F1 news
F1 / NEWS & CONTEXT

Red Bull open to further F1 changes after Alonso’s battery proposal

Laurent Mekies says Red Bull would support agreed changes that let drivers push harder, while Audi’s Mattia Binotto wants to assess planned revisions first.

Red Bull has signalled conditional support for further Formula 1 rule changes after Fernando Alonso proposed altering how battery power is delivered on straights. At the Azerbaijan Grand Prix in Baku, team principal Laurent Mekies said Red Bull would back agreed adjustments if they allowed drivers to push fully in qualifying and races.

Alonso’s idea is to limit peak battery power for longer, so cars reach top speed closer to the end of a straight rather than midway along it. RacingNews365 Nederland reports that Max Verstappen favoured the suggestion. Mekies said he believed both drivers wanted more freedom to push.

Audi’s Mattia Binotto was more cautious. He said he did not know precisely what Alonso and Verstappen had proposed and wanted to assess changes already planned for 2027 before making further adjustments. The two also characterised those plans differently: Mekies called the 2027 step relatively small, while Binotto described the changes as substantial.

Binotto said Audi remained open to further refinements if needed, but wanted to see whether the planned changes improved drivers’ ability to push during races first.

Sources 01
  1. SOURCERed Bull spreekt steun voor voorstellen Verstappen en Alonso uitRacingNews365 Nederland · Source date as found: 2026-09-27
Source context

RacingNews365 Nederland, 27 September 2026: Red Bull’s backing is conditional; no change to the rules was announced.

Claims and supporting evidence 4
RacingNews365 describes Alonso's proposal in Azerbaijan as limiting peak battery power for longer so that cars reach top speed later on a straight. The outlet reports that Verstappen supported the idea; it does not provide a direct statement from either driver on this point.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Alonso's proposal and Verstappen's reported response September 2026 The proposal's operation and Verstappen's support are reported by the outlet, not established by a supplied original proposal or driver transcript.

[1]
According to RacingNews365, Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies said the team would support further changes if agreed and if they let drivers push fully in qualifying and races. This is conditional support, not confirmation that Alonso's specific proposal has been adopted.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Red Bull's stated position At the Azerbaijan event discussed in the article, published 27 September 2026 The supplied source is the outlet's account of Mekies's remarks; no original session record was supplied.

[1]
Mattia Binotto, identified by RacingNews365 as an Audi figure, said he did not know precisely what Alonso and Verstappen had proposed. He favoured implementing the already planned 2027 changes and assessing their effect before making more changes, while remaining open to further refinements. His position is more cautious than Mekies's conditional expression of support, but is not a rejection.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Audi representative's response At the Azerbaijan event discussed in the article, published 27 September 2026 Binotto's assessment of the scale and potential effects of planned changes is his stated view, not a measured outcome.

[1]
The same RacingNews365 article quotes Mekies describing the planned change for the following year as relatively small and a 2028 improvement as substantial, while Binotto calls the planned 2027 changes substantial. These are different characterizations by the speakers, not independently verified measures of the changes' size.

This source finding must be read within the stated scope and source context. Descriptions of forthcoming regulation changes Statements reported on 27 September 2026 about 2027 and 2028 The article does not supply the regulatory text or enough detail to reconcile the speakers' assessments.

[1]

This article was produced with AI assistance. Source references make its supporting evidence traceable.