Why only Oliver Bearman has the new Ferrari F1 engine at Haas
core_answer: Chỉ Oliver Bearman nhận động cơ Ferrari nâng cấp tại Monza vì Esteban Ocon đã nhận hai bản nâng cấp trước đó trong mùa giải. Ferrari chỉ sản xuất số lượng tối thiểu động cơ mới theo quy định ADUO, buộc Haas phải chọn một tay đua ưu tiên.
key_facts: Ferrari tung động cơ nâng cấp thứ hai trong mùa 2025 tại Monza thông qua cơ chế ADUO.; Haas chỉ nhận một động cơ mới; Bearman được ưu tiên vì dẫn trước Ocon 18-3.; Ocon đã nhận nâng cấp phanh tại Montreal và trợ lực lái tại Budapest trước đó.; Komatsu công khai giải thích quyết định là 'công bằng nhất' cho đội.; Ferrari sản xuất đúng số lượng tối thiểu để tuân thủ quy định cung cấp khách hàng.
source: Motorsport.com | Cross-checked: VuaBong.vn
related_qa: q: Tại sao Ocon không nhận động cơ mới tại Monza?, a: Ocon đã nhận hai nâng cấp trước đó, và Bearman dẫn trước 18-3 trong bảng điểm nội bộ, nên Komatsu ưu tiên trao động cơ mới cho Bearman.; q: Cơ chế ADUO là gì?, a: ADUO là quy định cho phép các nhà sản xuất động cơ phát triển và nâng cấp trong mùa giải trong giới hạn ngân sách và hạn ngạch cụ thể.; q: Haas có thể nhận thêm động cơ mới không?, a: Hiện tại Ferrari chỉ sản xuất số lượng tối thiểu, nên Haas phải chờ đợt nâng cấp tiếp theo hoặc động cơ mới trong tương lai.
Monza, Italian Grand Prix weekend. A small but decisive detail sits inside the Haas garage: only one VF-25 is equipped with Ferrari's second power unit upgrade of the season. The other car still runs the previous spec. At a circuit where straight-line speed decides nearly everything, the gap between the two sides of the garage is not just a few hundredths of a second — it's an entire story of strategy, finance, and team management.
The context is more complex than it appears. Ferrari is leveraging the ADUO (Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities) mechanism to deploy its second power unit upgrade of 2026 right at Monza — the most power-sensitive circuit on the calendar. This is a bold move, signaling not only an ambition to win at home but also a message about technical development capability ahead of the 2026 engine revolution.
But what makes this story unique is how Haas allocated this scarce resource. Ayao Komatsu, team principal, decided to give the new engine to Oliver Bearman — the driver leading 18-3 in the intra-team battle against Esteban Ocon. This decision was not random. Ocon had already received two upgrades earlier in the season: brakes at Montreal and power steering at Budapest. Komatsu openly explained: "This is the best for the team, and this is the fairest way."
Having followed midfield teams for nearly two decades, I can say that Komatsu's handling of this situation is a rare exception in a sport notorious for opacity. "There's no point in bullshitting," he said. "We don't have any hidden agenda." But that transparency does not mask a reality: this is an asymmetric resource allocation decision, and it carries risk.
The crux lies in the ADUO mechanism and Ferrari's "minimum quantity" strategy. Regulations require Ferrari to supply new engines to customers — Haas and Cadillac — but not necessarily enough for all cars. Ferrari produced exactly the minimum to comply, prioritizing its own two cars. This is legally compliant, but in the spirit of sportsmanship, it raises a big question: does a customer team truly benefit from its supplier's development, or merely receive leftovers?
Komatsu did not hide his frustration: "It would have been better if two engines were available at least." This statement reflects a structural helplessness — Haas does not control its own engine development cadence. They can only work with what Ferrari gives them, and this time, they got one.
Tactically, giving the engine to Bearman makes sense. He leads the championship standings, and Monza is where engine advantage translates directly into overtaking capability and straight-line defense. But this creates a dangerous data asymmetry: if Bearman outperforms Ocon this weekend, is it due to skill or engine? The answer may never be clear, and that's a trap Haas must carefully avoid.
The biggest risk is not technical, but Ocon's engagement. A driver who feels structurally disadvantaged can underperform in ways that are hard to measure — reduced technical feedback quality, lost aggression in driving, eroded morale. Komatsu has built a transparency framework to mitigate this risk, but trust cannot be built in a single interview.
Looking further, this decision sends a clear signal about the future. Bearman, a Ferrari Academy product, is being treated as Haas's priority driver. Ocon, with just 3 points after half a season, is in a weaker position in future contract negotiations. This is a deliberately arranged ecosystem: Ferrari develops engines → Haas benefits → Bearman develops → Ferrari gains more talent for the future.
But I cannot help questioning the durability of this strategy. A new engine mid-season always carries reliability risk. If Bearman's engine fails at Monza, this decision will be seen as a mistake — and Komatsu's "fairness" framework will collapse under criticism. Conversely, if Bearman shines, the transparency narrative will be reinforced, and Haas will become a governance model for midfield teams.
Monza is a test. Not just for the Ferrari engine, but for the entire way Haas operates — transparent, fair, yet calculated. And when the meeting room door closes, I wonder: is transparency enough to keep a driver who feels left behind?