The controversial topic of Red Bull’s dual-team ownership pattern returns in cycles, heavily fueled by paddock suspicions, isolated track incidents, and historical wounds that have never fully healed. However, Racing Bulls team principal Laurent Mekies argues that the opening phase of the 2026 season has already provided definitive proof of their operational autonomy: the Faenza-based squad does not race to assist its parent team, and their battles on the asphalt demonstrate this reality far better than any press statement. Yet, even though the grid has witnessed incredibly harsh duels, high-risk overtakes, and sister-team drivers refusing to yield a single centimeter to the main Red Bull machines, skepticism remains. This makes the underlying question unavoidable: what do the race replays actually tell us?
Accusations, suspicions, and a recurring paddock debate
The intense debate surrounding multi-team ownership exploded yet again when Mercedes’ initial—and subsequently collapsed—interest in buying into Alpine prompted McLaren CEO Zak Brown to write a formal letter to the FIA, explicitly flagging the anti-competitive risks of close political alliances. Brown directly cited suspicious past examples, such as Daniel Ricciardo’s late fastest lap attempt at Singapore in 2024, or the controversial radio instruction directing Liam Lawson to let Max Verstappen through at Miami earlier this year.
Mekies, however, hit back firmly against the allegations: “We are supporting 11 teams that race independently on the track. There is an extremely precise and detailed regulation regarding the transfer of personnel and the minimum gardening leave period between one team and another. Not only do we comply with the FIA regulations, but we also self-impose an even longer period.”
The team principal then urged the media to analyze real race data rather than building wild assumptions.
“From the beginning of the year, you will have plenty of examples,” he smiled. And those examples, upon review, are genuinely hard to ignore.
During the Australian Grand Prix, Arvid Lindblad and Isack Hadjar engaged in a ferocious internal scrap, accidentally opening the door and losing a track position to Lewis Hamilton in the process. Lindblad then mounted a stubborn defense against Max Verstappen, despite his pit wall explicitly reminding him over the radio not to destroy his soft compound tires fighting a significantly faster Red Bull chassis. In China, Liam Lawson executed an aggressive overtake on Hadjar during the Sprint, while Lindblad defended his position so decisively against Verstappen that he forced the four-time world champion into a costly error at Turn 1. Lawson also made life exceptionally difficult for the championship leader, going wheel-to-wheel through Turn 7 before finally conceding the position.
The Japanese Grand Prix offered the most explosive evidence of all. Lindblad defended with extreme aggression against Hadjar, altering his racing line multiple times on the straights and forcing his stablemate almost completely onto the grass infrastructure.
“What the f**k is he doing?” Hadjar screamed angrily over the team radio. “He’s moving like a…”
Just two laps later, the exact same scenario repeated itself, prompting the race directors to hit Lindblad with a black-and-white warning flag for unsportsmanlike driving. Hadjar only managed to clear his teammate thanks to an alternate pit strategy, rather than any form of collaborative team chemistry.
Miami stands out as the exception, not the overarching rule
The singular track incident that genuinely validated external skepticism occurred during the Miami Grand Prix, when Liam Lawson visibly pulled aside to let Max Verstappen past following a clumsy collision at Turn 11. The New Zealander was fully convinced he was the innocent party in the initial clash.
“He was the one who ran into me. I don’t understand,” Lawson noted at the time.
The team ordered him to give back the track position anyway, but Lawson later clarified the misunderstanding post-race.
“We made a mistake. We shouldn’t have done it. We didn’t review it properly and, if we had to do it over again, we wouldn’t act the same way,” he stated honestly.
From Monaco all the way to Barcelona, no other track incidents have emerged to fuel the political fire, with viewers witnessing only standard, hard-fought overtakes dictated purely by localized racing scenarios. It remains true that the most sensitive systemic issues center on personnel movement and intellectual property sharing—questions that will likely never vanish from the sport completely. But on the most visible stage, the actual racetrack, Racing Bulls has shown zero desire to facilitate Red Bull’s path. In fact, they have frequently done the exact opposite. But is that enough to convince the doubters?
While critics like Zak Brown continue to question the political alliance between Red Bull and Racing Bulls, team principal Laurent Mekies insists that relentless on-track battles across the opening rounds of 2026 prove the two operations are completely decoupled in wheel-to-wheel combat.
Leave a Reply