What is Aston Martin up to?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by KA

Maybe the answer is not to release the LM entry list until after Sebring, and make it clear that any team entering a new car must be at Sebring and achieve an acceptable level of performance and reliability if they want their LM entry to be even considered?

The Lotus and Hope Flybrid would not have made it in this year under that scenario. Ok, I don't think anyone would have missed the Flybrid given it's performance, but it would have been a shame not to see the Lotus. The Lotus finishing was one of the most remarkable stories to come out of the race (granted, there were many remarkable stories this year).

[KA]

Originally Posted by höller

Although it looks like the main reason for disaster was the engine/turbocharger (which e. g. had a turbolag as big as a black hole, no boost up to 5000), I think the decision to compete with an open car and to go without a closed coupe was cherry-on-top as the car also was suffering from a distinct lack of topspeed. I don´t see why the promising Lola-Aston Martin project was dumped in favour of this embarassing effort...

Apart from the regulation changes meaning that it would now only have a short life-span? OK, they'd still have been able to run the Lola with the V12 this year, but at some point they're still going to have to build a car and engine to the new regs.

Running the Lola might have given them a respectable showing this year, but would AMR have the resources to both race and continue developing the Lola while working work on a new car for 2012? We could have just ended up seeing this year's fiasco next year instead...

[AGD]

Originally Posted by KA

Apart from the regulation changes meaning that it would now only have a short life-span? OK, they'd still have been able to run the Lola with the V12 this year, but at some point they're still going to have to build a car and engine to the new regs.

Running the Lola might have given them a respectable showing this year, but would AMR have the resources to both race and continue developing the Lola while working work on a new car for 2012? We could have just ended up seeing this year's fiasco next year instead...

They could have kept the Lolas and focused on engine development for this season and beyond. I'm sure their Lolas could be modified to fit within the new rules (like Rebellion and Dyson).

[KA]

Originally Posted by AGD

The Lotus and Hope Flybrid would not have made it in this year under that scenario. Ok, I don't think anyone would have missed the Flybrid given it's performance, but it would have been a shame not to see the Lotus. The Lotus finishing was one of the most remarkable stories to come out of the race (granted, there were many remarkable stories this year).

Exactly- in fact, if we take my hypothetical 'no LM start for a new car unless it's made a respectable showing at Sebring' rule to the absolute strict letter of the law, there's another new car that wasn't at Sebring, so might not have made it in....

The R18....

[gwyllion]

You could arguee that if Aston Martin would have put the straight 6 engine in a Lola chassis, the outcome would have still been the same. The engine is the cause of their reliability issues.

[KA]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

You could arguee that if Aston Martin would have put the straight 6 engine in a Lola chassis, the outcome would have still been the same. The engine is the cause of their reliability issues.

As you suggest, until they can get that straight-6 to stop breaking down, they can't really do much about making the car any quicker- and until they've got a reliable engine that they can actually push, we're not going to know how good or bad the chassis potentially is.

IIRC both Turner and Fernandez were quoted as saying that they were fairly happy with the way the car handles so far, it's just way down on straight-line speed.

Surely what AMR urgently need to do is to run a very intensive engine development programme - if I was Dave Richards, I'd have the engine shop working 7 days a week and be looking to have the car out testing anywhere I could find vacant track time between now and Imola...

[KA]

Originally Posted by AGD

They could have kept the Lolas and focused on engine development for this season and beyond. I'm sure their Lolas could be modified to fit within the new rules (like Rebellion and Dyson).

I just wonder whether AMR have the money to both continue racing the V12 in the Lola and develop 'new regs' engine at the same time.

They could have run the new engine in the Lola I guess, although as gwyllion suggested, I suspect all it might have achieved is better laptimes for the handful of laps before it broke down...

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by KA

Surely what AMR urgently need to do is to run a very intensive engine development programme - if I was Dave Richards, I'd have the engine shop working 7 days a week and be looking to have the car out testing anywhere I could find vacant track time between now and Imola...

Richards was on RLM during the race. He said that they would decide this week whether they would go to Imola or skip it, focus on testing and return in the Silverstone race.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Richards was on RLM during the race. He said that they would decide this week whether they would go to Imola or skip it, focus on testing and return in the Silverstone race.

They would have plenty of tyres left over from the Le Mans debacle to test & race on

If the engine is the weak link, go fix that... in the meantime, a Judd with a new rocker cover will get miles on the chassis...

[KA]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Richards was on RLM during the race. He said that they would decide this week whether they would go to Imola or skip it, focus on testing and return in the Silverstone race.

That might actually be the best option- forget Imola (After the Sebring and Spa no-shows and the Le Mans debacle Aston's ILMC campaign is pretty much dead in the water for this year anyway) and concentrate on running a lot of test mileage, to try and get a reliable car for Silverstone.

[KA]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

They would have plenty of tyres left over from the Le Mans debacle to test & race on

If the engine is the weak link, go fix that... in the meantime, a Judd with a new rocker cover will get miles on the chassis...

I wouldn't even worry about chassis development right now (modifying the chassis to take a Judd or whatever for testing sounds like a distraction they could do without...), just concentrate on getting that engine capable of holding together a race distance....Once it can do that, they can look at whatever is needed to fix the chassis and aero..

[GTRMagic]

Is there a requirement that AMR run their car to ensure entry for Le Mans 2012? Or is it just 'assumed'

[höller]

Actually, is there a certain reason why AM did choose an 6-inline as their current engine? Why no V6? I am asking because this spec is not known to be the best solution for a supercharged engine; if you re not using a sequential charger like Alpina-BMW does its suboptimal because of the response behaviour. And that could be the point.

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by höller

Actually, is there a certain reason why AM did choose an 6-inline as their current engine? Why no V6? I am asking because this spec is not known to be the best solution for a supercharged engine; if you re not using a sequential charger like Alpina-BMW does its suboptimal because of the response behaviour. And that could be the point.

It's rumored they are also using 6 inline engines on their next roadcars instead of the v12's... So it's to create some similarity between the LMP1 and future cars. I guess they might even be better of with a destroked toyota 1-JZ...

[acox93]

Originally Posted by KA

Surely what AMR urgently need to do is to run a very intensive engine development programme - if I was Dave Richards, I'd have the engine shop working 7 days a week and be looking to have the car out testing anywhere I could find vacant track time between now and Imola...

Haha, what do think has been happening for the last 4 months.

[Thin Green]

Originally Posted by acox93

Haha, what do think has been happening for the last 4 months.

DR counting his money? as it clearly can't be developing this motor.

To see the comments about the horsepower deficit borders on comedy. -50, -100, -150, -150 plus. The chassis, therefore, is unbelievably great or unbelievably bad. If we believe Mulsanne Mike (-100), then the chassis is junk as the car is much slower than customer LMP2s.

Drivers say it is well balanced. Well, when you are doing a lap time with your finger up your nose ('cos it cant go any faster), it ought to be balanced. What drivel.


No point working on the motor as the chassis ain't up to it either.

If Adrian, Harold and Andy (AHA) want to chuck more money into this pit, good luck to them. DR will only smile and keep on counting.

Hopefully AHA will have an "Eureka moment".

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

You could arguee that if Aston Martin would have put the straight 6 engine in a Lola chassis, the outcome would have still been the same. The engine is the cause of their reliability issues.

True, but maybe not having to worry about the chassis would have freed up resources (money and time) to work on the engine.

Not going to Imola would be a wise move IMO. I'd like to see AMR run the Lola V12 for the rest of the season while they work on the new car in private, but I don't think that is going to happen. It's a shame because the success of Pescarolo shows that grandfathered petrol cars can still be very quick.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPgg08gJJdQ

Thankyou. That was quite a solid hit. Best wishes to Mike on a quick recovery.

[Asa]

Originally Posted by KA

Exactly- in fact, if we take my hypothetical 'no LM start for a new car unless it's made a respectable showing at Sebring' rule to the absolute strict letter of the law, there's another new car that wasn't at Sebring, so might not have made it in....

The R18....

At least the new car should reach a reasonable level of performance and reliability. Peugeot 908 finished third at Sebring and Audi R18 did the same at Spa. The Lola-Toyota won at Paul Ricard. The AMR-One did not achieve any significant result. I would have much preferred to see the HPD ARX-01e at Le Mans, which finished 2nd on its debut at Sebring.

Of all the new 2011 LMP1 cars, the AMR-One is the worst.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by Asa

At least the new car should reach a reasonable level of performance and reliability. Peugeot 908 finished third at Sebring and Audi R18 did the same at Spa. The Lola-Toyota won at Paul Ricard. The AMR-One did not achieve any significant result. I would have much preferred to see the HPD ARX-01e at Le Mans, which finished 2nd on its debut at Sebring.

Of all the new 2011 LMP1 cars, the AMR-One is the worst.

Pescarolo actually won Paul Ricard. Rebellion finished second 1 lap behind after a mistake by JCB. I wouldnt just say the AMR is the worst new LMP1 car, but currently the worst LMP (LMP1 and LMP2) racing period, both old and new.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AGD

True, but maybe not having to worry about the chassis would have freed up resources (money and time) to work on the engine.

The engineers that work on chassis and aero are of little help for the engine development. I am sure that the engine people of Prodrive are working flat out since the project got approved late last year.

[Mike_Wooshy]

The trouble is with fourms is that half the posts are clogged up with people who have too much time on their hands, speculating and moaning. Fact is Aston Martin should be embarrsed by this, BUT it was all built late in the day, Rome wasn't built over night. Give the engineers a bit more time on the engine front and results will come.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The engineers that work on chassis and aero are of little help for the engine development. I am sure that the engine people of Prodrive are working flat out since the project got approved late last year.

Right, but who knows if actual on-track testing was delayed because either the engine or chassis came later than the other. Also, we know money wasn't unlimited at AMR. Building a chassis and engine from scratch has to be expensive. Then there is the chatter that the chassis is quite outdated as it is. Why go through the expense of building a whole new potentially mediocre chassis when a decent (albeit not great) coupe chassis is already on their hands?

I'm sure a lot of the problems AMR are facing can be fixed with time and testing, but they have lost a lot of credibility in the meantime. AMR relys on credibility to maintain their funding so that they can sell customer cars, get pay drivers, sell cars to collectors, and so forth. The embarrassing showing so far this year can't be helping in that regard. Also, the GTE Vantage also clearly needs some development as well. Who knows if they have the resources to do all the smoothing they need to do with their Le Mans programs.

[Mike_Wooshy]

Originally Posted by AGD

Right, but who knows if actual on-track testing was delayed because either the engine or chassis came later than the other. Also, we know money wasn't unlimited at AMR.

How do you know on track testing was delayed at all ? I mean the program was given the go ahead very late in the day. Going from pictures and plans (possibley plans not even on paper) to having an actualy working car (not just a test mule, which I doubt AMR built a test mule.) does take time, the resources to build a car like this isnt something you can go and pick up at your local B&Q store.

Building a chassis and engine from scratch has to be expensive. Then there is the chatter that the chassis is quite outdated as it is. Why go through the expense of building a whole new potentially mediocre chassis when a decent (albeit not great) coupe chassis is already on their hands?

Apart from they tried this already and to fit there own engine in they had to rebuild the rear end and maybe this is what put them off because your starting with a generic Chassis, that they have have to alter significantly for there own needs. And how do you know its a mediocre chassis ? have you seen the detailed drawings of the chassis ? and if you have are you an engineer that can confirm this is just a mediocre chassis ? or is this just more speculation ?

I'm sure a lot of the problems AMR are facing can be fixed with time and testing, but they have lost a lot of credibility in the meantime. AMR relys on credibility to maintain their funding so that they can sell customer cars, get pay drivers, sell cars to collectors, and so forth. The embarrassing showing so far this year can't be helping in that regard.

The only credible part of your post really, Yes it is damaging and yes investors and potential buyers might have been put off, but if I was a potential buyer I would be talking to the team/ other teams direct not reading what people/fans have to say on forums.

Also, the GTE Vantage also clearly needs some development as well. Who knows if they have the resources to do all the smoothing they need to do with their Le Mans programs.

You make it sounds that the Vantage already has no hope. Obviously you wernt at Silverstone 1000 KM last year when the thing damned near won.

I have no problem saying that the AMR one is a shamble at Le mans (and start of this year) and if I was the ACO I would be expecting better results on the forth coming ILMC events and otherwise I would be wondering if I was going to invite them to 2012 Le mans 24 hours. But I do think people struggle to realise how much of a task AMR/Prodrive have undertaken here in such a short space of time.

[JDog]

Im bored of hearing how late the project got announced....Lotus announced a GT2 project at around the same time and they had two respectable entries at Le Mans one of which finished. Percentage wise on pace they were far closer to the leading cars in GTE than the AMR effort in P1