News Summary
- Alonso lost 2.238s to Verstappen on full-throttle sections at Sepang, despite qualifying only 2.090s behind the Red Bull.
- The difference was even greater in Singapore, where Aston Martin lost 3.220s on full-throttle sections but gained 0.370s elsewhere.
- The findings suggest Newey’s AMR26 chassis has improved significantly, although the GPS figures cannot establish how fast Aston Martin would be with a different power unit.
Fernando Alonso’s Aston Martin may be considerably more competitive than its Formula 1 results suggest, with GPS analysis revealing that the AMR26 was faster than Max Verstappen’s Red Bull through the non-full-throttle sections of the qualifying laps at both Sepang and Singapore, despite losing more than two seconds overall.
The figures, analysed by Mark Hughes for The Race, reveal the scale of Aston Martin’s straight-line performance deficit during the first season of its partnership with Honda. They also suggest that the extensive aerodynamic changes introduced under Adrian Newey have substantially improved the AMR26’s cornering performance.
At the Bahrain Grand Prix in Sepang, Alonso qualified 2.090 seconds behind Verstappen, but the GPS comparison indicated that the Spaniard lost 2.238 seconds on the full-throttle sections alone. The remaining sections therefore favoured Aston Martin by approximately 0.148 seconds.
The difference became even more striking at Singapore, where Alonso’s qualifying deficit was 2.850 seconds despite losing an estimated 3.220 seconds in the full-throttle portions of the lap.
That left the Aston Martin 0.370 seconds faster through the remaining sections, according to the GPS comparison.
The figures do not prove that Alonso would have taken pole position with another engine, but they reveal a much sharper contrast between Aston Martin’s cornering performance and its straight-line limitations than the final qualifying positions suggest.
GPS analysis reveals Aston Martin’s hidden speed
The comparison separates the lap into full-throttle sections and the remaining portions, allowing the relative performance of the two cars to be examined beyond their overall qualifying times.
| Grand Prix | Alonso’s qualifying deficit to Verstappen | Loss on full-throttle sections | Advantage elsewhere |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sepang | +2.090s | +2.238s | -0.148s |
| Singapore | +2.850s | +3.220s | -0.370s |
Negative figures in the final column indicate that Alonso was faster through the non-full-throttle portions of the lap. The numbers are derived from GPS analysis reported by Mark Hughes, rather than an official FIA chassis-performance measurement.
At Sepang, the difference suggested that Aston Martin was recovering nearly all of its straight-line losses through corners and other sections where the throttle was not fully open.
Singapore produced an even more dramatic comparison. Despite Alonso being eliminated in Q1, the AMR26’s performance outside the full-throttle sections was stronger relative to Verstappen than it had been in Malaysia.
The result is particularly notable because Marina Bay had been expected to reduce the disadvantages associated with Honda’s lack of straight-line performance.
As GRANDE PRÊMIO reported before the Singapore Grand Prix, Alonso had identified the circuit’s shorter straights as a potential opportunity.
Asked why the venue might suit Aston Martin, he replied simply: “Less straights.”
The expectation did not translate into a competitive qualifying result, but the GPS figures provide a different perspective on the car’s underlying performance.
Why the numbers do not mean Alonso could have taken pole
The most striking interpretation of the data is that Aston Martin might have challenged for pole position if it had possessed straight-line performance comparable to Red Bull.
At Sepang, subtracting the 2.238-second full-throttle deficit from the overall 2.090-second gap produces a theoretical advantage of 0.148 seconds.
At Singapore, the same calculation produces an advantage of 0.370 seconds.
However, those differences cannot be treated as a reliable prediction of qualifying results with a different power unit.
The comparison does not isolate engine performance from every other variable. Aerodynamic drag, wing configuration, electrical energy deployment, battery state of charge, gear ratios and corner-exit speed can all influence the time recorded during full-throttle sections.
A car designed to generate more downforce may gain time through corners while losing speed on straights, even when its engine is competitive.
Likewise, changing the power unit could alter the car’s weight distribution, cooling requirements, aerodynamic packaging and energy-management characteristics.
The GPS figures therefore demonstrate a substantial performance contrast, but they do not establish how much of the difference is caused exclusively by Honda’s engine.
Newey’s Aston Martin improves after major Hungary upgrade
Aston Martin’s cornering performance has changed considerably since the beginning of the season.
The team struggled with an overweight chassis, limited aerodynamic efficiency and persistent Honda power-unit problems during the opening months of 2026.
Newey subsequently oversaw a substantial revision of the AMR26, introduced at the Hungarian Grand Prix. The package included changes to the floor, bodywork and aerodynamic surfaces intended to improve downforce and reduce the car’s weight.
The upgrades helped Aston Martin become more competitive through corners, although the team remained vulnerable at circuits with long straights.
As GRANDE PRÊMIO examined after the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, Alonso and Lance Stroll were among the slowest drivers through Baku’s speed checks, raising questions about the combined effect of Honda’s power unit and the car’s aerodynamic characteristics.
The difference between Baku and Sepang subsequently became a major talking point.
Alonso finished eighth in Malaysia after a much more competitive weekend, despite insisting that Aston Martin had not changed the car or its setup between the two events.
“The car was exactly the same, physically the same, set up the same, power unit the same,” Alonso said during the Singapore Grand Prix weekend.
His explanation reinforced the importance of circuit characteristics in determining Aston Martin’s competitiveness.
The new GPS comparison provides additional evidence that the AMR26 is capable of recovering significant lap time in sections where cornering performance plays a greater role.
Honda’s problems continue despite engine upgrades
Honda has introduced power-unit improvements during the season, but Aston Martin continues to struggle with acceleration, energy deployment and drivability.
The Japanese manufacturer used development opportunities permitted under Formula 1’s 2026 regulations to revise its engine specification, including changes introduced around the Dutch and Spanish Grands Prix.
However, the improvements have not eliminated the performance deficit.
At Singapore, Alonso became increasingly frustrated with the power unit’s behaviour, complaining that the car was losing substantial ground to competitors on the straights.
“The energy… this engine is ridiculous,” he said over the radio during the race.
As GRANDE PRÊMIO reported after the Singapore Grand Prix, the Spaniard estimated that he was losing between 200 and 300 metres on some straights because electrical energy was not being deployed as expected.
The difficulties followed another intervention by Aston Martin after qualifying.
The team replaced Alonso’s power-unit components before the race in response to his complaints about the car’s performance.
Honda subsequently indicated that its data had not identified the turbocharger failure suspected by Alonso, although the manufacturer continued investigating the drivability problems.
The Spaniard ultimately finished 16th, while teammate Stroll retired with a clutch problem.
The result left Aston Martin tenth in the Constructors’ Championship with seven points, despite the improvements made to the chassis.
What the GPS findings mean for Aston Martin’s 2027 prospects
The figures provide an encouraging indication of the progress achieved by Newey’s aerodynamic development programme, but Aston Martin still faces substantial technical challenges before the 2027 season.
The team must improve the efficiency of its complete car rather than concentrating exclusively on Honda’s engine.
Reducing drag without sacrificing cornering performance, improving energy deployment and eliminating drivability problems will be important objectives during the remaining races.
Honda also faces pressure to improve its power unit after the difficult opening year of the partnership.
Former Honda engineer Yasuaki Asaki recently questioned whether the manufacturer’s previous development structure could deliver the required progress quickly enough, amid changes to the organisation’s Formula 1 leadership.
Aston Martin and Honda will have their next opportunity to evaluate the package at the United States Grand Prix in Austin on October 23–25, where the circuit’s long straights and demanding high-speed corners will provide another comparison between the AMR26’s strengths and weaknesses.
GRANDE PRÊMIO will continue following the team’s development through its Formula 1 coverage.
