The FIA’s ADUO system is facing fresh criticism over a fundamental question at the heart of Formula 1’s 2026 power unit regulations: should additional development opportunities be awarded by judging only the internal combustion engine when overall performance depends on an increasingly complex hybrid system? Helmut Marko believes the answer is no, warning that a mechanism designed to reduce performance gaps could ultimately create new inequalities.
The basic philosophy behind ADUO is understandable. The mechanism is intended to prevent a power unit that begins a regulatory cycle with a significant performance deficit from remaining effectively trapped behind its rivals, giving manufacturers further development opportunities when they fall sufficiently far from the benchmark. The difficulty is establishing which manufacturer is genuinely behind when the performance of a modern Formula 1 power unit depends on far more than combustion power alone.
That question has become particularly relevant following the latest FIA ADUO rankings, which assess manufacturers according to the performance of their internal combustion engines rather than the competitiveness of their complete hybrid packages.
Helmut Marko attacks a major limitation of the FIA ADUO system
Helmut Marko has now intervened directly in the debate. Speaking to OE24, the former long-time Red Bull adviser did not simply criticise the way the mechanism is currently being applied. He questioned the architecture of the system itself.
“These regulations are incomplete and must be changed immediately,” Helmut Marko said. “The power unit consists of the combustion engine, electric motor, software and battery. In this respect, Red Bull certainly does not have the best engine.”
The reasoning behind Helmut Marko’s criticism starts from a basic but important point: a Formula 1 power unit cannot be reduced to its internal combustion engine.
A modern power unit is an integrated system combining the combustion engine, electrical component, battery and electronics, with software playing a crucial role in managing the interaction between those elements. Every part contributes to the performance ultimately seen on track.
Separating those elements when deciding which manufacturer is entitled to additional development therefore risks producing an incomplete picture. That is the central concern surrounding ADUO.
Why measuring only the combustion engine creates an ADUO problem
The FIA’s compensation mechanism takes the performance of the internal combustion engine as its reference. The size of that deficit is then used to determine whether a manufacturer qualifies for additional development opportunities.
That creates a potential paradox. A manufacturer could possess an internal combustion engine that is not the outright benchmark while still operating a power unit that, when considered as a complete system, is more competitive than those of its rivals.
Mercedes makes the issue particularly interesting. The question is not simply whether the Mercedes ICE represents the absolute reference in isolation. The more important issue is whether a power unit that proves extremely competitive as a complete package should receive further development opportunities because one individual element of that package is assessed as being behind.
The answer is not necessarily straightforward. Formula 1’s 2026 regulations have significantly changed the relationship between combustion and electrical power. The electrical side now carries much greater importance, while the efficiency with which energy is recovered, stored and deployed has become an integral part of overall performance.
Measuring only the combustion engine therefore means assessing one part of the problem and using that measurement to make decisions affecting the wider power unit programme. This is the contradiction at the centre of the ADUO debate.
The mechanism was created to help restore competitive balance, yet the parameter used to trigger that assistance does not necessarily reflect the competitiveness of the complete power unit. When those two measurements diverge, a system designed to compensate for weakness can potentially produce the opposite result.
F1’s 2026 hybrid power units make the issue more complex
The concern does not apply only to Red Bull and should not be reduced to a dispute involving one manufacturer. The issue is structural. If a power unit achieves particularly effective integration between its ICE, MGU-K, battery, electronics and software, its true competitive level can exceed what the combustion-engine measurement alone suggests.
That distinction is also visible in Ferrari’s own development work. The Maranello team has been pursuing gains on both sides of the system, with its ADUO-2 power unit specification for Monza accompanied by continued work on the interaction between combustion performance and the hybrid package.
Granting further development opportunities solely on the basis of ICE performance could therefore benefit a power unit that does not necessarily require assistance when assessed as a complete package. That is where the ADUO concept may need to be reconsidered.
This does not necessarily mean abandoning the system. A mechanism allowing manufacturers to correct a genuinely deficient project has a clear logic within a regulatory framework that otherwise restricts development. The key issue is how that deficit should be identified.
Instead of asking only how powerful the combustion engine is, the regulations may ultimately need to consider how competitive the complete power unit is. The distinction is fundamental because an isolated ICE does not race around a Formula 1 circuit. The integrated power unit does.
Battery, MGU-K and software can transform overall performance
If the electrical system, battery, energy management and software can turn an apparently weaker combustion engine into a superior overall package, classifying that package simply as an underperforming engine becomes problematic.
The importance of this interaction has become increasingly apparent in 2026. Ferrari, for example, has worked not only on physical power unit developments but also on software and energy deployment improvements, illustrating how performance can be gained without simply increasing the output of the combustion engine.
That is precisely why the distinction matters when assessing ADUO eligibility. Two manufacturers could have similar ICE deficits on paper while extracting very different levels of overall performance because of differences in electrical efficiency, battery management, energy recovery, deployment and software integration.
Under such circumstances, identical or similar concessions would not necessarily be helping two equally disadvantaged power units.
The Mercedes paradox exposes the risk in the ADUO regulations
Mercedes provides the clearest example of the contradiction. In principle, ADUO is supposed to prevent a manufacturer from becoming permanently trapped behind its rivals. It should not, however, become a mechanism capable of increasing the advantage of a manufacturer that has already achieved the strongest overall balance.
That is the issue on which the FIA may ultimately have to reflect. Helmut Marko’s intervention is not merely a political complaint from the Red Bull camp. It raises a specific technical and regulatory question: if the parameter being used to rebalance performance does not correspond to the real performance of the complete system, the resulting compensation may itself become distorted.
In that case, ADUO would need to evolve.
The objective cannot simply be to bring the output figures of the various internal combustion engines closer together. The broader purpose should be to prevent one complete power unit from building a significant competitive advantage while simultaneously benefiting from a mechanism intended to help manufacturers that do not possess such an advantage.
Why the FIA may need to rethink how ADUO deficits are calculated
This is ultimately the central challenge facing the system. The 2026 Formula 1 power unit is a deeply integrated package, meaning combustion power cannot always be separated meaningfully from electrical deployment and software when evaluating what makes one manufacturer faster than another.
Ferrari’s own position shows why ADUO can still serve an important purpose, with the Scuderia using the available development framework as part of its efforts to reduce its deficit. The evolution of that programme, together with the interaction between engine hardware and hybrid management, remains a major focus within our Ferrari technical analysis coverage.
The issue raised by Helmut Marko is therefore not whether Formula 1 should allow genuinely struggling manufacturers additional opportunities to improve. It is whether the current measurement accurately identifies which power units are truly struggling.
If a manufacturer can combine a less powerful ICE with superior electrical performance, battery efficiency and software management to produce the strongest complete power unit, then a regulation based only on the combustion element risks misidentifying the competitive order.
And that would create the biggest paradox of all for ADUO: a regulation conceived to reduce inequality could instead provide additional development freedom to a package that already possesses an overall advantage, creating precisely the kind of performance imbalance it was designed to prevent.
Leave a Reply