New rules likely to be introduced for the F1 2026 campaign look set to ban staff from instantly transferring between teams.<\/p>\n
Red Bull raised eyebrows in the days after the British Grand Prix after it sacked team boss Christian Horner and immediately moved Laurent Mekies, team principal at Racing Bulls, into the role.<\/p>\n
F1 poised to introduce transfer rules after Laurent Mekies appointment<\/p>\n
Concerns surrounding the relationship between some teams have existed for a considerable period. Most teams have a relationship with a rival of sorts, though typically limited to a technical collaboration, such as the relationship between Ferrari and Sauber, or Mercedes and Williams.<\/p>\n
The glaring exception to that is the link between Red Bull and Racing Bulls, organisations that share common ownership. That has seen staff immediately transition between the two organisations previously, though Mekies\u2019 move took things to an all-new level.<\/p>\n
Formula 1 teams work hard to protect their intellectual property, employing rigorous security processes that are supported by regulations which prohibit them from obtaining the IP of their rivals. In 2007, McLaren was caught in possession of Ferrari designs and was fined $100 million and thrown out of that year\u2019s championship.<\/p>\n
While that places hurdles in the way of moving data or physical information, there is no way of policing the knowledge and experience of an individual. As such, teams typically employ gardening leave as a way to reduce the relevance and freshness of the information an individual can share.<\/p>\n
Some exceptions to that have been made in the past \u2013 Jonathan Wheatley made the immediate switch from Red Bull to Sauber, and James Vowles from Mercedes to Williams \u2013 however, the general consensus is that a senior figure will serve anywhere from six to 12 months on the sidelines.<\/p>\n
It is for that reason that Alpine\u2019s new managing director, Steve Nielsen, who is joining from an operational role within Formula One Management, is unable to join the Enstone operation until September \u2013 three months after his announcement.<\/p>\n
However, Red Bull can sidestep that by promoting from its junior team, as it has done in the case of Mekies last week.<\/p>\n
While the concern does not regard Mekies as an individual, his promotion highlighted the disparity that exists between the two Red Bull-owned teams and the rest of the field, which does not have the ability to move staff between teams.<\/p>\n
Staff moving organisations quickly does not breach the regulations, though it does draw into question the sporting fairness of the current model.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s believed that aspect of Mekies\u2019 move caught the attention of the FIA, and saw concerns that have existed within the paddock for some time resurface. In response, there are now plans to introduce regulations to manage the way staff are allowed to transfer between teams.<\/p>\n
PlanetF1.com understands that will include a period of mandatory gardening leave, which will be laid out in Section F of next year\u2019s revamped regulations.<\/p>\n
From F1 2026, the sporting, technical, and financial (team and engine) regulations will be bundled together into a single document, with each specific element having its own section.<\/p>\n
Section F of the regulations will cover operational elements of the sport \u2013 items that fall outside the traditional headings.<\/p>\n
The way in which Mekies was promoted appears to fly in the face of statements made at the start of F1 2024 when similar concerns were raised after several backroom staff made quick transitions from Milton Keynes to Faenza \u2013 or the other way around.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe two teams are totally separate,\u201d then Red Bull team boss Christian Horner argued early last year.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey have different personalities, they have different character, and they comply continually with the regulations.<\/p>\n
\u201cIndeed, the relationship is far less tight than some of the teams that enjoy very tight relationships with their engine manufacturer.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, since then, the operations have moved closer. Racing Bulls now boasts an expanded UK facility, which came online in January.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the biggest effect on the 2025 car is probably some of the changes we\u2019ve made to our processes \u2013 some of the people we have managed to add to certain areas where we want to be stronger,\u201d Racing Bulls\u2019 CEO Peter Bayer told PlanetF1.com<\/a> late last year.<\/p>\n It is the personnel issue that Zak Brown has taken issue with.<\/p>\n No other team on the grid has common ownership, a legacy of F1\u2019s financially unstable past where simply saving teams was more important than independent ownership or purity of competition.<\/p>\n \u201cNo other major sport, to my knowledge, allows co-ownership of the two teams that compete against each other,\u201d the McLaren boss noted last year.<\/p>\n It was a point rebuffed by Horner, who cited the energy drinks company\u2019s involvement in football, a sport where 180 clubs globally are part of \u2018multi-club ownership\u2019 groups, including a quarter of top-tier teams in Europe.<\/p>\n Red Bull own two teams that compete in the Champions League,\u201d Horner rebuked.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd one has to take a look back at the history of where this started.<\/p>\n \u201cBernie 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.<\/p>\n \u201cDietrich Mateschitz stepped in and he acquired the team and shored the team up and obviously then he invested significantly in the Faenza facilities.<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThe regulations then evolved obviously and the Faenza based team had to become their own manufacturer, so further investment was made in the infrastructure.<\/p>\n \u201cThen COVID where Red Bull once again stepped up and stuck by both teams,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n \u201cIn fact, Red Bull were responsible for getting Formula 1 going again after COVID, with two races that were introduced.<\/p>\n \u201cSo 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.\u201d<\/p>\n More on Red Bull\u2019s new team principal<\/p>\n \ud83d\udc49 Horner replacement reignites Red Bull concerns within F1 paddock<\/a><\/p>\n