From 2026, Red Bull will enter the new Formula 1 regulatory era with a power unit developed in-house in partnership with Ford, following the highly successful cycle with Honda that delivered four drivers’ titles and two constructors’ championships. It is a collaboration that has already generated significant discussion, as reports suggest that, like Mercedes, Red Bull-Ford may have identified a way to increase the compression ratio under operating temperatures beyond the 16:1 limit set at ambient conditions.
This interpretation of the regulations reportedly triggered protests from rival engine manufacturers but ultimately received approval from the FIA. Taking stock of the situation was Ford Performance director Mark Rushbrook, who unsurprisingly expressed satisfaction with the work carried out so far at Milton Keynes.
The wait for the Barcelona debut: “What will we see that didn’t emerge on the test bench?”
The first truly meaningful test will come with the closed-door winter running in Barcelona, reserved for teams and industry insiders, scheduled for the end of January. Mark Rushbrook explained that, despite the progress already achieved, the real verdict will only arrive once the power unit is installed in the car and runs on track.
“We are where we planned to be,” Mark Rushbrook told Autosport, “but everything really becomes concrete when the engine is in the car and running on track. The first day of testing is an important date, as is the entire week. That is when we will see how the work of the last three years translates into reality.”
In recent days, comments from Hywel Thomas, managing director of Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains, had also drawn attention. Thomas suggested that the number of test days allocated should be sufficient to prepare the new cars for their debut, highlighting the significant progress teams have made in dyno testing and simulation tools.
Rushbrook shares this view, while also underlining the uncertainties that inevitably accompany a real-world debut. “There is always a certain level of nervousness or anticipation when a new car or a new engine goes out on track,” he said. “Our computational tools are excellent for design, laboratories are essential for development and validation of hardware and calibration, and we can simulate a lot in those environments. But until you put everything together on a real circuit, you haven’t seen everything. The question is always: what will we see on track that didn’t emerge on the test bench or in the lab?”
Discussing the development path of the 2026 power unit, Mark Rushbrook explained that the work has progressed in distinct phases. The initial focus was on extracting power, followed by a period dedicated primarily to reliability. Once the desired reliability targets were reached, attention shifted back toward performance gains.
In recent months, however, another crucial aspect has come into sharper focus: drivability. “Now the work is about the details of calibration and drivability,” Mark Rushbrook explained. “Some activities are done on the computer, others in the laboratory, and others again in the simulator together with the drivers. That is what we are concentrating on now.”
Interpreting the regulations and measuring up against rivals
As mentioned, one of the central topics concerns the internal combustion engine, which has attracted increased attention due to discussions around potential regulatory grey areas, such as the compression ratio. At this stage, it is impossible for any engine manufacturer to know exactly where its rivals stand.
Teams cannot be certain whether competitors have found ways to exploit the regulations to their advantage, identifying what Hywel Thomas previously described as “loopholes.”
According to Mark Rushbrook, the Red Bull-Ford partnership has achieved its internal targets, while waiting to discover the true performance level of its competitors. “Based on the rules that everyone has to work within, you can estimate what is theoretically possible,” he explained. “Probably all manufacturers arrive at similar estimates, because the laws of physics are the same for everyone. The difference then lies in how efficiently you manage to reach that limit in practice.”
Within Red Bull, there had already been an acceptance that the team might begin the new era with a slight disadvantage in terms of the internal combustion engine compared to more experienced engine manufacturers. This is largely because this element of the power unit has undergone fewer changes compared to the previous regulations.
Mark Rushbrook, however, played down the significance of this potential shortfall. “There might be a small gap, but I think it will be minimal,” he said. “The historic manufacturers have years of experience, that’s true, but the 2026 rules still introduce new elements. We also have many experienced people coming from other programs. Even if we were slightly behind on the thermal engine, we believe we can compensate in other areas.”
The role of ADUO and maintaining competitive balance
To prevent a repeat of scenarios like 2014, when Mercedes’ advantage remained effectively locked in for several seasons, the FIA has introduced the ADUO system, or Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities. After three blocks of six races each, the federation will assess the power balance between the internal combustion engines.
Manufacturers found to be between 2% and 4% behind the leading engine will be granted one additional upgrade opportunity, while those more than 4% adrift will receive two extra development chances.
According to Mark Rushbrook, this is a positive measure for the sport. “I think the current situation is appropriate for Formula 1,” he said. “We want everyone to have the opportunity to be competitive. Introducing regulations that allow teams to recover ground is the right thing to do for F1.”
The Ford executive also agrees with the FIA’s stance in rejecting comparisons between ADUO and a Balance of Performance system similar to those used in other categories, such as the World Endurance Championship. “No, it is absolutely not a BoP,” Mark Rushbrook stated. “In other categories, like endurance racing with different architectures and silhouettes, BoP is appropriate. Here, instead, this is a series based on technology and on the ability to interpret the regulations in the best possible way.”
Leave a Reply