Quote:
Originally Posted by The Badger
AMR should now concentrate on their GT2 Vantage , get that running for the teams that have shown faith in their mark .
While doing this , they could continue developing their P1 engine , which according to them wasnt the big issue we all thought it was . More an issue with building race engines before the nessessay development was finished on the dyno ..... and up yours Baretsky who is pro diesel anyway .
|
I think focusing on GTE is in contradiction with any development of the P1 program, given the limited resources they have. With the level of the competiton in both categories being so high, it might not be realistic to fight on both front on their own.
Since LMP1 is the true playing field for car manufacturers, that's where they should put all their efforts for now. Who knows what they could do against a yet unprepared Toyota, if they put up something strong, benifiting from their experience. Also, I believe it's capital for the brand's image to stand up again after the AMR-One fiasco. It's a question of principle that one shouldn't lay down in defeat.
GTE is a private teams affair, so maybe AMR could rely on clients to develop the car. I know it's all about finding money, but in the racing world money is sponsorship
(for the main part), and finding heavy sponsors shouldn't be a problem for a team runing a car with such marketing value
(being James Bond car, whith that British cachet, noble engine, great history etc...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwyllion, quoting Mike Fuller
But we're told that fundamentally the engine was solid. That leaves the chassis. We're told the CFD-only developed AMR-One (known internally as the R-17) suffered from very high drag and little downforce.
|
I've got a deep respect for Mike and his sources, but this first statement sounds very doubtfull, considering what we witnessed at Ricard and Le Mans. I guess it depends of one's definition of the word "solid"...