Leon Kennedy wrote: ↑19 Feb 2026, 00:13
Andi76 wrote: ↑18 Feb 2026, 20:45
Leon Kennedy wrote: ↑18 Feb 2026, 18:14
Recap of the day: problems with Alonso in the morning, no one knows why, they tested the high temperatures with less cooling (as declared) through a camera. In the afternoon, Stroll's car stalled, probably due to a hydraulic leak, but it's not clear what. The times were better than in previous tests, but still far from others.
P.s Stroll withdrew from the final 20 minutes of the session, for an unknown reason, perhaps out of frustration.
My opinion:
The car has a lot of potential, just look at the front and rear wing mechanisms that no other car on the grid has, even the opening stability is remarkable. We don't know how the engine performs since it's always been underpowered and we're also completely unsure about the gearbox. Let's hope so.
The only thing is that they haven't tested race pace, qualifying, or setup yet, we're really behind on the program. And there are only two days left, then free practice in Melbourne.
Sorry, but based on the front and rear wing mechanisms, I don't necessarily see great potential... if you look at the data and compare it to other cars, which is the only thing you can do besides pure lap times to evaluate a car, it becomes obvious that there are massive problems. Don't get me wrong—maybe you're right, even if I don't believe it, but predicting a lot of potential for a car that is currently almost three seconds slower and can barely put together laps due to front and rear wing mechanisms is anything but well-founded. For one thing, there have been many cars in F1 history with "great" innovations that looked great but were ultimately just slow. At the moment, and given the car's well-known fundamental problems (because, sorry, a bad gearbox alone is a fundamental problem), it's more likely that we have a car with undoubtedly interesting solutions and concepts that unfortunately don't really work at the moment. Whether there is potential behind it, whether it's a complete failure, or somewhere in between, remains to be seen. The fact is, however, that there is a lot of work to be done in some areas. Because where other cars can easily run for thousands of miles and their technology works without any problems, Aston Martin unfortunately has the exact opposite. And for a car that is slow, unreliable, and problematic in testing to suddenly become the top car—that would be a first, as far as my memory serves me. It is much more likely that this is a bold car, but one that will ultimately serve as a learning and development platform to catch up in many areas where AM currently lags behind.
As far as I'm concerned, these arguments they're not that important yet. I mentioned the front and rear wings, because I'm only talking about the mechanism and how it works. I look at the delay other teams have in closing their wings; Aston's is clearly more calibrated. That is, if we want to talk about what's missing in terms of performance, we'll do it after qualifying in Melbourne, or at least on Friday night. They're a bit like Stroll's statements that were missing 4 Seconds and in the end it's 2.5 today. Then maybe tomorrow it'll be 5, don't get me wrong, but we can't base it on anything yet. The engine is underpowered and the car has no configuration in terms of setups.
yeah we, on the outside, have no way of knowing whether this chassis is a masterpiece, or a dud. i have a feeling that we wont know in melbourne either. i know i kinda suspect its a pretty good starting point. people can call it "the newey effect" all they want, but theres a pretty good track record to back him up. and its definitely built to a purpose more than any of the other cars. unfortunately were going to be waiting on gremlins to be worked out before we know much of anything about its potential. you cant tell aero performance of it by skimming over it in some photographs
