Honda’s power gap hides a quicker AMR26, GPS analysis shows.
Formula 1 qualifying is usually judged by a single number: the gap to pole. Yet a fresh GPS study of Fernando Alonso’s Aston Martin suggests that number hides a far more interesting story.
According to analysis published by The Race, the AMR26 was quicker than the pole-setting car through the non-full-throttle parts of the lap at both Sepang and Singapore, even though Alonso qualified more than two seconds adrift in each case.
What the numbers actually say
The Race split each qualifying lap into two categories: sections taken at full throttle and everything else, which mainly means braking zones, cornering phases and traction exits.
In Malaysia, Alonso qualified 2.090 seconds behind Max Verstappen’s pole lap. The analysis estimates that he lost 2.238 seconds to the Red Bull on full-throttle sections alone. On simple subtraction, that leaves Alonso 0.148 seconds quicker across the remainder of the lap.
A week later at Marina Bay, the pattern widened. Alonso’s qualifying time was 2.85 seconds slower than Verstappen’s pole lap, while his estimated full-throttle deficit was 3.22 seconds.
Subtracting one from the other leaves the Aston Martin 0.370 seconds faster everywhere else.
The margins are modest, but they reveal the structure of the deficit. Almost all of Aston Martin’s lost time is concentrated where engine output and energy deployment matter most, while the chassis appears to be holding its own, or better, in the rest of the lap.
Why the power unit is the obvious suspect
Aston Martin and Honda are in the first year of their works partnership under the sport’s new technical regulations, and the engine has been the team’s most visible weakness.
Straight-line speed and energy deployment remain problem areas despite upgrades from Honda. Analysis published by other media following the Singapore weekend described the Aston Martin as the slowest car on the grid in terms of top speed, and noted that Alonso complained about weak deployment on corner exit.
That context matters. A car that is slow in a straight line can look slow in qualifying even when its cornering ability is strong, because lap time is the sum of every phase.
Separating the phases is the only way to see which part of the car is responsible.
A chassis that has changed since the early season
The result looks more striking because of how the AMR26 was judged earlier this year. After the Japanese Grand Prix, BBC Sport’s Andrew Benson reported that more than half of the team’s deficit to the front was attributed to the chassis, citing a senior and knowledgeable source.
GPS comparisons reported at the time also pointed to low minimum speeds through corners, and the team acknowledged weaknesses in high-speed corners.
Since then, the car has been revised. Read Motorsport reports that Aston Martin’s only major aerodynamic update of the season arrived in Hungary, with Adrian Newey overseeing a substantial revision of the AMR26.
The Race’s data indicates that cornering performance has improved substantially since that update, with Sepang and Singapore producing the clearest evidence yet.
The claim, therefore, is not that the chassis was always strong, but that it looks considerably better than it did at the start of the campaign.
The limits of the evidence
It would be easy to turn these figures into a headline claiming that Aston Martin could have challenged for pole with a rival engine.
That conclusion goes further than the data allows. GPS comparisons are shaped by track evolution, tyre usage and the different drag and downforce characteristics of each car.
A car set up with extra downforce to offset a power shortfall may gain time in corners because of that choice, which would not necessarily carry over to a stronger engine.
The 2026 regulations add further complexity. PlanetF1 notes that quantifying the exact lap-time cost of a power deficit is close to impossible, because the power unit influences a wide range of vehicle dynamics, not just straight-line speed.
Separating full-throttle time from the rest of the lap is a useful estimate, but it is not a clean measurement of engine performance.
In other words, the analysis supports a careful conclusion: Aston Martin’s qualifying position understates the quality of its current chassis, and the power unit appears to account for a large share of the shortfall.
It does not prove that Alonso would have taken pole.
The Singapore turbo question
One detail from Marina Bay deserves attention. Alonso was convinced that he had suffered a turbo failure during the weekend, and Aston Martin replaced the component before the race.
Honda said its data showed no failure, but agreed to the change following the driver’s feedback and continued to investigate.
The episode shows how hard it remains for team and engine partner to agree on causes, which is why independent data carries weight.
ALSO READ: Horner Reflects on Lawson Promotion in New ‘Drive’ Memoir
What to watch next
Three questions will decide whether this becomes a lasting trend. First, whether Honda can close the straight-line gap through further upgrades and improved energy deployment.
Second, whether the chassis advantage holds on circuits with different demands, particularly fast tracks where the earlier criticism about high-speed corners would be tested again.
Third, whether the same split analysis, applied to other teams, shows a comparable gap between qualifying position and underlying chassis quality.
For now, the verified picture is clear enough. Aston Martin’s cornering performance has improved, its power unit remains the largest identifiable handicap, and the true potential of Newey’s design cannot be judged until the engine problems are resolved.
Alonso’s laps show a car that is slow in one specific way, not everywhere, and that distinction matters for how the team’s progress is judged.
Follow us
Never Miss an F1 Update!
Join the AutodromeF1 Formula 1 community for real-time race commentary, paddock news, and 2026 calendar updates across your favorite platforms: