
In recent days, a rumour from Brazil has resurfaced online, suggesting that some Formula 1 teams had experimented with heated skid blocks during the São Paulo weekend. According to this theory, the trick would have allowed the titanium pads to expand with heat, lowering the cars and improving performance while still passing post-session FIA checks. These claims have now been firmly dismissed within the paddock, and they have no connection whatsoever to McLaren’s double disqualification in Las Vegas.
A rumour from last week
In the build-up to the Las Vegas Grand Prix, the Japanese outlet as-web reported—citing GrandPrix.com as its alleged source, although this reference cannot be found in the site’s archive—that the significant performance differences between the Sprint and Qualifying sessions at Interlagos had prompted the FIA to investigate the skid blocks of several teams.
According to that story, a number of outfits would have discovered a way to make the titanium plates absorb large amounts of heat so they could expand and position themselves lower relative to the car’s floor, effectively protecting the plank. This heating trick supposedly allowed the cars to run lower to the ground, gaining lap time thanks to the increased ground-effect performance. The theory also suggested that the tactic could evade FIA checks because, on the slow in-lap, the skid blocks would cool down and retract to their original state.
The report further claimed that several teams had allegedly been forced to remove these heating devices before Q1 on Saturday in São Paulo.
At the time, GP-News.net chose not to cover the rumour because multiple high-level technical sources dismissed the claims as “false” and a “complete nonsense.” The engineers consulted confirmed that teams were indeed pushing the limits of floor development in the final races of both the championship and the current regulatory cycle, but none supported the idea that such a heating system existed or was being used.
The rumour resurfaced on social media after McLaren’s double disqualification in Las Vegas, with some users suggesting the two situations might be linked. They are not. The skid block story has no factual basis and no connection to the infringement committed by the British team.
Clear confirmations that the rumour is unfounded
An article published today by The Race, written by respected journalist Jon Noble, also rejects the Interlagos heating theory. Noble writes: “The uncontrolled rumours that emerged after the Brazilian GP should be dismissed. It sounded like an interesting theory, but it was derided by both engineers in the pitlane and by the FIA because this tactic is the exact opposite of what teams actually want. The priority for teams when it comes to skid blocks is to protect them, not to make them sit lower and risk even greater wear. And ultimately, the degree of plank wear is irrelevant because legality is determined solely by the measured depth of the skid blocks.”
In total, the plates include four holes which the FIA measures with a depth gauge to determine precise wear levels. Around these holes, teams are permitted to install titanium protectors—yet none of this supports the idea that heating devices were used.
What actually happened with McLaren?
McLaren’s disqualification has no overlap with the rumour. The British team simply arrived in Las Vegas with an extremely low ride height, attempting to solve the issues they experienced at the same circuit the year before.
As explained by Autosport, the team led by Andrea Stella had “misjudged the balance in set-up in order to achieve a minimal ride height while still protecting the plank.”
Finding the right compromise is notoriously delicate under modern ground-effect regulations. It is no coincidence that two other teams had already fallen foul of the same regulation earlier in 2025—Ferrari in China and Mercedes in Belgium.
The situation in Las Vegas was therefore the result of an overly aggressive setup choice, not of any external device or questionable trick relating to skid block heating.



Leave a Reply