Formula 1’s 2026 engine reset was meant to tighten the field, not invent a new theatre of suspicion. But that’s exactly what ADUO is starting to look like — a regulatory tool designed to help the laggards that could just as easily reward the best liars.
Damon Hill reckons the paddock has already clocked on to the incentive. With the FIA’s Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities framework now running its first proper tests, the 1996 world champion believes some manufacturers are “gaming the system” by masking their true power early on, wary of being judged too strong and effectively locked out of extra internal combustion engine development.
The spark for the latest round of intrigue came ahead of the Barcelona-Catalunya Grand Prix, when Red Bull’s internal combustion engine was deemed the 2026 “standard” at the first ADUO checkpoint. In short: the FIA’s initial assessment had Red Bull’s ICE as the benchmark, with the system poised to offer more upgrade latitude to those deemed to have fallen behind. The concept runs on assessment intervals each season from 2026 to 2030, specifically to stop an engine performance gap becoming a multi-year sentence.
Hill’s take, delivered on *The Undercut with Damon Hill and Mark Hughes*, was that the politics of it were inevitable the moment ADUO became a competitive lever.
“It is quite interesting that we’re now getting people gaming the system, it seems,” Hill said. “We believe that some teams may have more power than they’re showing, because they know they’re going to be penalised at a date with the ADUO development opportunity.
“So they’re going, ‘Well, I’m not going to show you what I’ve got until you’ve brought in the changes, and then after that, I’ll take the cape off and reveal my true identity.’”
That’s the heart of the problem: ADUO is trying to measure excellence and weakness in an environment where nobody has any incentive to present an honest baseline. If the system is meant to identify who needs help, then the smart play — at least in theory — is to look less healthy than you are. And if you fear your rivals are sandbagging, you’re pushed into sandbagging too, because why hand them a development break while you get nothing?
Hughes laid out the most plausible version of that spiral: a grid of engine departments second-guessing each other, and throttling back in the opening races while the FIA gathers its early data.
“So I think you could have had a scenario in those first few races where the performances were being measured, where, for example, Mercedes suspects Ferrari is not showing its full hand, and so it doesn’t show its full hand,” Hughes said. “And so as they’re both sort of watching each other, that might be why the Red Bull has been measured as the best.”
That comment matters because it points to what ADUO can become: not a performance-balancing mechanism, but a high-stakes bluffing contest. If everyone is disguising, the numbers stop reflecting reality — and the wrong manufacturer could be tagged as “ahead” or “behind” based on who played the early phase most conservatively.
Red Bull, at least publicly, wants no part of that. Team principal Laurent Mekies was asked directly about the idea of manufacturers manipulating the picture. The rumour mill had Mercedes not running at full power; the counter-whispers claimed rivals were doing the same to exaggerate the gap. It didn’t help that Mercedes had won every grand prix available up to that point in 2026 — hardly the profile of a company in need of help.
Mekies’ answer landed with a mix of exasperation and a hint of sarcasm. “So, now you’re asking us to enter into the game?” he said. “No, seriously, the way we look at it, I can only give you what we think is a pecking order. Do whatever you like with it.”
Red Bull’s own pecking order still had Mercedes as the benchmark, which only added to the sense that the ADUO verdict — Red Bull as ICE standard-setter — wasn’t neatly aligned with what the pit wall and the paddock thought they were watching.
Then Barcelona happened, and the conversation got messier. Hughes called it “suspicious” that Ferrari went on to win the Barcelona-Catalunya Grand Prix with Lewis Hamilton — the first race after the initial ADUO findings were announced. Hill didn’t push back; he simply noted the obvious conclusion.
“That’s an interesting observation,” Hill replied, before adding: “So this is just another strategy. It’s another strategy game of the game of Formula 1.”
There is, of course, a perfectly straightforward explanation for Ferrari’s step: the team also arrived in Barcelona with a significant upgrade package. In a season defined by fresh regulations and rapid learning curves, big swings in competitiveness aren’t just possible — they’re expected. The more uncomfortable truth is that both ideas can coexist. A team can bring upgrades *and* have held something back earlier. The sport has never been short on two-track truths.
Hamilton, for his part, had sounded surprised by the Red Bull ADUO verdict heading into Barcelona, which is telling in itself. Drivers are usually the last to be given the full technical picture, but they’re not blind to the feel of deployment, torque, and what happens when they’re tucked under another car with DRS. If the cockpit impression doesn’t match the FIA’s “pure engine power” snapshot, it fuels the same question everyone else is asking: what, exactly, is being measured — and what is being managed?
Audi F1 boss Mattia Binotto has already offered a clue, pointing out that the ADUO framework is looking at “pure engine power” rather than the full power unit. That detail is crucial because it leaves plenty of room for interpretation — and optimisation — in how performance shows up on track compared to what’s being isolated in the assessment.
This is where ADUO’s good intentions meet Formula 1’s reality. The regulation is trying to prevent the new era from calcifying into an engine pecking order by springtime. But it’s also created a window early in each cycle where perception is currency. If there’s a competitive reward for looking average, teams will try to look average — and they’ll dress it up as prudence, reliability protection, “learning,” whatever plays best.
The uncomfortable question for the FIA isn’t whether teams will exploit ADUO. That part is basically guaranteed. It’s whether the system can be robust enough that the inevitable games don’t end up steering development rights to the wrong place — and turning 2026 into a season where the sharpest engine isn’t the one making the most power, but the one telling the best story.
