McLaren's big fear: why factory power could prove crucial in F1's 2026 reset

Formula 1 has always oscillated between eras defined by ingenuity and eras defined by industrial might.

The 2009 season, in which Brawn came out of nowhere and caught everybody by surprise to win both titles, is a perfect example of the former.

Mercedes coming out swinging when the rules changed over a decade ago is an instance of the latter.

The arrival of the hybrid rules in 2014 saw Mercedes’ extraordinary works integration establishing an advantage that lasted half a decade and yielded an incredible amount of accolades.

Yet, as the grid stabilised and customer teams adopted refined 1.6-litre V6s with fewer idiosyncrasies, the pecking order gradually flattened.

By the end of the 2020s, the championship once again felt like a largely chassis-driven technical landscape with customer teams capable of becoming frontrunners – McLaren’s resurgence being the clearest example.

But 2026 threatens to flip that dynamic back. For the first time in more than a decade, a new rulebook arrives with more works operations than customer outfits, and with regulations that place a premium on tight power unit–aero integration.

Audi enters as a full factory entity, Honda returns not merely as a supplier but as a partner to Aston Martin, and Red Bull Powertrains steps into the fray as the first entirely new power unit operation to be created for F1 since the start of the hybrid era. Add Ferrari and Mercedes, and suddenly half the grid is armed with a factory programme.

In a championship where marginal gains often come from the seams between departments, 2026 promises to be the moment where those seams matter more than ever.

The shape of the 2026 technical package – lighter chassis, active aero and greater reliance on electric power – is a rulebook designed to create strategic unpredictability and remove the extreme complexity of current energy management.

But the unintended consequence is that chassis teams dependent on a third-party supplier will face an uphill task. Every interaction between power unit and aero will become more decisive, and nothing defines a works team more than the ability to design these elements as a single product rather than two separate systems bolted together.

A grid composition F1 hasn’t seen in years

Look at the numbers. In 2014, when the current engine formula launched, F1 had three true works power unit teams: Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault. Honda joined in 2015, but its struggles with McLaren reinforced the difficulty of standing up a modern hybrid powertrain without total organisational alignment.

By 2026, the picture is dramatically different.

Ferrari and Mercedes remain at the centre of their own universes; Red Bull’s decision to bring engine building to Milton Keynes in collaboration with Ford gives its a degree of integration unseen for the drinks giant; Honda officially returns with a full factory relationship at Aston Martin; and Audi’s arrival adds a new manufacturing heavyweight with the ambition and budget to match the championship’s most committed operations.

Including Racing Bulls as a direct beneficiary of Red Bull Powertrains’ integration, that gives F1 up to six teams operating within a factory-led ecosystem.

It means customer teams will be in the minority at precisely the moment when being a customer matters most.

The last time F1 experienced a comparable split was the late 2000s, but that was an era of more conventional engines and far less reliance on the synchronisation of energy recovery, aero map switching and packaging efficiency.

The world of 2026 will make those earlier challenges look rudimentary.

Why the 2026 rules may amplify factory advantages

Two pillars define the 2026 chassis-power unit relationship: active aero and energy management. Both reward integration and close cooperation between design departments, and expose the limits of customer structures.

Active aero, replacing the current DRS model, will rebalance the aerodynamic philosophy of the cars, with a high-drag/high-downforce configuration for cornering and a low-drag configuration for straights.

The system requires precise calibration not only of switching speeds but also of how much electric deployment is needed. Works teams will have an advantage in trying to optimise the two simultaneously.

Energy management, meanwhile, becomes more prominent because of the increased split between internal combustion and electric recovery. The reduction in MGU-H complexity places more pressure on the MGU-K and the battery to shape the car’s lap-to-lap behaviour. It is precisely the kind of circular design ecosystem that works teams relish and customer teams fear.

If 2022’s ground-effect regulations highlighted mechanical-aero interaction, 2026 elevates the power unit.

The clearest advantage for works teams in 2026 will not be that packaging suddenly matters – it always has – but that the new rules magnify the consequences of early architectural choices.

Unlike the converged hybrid era of the late 2010s, the 2026 reset reintroduces uncertainty around cooling demand, energy deployment and aero-power unit interaction, locking teams into concepts that may define the entire regulation cycle.

Active aero compounds this effect. Cars will alternate between two aerodynamic modes, forcing teams to design cars whose cooling and bodywork work just as well in both. Works teams can design their power unit cooling, battery placement and exhaust routing with those transitions in mind. Customer teams must instead adapt their aero philosophy to a power unit conceived around someone else’s priorities.

Energy deployment is also no longer an isolated performance tool. In 2026 it becomes structurally linked to aero behaviour, with electric power compensating for drag reduction and shaping how aggressively teams can run low-drag modes. That places battery cooling and MGU-K integration at the heart of aerodynamic performance – an area where factory teams hold a decisive coordination advantage.

In a mature formula, customer teams can work around inherited constraints. In a hard reset like 2026, those constraints risk becoming defining limitations. Small differences in packaging tolerance, locked in by homologation, may cascade into major aerodynamic compromises – not because the rules permit it, but because the architecture leaves no room to escape it.

There is also a strategic dimension: factory teams can plan power unit improvements with specific chassis upgrades in mind, while customers must adapt to whatever update cycle the manufacturer chooses. In a tightly regulated environment with limited testing, that developmental synchronicity will matter.

Audi: the clearest sign of the era’s direction

Audi’s entry is perhaps the most important signal that F1 is reverting to an integrated game.

The company could have chosen the supplier route, offering engines to Sauber while letting the team operate independently. Instead, it bought control, committing billions to a Bavaria-to-Hinwil programme that integrates engine, chassis, aero and operations.

Audi’s 2026 F1 concept is not simply about marketing; it is about proving technological relevance in a hybridised, electrified automotive future.

The last time a new manufacturer entered F1 with this level of vertical integration was Mercedes in 2010-14.

The comparison is not precise – Audi starts from further back and with tougher competition – but the blueprint is similar. If 2026 rewards full-stack integration, Audi is positioned to benefit more than any newcomer in the last decade.

A manufacturers’ championship once again?

The teams that rely on customer engines in 2026 will inevitably start with inherited limitations, although recent history shows those limits are not insurmountable.

McLaren’s rise to the front stands as a reminder that, in a mature ruleset, a customer team with exceptional aerodynamic understanding, operational discipline and development focus can still challenge – and even beat – factory-backed rivals.

But that success was built in a period of relative technical stability, with power unit architectures long since converged and packaging demands well understood. McLaren was able to optimise its chassis around a known Mercedes envelope, extracting performance through aero philosophy rather than fundamental integration.