2026 Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team

[diffuser]

Race report from Honda: https://honda.racing/f1/post/f1-2026-rd14-race
They included the Lance quote too.

Shintaro Orihara ー
Honda

Today’s result isn’t what we wanted, but we need to look at the learnings and improvement points that we can take forward to future races.

Over the past three races we’ve improved the driveability of our spec 2 power unit, which was introduced at the Dutch Grand Prix. By reducing the driveability issue, we can now focus on the performance side. This weekend, for example, we changed some calibrations to improve this aspect and session-by-session we saw some good signs in the data. This shows us all that we are working in the right direction.

Well, hopefully there is more power to come.

[Farnborough]

We know the engine is weaker but the chassis aint that great either. Singapore will be the ultimate test of where the chassis really is at.

1 -> Poor chassis -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> lower speed through corners -> doesn't expose chassis limitations -> chassis remains poor -> 1
2 -> poor PU -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> chassis not getting pushed to the limits -> doesn't expose deployment algorithm limitations -> PU remains poor -> 2

See how loops 1 and 2 are intertwined with each other due to PU not exposing chassis' problems and chassis not exposing PU problems ? There is no 'ultimate test of chassis' anywhere, for AMR26 in 2026.

Exactly, and correct in determination of chassis dynamics.

What the casual observer has no idea of, is that these chassis under the most pace demands, run effectively in slight yaw for peak lateral performance. For which they need the torque to be applied accordingly, in desired measurement and response to give the fastest pace.

If less potency were the status quo, the design and ultimate optimisation of the chassis would take account of that, as it does in F2 & F3 for example.

This chassis, as should be the case with all of them, will be designed around projected torque etc deployment. If that supply is not met, then optimisation cannot ever be met in aero and load terms.

The two go hand in hand. There's no point in F1 to design and configure a chassis to be run at lower power levels.

[V10FURY]

A pretty miserable weekend for the team and Honda it must be said. Stroll looked like he just quit after he failed to spin around. Admittedly both cars had damage and we don’t know the real pace the car had in race trim. This track was also a complete disaster and hopefully they do something drastic about the ridiculous layout next year if possible.

Aston should go back to Mercedes power units asap as it is still using them for their road cars. Unless Honda was going to start providing road going power plants for this brand this partnership never made any sense. It is just confusing and has no relevance to the product they sell on Monday. I get wanting a “Works” engine deal but only if the engine is competitive. McLaren and Alpine are showing what can be done being just a customer team of Mercedes. Would Aston be competing with Alpine if it had the same engine package? I think so and although that’s still not good enough, it is certainly better than the current situation.


It sounds like there is some machinations at work behind the scenes to try to get Honda into a more competitive position, but it is unlikely they can turn this bus around anytime soon. 2028 seems the earliest they might not be so far off the rest of the field , but if you are Alonso why do you want to drive a green tractor around at the back for another season? Perhaps the Williams rumor might have something to it, as that team could do with the money and not paying for engines. Time will tell.

[diffuser]

So... MBS has said that Alonso confided he’s going to continue. If true, Sulayem doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut. On literally everything.

Or he agrees on getting Honda more help(increase max ADOU benefits) and he needs the other manufacturers on side.

[leblanc]

Honda replaces its F1 development chief.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/hond ... ip-change/

Felt like that was inevitable, especially since MBS wanted to offer Honda extra help. That is embarrassing.

[venkyhere]

We know the engine is weaker but the chassis aint that great either. Singapore will be the ultimate test of where the chassis really is at.

1 -> Poor chassis -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> lower speed through corners -> doesn't expose chassis limitations -> chassis remains poor -> 1
2 -> poor PU -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> chassis not getting pushed to the limits -> doesn't expose deployment algorithm limitations -> PU remains poor -> 2

See how loops 1 and 2 are intertwined with each other due to PU not exposing chassis' problems and chassis not exposing PU problems ? There is no 'ultimate test of chassis' anywhere, for AMR26 in 2026.

Exactly, and correct in determination of chassis dynamics.

What the casual observer has no idea of, is that these chassis under the most pace demands, run effectively in slight yaw for peak lateral performance. For which they need the torque to be applied accordingly, in desired measurement and response to give the fastest pace.

If less potency were the status quo, the design and ultimate optimisation of the chassis would take account of that, as it does in F2 & F3 for example.

This chassis, as should be the case with all of them, will be designed around projected torque etc deployment. If that supply is not met, then optimisation cannot ever be met in aero and load terms.

The two go hand in hand. There's no point in F1 to design and configure a chassis to be run at lower power levels.

Apparently, 'dinosaur era' perspectives such as ours are 'too complicated' and needlessly pedantic.
There is a much more simpler and clear perspective that cuts-through-the-clutter :

We know the engine is weaker but the chassis aint that great either. Singapore will be the ultimate test of where the chassis really is at.

1 -> Poor chassis -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> lower speed through corners -> doesn't expose chassis limitations -> chassis remains poor -> 1
2 -> poor PU -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> chassis not getting pushed to the limits -> doesn't expose deployment algorithm limitations -> PU remains poor -> 2

See how loops 1 and 2 are intertwined with each other due to PU not exposing chassis' problems and chassis not exposing PU problems ? There is no 'ultimate test of chassis' anywhere, for AMR26 in 2026.

You are overcomplicating things. All one has to do is compare the field positioning in qualifying in Singapore. If the two drivers are competing solidly in Q2 or even threaten Q3 that means something doesn't it?

[mzso]

Did you watch the video ? It's reported by race.

I reread the article back in May from The Race, and the deal is not as good as it seems. The rules are very confusing, and 8 million of the so-called 19 million extra allowance has to be paid back against its engine cost cap in future seasons. Any gains that Honda makes during the off-season will harm its ability to catch-up in future seasons with a more constricted budget. No wonder Alonso is not interested in signing on for two more years if the status quo remains.

Well in that video "the race" say Honda IS getting 19M. It's not a maybe or could, THEY ARE GETTING!

I don't think the press is a the final word in anything.

[diffuser]

We know the engine is weaker but the chassis aint that great either. Singapore will be the ultimate test of where the chassis really is at.

1 -> Poor chassis -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> lower speed through corners -> doesn't expose chassis limitations -> chassis remains poor -> 1
2 -> poor PU -> lower speed through corners/straights -> lesser recharge -> lower deployment -> chassis not getting pushed to the limits -> doesn't expose deployment algorithm limitations -> PU remains poor -> 2

See how loops 1 and 2 are intertwined with each other due to PU not exposing chassis' problems and chassis not exposing PU problems ? There is no 'ultimate test of chassis' anywhere, for AMR26 in 2026.

We also observe the following: there is a chassis on the grid that possesses the best engine but barely competes with the chassis that has the worst engine. Admittedly, it is impossible to tell from the outside exactly how much time is being lost to which factor. If another chassis were using this same engine, more meaningful comparisons could be made.
There is also another aspect to consider. While a car's rear grip and downforce affect the electricity generated during braking, I do not believe this influence is quite as dramatic when the engine itself acts as the generator. In other words, when two different cars charge their batteries, you would normally expect both to utilize the same amount of energy over the same duration. However, if the engine power is low, electric power must compensate for the deficit; if the car has high drag both electric power and engine power must work to overcome it. If these power reserves are consumed during acceleration, you are left with nothing while the others continue to accelerate further. In this context, Alonso might simply feel that the car lacks pace, but the engineers ought to know the reasons why it isn't performing.

Yeah there is alot of data missing in live timing these days that would help explain the gap. When Alonso says that the car decides for you how much speed you can take into the corner not the driver, he's basically saying that the car is deciding to conserve energy, to deploy elsewhere, instead of allowing the driver to go as fast as he thinks the car can in a corner. So from the outside if we're trying to evaluate the chassis, we don't know if the lack of speed in a corner is cause the chassis can't handle it or if it's a lack of available energy.

[Jambier]

Race report from Honda: https://honda.racing/f1/post/f1-2026-rd14-race
They included the Lance quote too.

Shintaro Orihara ー
Honda

Today’s result isn’t what we wanted, but we need to look at the learnings and improvement points that we can take forward to future races.

Over the past three races we’ve improved the driveability of our spec 2 power unit, which was introduced at the Dutch Grand Prix. By reducing the driveability issue, we can now focus on the performance side. This weekend, for example, we changed some calibrations to improve this aspect and session-by-session we saw some good signs in the data. This shows us all that we are working in the right direction.

Well, hopefully there is more power to come.

Yes but this is marginal.

[TyreSlip]

Race report from Honda: https://honda.racing/f1/post/f1-2026-rd14-race
They included the Lance quote too.

Well, hopefully there is more power to come.

Yes but this is marginal.

Every bit will help immensely along the 2+ km straight in Baku.

[diffuser]

Well, hopefully there is more power to come.

Yes but this is marginal.

Every bit will help immensely along the 2+ km straight in Baku.

Alonso got up to 325km/h on that 2nd straight in Quali. Of course he ran out of deployment in sector 3.

[zoroastar]

I think the 19m reported in May was if they were more than 10% behind on the ice, but that was never confimed, they just said more than 4%. So could be 4 or 10 or something else.

just the fact that the ADUO was updated to include a higher tier of help kindof insinuates that theres a team that is more than 10% down on power. it was a late addition to the rules to help some team that was worse than anyone would have ever expected. (cant name any names without a trigger warning). the fact that it exists in the first place prolly tells us all we need to know.

[Jambier]

I think the 19m reported in May was if they were more than 10% behind on the ice, but that was never confimed, they just said more than 4%. So could be 4 or 10 or something else.

just the fact that the ADUO was updated to include a higher tier of help kindof insinuates that theres a team that is more than 10% down on power. it was a late addition to the rules to help some team that was worse than anyone would have ever expected. (cant name any names without a trigger warning). the fact that it exists in the first place prolly tells us all we need to know.

Overall there is a big failure from the FIA regarding this engine regulation:

- They thought that without MGU H it would be easier to do an engine, and reduce engine performance gap between manufacturers: It did not happen, we are in the same or even worse situation than 2014/2015
- ADUO is based only on ICE, because they thought every manufacturer would be able to reach the max power / energy harvesting allowed on the eletrical side

This is a big fail on all this.
- Engine performance should be mesured on "average available power" of the global PU
- ADUO is useless because it takes time to upgrade engines
- Finally there is already a budget cap on engine (which is good), why limit them ? Chassis is not limited, they can upgrade as they will, it should be the same for engine as they have the budget cap

[bigblue]

Finally there is already a budget cap on engine (which is good), why limit them ? Chassis is not limited, they can upgrade as they will, it should be the same for engine as they have the budget cap

I agree with this, I'm not sure if there's any good reason to have such complex engine upgrade rules. Having said that, I think both Honda and Audi intend to not use all their upgrade opportunities due to the difficulty in making good steps on the engine side. But a simpler set of rules, and allowing for the possibility of marginal gains and/or some degrees of experimentation would be nice.

I suppose it also constrains the lead engine to not make gains, so maybe that's the rationale. Though in a "fair" set of rules, why penalise success? Then we can get into how we determine what's the lead engine. All messy to be honest. As are the spending restrictions before the actual race introduction of a new engine formula (I guess everyone could be given an amount to spend, maybe with more to a new entrant without facilities - somehow Honda comprehensively shot themselves in the foot with that, being neither a new entrant, nor developing when the constraints were freer).

[Jambier]

All messy to be honest. As are the spending restrictions before the actual race introduction of a new engine formula (I guess everyone could be given an amount to spend, maybe with more to a new entrant without facilities - somehow Honda comprehensively shot themselves in the foot with that, being neither a new entrant, nor developing when the constraints were freer).

Agreed.

ADUO is good if you have small adjustement, you are not so far and you do little steps upgrades (Ferrari)
But when you are far away and need more work, a new engine, it is not usefull (Audi / Honda)

And I agree that being late Honda shoot themselves in the foot, if they had started one year before (and Aramco as well) I believe it would have been really different.