What is Aston Martin up to?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

From Mike's article, it not fundamentaly a chassis to trash either, as it's reported to have good mechanical grip. If it's really an aerodynamic concept flaw, I don't understand why they abandonned the project. Why not keep the layout as a basis to developp a totally new aerodynamic package. (bodywork + cooling)

Look, the R15 TDI and R15+ are basically the same tub / engine arrangement, but with totally revamped internal aerodynamics and revised external aerodynamic package. Same goes with the original 905 VS 905 evo 1 & evo 2...

Sounds cheaper than starting a new project from a white sheet (we know them, they'll be late again), and more ambitious than relying for ever on the Lola.

The R15 and 905 were high dollar programs. The AMR-One is not. Plus, with the open top and all, the chassis may never be competitive. On top of that, if the rumored anti-spyder regulations are approved for 2014, the chassis may only be able to run for 2 years plus any grandfathering. It probably isn't worth the expense.

I guess the question is about the future of the engine then. There may be hope that it can turn good, but I guess it is still hope at this point. Ok, the cars may be done, but has the engine received any further development since Le Mans or has it been shelved too? It does not sound like it has and that may mean that it is toast too.

Anyway, it probably makes sense for AMR to only push one ambition at a time. Engine or chassis. Engine may make more sense at this point, but I doubt either is going to get them to the top of the P1 heap. Not in the WEC anyway. It may just be best to stick with the ALMS and their grandfathering and forget about Le Mans in P1 for the time being. Maybe they can plan for a big prototype return in 2014 with sufficient development.

[vyselegend]

Originally Posted by AGD

The R15 and 905 were high dollar programs. The AMR-One is not. Plus, with the open top and all, the chassis may never be competitive. On top of that, if the rumored anti-spyder regulations are approved for 2014, the chassis may only be able to run for 2 years plus any grandfathering. It probably isn't worth the expense.

Sorry but I see a contradiction in it. It's precisely because its is not "high dollar program" that the AMR-One was always going to be a CFD designed open top proto. Coupes design and construction is more expensive, and windtunnel development obviously is in another dimention cost-wise. So there's nothing that can make us believe that a totally new car will be better, because with similar budget it will be conceived the same way.

Originally Posted by AGD

I guess the question is about the future of the engine then. There may be hope that it can turn good, but I guess it is still hope at this point. Ok, the cars may be done, but has the engine received any further development since Le Mans or has it been shelved too? It does not sound like it has and that may mean that it is toast too.

Anyway, it probably makes sense for AMR to only push one ambition at a time. Engine or chassis. Engine may make more sense at this point, but I doubt either is going to get them to the top of the P1 heap. Not in the WEC anyway. It may just be best to stick with the ALMS and their grandfathering and forget about Le Mans in P1 for the time being. Maybe they can plan for a big prototype return in 2014 with sufficient development.

From what I understand, both the engine / gearbox and the tub / supentions are good basis. Since one of the particularity of the car is to have a "not so busy" engine bay, revising the internals should be possible without much difficulty. If it's the CFD-only based aerodynamics that are flawed, IMO money should go to windtunnel development of an efficient aerodynamic package around that basis.

But maybe there are more complications than we know?

[The Badger]

One positive point is , the engine may yet be developed . The article mentions that the engine wasnt such a bad unit , just short of development time .

Maybe as an interim solution , we may see another Lola/AMR ? ..... Be a good way to develop it .

[CTD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

One positive point is , the engine may yet be developed . The article mentions that the engine wasnt such a bad unit , just short of development time .

Maybe as an interim solution , we may see another Lola/AMR ? ..... Be a good way to develop it .

But that would be an expensive round fro AMR, as Lola would give no discounts or benefits because of the previous collaboration.

[MitchZ06]

Can't the existing Lola chassis be overhauled and refreshed and updated to the new regs?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Can't the existing Lola chassis be overhauled and refreshed and updated to the new regs?

CTD is referring more to a matter of a spat between Lola and AMR about naming rights on the car back when the first cars were built in '09, particularly AMR not giving any kind of recognition to the fact that the chassis are Lola and AMR/Prodrive had not acquired naming rights for the car from Lola. As for the existing Lola chassis being updated to new regulations, Rebellion have already done that with their cars.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

Sorry but I see a contradiction in it. It's precisely because its is not "high dollar program" that the AMR-One was always going to be a CFD designed open top proto. Coupes design and construction is more expensive, and windtunnel development obviously is in another dimention cost-wise. So there's nothing that can make us believe that a totally new car will be better, because with similar budget it will be conceived the same way.

I don't think AMR is going to build another new car. We don't even know if they will continue to have an LMP1 program. If they do, indications are pointing toward it being an ALMS grandfathered program.

Centering the program around the existing Lola could be the most cost effective way for AMR to hit the track again, but that is not without complications. The Lola will need some adjustment to fit the I6 in it. That will take some money I'm guessing, but it has been said that Lola and AMR are on better terms than they were in the past. Second, I don't know if AMR actually owns any Lolas right now. I believe the ones that Cytosport and AMR have been racing this year belong to collectors or have been earmarked for collectors. They may have to buy new Lolas if they want to go down that route again. All this said, going the Lola route gives them a proven package that they know and staying with the coupe may give them advantages over the open-top design. It also gives the package some credibility. I don't know if privateers will line up to buy a new unproven AMR chassis at the time being and they need privateer's money to keep these programs going.

[Acid09]

I agree, I think they're done as a works effort in LMP1 as far as a new car goes. They probably realized this year that they've bitten off more than they can chew.

And with Porsche and possibly Toyota and Nissan coming in, competition is getting even more intense. They just don't have the resources to pull something off in this kind of environment.

[chernaudi]

The big difference between Rebellion and AMR is that Rebellion still openly recognizes that their car uses a Lola tub and even uses a lot of modified Lola bodywork and chassis parts. AMR tried to brand their Lola derived cars as their own without much if any input from Lola, and hence the spat.

Nissan's GTP cars were Lola-based, but I believe that they payed Lola Cars, Ltd plenty of coin to allow Nissan to badge the cars as their own.

AMR might use an updated Lola chassis, but I don't think that Lola will give them many breaks as far as naming rights.

[chernaudi]

Deleted post

[Livininthinair]

If they are going down that route they should just buy an LMP1 spec. Lola coupe with updates (same as Rebellion bodywork with larger front tires ect.) and use that chassis for engine development. They have spent so much money on the AMR1 that they will never get in return they should at least finish developing the engine or flat out go into GT racing and forget all about an LMP car at least until after 2014...

Edit - and eat crow when it comes to naming the car what it is, a Lola AMR...

Edit X2 - every time I read/think about this I guess I am missing something, Aston Martin is not a new company and this is not the first dance they have been to - did they think this was going to be easy???

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Livininthinair

Edit X2 - every time I read/think about this I guess I am missing something, Aston Martin is not a new company and this is not the first dance they have been to - did they think this was going to be easy???

This is a controversial statement and I don't want to stir it up again because we've gone through it before, but I honestly think that AMR hoped to build the best petrol car (low hanging fruit - albeit not super low) and then hoped to get favorable regulations that would take them up to the level of Audi and Peugeot. Obviously, it was a massive fail.

Anyway, I think you have to follow the money trail for AMR. They could build a new LMP1 or have a new customer car centered program, but they would need interest from collectors and privateers from the beginning for it to make sense. That is barring some sort of super sponsorship, but I can't imagine why they would land one of those. Do you guys think many privateers have interest and faith in a new customer LMP1 package from AMR? Especially for 2012 if there might be a lack of testing again? As far as collectors go, there might be some interest, but I don't know. They may not have the trust either.

They are still getting money from drivers. Adrian Fernandez has a contract and I'm sure he and Lowe's (assuming they are back) would like to race in the ALMS. They can win overall with their old car in the ALMS probably. It might be tough if Cytosport gets an ARX-03a, but the ALMS will probably give AMR a handout if there is a performance gap anyway. I don't know if Primat cares about the ALMS vs. WEC. I don't know about the other pay drivers. The only negative to a US program might be the Gulf sponsorship. It's a European branch of Gulf that is sponsoring AMR, right? Granted, I don't know if they were expected to return or not anyway.

[Livininthinair]

I didn't mean to stir up more controversy by my statements but I had very high hopes for this program - new car, new engine, new philosophy. I was excited to see this thing develop and it's just sad to say it didn't work out so we are discontinuing development. The AMR One was/still is a brand new car, new cars ALWAYS have growing pains and I was thinking AMR was up to the challenge. Part of me wishes they would bring one to the ALMS next year and for better or worse race/develop the engine and chassis and make it better...

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Livininthinair

Part of me wishes they would bring one to the ALMS next year and for better or worse race/develop the engine and chassis and make it better...

It would be great to see them in the ALMS next year and it may just happen, but trust me, they are better off with the V12. If nothing else, it will at least sound great! Plus, the cars have a good shot at finishing races so as long as they stay out of the Lucas parts bin. Also keep in mind that they will probably also have a mound of data from Cytosport's car this past year regarding setups for ALMS circuits. Running the old Lola-V12 could be a very cost effective way to race, but there is the matter of whether they own any Lolas or not.

As far as the AMR-One goes, maybe it would have been ok with sufficient testing and some modification here and there. Who knows. We may still find out about the engine. The moral of the story is not to race undeveloped stuff and test in public! Also, I do wonder if they were thinking too much with their marketing cap on and not enough with their racing cap.

It'll be interesting to see how AMR settles the issue of deposits with Jota and anyone else. The collectors may also be wondering why their latest collectible was turned into sausage.

[Tim the Grey]

I was at Le Mans, this year. The AMR One chassis held it's own round corners. then couldn't keep up with LMP2s on the straight. Some GT-Es could give it a hard time in a straight line!

I suspect the chassis is very good, the engine, not so, and the aero is suspect. But it ALL needs development, which means track time, which costs money. and isn't exactly easy to hide from the world!

Oh, and for information, it has THE best scream of anything. The V12 is muted, compared...

[MitchZ06]

A new B12/60 based chassis with the A-M nose and I6T (sorted ofcourse) would be a better weapon IMO.

[Tim the Grey]

The drivers all seemed happy with the chassis, but lamented having NO power...
That could be a boost wound right back, or an aero 'brick wall'.

You decide.

But I doubt a Lola chassis would make a HUGE difference, TBH. The only way to know for sure, is bolt a V12 in the back, and FOFO... At least that engine is a known quantitiy?

[JayBMS]

An AMR-One was taken to Auto-Technica in Paris today.

[TF110]

They should just make a coupe based off the AMR ONE. Go a new direction with aero as well, just reevaluate the program.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by JayBMS

An AMR-One was taken to Auto-Technica in Paris today.

with the headline:
"How NOT to build a modern race car"

[cmk]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

A new B12/60 based chassis with the A-M nose and I6T (sorted ofcourse) would be a better weapon IMO.

Somehow I doubt Lola and AMR are that eager to get in bed with each other again promptly...

[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 .

[WMUCarGuy]

Originally Posted by TF110

They should just make a coupe based off the AMR ONE. Go a new direction with aero as well, just reevaluate the program.

It's the ENGINE that was the massively weak point, not the chassis.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by WMUCarGuy

It's the ENGINE that was the massively weak point, not the chassis.

It has been stated severel times now that the AMR-ONE produced too much drag for very little downforce.
The engine could be very good, if it was allowed enough testing.

[gwyllion]

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.

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept11.html