In the high-stakes world of Formula 1, the relationship between a works team and its customer teams is always under scrutiny. This season, the spotlight has fallen on McLaren, the defending constructors’ champion, which has struggled to extract the same level of performance from its Mercedes power unit as the factory squad. While some have whispered about favoritism, Mercedes insists the reality is more mundane: intellectual property (IP) rules and the cost cap are the true hurdles.
The Performance Gap
McLaren’s deficit in power unit exploitation has been a recurring theme throughout 2026. The team has shown flashes of brilliance, such as Lando Norris’s dominant win at the Hungarian Grand Prix, but overall, it trails Mercedes by 159 points in the constructors’ standings. Last year, McLaren finished a whopping 364 points ahead of Mercedes, so the reversal is stark.
At Silverstone in July, McLaren expressed surprise at a qualifying power trick used by the factory Mercedes cars. Team principal Andrea Stella admitted there were ongoing technical discussions with Mercedes High Performance Powertrains (HPP) to ensure McLaren could use the engine to its full potential. He noted that despite accounting for drag differences, there remained question marks about straight-line performance.
Mercedes’ Explanation
Mercedes deputy team principal Bradley Lord has now offered a detailed explanation. He emphasized that everything is governed by rules and contracts, and that Mercedes treats all its customers—McLaren, Alpine, and Williams—even-handedly. The real issue, he argued, lies in the sharing of simulation tools and intellectual property.
“A lot of the simulation tools, the ability to predict behaviour of the power unit and the chassis, are things we’ve developed not just at Brixworth but between MGP [Mercedes F1 team] and HPP,” Lord explained. “The technical regulations are very clear on what chassis team IP can and cannot be shared. So, in some instances, there is unpicking that needs to be done before elements can be provided to customer teams—or the customer teams themselves need to invest their own cost cap resource into developing tools to get the most from the power unit.”
In other words, McLaren may have to spend its own money to build the necessary analytical infrastructure, something that could be a drain on resources under the budget cap.
McLaren’s Perspective
McLaren’s technical director for performance, Mark Temple, shed further light during the summer break. He acknowledged that McLaren is “a little out of the main loop” when it comes to power unit development. While the team has input, Mercedes ultimately has the final say on configurations. This means McLaren sometimes receives information late, leaving little time to react.
“In the run-up to a race, we receive information from HPP, but there’s decision-making and evolution we’re not part of,” Temple said. “When we find out what we’ve got, there’s often not a huge amount of time to react and respond.”
To address this, McLaren has established a new power unit performance team, a resource it didn’t have before. Temple described a collaborative process where McLaren uses its own tools to verify HPP’s simulations and tailor them to the specific needs of the MCL40, considering variables like wind direction and fuel load.
Cost Cap Implications
Lord’s comments highlight a broader challenge in the cost cap era. Teams must decide where to allocate limited resources. For customer teams, investing in tools to better understand the power unit might mean sacrificing development elsewhere. This is a trade-off that McLaren has had to navigate, and it may explain why they have been slower to unlock the engine’s potential.
The 2026 regulations introduced a more complex power unit, making exploitation even more critical. As Lord noted, “It’s a new ruleset that is more complex than the previous one.” This complexity amplifies the need for sophisticated simulation tools, which are not easy to replicate.
No Favoritism, Just Logistics
Both Mercedes and McLaren have stressed that there is no deliberate strategy to hold back customers. The differences stem from the natural advantages of being the works team, such as closer collaboration with HPP and earlier access to information. The IP rules exist to prevent unfair advantages, but they also create logistical hurdles that can slow down customer teams.
For McLaren, the path forward is clear: build up its internal capabilities and improve its processes to reduce the limitations. The team has already taken steps in that direction, and with the season still ongoing, there is time to close the gap. But as Mercedes suggests, it may require spending more—both in terms of money and effort—to truly compete on an equal footing.
As the title fight heats up, the power unit exploitation battle will remain a key storyline. McLaren’s ability to overcome these challenges could determine whether it can defend its crown or continue to trail its engine supplier.
