Could Red Bull’s Power Unit Edge Keep Verstappen from McLaren?

Guenther Steiner has never been shy about stating the obvious in a way that makes people stop and think, and his latest intervention in the Verstappen-to-McLaren saga is a good example. The former Haas team principal has argued that Red Bull’s ownership of its own power unit programme, through Red Bull Powertrains and its partnership with Ford, gives the team a structural advantage over McLaren in any battle to keep Max Verstappen beyond his current contract. It is a simple point, but one that cuts to the heart of what actually drives a top driver’s stay-or-go calculus in the current era of Formula 1 — and it deserves unpacking properly.

The Claim, and Why It’s Not Just Spin

Steiner’s argument is not about chassis performance, aerodynamics or the day-to-day competitiveness of the car on track. It is about control. From 2026, Formula 1 enters a new power unit era with revised technical regulations that place far greater emphasis on electrical deployment and efficiency. Teams that design, build and integrate their own engines are not dependent on a customer relationship with a manufacturer whose priorities may not always align with theirs. Red Bull, having taken the significant strategic decision to build its own powertrain division rather than remain reliant on an external supplier, controls its own destiny in a way that McLaren — a Mercedes customer — simply does not.

This matters enormously to a driver of Verstappen’s calibre. When a team owns its power unit outright, it can align chassis and engine development on a single timeline, prioritise its own car above any other outfit on the grid, and avoid the political and technical friction that inevitably arises when a customer team is competing against, or alongside, its own engine supplier’s works squad. McLaren’s Mercedes deal has served it well on power delivery in recent seasons, but it is still, fundamentally, a relationship with obligations and hierarchies attached. Red Bull answers to nobody but itself on that front.

Why This Matters Beyond the Immediate Contract Talk

The context here is important. Verstappen’s management and Red Bull have had a turbulent year of speculation, driven by a mixture of on-track form, internal team politics following Christian Horner’s departure, and the broader sense that the sport’s competitive order is being reshuffled ahead of the 2026 rules reset. Any driver in Verstappen’s position, sitting on multiple titles and with genuine leverage, will be looking past next season’s results and asking a more fundamental question: which team is best placed to win consistently once the new power unit regulations land?

That is precisely why Steiner’s comment lands with more weight than a throwaway soundbite. The 2026 rules represent the biggest technical reset in a generation, and history has repeatedly shown that power unit regulation changes can scramble the competitive order overnight — think of the hybrid era’s arrival in 2014, when Mercedes’ head start on its power unit architecture handed it a multi-season advantage that took rivals years to close down. If Red Bull’s powertrain division has got its 2026 engine philosophy right, in-house control means faster iteration, clearer accountability, and no need to lobby a parent manufacturer for priority. McLaren, by contrast, will be racing on Mercedes’ terms, sharing engineering resource and development priority with the Mercedes works team and any other customers on their books.

The Wider Context: Verstappen’s Leverage and F1’s Power Dynamics

It is worth remembering that Verstappen is not simply choosing between two competitive cars in isolation. He is choosing between two different operating philosophies. Red Bull’s model — full vertical integration across chassis and engine — mirrors what Ferrari and Mercedes have long enjoyed as works teams, and what McLaren has never had. McLaren’s revival under Andrea Stella has been built on chassis excellence and operational discipline, and its current form suggests a team that has fixed many of its historic weaknesses. But the power unit question is one lever McLaren cannot simply pull by hiring the right aerodynamicist or sharpening its pit stops. It is baked into the team’s commercial structure.

This is also why Steiner’s framing feels credible rather than reflexive praise for his former employers-turned-rivals. He is not suggesting Red Bull’s chassis will necessarily be superior, nor dismissing McLaren’s undoubted progress. He is isolating one specific, defensible variable — control over the engine programme — and pointing out that it carries real strategic value precisely at the moment the sport is resetting its power unit rulebook. For a driver like Verstappen, who has built his career on backing whichever team gives him the best combined package over a season, that kind of certainty is not a minor detail.

GP Headlines’ Take

Steiner is right to flag this, but it should be treated as one input among several rather than the decisive factor. Power unit ownership gives Red Bull a genuine structural edge in flexibility and priority, and that will matter if the 2026 rules genuinely reshuffle the grid. But Verstappen’s decision will ultimately hinge on the full picture: chassis competitiveness, team stability after a year of upheaval, and whether Red Bull’s own engine actually performs. Ownership of a power unit programme is an advantage in principle — it is not a guarantee in practice. McLaren’s rise proves that a customer team can still win big; Red Bull’s challenge now is proving its in-house engine can turn structural advantage into genuine performance edge before Verstappen has to make his call.