After dismissing its technical director, Aston Martin can no longer hide behind excuses in its pursuit of F1 success.
It’s unusual for a team to make significant staffing changes so late in the season, but Aston Martin couldn’t afford to delay.
This week, Aston Martin parted ways with technical director Dan Fallows, previously a major acquisition from Red Bull Racing, through a straightforward press release with only three races left in the season.
“I want to thank Dan for his contributions to Aston Martin over the past two years,” said Andy Cowell, Aston Martin’s group CEO, in a concise statement. “Dan led the team to the success of the AMR23, which achieved eight podiums last season.”
Two years is a short period for a technical director to make a lasting impact, but Aston Martin is in a hurry.
Starting January 1, teams can officially work on their 2026 cars. For Aston Martin, as with other teams, the upcoming regulatory changes present a key opportunity to join the frontrunners.
Every strategic move by a team now aims to prepare for these 2026 regulations.
At one point, Fallows seemed like the ideal leader for this task. Trained under Adrian Newey at Red Bull Racing, he took the helm at Silverstone before the 2022 season.
The team’s strong performance early in 2023 was notable, but his influence waned as the season progressed.
Aston Martin has dropped from being second early last season to a less competitive fifth, now under threat from other teams as the season concludes.
“These ground effect cars are complex,” said team owner Lawrence Stroll in September. “We clearly took a wrong direction and are now trying to correct our course.”
It marked Stroll’s first public admission of a setback in his project.
Two months later, Fallows was let go.
The PIT TALK PODCAST explores how the driver market is shifting, impacting even contracted 2026 debutant Jack Doohan due to recent moves involving Franco Colapinto.
However, signs pointed to Fallows’s departure before Stroll’s admission.
Fallows joined Aston Martin as its top technical mind, but he was soon surpassed by three others.
CEO Cowell was hired for his leadership at Mercedes during its dominant hybrid era.
Chief technical director Enrico Cardile was recruited from Ferrari’s senior technical team.
And, of course, Adrian Newey, Fallows’s mentor from Red Bull, also became a managing technical partner.
This line-up signaled doubts about Fallows’s leadership and suggested an overcrowded hierarchy.
Though Aston Martin initially claimed it could accommodate all of them, recent reports suggest Fallows might not be replaced.
Budget constraints likely influenced this decision. Fallows, as one of the highest earners, would have been excluded from the budget cap. Team principal Mike Krack was likely another exempted high earner.
Newey, reportedly earning $59 million annually, outpaced them in pay, with Cardile likely commanding a substantial salary as well.
With other top-tier staff on payroll — including Cowell, Bob Bell, Luca Furbatto, and Eric Blandin — budgetary pressure was inevitable.
Reassigning Fallows within the wider Aston Martin group releases financial strain on the F1 team.
Yet, performance issues were the main reason for Fallows’s exit.
Now, funds from his salary can be redirected to improve performance.
This comes just in time as Aston Martin approaches a critical point in its pursuit of F1 glory.
Aston Martin’s former technical director Dan Fallows (Photo by Lars Baron/Getty Images). Source: Getty Images ASTON MARTIN’S STRUGGLES TO HALT ITS SLIDE
Under billionaire Lawrence Stroll’s ownership, Aston Martin has matched its big ambitions with big investments.
Stroll’s vision transformed the former midfield team into a contender.
Aston Martin has boasted a world champion in its lineup, first with Sebastian Vettel and now with Fernando Alonso.
Outside the driver’s seat, Stroll secured top engineers and designers.
He also invested in new headquarters, replacing the old portable buildings with state-of-the-art facilities.
A modern wind tunnel will soon complement the team’s advanced simulation tools.
“This is a project I embarked on a few years ago to create what will hopefully be the greatest Formula 1 team,” Stroll said at the start of last season.
He aimed not just for the best team ever but the best team that could ever exist.
This bold ambition was matched by results early last season, as Aston Martin emerged as Red Bull’s main rival.
Climbing from seventh in the previous year’s standings, the team secured six podiums in its first eight races, including two second-place finishes.
However, since then, Aston Martin’s narrative has been one of decline.
From being second early last season, it dropped to fifth by year-end, overtaken by an improving McLaren.
This season, it’s on track to finish fifth again, but with less competitive results.
Comparisons in Qualifying (2023-24):
2023 average qualifying position: 6.77 (5th place)
2024 average qualifying position: 8.67 (5th place)
Average gap to pole (last four races 2023): 0.961 seconds (8th place)
Average gap to pole (last four races 2024): 1.242 seconds (9th place)
The team’s performance on race day has declined even more, predicting less than a third of last year’s points total.
Comparisons in Race Results (2023-24):
2023 average race finish: 5.95 (4th place)
2024 average race finish: 9.10 (5th place)
Best result in 2023: Second place (three times)
Best result in 2024: Fifth place (once)
2023 score (21 rounds): 273 points (5th place)
2024 score (21 rounds): 86 points (5th place)
These statistics fall short of Stroll’s vision of building the greatest F1 team.
WHERE DID IT GO WRONG?
Aston Martin’s struggles partly stem from unrealistic expectations.
Its strong start last year was commendable, but the team benefited from Mercedes, Ferrari, and McLaren underperforming in their second year with new regulations.
All three teams rebounded by year-end, pushing Aston Martin to fifth, a more accurate reflection of its pace.
This season, the average gap to pole still places Aston Martin as the fifth-fastest car, but only just.
Average gap to pole (2024 season):
1. Red Bull: 0.132 seconds
2. McLaren: 0.219 seconds
3. Ferrari: 0.327 seconds
4. Mercedes: 0.473 seconds
5. Aston Martin: 0.916 seconds
6. RB: 1.016 seconds
7. Haas: 1.093 seconds
8. Williams: 1.235 seconds
9. Alpine: 1.275 seconds
10. Sauber: 1.640 seconds
But these figures don’t tell the full story. Aston Martin hasn’t consistently been the fifth-quickest team for months.
Since the mid-season break, it’s been outscored by Alpine and Haas, and is now tied with Williams, which changed drivers mid-season and had four retirements.
RB is only three points behind despite multiple DNFs.
Recent performances show a different picture.
Average gap to pole (last four races):
1. McLaren: 0.079 seconds
2. Red Bull: 0.183 seconds
3. Ferrari: 0.200 seconds
4. Mercedes: 0.446 seconds
5. Haas: 0.862 seconds
6. Alpine: 0.897 seconds
7. RB: 0.971 seconds
8. Williams: 1.164 seconds
9. Aston Martin: 1.242 seconds
10. Sauber: 1.753 seconds
These results highlight Aston Martin’s deeper issues.
The car’s initial competitiveness last year and this year has fallen short due to inadequate development.
Tracking development rates based on qualifying shows how teams close or widen the gap to pole throughout the season.
Development rate (season to date):
1. McLaren: improved by 0.456 seconds
2. Alpine: improved by 0.302 seconds
3. Mercedes: improved by 0.149 seconds
4. Williams: improved by 0.101 seconds
5. Haas: improved by 0.028 seconds
6. Ferrari: improved by 0.021 seconds
7. RB: regressed by 0.322 seconds
8. Red Bull: regressed by 0.361 seconds
9. Sauber: regressed by 0.640 seconds
10. Aston Martin: regressed by 1.113 seconds
This doesn’t necessarily mean Aston Martin has worsened its car; it shows other teams have advanced faster.
A NEW STRATEGY IS REQUIRED
However, Aston Martin has notably struggled to implement effective car upgrades.
This trend is significant in the era of ground-effect vehicles, where performance gains are harder to secure than in previous aerodynamic eras.
Ground effect cars rely on underfloor design, making them sensitive to slight changes in ride height.
Simulating ride height in wind tunnels is challenging, especially when seeking marginal gains.
This has made aligning theoretical and on-track performance more difficult.
Aston Martin’s strategy of frequent updates has complicated its path.
Adding parts often has risks; it only works if every component integrates smoothly. Aston Martin’s rapid update pace may have led to confusion over which changes were effective.
McLaren provides a contrast.
The team, which began last season behind Aston Martin, has been more selective about its upgrades, opting for slow, deliberate development.
This approach has proven successful.
For instance, it delayed a new floor’s debut until the Mexico City Grand Prix, sticking with a design from May.
McLaren’s technical director Neil Houldey emphasized the importance of verified performance: “We want to bring