Why only Oliver Bearman has the new Ferrari F1 engine at Haas

Monza, the temple of speed in Formula 1. This weekend, as teams lower their downforce to minimum and open the throttle at over 350 km/h on the long straights, Haas will enter the race with a deliberate asymmetry: only one of its two VF-25 cars is fitted with the latest Ferrari engine. That is car number 87 of Oliver Bearman. Car number 31 of Esteban Ocon still uses the old engine version. This decision does not come from emotion or favoritism. It is the result of a harsh resource calculation, where mid-season engine development rules (ADUO) and team budgets create a puzzle with no perfect solution. Ayao Komatsu, Haas team principal, does not hide the reason. In an interview ahead of the Italian GP, he confirmed that Ferrari is deploying its second engine upgrade of the 2026 season under the ADUO mechanism — a regulatory framework allowing manufacturers to develop and introduce performance upgrades within certain quotas. This is a significant departure from the previous total power-unit freeze era, when teams could barely improve performance mid-season. The problem lies in quantity. Ferrari only produced the minimum quantity to satisfy its customer supply obligations — one unit for Haas, one for Cadillac. No more. That means Haas has only one new engine for two cars at Monza — a circuit where power sensitivity is paramount. Komatsu explained that the decision to give the new engine to Bearman is based on three clear criteria. First, championship position: Bearman leads Ocon 18-3. Second, recent upgrade allocation history: Ocon received two previous upgrades this season — brakes in Montreal and power steering in Budapest. Third, specific driver needs: Ocon has been struggling with brake-locking and complained about power steering, while Bearman has not faced those issues. "There's no point in bullshitting," Komatsu told Motorsport.com. "We operate in a transparent, as fair manner as possible. We don't have any hidden agenda." This is a rare management approach in F1, where resource allocation decisions are often hidden behind vague statements. Komatsu chooses to publicly explain the entire logic, even when it means admitting Ocon will not be happy. "Esteban won't be happy not to get PU number four," Komatsu admitted. "But this is the best for the team, and this is the fairest way." Fairness here is defined by a systematic allocation framework, not by emotion. Komatsu emphasized that last time, the team waited to have enough engines for both drivers before upgrading. But Monza changed everything. "It's a shame to have performance sitting in a garage," he said. The performance difference between the two cars at Monza could be several tenths of a second per lap on the long straights. This is a huge strategic advantage: Bearman is not only faster but also has better overtaking and defensive capability thanks to straight-line speed. Ocon, on the other hand, will have to adapt to lacking this advantage. But this decision also carries risks. A new engine introduced mid-season always carries inherent reliability risks. If Bearman's engine fails at Monza, Haas loses points and the allocation decision would be retrospectively scrutinized harshly. Strategically, this is a classic asymmetric resource allocation problem. With one performance asset and two cars, the team must choose where to deploy it. The logic is sound: give the upgrade to the driver who leads the championship, who has not received recent upgrades, and who has the highest expected points contribution. But this also creates a potential risk to internal cohesion. Ocon, with only 3 points compared to Bearman's 18, is facing a difficult season. Being passed over for the new engine allocation could affect his motivation — a factor that is hard to measure but can erode performance in ways not visible on the data sheet. Komatsu seems aware of this. His transparency is not just an ethical choice but also a risk management tool. By explaining the entire logic publicly, he controls the narrative and mitigates the possibility of criticism from Ocon or the media. "All you can do is being transparent up front about it," Komatsu said. "That kind of trust doesn't happen overnight." But is transparency enough to soothe an experienced driver like Ocon? The answer may lie in this weekend's results at Monza. If Bearman shines with the new engine, Komatsu's decision will be seen as genius. If Ocon still outperforms his teammate, or if the new engine fails, the 'fairness' narrative could backfire. On a larger scale, this decision reflects a trend reshaping F1: the ADUO mechanism is creating a two-tier midfield. Teams with access to manufacturer engine upgrades (Ferrari customers) gain a development advantage over teams with static engines. This could widen the gap between the upper and lower midfield as the season progresses. Haas, as a customer team, cannot control its engine development cadence. Ferrari's decision on timing and quantity is Ferrari's call. This is a structural dependency that limits Haas's strategic autonomy. Cadillac, the new team that is also a Ferrari customer, also receives one new engine unit. This means Ferrari's customer supply obligations now span two teams, potentially diluting the performance benefit available to each. For Haas, this could mean more competition for scarce engine resources in future upgrade cycles. Deeper still, this allocation decision is also a signal about the driver market. Bearman, a Ferrari Academy product driving for a Ferrari customer team on loan, is receiving deliberate preferential treatment. This reinforces his status as a rising talent, while Ocon, with an underwhelming season, may see his market value diminish. Komatsu denies any hidden agenda. But in F1, where every decision is scrutinized through a strategic lens, giving the new engine to Bearman at Monza — the most power-sensitive circuit of the season — is a signal that cannot be ignored. Can Ocon overcome the feeling of being marginalized and show his class? Will Bearman's new engine run reliably? And will Haas's resource allocation strategy prove correct? Monza will give us the answers. And as always, data does not lie.