packaging/cooling requirements, standard customer team disadvantage
- a few weeks' worth of testing and fiddling with the new engine (silver lining, this is probably low hanging fruit that Mclaren can improve on in the next few races)
- generally undercooked chassis due to limited wind tunnel time/weight (on the flip side, due to how energy starved these new cars are, midseason aero improvements that would have only netted you 0.1s last year will get you maybe 0.3s this year)

[Badger]

There's no suggestion from McLaren or Williams that they have older software or aren't allowed to operate the engine within its intended scope. What they are saying is "we don't understand how to do that yet". Mercedes have given them the same engine and software spec that they have and told them "go ahead and use it". It is up to the customer teams in partnership with their embedded HPP engineers to figure out how to optimise their package. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Mercedes should optimise their deployment mappings for them, on a chassis that they don't even know.

I blatently stated (twice) Mercedes are well within their rights let customer teams to figure out for themselves and not share optimum data, I don't dispute that at all. My argument is entirely based off reports are coming out today suggesting the customer teams did not have the latest software, if true. You're skirting around it.

There are no such reports I'm afraid, you've just misunderstood what has been said by the teams. They're not saying they have old software, they're saying they don't know how to use the new software optimally.

Getting it all, new PU spec and software during the Bahrain tests would have help a great deal, Mercedes knew that, so I strongly believe the delay was deliberate.

Sure, but you can't pay for coach and expect to ride in first class. Manufacturers spend billions, customers spend a lot less. They get the same end product but naturally the depth of understanding will vary.

[Xero]

There's no suggestion from McLaren or Williams that they have older software or aren't allowed to operate the engine within its intended scope. What they are saying is "we don't understand how to do that yet". Mercedes have given them the same engine and software spec that they have and told them "go ahead and use it". It is up to the customer teams in partnership with their embedded HPP engineers to figure out how to optimise their package. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Mercedes should optimise their deployment mappings for them, on a chassis that they don't even know.

I blatently stated (twice) Mercedes are well within their rights let customer teams to figure out for themselves and not share optimum data, I don't dispute that at all. My argument is entirely based off reports are coming out today suggesting the customer teams did not have the latest software, if true. You're skirting around it.

There are no such reports I'm afraid, you've just misunderstood what has been said by the teams. They're not saying they have old software, they're saying they don't know how to use the new software optimally.

I've seen it in multiple places. Authenticity and credeance aside, it's out there, hence the discussion. "Reports" was probably the wrong choice of word, let's go with "murmurs".

Edit: should also add, it's not saying they were denied the opportunity to do so. Could very well have been customers teams made the choice not to due to the lack of information and understanding that would have introduced unknown issues. Doesn't help heading into a sprint weekend with the same prospect.

[CjC]

Peeps, take a breath.

https://thejudge13.com/2026/03/10/fias- ... tomers-on/

This is a good article I’ve found that provides a lot of food for thought. It should answer some of your questions as it did for me.

Merc fully abided by the rules, it was the timing of when they abided them that’s the issue.
As Volwes says, what’s the point in having extra days of testing if the PU they ran in those test days isn’t the homologated spec to race with.
It’s wild to think that Merc sandbagged with their engine to not arise suspicion from their customers, rather than Red Bull and Ferrari. Merc really are concerned about the treat McLaren pose to them.

[Badger]

I blatently stated (twice) Mercedes are well within their rights let customer teams to figure out for themselves and not share optimum data, I don't dispute that at all. My argument is entirely based off reports are coming out today suggesting the customer teams did not have the latest software, if true. You're skirting around it.

There are no such reports I'm afraid, you've just misunderstood what has been said by the teams. They're not saying they have old software, they're saying they don't know how to use the new software optimally.

I've seen it in multiple places. Authenticity and credeance aside, it's out there, hence the discussion. "Reports" was probably the wrong choice of word, let's go with "murmurs".

Edit: should also add, it's not saying they were denied the opportunity to do so. Could very well have been customers teams made the choice not to due to the lack of information and understanding that would have introduced unknown issues. Doesn't help heading into a sprint weekend with the same prospect.

Let's go with "internet conspiracies".

Let's get back to reality. Vowles:

“So I’m confident that Mercedes, what they have provided us is the ability to do what they are doing.

“I don’t know how to do that right now, as I talk to you today, and that’s what we’re working through in the background right now. What have we missed, and how do we get there fast.

“Mercedes are incredibly fair to customer teams. I state this already. We have everything that they have access to. They have just been cleverer than we have, and it’s our job to get on top of it.”

[API]

Mercedes did it to have an advantage. That is the reality and it cannot be denied. The facts are clear.

[hollus]

Stop the bickering, guys. You are in violent agreement.
I think you all agree on the PU being delivered strictly by the rules but at an uncomfortable late time point, and perhaps missing a user manual. Legal and unfriendly, and not too surprising in the piranha club.
Please stop the soft personal blows and pretending to get hooked on semantics, it is tiresome.

[Darth-Piekus]

At the end of the day Mercedes chose to give info about their latest spec engines as late as possible so they can have the upper hand. The question you should ask yourselves is how fast can we understand everything about the engine and nullify that gap.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Screw Audi... They are the reason we have these Idiotic Engine rules. F1 must move away from EU car companies asap.

Honda are also a reason for these PU rules.

Should F1 move away from European AND Asian car companies and just use.... Presumably American ones??

Never mind that the vast majority of the sport's teams and staff are in Europe. That several of the biggest car companies in the world are Asian and European?

Your comment makes no sense at all.

Move away from all car manufacturers. EU are just much worse than the others with Electrical BS.

There are more than enough engine suppliers worldwide to make F1 great again.

If the car manufacturers want to be in F1 it must be on F1's terms. Money/Greed and Corruption are just too prevalent in these big corporations.

Yes, they're so greedy that they're willing to spend hundreds of millions on developing Power Units for F1.....

I can't see many independent engine manufactures willing, or even able, to spend a tenth of that....

[Stu]

Not so subtle reminder…
The thread is “2026 McLaren Mastercard F1 Team, it appears at the top of each page.
Get it back to topic rather than spamming the thread. There is, usefully, a whole other thread for discussing the Mercedes HPP PU.

[FittingMechanics]

Vowles said he feels there is 3 tenths from the PU optimization alone. If that number is accurate and applies to McLaren as well that would be P3 in Melbourne. Race pace was still bad, mainly from graining but 3 tenths would help bridge the gap.

Hopefully we see some improvement in China, both on track and with the comments.

Btw customer teams should work together to figure this out.