 |
|
10 Oct 2011, 13:29 (Ref:2968660)
|
#3616
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,258
|
A new B12/60 based chassis with the A-M nose and I6T (sorted ofcourse) would be a better weapon IMO.
|
|
__________________
Mitchell Legg
NRG Racing
|
10 Oct 2011, 13:52 (Ref:2968682)
|
#3617
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Across the M40 from Gaydon... |
Posts: 3,843
|
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?
|
|
__________________
Tim Yorath
Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Fan of "the sacred monster Christophe Bouchut"...
|
10 Oct 2011, 20:58 (Ref:2968854)
|
#3618
|
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 216
|
An AMR-One was taken to Auto-Technica in Paris today.
|
|
|
10 Oct 2011, 21:59 (Ref:2968888)
|
#3619
|
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 14,294
|
They should just make a coupe based off the AMR ONE. Go a new direction with aero as well, just reevaluate the program.
|
|
|
10 Oct 2011, 22:00 (Ref:2968886)
|
#3620
|
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,308
|
Quote:
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"
|
|
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan)
|
10 Oct 2011, 22:52 (Ref:2968925)
|
#3621
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
Quote:
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...
|
|
|
16 Oct 2011, 16:13 (Ref:2971949)
|
#3622
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
|
Innsbruck , Austria |
Posts: 13,763
|
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 .
|
|
|
16 Oct 2011, 16:36 (Ref:2971962)
|
#3623
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,736
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
16 Oct 2011, 16:45 (Ref:2971966)
|
#3624
|
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,308
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan)
|
16 Oct 2011, 17:31 (Ref:2971977)
|
#3625
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
16 Oct 2011, 18:40 (Ref:2972004)
|
#3626
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 767
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwyllion
|
So much for all the 'smoke and mirrors' straight talking around the Le Mans debacle. Now we hear that the engine is ok but the aero was poor.
One look at the car and it would not take a genius to figure that one out.
It appears to be pretty obvious that the design team did not know what they were doing yet continued to spend other people's money. But hey, we have heard that one before, haven't we.
|
|
|
16 Oct 2011, 19:04 (Ref:2972022)
|
#3627
|
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 379
|
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"...
|
|
|
16 Oct 2011, 19:05 (Ref:2972023)
|
#3628
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
|
Innsbruck , Austria |
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by canam
One look at the car and it would not take a genius to figure that one out.It appears to be pretty obvious that the design team did not know what they were doing yet continued to spend other people's money. But hey, we have heard that one before, haven't we.
|
One look at the Panoz LMP1 , and it wouldnt have come up to par with the then currant designs either .
Furthermore , it was 20 mil of Dave Richards money .
|
|
|
16 Oct 2011, 19:07 (Ref:2972024)
|
#3629
|
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,308
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by canam
So much for all the 'smoke and mirrors' straight talking around the Le Mans debacle. Now we hear that the engine is ok but the aero was poor.
One look at the car and it would not take a genius to figure that one out.
It appears to be pretty obvious that the design team did not know what they were doing yet continued to spend other people's money. But hey, we have heard that one before, haven't we.
|
Easy now. What Gwyllion posted isn't news, it's been out for sometime now.
Besides, Audi made an equal bold design choice with the R15, so wouldn't say that the design team wasn't knowing what they where doing. The problem was more that they tried a new technology in LMP which wasn't proven. (CAD design with almost none real track testing)
Prodrive is a proven team with a good development team (just look at the Lola/Amr), but under limited time, limited budget and a huge pressure of performance, it's hard to make a ground breaking car that is somewhat successful.
|
|
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan)
|
16 Oct 2011, 19:34 (Ref:2972042)
|
#3630
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
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.
|
I'm thinking exactly the same.......surely AMR will not be allowed to run the grandfathered V12 in 2012, therefore will have to replace it with either a 2.0 turbo or a 3.4 NA gasoline.........running the I6 turbo would atleast give them some credability that the engine was actually ok........or am i missing something????
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
Aston Martin DBR2
|
John Turner |
The Chassis History Archive |
15 |
5 Nov 2010 09:18 |
Aston Martin
|
John Turner |
Classic Cars |
3 |
16 Jan 2007 10:09 |
Flying Aston Martin
|
Schumi28 |
Sportscar & GT Racing |
22 |
26 May 2006 22:22 |
Aston Martin
|
kdr |
Sportscar & GT Racing |
32 |
1 Dec 2003 16:13 |
Aston Martin
|
Speedworx |
Sportscar & GT Racing |
3 |
22 Nov 2001 22:52 |
|
|
|