McLaren boss Zak Brown has been outspoken in his opposition of the existence of A-B team relationships and the common ownership of Red Bull Racing and RB.
Only two of the current 10 teams can truly be considered ‘independent’ – McLaren and Alpine – as the eight others have vested interests to a greater or lesser degree.
Haas has a deep relationship with Ferrari, while Sauber also has links to Maranello (despite its future Audi ownership). Aston Martin buys in its gearbox casing and rear suspension from Mercedes, while Williams has ramped up its technical relationship with the Brackley operation in recent years.
Red Bull Racing and RB have both a technical relationship and the same parent company.
Under the regulations, those models are all permitted, including common ownership, a point made by Christian Horner in Bahrain on Thursday.
“The two teams are totally separate,” he argued.
“One is based in Italy and one is based in the UK. The one that is based in Italy has a far larger turnover of staff that end up in Maranello than end up in Milton Keynes.
“They have different personalities, they have different character, and they comply continually with the regulations.
“Indeed, the relationship is far less tight than some of the teams that enjoy very tight relationships with their engine manufacturer.”
Horner’s comment were part of his response to a question regarding the level of collaboration among Formula 1 teams, and followed Brown’s own answer.
“No other major sport, to my knowledge, allows co-ownership of the two teams that compete against each other,” the McLaren boss had declared.
“Well, first thing is that Red Bull own two teams that compete in the Champions League,” Horner rebuked.
“And one has to take a look back at the history of where this started.
“Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley approached Dietrich Mateschitz back in 2005 to acquire what was then the Minardi Formula 1 team that was perennially struggling, insolvent, and on the brink of bankruptcy.
“Dietrich Mateschitz stepped in and he acquired the team and shored the team up and obviously then he invested significantly in the Faenza facilities.
“We then faced the financial crisis of 2008 and as other manufacturers chose that opportunity and took that opportunity to leave the sport, I think four of them left at that point, Red Bull remained resolute.
“The regulations then evolved obviously and the Faenza based team had to become their own manufacturer, so further investment was made in the infrastructure.
“Then COVID where Red Bull once again stepped up and stuck by both teams,” he added.
“In fact, Red Bull were responsible for getting Formula 1 going again after COVID, with two races that were introduced.
“So the commitment that Red Bull has made to Formula 1, the commitment that Red Bull has made for these two teams, is outstanding and should be applauded and be grateful for rather than be derided and try to compromise.”
The exchange highlighted the tension within the paddock that surrounds the matter, while the mere implication of potential impropriety struck a chord with Horner.
Under Formula 1 regulations, there is nothing wrong with the relationship between Red Bull Racing and RB, a point Brown acknowledges.
As they stand, the technical regulations allow teams to buy and sell specific components, at a nominal price so as not to undermine the integrity of the financial regulations.
Those components include the rear impact structure, gearbox and carrier, clutch, front and rear suspension, hydraulic components, some exhaust elements, among others.
Each team must design its own survival cell (monocoque) and other key components such as floor, front and rear wings, and so on to meet the definition of ‘constructor’ under the regulations.
Those regulations were created with the intent of easing the burden on smaller teams who were, until recently, battling for survival, while maintaining the integrity of the ‘manufacturers’ championship.
It meant that, rather than investing in expensive facilities and resources to design and manufacture those items, teams could simply buy them in.
It was a pragmatic solution that didn’t overly impact the on-track spectacle (the minnows were still comparatively uncompetitive such that they were no real threat) and ensured F1 maintained a grid of 20 cars.
However, the sport has moved on beyond the intent of the rules as they were first written.
Teams are more financially stable than they’ve ever been with most, if not all, operating at the cost cap, diminishing the need to create lower cost options for the supply of what are, in reality, fundamental components.
“The rules are not fit for purpose, just for today’s Formula 1,” Brown told Speedcafe.
“Red Bull has done wonderful things for the sport… I’d also say the sport has done wonderful things for Red Bull because I remember when Red Bull came into the sport with Sauber and was like ‘what’s Red Bull?’
“So I think their relationship with Formula 1 has been mutually beneficial.
“This has nothing to do with the Red Bull brand or their commitment to the sport. This is just where we are today.”
Brown took issue with Horner’s comments regarding the Red Bull-owned teams competing in the Champions League, suggesting they were misleading.
UEFA rules state that no two clubs or more participating in a UEFA club competition may be directly or indirectly controlled by the same entity or managed by the same person.
Horner’s remarks were presumably an attempt to highlight Red Bull’s ability to maintain sporting integrity and independence of competitors despite their common ownership.
It’s a point that is of direct relevance to its interests in Formula 1, as Horner eludes, only it isn’t that simple according to Brown.
“If we’re going to have co ownership, and I realise maybe that horse’s left the barn, then what we need is them to be totally independent,” the McLaren boss argued.
“[Horner made] a comment, ‘That team’s in England, that team’s in Italy’, except a team in Italy is using the wind tunnel in England. Except Helmut Marko, and we’ve got his quotes, said he will to do everything within the rules to draft off Red Bull. That doesn’t sound very independent.
“And then you’ve got Peter Beyer [chief executive of RB] who’s commented that, effectively, it was foolish of us to do our own suspension, it’s the second most important part on the race car. That doesn’t sound very independent.”
As the rules stand, Red Bull is within the regulations in terms of both its ownership of Red Bull Racing and RB, and the technical relationship between the two teams.
Increased competition on track has exaggerated to an extent the sporting impact of technical developments and innovations.
Teams employ engineers and designers to create the best cars, and that means identifying weaknesses, grey areas, and loopholes within the rules to achieve the greatest possible performance.
In an era where teams are limited in what they can spend, they are incentivised to find efficiencies in a way they never have before.
As a result, the battleground is no longer limited to the racetrack or the design office, but into the accounting and HR departments, and is shaping the way teams operate.
Hence while the situation is not new, it is of greater importance under the cost cap regulations.
That is partly why Brown is vocal about the issue now, but also because there is an opportunity to address it as the sport develops regulations for 2026.
And the McLaren boss is not alone in his stance on the matter; he is simply the most outspoken.
Speedcafe canvassed others in the paddock, who chose not to go on the record for various reasons, and they too held concerns that the regulations regarding common ownership and technical relationships are currently not fit for purpose.
It’s a complex situation, one that has no quick or simple resolution. But, to be solved, it first needs to be recognised, understood and, because this is Formula 1, argued over.
Discussion about this post