2026 Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team

[diffuser]

- steering wheel, engine, seat and pedals have to be stiffly fitted to chassis. Maybe you can play with aero surfaces pylons and suspension attachmentd, but the elements you mentioned make no sense at all.
- isn't getting more downforce, less drag and, hence, going faster the leit motiv of a race car?
- when you have a problem is better to patch around or solving the source? Apart from the tarmac irregularities, there are no more vibration sources than the engine and the gearbox.

Aston was not bothered in bringing a better cushion and isolator pads for the seat and steering wheel and column

So they brought a fix to vibrations on the steering system. Decided not to use it or inform the driver about it.

I guess they did not want their chassis problems to be exposed. Mclaren in 2015 with a lot lesser power than the rest of the field was not dead last.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/asto ... -confused/

I'll repeat myself...... Carbon fibre parts take weeks to prepare. When teams want to TEST several different "fixes", they'll 3d print the parts. You can 3d print a part in hours. These parts are good enough to run in FP but the materials aren't carbon fibre strong.

[diffuser]

I honda the only team with this engine layout?.

The regs dictate where you can connect to the crankshaft.

The front of the ICE is defined as zero. Moving toward the rear of the ICE corresponds to positive values, while moving toward the front of the car corresponds to negative values. The regulations state that the MGU-K transmission must connect to the crankshaft no further than +100 mm and extend forward from that point. The regs force the MGU-K to protrude out the front of the ICE.

So nobody has the MGU-K right along side the block like previous years cause the regs prevent it.

In the case of Honda PU, the entire MGU-K is in front of the engine, nothing in the + positive region.

Do we have any picture to show how Ferreri, Merc or Audi place their MGU-K. If not then why Honda choose to review theirs? Perhaps to show that the problem is with the mounting of MGU-K as requested by AMR?

According FIA technical document

According to FIA document. Which part of it mentioned about 100mm?

5.20.1 – Mounting
MGU-K must be fixed to: ICE, survival cell or both

Perhaps this is where AMR decided to mount the MGU-K to survival cell?

5.20.2 – Mechanical linkage
Must be permanently linked to ICE, fixed speed ratio to crankshaft
axis parallel to crankshaft

5.20.3 – Power transmission
All power must go through a single shaft connect to crankshaft

The obvious problem with the youtube video is that it claims that Newey wanted to make the PU shorter, this is why he asked to stack the battery. Moving the MGU-K from the side to the front makes it longer. It's a contradiction.


I do remember it being written that Newey wanted it narrower, not shorter. Images of the 2025 Honda PU showed the control unit sitting to the right (from the front of the car) of the battery. The control unit is light, so you could easily stack it on the battery. This made room for the MGU-K to come out from the side. The video doesn’t mention that as the reason and therefore loses credibility. Given how wide most of the undercuts are on all the other cars, you have to imagine that they have the MGU-K next to the PU.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Honestly, would be so hard to make run test without battery or at least use the charge discharge function for few laps and see if anything change? Would be hard just run alone the engine and see if still vibration is present? They can patch everything and install dampers everywhere, but the root problem is still will be there ! If I can install a stupid ardunio 3d printer a sw420 sensor and found the source then i cant image they can't!

How can a battery cause vibrations?

[diffuser]

Honestly, would be so hard to make run test without battery or at least use the charge discharge function for few laps and see if anything change? Would be hard just run alone the engine and see if still vibration is present? They can patch everything and install dampers everywhere, but the root problem is still will be there ! If I can install a stupid ardunio 3d printer a sw420 sensor and found the source then i cant image they can't!

How can a battery cause vibrations?

He means not charging or deploying battery (don't use the MGU-K).

[BassVirolla]

Honestly, would be so hard to make run test without battery or at least use the charge discharge function for few laps and see if anything change? Would be hard just run alone the engine and see if still vibration is present? They can patch everything and install dampers everywhere, but the root problem is still will be there ! If I can install a stupid ardunio 3d printer a sw420 sensor and found the source then i cant image they can't!

How can a battery cause vibrations?

He means not charging or deploying battery (don't use the MGU-K).

But the main problem (rotating mass) would still be present, because I think that the rules don't allow to clutch or de-clutch the MGUK from the crankshaft. Anyone here knows for sure?

Edit: Even more, if the MGUK is made with permanent magnets, and it probably is, not charging nor discharging could put the isolation of the windings and wiring in serious trouble.

[Rodak]

How can a battery cause vibrations?

He means not charging or deploying battery (don't use the MGU-K).

But the main problem (rotating mass) would still be present, because I think that the rules don't allow to clutch or de-clutch the MGUK from the crankshaft. Anyone here knows for sure?

Edit: Even more, if the MGUK is made with permanent magnets, and it probably is, not charging nor discharging could put the isolation of the windings and wiring in serious trouble.

And even more even more, the MGUK does the rear braking.

[BassVirolla]

He means not charging or deploying battery (don't use the MGU-K).

But the main problem (rotating mass) would still be present, because I think that the rules don't allow to clutch or de-clutch the MGUK from the crankshaft. Anyone here knows for sure?

Edit: Even more, if the MGUK is made with permanent magnets, and it probably is, not charging nor discharging could put the isolation of the windings and wiring in serious trouble.

And even more even more, the MGUK does the rear braking.

Little details without great transcendence.

[etusch]

How can a battery cause vibrations?

He means not charging or deploying battery (don't use the MGU-K).

But the main problem (rotating mass) would still be present, because I think that the rules don't allow to clutch or de-clutch the MGUK from the crankshaft. Anyone here knows for sure?

Edit: Even more, if the MGUK is made with permanent magnets, and it probably is, not charging nor discharging could put the isolation of the windings and wiring in serious trouble.

what permanent magnet with no clutch disengagement means in 50/50 power formula ?

[diffuser]

He means not charging or deploying battery (don't use the MGU-K).

But the main problem (rotating mass) would still be present, because I think that the rules don't allow to clutch or de-clutch the MGUK from the crankshaft. Anyone here knows for sure?

Edit: Even more, if the MGUK is made with permanent magnets, and it probably is, not charging nor discharging could put the isolation of the windings and wiring in serious trouble.

what permanent magnet with no clutch disengagement means in 50/50 power formula ?

Yeah I don't know ... worst case scenario, remove it completely to test if it's the cause.

[CHT]

The regs dictate where you can connect to the crankshaft.

The front of the ICE is defined as zero. Moving toward the rear of the ICE corresponds to positive values, while moving toward the front of the car corresponds to negative values. The regulations state that the MGU-K transmission must connect to the crankshaft no further than +100 mm and extend forward from that point. The regs force the MGU-K to protrude out the front of the ICE.

So nobody has the MGU-K right along side the block like previous years cause the regs prevent it.

In the case of Honda PU, the entire MGU-K is in front of the engine, nothing in the + positive region.

Do we have any picture to show how Ferreri, Merc or Audi place their MGU-K. If not then why Honda choose to review theirs? Perhaps to show that the problem is with the mounting of MGU-K as requested by AMR?

According FIA technical document

According to FIA document. Which part of it mentioned about 100mm?

5.20.1 – Mounting
MGU-K must be fixed to: ICE, survival cell or both

Perhaps this is where AMR decided to mount the MGU-K to survival cell?

5.20.2 – Mechanical linkage
Must be permanently linked to ICE, fixed speed ratio to crankshaft
axis parallel to crankshaft

5.20.3 – Power transmission
All power must go through a single shaft connect to crankshaft

The obvious problem with the youtube video is that it claims that Newey wanted to make the PU shorter, this is why he asked to stack the battery. Moving the MGU-K from the side to the front makes it longer. It's a contradiction.


I do remember it being written that Newey wanted it narrower, not shorter. Images of the 2025 Honda PU showed the control unit sitting to the right (from the front of the car) of the battery. The control unit is light, so you could easily stack it on the battery. This made room for the MGU-K to come out from the side. The video doesn’t mention that as the reason and therefore loses credibility. Given how wide most of the undercuts are on all the other cars, you have to imagine that they have the MGU-K next to the PU.

Honda MGU-K may be mounted to the survival cell and ICE as stipulated in the FIA technical document.

5.20.1 – Mounting
MGU-K must be fixed to: ICE, survival cell or both

https://photobucket.com/share/91c613c6- ... 4ac97c3cf4

[Badger]

I think this is a good perspective.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WINm6HAeqcw? ... czCkrTih5w

But incorrect. There’s no world where the MGUK would be mounted behind the engine. It sits in front because that is where it needs to sit to connect to the front of the crankshaft.

Newey may have made requests on the battery layout seeing as that is the largest volume ahead of the engine, but it’s not likely he requested a change to the K.

[BassVirolla]

He means not charging or deploying battery (don't use the MGU-K).

But the main problem (rotating mass) would still be present, because I think that the rules don't allow to clutch or de-clutch the MGUK from the crankshaft. Anyone here knows for sure?

Edit: Even more, if the MGUK is made with permanent magnets, and it probably is, not charging nor discharging could put the isolation of the windings and wiring in serious trouble.

what permanent magnet with no clutch disengagement means in 50/50 power formula ?

A permanent magnets machine spinning at high speeds under non electrical load produces very high voltages, and that can put multiple elements under risk.

Put it in other way, with permanent magnets you have to recover or deploy, but not spinning at zero current.

[Tommy Cookers]

A permanent magnets machine spinning at high speeds under non electrical load produces very high voltages, and that can put multiple elements under risk.
Put it in other way, with permanent magnets you have to recover or deploy, but not spinning at zero current.

fwiw
I totally disagree

I have designed systems that eg at high rpm swept progressively from motoring to generating about once per second
the 'demand' voltage repeatedly being swept through zero to get at that point a zero torque output/input

4 quadrant
in essence what F1 does

[BassVirolla]

A permanent magnets machine spinning at high speeds under non electrical load produces very high voltages, and that can put multiple elements under risk.
Put it in other way, with permanent magnets you have to recover or deploy, but not spinning at zero current.

fwiw I totally disagree

I'll be more than happy to be factually corrected (as with some explanation / link / whatelse). I assume I can be wrong, but I don't like to be left in the dark.

[Nikosar]

Andrew Benson said that “more than half Aston Martin’s deficit to the front was caused by the chassis”, based on Suzuka race report information and GPS data. He added that Aston Martin was about 2.3 s off the pace with most of that due to chassis performance, and that even with a Mercedes engine the car would likely only be around the level of Alpine or Haas.