What is Aston Martin up to? - Page 242

MitchZ06 · 10 Oct 2011, 12:29 (Ref:2968660)

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

Tim the Grey · 10 Oct 2011, 12:52 (Ref:2968682)

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 · 10 Oct 2011, 19:58 (Ref:2968854)

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

TF110 · 10 Oct 2011, 20:59 (Ref:2968888)

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

CTD · 10 Oct 2011, 21:00 (Ref:2968886)

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"

cmk · 10 Oct 2011, 21:52 (Ref:2968925)

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...

The Badger · 16 Oct 2011, 15:13 (Ref:2971949)

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 · 16 Oct 2011, 15:36 (Ref:2971962)

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.

CTD · 16 Oct 2011, 15:45 (Ref:2971966)

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.

gwyllion · 16 Oct 2011, 16:31 (Ref:2971977)

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

canam · 16 Oct 2011, 17:40 (Ref:2972004)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwyllion

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

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.

vyselegend · 16 Oct 2011, 18:04 (Ref:2972022)

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"...

The Badger · 16 Oct 2011, 18:05 (Ref:2972023)

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 .

CTD · 16 Oct 2011, 18:07 (Ref:2972024)

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.

knighty · 16 Oct 2011, 18:34 (Ref:2972042)

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????