8 - 10 weeks but if he had detailed drawing ...why wouldn't he have not sent them by mail to Silverstone HQ? or have someone pick them up?
Bob Bell and a small team had been working on the 2026 car since early 2024.TyreSlip wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 18:30Agreed. People forget that Newey is 2 months behind the other teams in developing the 2026 car and is playing catch up. It is doubtful he would invest any of his limited time on this year's car.JPower wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 17:06Some of you are sounding very desperate.
Come on now. Why would Newey spend any time on this car? And why would Aston spend more than what's already been budgeted to fix it if its not performing at a high level? The 2026 project needs as much resources as possible as early as reasonably possible.
Multiple teams have had 2026 models in the wind tunnel since the beginning of January. If Aston hasn't, they're already behind.
Hard to say. Last year red bull had issues with simulator correlation and how it effected slow speed corners.-wkst- wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 17:28Let's see, for me this sim thing looks a bit overhyped right now. Juncardella (new team member, won't say anything negative) just said that it's better than their old one and it helped during the weekend (I guess even their old sim helped during the weekend a bit). But isn't the real goal of the sim to prepare the set-up of the car already in the days before the event, to have a little time advantage over the opponents?...
If Newey and Aston leadership have decided to spend money continually developing a 2025 car that has no chance for a championship when the 2026 project hasn't been started, then Aston is in far worse shape than we've been told.Kamel wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 19:34Adrian is a ground effect master. Of course he will help AM this year.
I can't even believe that in a week he'll be walking around the paddock in green with a notebook in his hands.
Is it true that the new wind tunnel can't be used this season cause the old one is blown through already?
Marko told ORF at the end of the season that it was not only the sim. They simply had correlation problems track/factory tools, like AMR.SSJ4 wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 21:22Hard to say. Last year red bull had issues with simulator correlation and how it effected slow speed corners.-wkst- wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 17:28Let's see, for me this sim thing looks a bit overhyped right now. Juncardella (new team member, won't say anything negative) just said that it's better than their old one and it helped during the weekend (I guess even their old sim helped during the weekend a bit). But isn't the real goal of the sim to prepare the set-up of the car already in the days before the event, to have a little time advantage over the opponents?...
Last year we ran the car higher than everyone else iirc. Maybe the new sim has helped to develop the amr25 and it can simulate ride height sensation and how the car handles when it bounces off kerbs. This is all in theory of course
Working on a new logo?
I'm sure he will have pointers on the AMR25 even if his focus is on the AMR26. They need to make sure the upgrades start working, unlike the last few years. Newey was pretty much the only one that made a car that didn't porpoise like crazy out of the box. The others struggled with that for a long time. Look at some Ferrari shots from 2022, it's wild. If Honda makes a competitive engine I'm confident he can make the aero for it for 26.diffuser wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 22:52If we think back to the introduction on the current regs. It wasn't that RBR was the best right out of the box, Ferrari was pretty close inm that they won 2 of the first 3 races, they kept building on it. Upgrade after upgrade worked. So it isn't just the start of 2026, it's the build after that.
FNTC wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 23:50Newey was pretty much the only one that made a car that didn't porpoise like crazy out of the box. The others struggled with that for a long time. Look at some Ferrari shots from 2022, it's wild. If Honda makes a competitive engine I'm confident he can make the aero for it for 26.diffuser wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 22:52If we think back to the introduction on the current regs. It wasn't that RBR was the best right out of the box, Ferrari was pretty close inm that they won 2 of the first 3 races, they kept building on it. Upgrade after upgrade worked. So it isn't just the start of 2026, it's the build after that.
https://www.grandprix247.com/wp-content ... se-1-1.gif
maybe they used problems in commisioning the new tunnel as their "failure". initially, the new tunnel was supposed to be online in time for the beginning of 2026 development, and apparently isnt now. they can only use one tunnel for each project, and i doubt if they ever planned to use the merc tunnel for the 26 car, it makes no sense. if you are aston, do you start on january 1st with the old WT, with car designers that havent shown any ability to build a really good car, when anything they design may be scrapped when newey gets there, or do you wait for newey, and start late on your brand new wind tunnel that was built for this very purpose? then again, maybe the people reporting that aston have been stacking WT time for newey just made that sh#$ up-wkst- wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025, 11:30The current regulations (2024 released), fia.com:
They can nominate the new wind tunnel once it's ready. Until then they obviously use the Brackley tunnel.1 General conditions
c. An Aerodynamic Testing Period (ATP) is a period of consecutive calendar weeks for the purposes of evaluation of the limits within this Article. As soon as one ATP ends a new one begins, with no gaps between them.
There will be 6 ATPs in any year. The dates of these periods will be as follows:
i. Period 1 will start on 1 January and finish at the end of week 9.
ii. Periods 2, 3 and 5 will run for exactly 8 weeks each.
iii. Period 4 will run for 10 weeks, comprising the Summer Factory Shutdown described in Article 24.1.
iv. Period 6 will end on the 31 December.
2 Restricted Wind Tunnel Testing (RWTT)
RWTT may only be carried out in wind tunnels which have been nominated by the Competitor to the FIA. Each Competitor may nominate only one wind tunnel for use in any one twelve month period and declare it in writing to the FIA. For a new entrant, the nomination must be made no later than 7 days after the date on which it officially becomes a Competitor. No re-nominations may be made for at least 12 months. Nominations should include the facility location, unique identification of the wind tunnel and the scale of model and RATG to be used. The FIA will consider, at its absolute discretion, earlier or temporary nominations if a wind tunnel already nominated by a Competitor suffers a long term failure or for the purpose of evaluating alternative wind tunnels. If a different facility is to be used or if the existing facility is changed or upgraded, other than for routine maintenance or replacement, then a new declaration must be submitted to the FIA within one month of the change or at the time of submission of a testing period report whichever is earlier.
d. In the event of a demonstrated wind tunnel failure or other Force Majeure the FIA will consider, at its absolute discretion, permitting additional occupancy to be used to compensate for that which is lost as a result.
5 Exceptions to the Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions (ATR)
e. Wind tunnel testing that uses a RATG for the sole purpose of the conditioning of wind tunnel infrastructure or the development of wind tunnel infrastructure (including all of its sub-systems such as rolling road, model motion system, force balance, wind tunnel model spine, sensors etc.) and methodology may be performed and will not count towards the accumulation of runs, wind-on time, and occupancy subject to the testing complying with either of the following restrictions:
i. The front wing group and the rear wing group of the RATG must be removed from the wind tunnel for the duration of the testing. Alternatively, either one of or both the wing groups may be retained on the model, but each that remains must be fitted with a bluff cover that has been approved for this purpose by the FIA. The front and rear wing groups will be considered to be bodywork described by Articles 3.9 and 3.10 of the Technical Regulations respectively.
ii. A RATG is used which is more than 12 months old, or represents an FIA approved CAD geometry provided for this purpose and that no modification is made to this previously tested RATG or FIA approved geometry.
The only way to have more wind tunnel time later is if a failure appears, which is not the case at AMR.
And at the last part the exceptions to the ATR (I guess that's what they are doing in Silverstone since months).
yeah i reposted some of what i said because i think it didnt convey what i was trying to say haha. people are reporting they are stacking WT time. either aston found a way to do it, or the people are all full of sh%^. it could be either. im sure theyve been working on the 2026 car, just not sure how far they are going to get with anything too concrete if there is a chance that its going to get tossed out. a lot of wasted time and money would hurt worse than being a little late on a project. but im no engineer either, so i could be way off in what i imagine they are doing.-wkst- wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025, 09:00I do not know where this "1 tunnel for each project" is coming from?
The rules say pretty clear that a competitor "may nominate only one wind tunnel for use in any one twelve month period and declare it in writing to the FIA".
Furthermore it say's that "the FIA will consider [...] temporary nominations [...] for the purpose of evaluating alternative wind tunnels".
I guess that's what they are doing, Mercedes tunnel as a temporary nomination for this 12 month period, until their own one is operational.
I am no engineers, but even as an amateur it's pretty clear that a non-operational wind tunnel in commissioning phase can not be reported/declared as "suffers a long term failure" to the FIA.
But once again, it's not like noone at the AMRTC was working on the 2026 model until Newey arrived. That would be suicidal. Cowell made that already very clear that 1 group is working on the 2026 car, another group still working on the 2025, with more and more people shifting towards 2026 the later we are into the year.
to be honest, they wouldnt know what they would consider a failure until it is brought to the FIA, at which time the FIA would either approve or deny it. maybe something did break and it was going to take them 2 months to fix.-wkst- wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025, 09:00I do not know where this "1 tunnel for each project" is coming from?
The rules say pretty clear that a competitor "may nominate only one wind tunnel for use in any one twelve month period and declare it in writing to the FIA".
Furthermore it say's that "the FIA will consider [...] temporary nominations [...] for the purpose of evaluating alternative wind tunnels".
I guess that's what they are doing, Mercedes tunnel as a temporary nomination for this 12 month period, until their own one is operational.
I am no engineers, but even as an amateur it's pretty clear that a non-operational wind tunnel in commissioning phase can not be reported/declared as "suffers a long term failure" to the FIA.
But once again, it's not like noone at the AMRTC was working on the 2026 model until Newey arrived. That would be suicidal. Cowell made that already very clear that 1 group is working on the 2026 car, another group still working on the 2025, with more and more people shifting towards 2026 the later we are into the year.
I guess the phrase "suffers a long term failure" refers to a wind tunnel, which was already operational and in use. But in the end that doesn't matter as their current nomination is obviously the Mercedes tunnel, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use it (and they did use it in 2025, as Cowell said in London that they had several more weekends in the tunnel (compared to previous years) because of faster processes at the AMRTC).
