Adrian Newey has admitted that Aston Martin’s aggressive high-rake aerodynamic concept for the 2026 Formula 1 season failed to deliver the expected results, forcing the team to rethink the design of its AMR26. The British engineer explained that significant delays in the car’s development programme contributed to the decision to pursue an extreme solution, which was eventually abandoned when Aston Martin introduced its extensively revised AMR26B at the Hungarian Grand Prix.
The Silverstone-based team’s attention has increasingly shifted towards 2027, both in terms of chassis development and its partnership with Honda. Aston Martin hopes the Japanese manufacturer can make substantial progress with its power unit over the winter, while development of the original 2026 car was halted relatively early after several design decisions failed to produce the intended performance.
Among those decisions, the high-rake philosophy was particularly significant. When Aston Martin introduced its major upgrade package in Hungary, the team not only reduced the car’s weight but also revised its fundamental aerodynamic concept, moving away from the pronounced nose-down attitude around which the original AMR26 had been developed.
Adrian Newey reveals why Aston Martin’s high-rake AMR26 gamble failed
Adrian Newey has confirmed that the decision to pursue such an aggressive rake angle was partly a gamble dictated by the circumstances facing Aston Martin during the early stages of the 2026 project. Development did not begin according to the original schedule, with meaningful work on the car only getting underway in April after the team’s new wind tunnel finally became operational following calibration problems.
Those difficulties resulted in an approximately four-month delay to the AMR26’s design programme, leaving the engineering department with a compressed development timetable. Faced with limited research time, the team explored particularly aggressive aerodynamic solutions in the hope of finding a competitive direction quickly.
“That’s a fair observation. When I arrived, it was the beginning of March and, up to that point, very little aerodynamic research work had been carried out,” Adrian Newey explained in Austin.
“If you then consider the release dates for all the major components scheduled before the August summer break and, subsequently, the bodywork and wings around November, we found ourselves with a very short research period.”
The approach was not entirely unfamiliar to Adrian Newey, who had made high-rake configurations a distinctive feature of several of his cars during his time at Red Bull. After examining the new technical regulations, he believed the 2026 rulebook could favour a similar philosophy.
“I studied the regulations and had a feeling they might suit a high-rake solution, which was the direction we decided to pursue. I think that choice had some strengths, but also weaknesses. Now we have returned to what I would describe as a middle ground, an intermediate solution that we believe is valid.”
Why Aston Martin abandoned the original AMR26 aerodynamic concept
The high-rake gamble ultimately failed to deliver the desired performance, partly because the 2026 technical regulations make it more difficult for engineers to control the turbulent airflow generated around the rear tyres. Previous regulatory frameworks offered greater design freedom to create aerodynamic structures capable of limiting these disturbances, whereas the current rules impose tighter restrictions.
Ride height represents another crucial element of the problem, particularly at circuits where the surface is uneven. This became especially apparent during the United States Grand Prix weekend in Austin, where the numerous bumps at the Circuit of The Americas complicated the task of finding the ideal aerodynamic compromise.
The revised AMR26B has nevertheless represented a significant step forward for Aston Martin. Despite Honda’s evident shortcomings, which affect not only outright power unit performance but also driveability, the Silverstone-built car has demonstrated encouraging chassis characteristics.
Those strengths became particularly apparent in Malaysia, especially through sections of the circuit where high aerodynamic downforce was required. The improvements indicated that Aston Martin had found a more effective direction with its revised concept, even if the overall package continued to face limitations elsewhere.
How the 2026 F1 regulations changed the importance of rake and ride height
The question of rake is closely connected to ride height, and the relationship has changed considerably between successive generations of Formula 1 cars. During the ground-effect era, pronounced rake angles had almost disappeared because teams attempted to run their cars as close to the asphalt as possible.
The objective was to find the ideal balance between maximising aerodynamic downforce and controlling porpoising, the bouncing phenomenon that could emerge when cars operated too close to the ground. Ride height therefore became a critical performance parameter, with teams constantly searching for the most effective compromise.
The 2026 regulations, which reintroduced flat floors, initially appeared capable of encouraging a return to more aggressive rake configurations. Indeed, compared with the previous season, cars generally adopted a greater nose-down attitude, although teams that initially pursued particularly extreme solutions subsequently moved away from them.
Several constructors progressively lowered the rear of their cars during the season and discovered additional performance. Aston Martin’s decision to abandon its original high-rake concept was therefore part of a wider process of understanding how the new aerodynamic regulations affect the relationship between the floor, surrounding components and the car’s operating window.
Andrea Stella explains why lower ride heights do not always produce more downforce
Speaking to Motorsport.com at Monza, McLaren Team Principal Andrea Stella had already explained why determining the ideal ride-height range remains complicated under the 2026 regulations. As with the previous technical generation, there is an optimal operating point that depends not only on the floor itself but also on its interaction with other aerodynamic components.
One important example concerns the cascade of aerodynamic elements positioned around the rear wheel. These components have a different relationship with the ground compared with the floor, meaning changes in ride height can alter the way the airflow interacts with the surrounding surfaces.
“The ride-height aspect, even under last year’s regulations, had an optimum point. You can rarely just go closer, closer, closer and always get more,” Andrea Stella explained.
“Last year there was also an optimum point, but in practical terms that optimum was linked to the fact that the car started bouncing. However, even with cars that have flat floors, there is an optimum point that is not simply a matter of going closer or further away.”
According to Andrea Stella, the aerodynamic behaviour of a Formula 1 car depends on a series of relationships between different components rather than a single ride-height measurement. In particular, the interaction between the wheel-mounted aerodynamic elements and the floor changes as the car moves.
“That’s because aerodynamics doesn’t depend only on the floor or how close the floor is to the ground, but also on other factors, technically referred to as relationships. For example, the relationship between the winglets on the wheel and the floor, because the winglets on the wheel remain at a fixed height while the floor moves. If they move further apart, the floor works differently.”
Rear tyre turbulence and front wing performance complicate Aston Martin’s design choices
Andrea Stella’s explanation is particularly relevant because the 2026 regulations have reduced the freedom engineers have to manage airflow around the wheels. As a result, controlling the turbulence generated outside the car and maintaining the aerodynamic sealing of the diffuser is not straightforward.
Depending on how the different components move relative to one another, the floor can either gain or lose aerodynamic load. The relationship between rake and downforce therefore extends beyond the simple question of how close the floor operates to the track surface.
The McLaren team principal also highlighted another important factor: the position of the front wing. Running a car with a particularly high rear ride height changes the position of the front wing relative to the ground, potentially producing additional aerodynamic benefits or disadvantages depending on the regulations.
“There is also the front wing. If you have a very high rear ride height, the front wing runs very close to the ground. If there is performance to be gained from running the front wing close to the ground, then that is a good direction, but perhaps this year, with these regulations, there is not as much advantage in running the front wing close to the ground.”
“In 2010 and 2011, there was a big advantage in running the wing close to the ground.”
The McLaren boss went on to explain that the reduction in floor surface area under the current regulations has also changed the relative importance of these aerodynamic relationships.
“So there are aspects associated with ride heights that do not concern only the floor’s proximity to the ground. With the floor geometries used under the previous regulations, the height of the floor above the ground was the dominant factor, partly because the floor surface had never been so large in Formula 1 history. The floor surface area this year is already smaller.”
Aston Martin turns towards 2027 after learning from AMR26 design limitations
The experience of developing the AMR26 has demonstrated how difficult it can be to identify the correct aerodynamic philosophy under a new set of Formula 1 regulations. Adrian Newey initially believed an aggressive high-rake configuration could exploit the characteristics of the 2026 rules, but the limited development time and the complexity of the aerodynamic relationships ultimately exposed weaknesses in that approach.
The revised AMR26B has provided evidence that Aston Martin can improve its chassis performance by adopting a more moderate configuration. However, the team’s overall competitiveness remains affected by Honda’s power unit limitations, making progress on both sides of the partnership essential ahead of 2027.
While Aston Martin’s chassis engineers continue to analyse the lessons learned from the original car, the engine manufacturer is also working to address its performance deficit. The combination of a more effective aerodynamic concept and improved power unit performance will be central to the team’s efforts to recover from a difficult first season under the new regulations.
Related Formula 1 technical analysis
- Further Formula 1 aerodynamic and technical analysis
- How Ferrari’s 2026 upgrade package faces different aerodynamic challenges
Leave a Reply