Alonso would rather have upgrades than a strategy "brain" at Monza

Fernando Alonso says Aston Martin is lacking pure performance which tyre savviness cannot make up for at Formula 1's Italian Grand Prix.

Aston had its poorest qualifying result since the Austrian Grand Prix at Monza, with Alonso failing to reach Q3 in 11th place while Lance Stroll was out in Q1 in 17th position.

As a consequence, Aston will struggle to maintain its points-scoring streak after four successful races, although its 40-point buffer over sixth-placed RB means the British team is not immediately threatened in the constructors' championship.

Tyres could prove key in the Monza race as one- and two-stop strategies appear to be viable options according to Pirelli's data, but with Aston Martin losing ground to rival teams, Alonso doesn't think that's the main factor.

"I prefer to have an updated floor or rear wing than a brain at the moment," the two-time world champion said. "But it could be the case tomorrow that we see a different Monza.

"[On Friday] we were quite worried [about] all the teams, we saved two hard tyres for the race and we checked before qualifying that everyone did, so there is not an advantage anymore. So we are all in the same place.

"Probably one-stop is still the favourite, historically Monza has been like that. But if extreme graining happens, two stops is available for everyone with the tyres available. So I don't think that we will see many different strategies tomorrow. The tyres will dictate the race."

Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin F1 Team

Photo by: Simon Galloway / Motorsport Images

Pirelli's director of motorsport Mario Isola reckons a one-stop will be prioritised by teams but it won't take much divergence compared to expected degradation to swing strategies towards two tyre changes.

"We believe that we still have a one-stop strategy, because the 25 seconds for an additional stop is too much to go over on track," Isola said. "But the majority of the teams decided to keep the two sets of hard in the allocation, and this is a clear indication that they are not 100% sure that one-stop could work.

"Speaking to some teams, they told me they target a two-stop. I'm not sure if I have to trust them, so I put that in the right wording! But we are probably marginal."

Isola went on to explain that between two equivalent estimates for one- and two-stop strategies, teams would play it safe by choosing the one-stop.

"Time-wise it's very close," the Italian added. "I don't remember if it is two or three seconds but it's very close. For the sake of clarity, we don't consider traffic in our simulation."

"This is important to explain because usually if the two-stop is at least five, six seconds quicker than one-stop, they move to a two-stop. But if the two-stop is similar or quicker but by a small amount, two or three seconds, they try to manage a one-stop. So that's why they will target a one-stop."