Some teams seek to restrict the types of alliances that Red Bull/RB and Ferrari/Haas have as Formula One approaches a new rules era that begins in 2026.
In particular, Zak Brown, the CEO of McLaren, has made a strong case for why the F1 rules are “no longer fit for purpose” when it comes to permitting teams to collaborate, particularly when there is shared ownership.
RB team chiefs have issued a warning about potential risks, even if it is understood that the definition of a constructor is being examined as part of the 2026 discussions.
They believe that there is still a significant gap between the top teams and those lower down the ladder, even with a cost cap in place. This gap would only widen if everyone had to create and assemble every component of a car themselves.
The advantages that RB’s team receives from its partnership with Red Bull, according to CEO Peter Bayer, are crucial in aiding the team’s midfield battle.
He stated, “There is undoubtedly an advantage, which we think is very important.” “If you look at the grid today, you add the points from the world championship ranking from last year.”
Laurent Mekies, the principal of RB Team, echoed Bayer’s remarks when he proposed that F1’s customer parts regulations would reduce the competitiveness of smaller teams.
“What is the purpose of these part-sharing regulations? For two factors. Close the grid first. “Peter’s example is very compelling,” he said.
Do we think that the grid is getting too close? It is not felt by us. The bottom four seem to be fairly far behind, so getting them a little bit closer will only help.
You would therefore like to move in the opposite direction, if possible. However, it’s okay if we choose not to participate in this sport. Nothing there, for sure, suggests that you ought to choose a more dispersed field for the sport’s advantage, most definitely not.
The company model and sustainability make up the second factor. Even if everyone is investing in the industry and Formula 1 is experiencing incredible success right now—fans, audiences, and everything—it is still a challenging endeavor financially.
“So, putting aside what may occur over the next four or six years, do you desire change now, at that very good moment? We feel that way about it.
He continued, saying, “We have to be careful not to mistakenly translate short-term, team-specific worries into long-term, vital goals for the sport.”
Gardening leave grievances deemed “inaccurate”
Mekies also brushed aside claims that Red Bull was unfairly benefiting from RB’s access to old Red Bull products without taking a gardening vacation.
Saying that there was no gardening leave applied to any personnel transfer is untrue, he said.
“It is clearly forbidden to circumvent the specified parts/IP [regulations] by moving staff. How is that practically accomplished? We don’t make that decision [about the gardening leave]. We declare we are going to recruit that individual when we go to the FIA with our cards on the table.
“The best part is that if I employ someone from Mercedes or Ferrari, I don’t have to go to the FIA; however, if they come from Red Bull, I do!
Thus, we do as we agree [with the FIA] on that guy’s appropriate gardening leave. We self-impose a three- to six-month period, as agreed upon with the FIA.
The irony is that, as I previously mentioned, if we agree with that side, we may get a player from that squad in a single day.
In actuality, the guys who are criticizing us—among them, a team principal—occasionally exhibit day-to-day fluctuations.
Ironically, though, we forbid ourselves from doing so when using Red Bull. All of it [criticism] is blatantly false because we have the cards on the table with the FIA for verification.