2026 Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team

[OnEcRiTiCaL]

"The Aston Martin AMR26 will arrive at
@Circuitcat_es
on Wednesday morning. They will have just finished assembling parts on it that same day, and the plan is for it to hit the track on Thursday.

Newey has pushed the development of certain parts to the very last minute, changing them at the eleventh hour because he believed he had found improvements."

Just a huge B.S! I mean they could just test million things just with the base packet from windtunnel. Those last minute parts never be on the car at shakedown,just like others cars also not the real form yet.It will be on Bahrain ...

[sucof]

Plus the 2026 engine are I believe in most part 2022-2025 engines without the MGU H and adapted to new compression ratio, fuel etc.

They are not starting from nothing (except Audi)

One interesting thing tough: Binotto said that between a good and a bad fuel, we can have many tenths of difference.
Is Aramco supplying Honda this year ?

Indeed. I am sure picking the right type of fuel and build the engine concept around it will be the decisive factor this year.
In this new fuel regulation, where they no measure volumetric flow rate but energy, and where you can have many different types of fuel, there are so much variations that the "lucky" ones will gain a lot of horse power.
This will be not an easy choice for them.

[diffuser]

Hmm, "intending" to be only one day late. May be more with that wording.

Also this.
https://x.com/SoyMotor/status/2015815520482689093

Aston Martin Pushes, Honda Calls for Calm
Both Lawrence Stroll and Adrian Newey "have a great demand for speed and results"
"The focus is on 2026, but there is a plan for 2027," says Koji Watanabe

Already talking about next year.

My guess would be the crash test failures has put them behind schedule. In past crash test failures with Newey, he was trying to get a very particular nose design that would help aero that was difficult to get through crash tests. With any luck, this pain will bring gain.

[sucof]

Hmm, "intending" to be only one day late. May be more with that wording.

Also this.
https://x.com/SoyMotor/status/2015815520482689093

Aston Martin Pushes, Honda Calls for Calm
Both Lawrence Stroll and Adrian Newey "have a great demand for speed and results"
"The focus is on 2026, but there is a plan for 2027," says Koji Watanabe

Already talking about next year.

My guess would be the crash test failures has put them behind schedule. In past crash test failures with Newey, he was trying to get a very particular nose design that would help aero that was difficult to get through crash tests. With any luck, this pain will bring gain.

I would guess the main reason is weight saving. Engineers are better able to design an intricate shape with enough strength than any shape with less material. And weight saving is a high priority this year.

[bananapeel23]

Plus the 2026 engine are I believe in most part 2022-2025 engines without the MGU H and adapted to new compression ratio, fuel etc.

They are not starting from nothing (except Audi)

One interesting thing tough: Binotto said that between a good and a bad fuel, we can have many tenths of difference.
Is Aramco supplying Honda this year ?

Indeed. I am sure picking the right type of fuel and build the engine concept around it will be the decisive factor this year.
In this new fuel regulation, where they no measure volumetric flow rate but energy, and where you can have many different types of fuel, there are so much variations that the "lucky" ones will gain a lot of horse power.
This will be not an easy choice for them.

But it should also be said that just because the difference between a good and a bad fuel can mean many tenths, it in no way means that those are the differences we will see in practice. In reality all teams will probably bring a reasonably good fuel, so we're looking at maybe a few tenths at most. Still a substantial amount of time, but not to the extreme extent the comment implies.

[sucof]

Plus the 2026 engine are I believe in most part 2022-2025 engines without the MGU H and adapted to new compression ratio, fuel etc.

They are not starting from nothing (except Audi)

One interesting thing tough: Binotto said that between a good and a bad fuel, we can have many tenths of difference.
Is Aramco supplying Honda this year ?

Indeed. I am sure picking the right type of fuel and build the engine concept around it will be the decisive factor this year.
In this new fuel regulation, where they no measure volumetric flow rate but energy, and where you can have many different types of fuel, there are so much variations that the "lucky" ones will gain a lot of horse power.
This will be not an easy choice for them.

But it should also be said that just because the difference between a good and a bad fuel can mean many tenths, it in no way means that those are the differences we will see in practice. In reality all teams will probably bring a reasonably good fuel, so we're looking at maybe a few tenths at most. Still a substantial amount of time, but not to the extreme extent the comment implies.

No, it is not good or bad fuel. You can have more or less energy dense fuel for example, the rules allow this. With the less energy dense fuel you can use more.
And there are other such parameters.
In the end you can optimise your engine, combustion, to a specific type, based on what method you think will be more beneficial.
But this affects your design for the long term, and you can end up in a dead end while others still can develop and gain more power. Or you can miss a trick with a certain type of fuel and this is also baked in to your structure for the long term.
So it could be that a fuel type that seems less beneficial at first, will end up the best choice.

[AR3-GP]

Rumor that Aston Martin has narrow sidepods.

[vorticism]

I'm expecting something like RB22 I heard he used to work at Red Bull. Blunt sidepods working the floor boards. Emphasis on narrowness around the rear suspension. I hope they turn a new leaf conceptually. Eliminate the familiar center cannon and do total louver efflux. Suspension will probably be similar as well--no more highly angled arms front/rear. Pushrods front/rear.

[bananapeel23]

Indeed. I am sure picking the right type of fuel and build the engine concept around it will be the decisive factor this year.
In this new fuel regulation, where they no measure volumetric flow rate but energy, and where you can have many different types of fuel, there are so much variations that the "lucky" ones will gain a lot of horse power.
This will be not an easy choice for them.

But it should also be said that just because the difference between a good and a bad fuel can mean many tenths, it in no way means that those are the differences we will see in practice. In reality all teams will probably bring a reasonably good fuel, so we're looking at maybe a few tenths at most. Still a substantial amount of time, but not to the extreme extent the comment implies.

No, it is not good or bad fuel. You can have more or less energy dense fuel for example, the rules allow this. With the less energy dense fuel you can use more.
And there are other such parameters.
In the end you can optimise your engine, combustion, to a specific type, based on what method you think will be more beneficial.
But this affects your design for the long term, and you can end up in a dead end while others still can develop and gain more power. Or you can miss a trick with a certain type of fuel and this is also baked in to your structure for the long term.
So it could be that a fuel type that seems less beneficial at first, will end up the best choice.

We're not really in that much of a disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you would likely need a truly horrible fuel to lose many tenths (I'm interpreting it as almost a second, 8-9 tenths). Obviously there will be better and worse fuels, and likely track to track variance where less dense/more dense fuel perform better, but you would need to lose almost 1/10 of your total engine power in order to get near a second of lost laptime. No team will have a fuel so bad it loses them 10% of their engine power compared to the competition.

3-4 tenths difference on average is absolutely possible from fuel alone. 8-9 tenths isn't happening.You would need such a truly awful fuel in order to lose that much power and all engine manufacturers will almost certainly have decent to good fuel at the very least.

[Jambier]

But it should also be said that just because the difference between a good and a bad fuel can mean many tenths, it in no way means that those are the differences we will see in practice. In reality all teams will probably bring a reasonably good fuel, so we're looking at maybe a few tenths at most. Still a substantial amount of time, but not to the extreme extent the comment implies.

No, it is not good or bad fuel. You can have more or less energy dense fuel for example, the rules allow this. With the less energy dense fuel you can use more.
And there are other such parameters.
In the end you can optimise your engine, combustion, to a specific type, based on what method you think will be more beneficial.
But this affects your design for the long term, and you can end up in a dead end while others still can develop and gain more power. Or you can miss a trick with a certain type of fuel and this is also baked in to your structure for the long term.
So it could be that a fuel type that seems less beneficial at first, will end up the best choice.

We're not really in that much of a disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you would likely need a truly horrible fuel to lose many tenths (I'm interpreting it as almost a second, 8-9 tenths). Obviously there will be better and worse fuels, and likely track to track variance where less dense/more dense fuel perform better, but you would need to lose almost 1/10 of your total engine power in order to get near a second of lost laptime. No team will have a fuel so bad it loses them 10% of their engine power compared to the competition.

3-4 tenths difference on average is absolutely possible from fuel alone. 8-9 tenths isn't happening.You would need such a truly awful fuel in order to lose that much power and all engine manufacturers will almost certainly have decent to good fuel at the very least.

According to Binotto, from the worst to the better fuel, it could be worth 4 tenth.
Which is already a lot. But of course, this is all speculation, maybe all fuel will be within the same tenth

[sucof]

But it should also be said that just because the difference between a good and a bad fuel can mean many tenths, it in no way means that those are the differences we will see in practice. In reality all teams will probably bring a reasonably good fuel, so we're looking at maybe a few tenths at most. Still a substantial amount of time, but not to the extreme extent the comment implies.

No, it is not good or bad fuel. You can have more or less energy dense fuel for example, the rules allow this. With the less energy dense fuel you can use more.
And there are other such parameters.
In the end you can optimise your engine, combustion, to a specific type, based on what method you think will be more beneficial.
But this affects your design for the long term, and you can end up in a dead end while others still can develop and gain more power. Or you can miss a trick with a certain type of fuel and this is also baked in to your structure for the long term.
So it could be that a fuel type that seems less beneficial at first, will end up the best choice.

We're not really in that much of a disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you would likely need a truly horrible fuel to lose many tenths (I'm interpreting it as almost a second, 8-9 tenths). Obviously there will be better and worse fuels, and likely track to track variance where less dense/more dense fuel perform better, but you would need to lose almost 1/10 of your total engine power in order to get near a second of lost laptime. No team will have a fuel so bad it loses them 10% of their engine power compared to the competition.

3-4 tenths difference on average is absolutely possible from fuel alone. 8-9 tenths isn't happening.You would need such a truly awful fuel in order to lose that much power and all engine manufacturers will almost certainly have decent to good fuel at the very least.

No I do not think you understood my comment. There is literally no good or bad fuel. I mean could be, but this is not the differentiator. But I tried to explain before.
There could be a fuel that is "worse" in many ways but an engine and combustion built around it will yield a faster car.
And vice versa.
The more energy dense fuel will weigh less, so you gain time with a lighter car, but it might cause combustion problems, which the less energy dense fuel will not have. So you can end up being faster by choosing the "worse" fuel, that makes your car heavier and with a less power dense fuel. And this is super simplified still.
I am quite sure those big fuel companies will be able to make very similarly "good" fuels. But to realise early on in which direction you go and how can you make the most out of any of those different fuels, will be the winner strategy.

[OnEcRiTiCaL]

No, it is not good or bad fuel. You can have more or less energy dense fuel for example, the rules allow this. With the less energy dense fuel you can use more.
And there are other such parameters.
In the end you can optimise your engine, combustion, to a specific type, based on what method you think will be more beneficial.
But this affects your design for the long term, and you can end up in a dead end while others still can develop and gain more power. Or you can miss a trick with a certain type of fuel and this is also baked in to your structure for the long term.
So it could be that a fuel type that seems less beneficial at first, will end up the best choice.

We're not really in that much of a disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you would likely need a truly horrible fuel to lose many tenths (I'm interpreting it as almost a second, 8-9 tenths). Obviously there will be better and worse fuels, and likely track to track variance where less dense/more dense fuel perform better, but you would need to lose almost 1/10 of your total engine power in order to get near a second of lost laptime. No team will have a fuel so bad it loses them 10% of their engine power compared to the competition.

3-4 tenths difference on average is absolutely possible from fuel alone. 8-9 tenths isn't happening.You would need such a truly awful fuel in order to lose that much power and all engine manufacturers will almost certainly have decent to good fuel at the very least.

No I do not think you understood my comment. There is literally no good or bad fuel. I mean could be, but this is not the differentiator. But I tried to explain before.
There could be a fuel that is "worse" in many ways but an engine and combustion built around it will yield a faster car.
And vice versa.
The more energy dense fuel will weigh less, so you gain time with a lighter car, but it might cause combustion problems, which the less energy dense fuel will not have. So you can end up being faster by choosing the "worse" fuel, that makes your car heavier and with a less power dense fuel. And this is super simplified still.
I am quite sure those big fuel companies will be able to make very similarly "good" fuels. But to realise early on in which direction you go and how can you make the most out of any of those different fuels, will be the winner strategy.

Yes you are totally right! I think calling it “worse fuel” confuses here ,those who think fuels have absolute rankings. Is not worse i just would say "better/less" suited to the engine and package.
At early fuel will be 2 type for sure, but the winner always will be which able to run higher compression, avoid knock and run closer to optimal timing for longer period.(rpm range) . Is will be 2 kg heavier ,won't matter.

[dr_cooke]

"The Aston Martin AMR26 will arrive at
@Circuitcat_es
on Wednesday morning. They will have just finished assembling parts on it that same day, and the plan is for it to hit the track on Thursday.

Newey has pushed the development of certain parts to the very last minute, changing them at the eleventh hour because he believed he had found improvements."

Do we know whether the car has arrived and is being worked on?

[dr_cooke]

From the same source:

https://x.com/VirutasF1/status/2016228112762081726

https://x.com/VirutasF1/status/2016217751723839961

The car is probably the narrowest, three HONDA engines will be in the circuit, the car is unpainted, fully black, though some decals could be stuck to it before running AND it is not confirmed whether it will be running tomorrow.

[auem123]

So, no running tomorrow also?! If true then no point coming to the test for one day outing. It won't be cost effective atleast.