0
In Brazil, Red Bull made a radical call. Max Verstappen received a fresh power unit, the car was taken out of parc fermé and he had to start from the pit lane. Sportingly, it worked. Verstappen delivered a spectacular recovery drive and limited the damage in the championship. But in the days that followed, the conversation shifted. McLaren team boss Andrea Stella openly questioned how such an expensive engine change fits within the cost cap. His comments poked at a grey area Formula 1 has been wrestling with for years. This analysis looks beyond the radio messages and overtakes, and focuses on the financial and political layer behind Verstappen’s engine swap.
What Red Bull Actually Did in Brazil
At Interlagos, Red Bull quickly realised it had missed the ideal setup window. The car lacked balance, degradation was higher than expected and the margin to McLaren and Ferrari was too small. In that context, Red Bull took a double gamble. First, it installed a brand-new power unit. Second, it modified the setup outside parc fermé, which guaranteed a pit lane start.
Verstappen Not Interested in FIA Gala: “Nonsense”
Helmut Marko Leaves Red Bull: Should Verstappen Be Worried?
Sportingly, the choice makes sense. A fresh engine offers more power and reliability, especially at altitude and on the rough surface of Interlagos. By breaking parc fermé, the team also gained freedom to rebuild the car with higher downforce, different ride heights and a more aggressive race-focused setup. It gave Verstappen a package capable of damage limitation, even from the back.
But under the engine cover, another issue lurks. Each additional power unit carries costs, not only for the hardware itself but also for production, test work and logistics. And that is exactly where the budget cap comes into play.
Stella and the Grey Zone of the Cost Cap
Andrea Stella used Brazil as the moment to raise a broader concern. He wanted clarity on how the costs of an additional power unit are accounted for within the cost cap. Teams have internal agreements on how engines, upgrades and production are booked, but the rules leave room for interpretation. If one team can absorb engine changes more easily than another, the sporting balance shifts.
Stella explained that McLaren tries to run older engines longer to save money. That choice has direct on-track consequences. Older engines often mean slightly less power or more care with mileage. That conservative approach clashes with the sight of Red Bull installing an extra engine at a moment that suits them strategically.
His frustration is not about the single incident in Brazil, but about the feeling that the cost cap — designed to level the playing field — may be creating new inequalities. If big teams have
more financial flexibility within the same rules, engine choices become part of a financial battleground.
Rules, Gentlemen’s Agreements and Political Weapons
The FIA regulations describe exactly how many engine components teams are allowed each season and which penalties apply. The cost cap rules describe how expenses should be logged, but inevitably contain grey areas. Between those two documents, teams have created informal agreements on how they handle engines, test work and shared expenses with engine suppliers.
And that is where friction emerges. New interpretations, creative accounting and shifting relationships between works teams and customers make it difficult to determine who is gaining an advantage. The earlier cost cap controversy involving Red Bull has also increased distrust. Any hint that Red Bull may be exploiting a loophole is immediately seized upon by rivals and turned into political leverage.
The cost cap is therefore not just a financial framework but also a weapon. Teams use interviews, letters and strategic leaks to pressure the FIA. The debate over Verstappen’s engine change fits perfectly into that trend.
McLaren Between Performance and Prudence
For McLaren, the situation is especially sensitive. Stella has been open about the internal trade-offs his team must make. New engine components, extra manufacturing runs and additional test work all cost money that can no longer be spent on aero updates, simulator development or staffing. By running Norris and Piastri on older engines for longer, McLaren frees up budget to invest elsewhere.
Fans mostly see lap times and race strategies. Behind the scenes, every decision revolves around cost cap balance. One extra set of upgraded parts may mean delaying a planned engine change. A more aggressive engine strategy in the title fight might limit development for next season.
The clash with Red Bull highlights how differently teams navigate those constraints. Where McLaren acts conservatively, Red Bull in Brazil seemed willing to take a more expensive risk in pursuit of immediate performance.
Towards a New Engine and Budget Framework in 2026
The question now is how the FIA will respond to the pressure from McLaren and other teams. Brazil could prove to be the spark for a tighter regime in 2026, when the next power unit regulations arrive. That could mean clearer rules on how engine production must be accounted for, stricter oversight of the costs associated with additional power units and perhaps even a separate sub-cap dedicated to engines.
What is certain is that the cost cap is evolving from a technical document into a living political instrument. Verstappen’s engine change in Brazil has become a symbol of that evolution. While fans remember the recovery drive, team principals and accountants saw a test case for the boundaries of the system.
Over the coming months, it will become clear whether the FIA chooses to shrink the grey area or whether teams continue to push and pull at its edges. One thing is undeniable. In modern Formula 1, engine changes are more than sporting gambles. They are indicators of where the holes in the cost cap exist — and how effectively they can be exploited.
Azerbaijan Grand Prix
C. Sainz jr
979 members have this team as their favourite
Replies (0)
Login to reply