What is Aston Martin up to? - Page 106

BRG · 1 May 2011, 18:15 (Ref:2872503)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The 300 hp quoted doesn't seem reliable. Simple calculations for hp absorbed given the top speed achieved by the AMR-One requires a unrealistically low drag coefficient to achieve the 187 mph trap speed the AMR-One set in the first practice session. Calculating for hp absorbed using the 187 mph top speed and a frontal area of 1.71 m^2 yields a .cd of .37 from 303 hp. A realistic LM .cd for an open top car is approaching .6 (.57-.59), around .5 for a closed top car.

Working the other way and solving for hp and again utilizing the 187 mph top speed, 1.71 m^2, and a more representative .57 cd yields 468 hp at the wheels, about 520 hp at the dyno. Going "high side" and using .59 gives us 485 at the wheels and 539 hp before transmission loss.

Mike what is the drag of the Oak pescarolo if it did 202.5mph on a 530bhp

Ultimo · 1 May 2011, 20:46 (Ref:2872584)

What is the point of Aston even participating in LMP1?

Ultimo · 1 May 2011, 20:52 (Ref:2872588)

Double post.

alexkiller8 · 1 May 2011, 20:54 (Ref:2872589)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimo

What is the point of Aston even participating in LMP1?

do you mean le mans?
at 99% the 2 AMR-one's will do a 2009 JLOC like le mans, if the AMR will solve however the engine problems will run but with 0 possibilities to have the same pace of the best petrol cars.

XJR14/WSC95 · 1 May 2011, 21:52 (Ref:2872610)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

There's a difference between one of those companies designing a car, and constructing a chassis to someone elses design.

Last I read Aston don't have the capacity to build a chassis in-house, though that is being worked on.

I'm shore when MG came knocking they didn't bring the complete design with them. And Lola produced a brilliant car if a little fragile that had a relatively long sports car career. I just think with the Aston project Prodrive don't have the ability yet to produce complete ground up designs. There would be an extremely large amount of previous experience that a company like Lola or Dallara can bring and have a car turned around in a very short period. And be able to run reliably out of the box.

Having said all that they have produced their own car, which is a very difficult undertaking. Hopefully the engine that is their Achilles heel which can be resolved quickly.

GTfour · 1 May 2011, 21:58 (Ref:2872616)

As stated before, the only thing Aston Martin can do is get their cars sorted to do a couple of fast laps, show true speed during qualifying, start the race, blast it for as long as they can and then retire with inevitable cooked engines.

Anything else'll be a crushing blow to their image...

MulsanneMike · 1 May 2011, 22:24 (Ref:2872623)

Quote:

Originally Posted by XJR14/WSC95

I'm shore when MG came knocking they didn't bring the complete design with them. And Lola produced a brilliant car if a little fragile that had a relatively long sports car career. I just think with the Aston project Prodrive don't have the ability yet to produce complete ground up designs. There would be an extremely large amount of previous experience that a company like Lola or Dallara can bring and have a car turned around in a very short period. And be able to run reliably out of the box.

Having said all that they have produced their own car, which is a very difficult undertaking. Hopefully the engine that is their Achilles heel which can be resolved quickly.

When MG contracted Lola they brought nothing but money with them. Same as with Aston Martin.

rich07 · 2 May 2011, 02:50 (Ref:2872693)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimo

What is the point of Aston even participating in LMP1?

The straight six engine in the LMP1 is somehow connected to a possible roadcar Aston using a straight six (marketing).

Aston Martin needs to be at LM in some capacity, they are like Porsche in a way in that the big part of the motorsport heritage is in sportscars and Le Mans in particular. Look what they achieved in GT1 with the DBR9.

If they werent in LMP1 for whatever reason, I'd like to see a full on factory effort in GT-E with the Vantage (similar to what they did in GT1). Then they could go fight the Vettes again-and Ferrari and every other man and his dog.

porsche91722 · 2 May 2011, 09:51 (Ref:2872803)

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich07

The straight six engine in the LMP1 is somehow connected to a possible roadcar Aston using a straight six (marketing).

Aston Martin needs to be at LM in some capacity, they are like Porsche in a way in that the big part of the motorsport heritage is in sportscars and Le Mans in particular. Look what they achieved in GT1 with the DBR9.

If they werent in LMP1 for whatever reason, I'd like to see a full on factory effort in GT-E with the Vantage (similar to what they did in GT1). Then they could go fight the Vettes again-and Ferrari and every other man and his dog.

I would've thought that from a marketing perspective, a victory in GT would be a hell of a lot more valuable (and attainable) to them, than a next to impossible chance in LMP1. After all, they would have to rely on a repeat of Peugeot's self destruction last year, and hope that Audi would do the same. It seems that Porsche have had that perspective for a while now, and their prospects, if they ever come back into prototypes would be on a higher level than Aston Martin.

JAG · 2 May 2011, 13:26 (Ref:2872910)

The Vantage GTE is running competitively these days but how many people discuss the program?

Granted, it's not all been in a positive light, but the AMR-ONE has never been out of the headlines, Richards, Prodrive and Aston will be gutted with the bad publicity, but the potential rewards are huge when they turn things around.

Success or failure shouldn't be judged on winning Le Mans, that's the target, but playing a significant contribution to great racing, in a great era, is arguably more important to building a legacy. It's why so many bit part Group C cars have gone down as legends while cars that won Le Mans in poorer times are virtually forgotten.

cdsvg · 2 May 2011, 15:12 (Ref:2872947)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRG

Mike what is the drag of the Oak pescarolo if it did 202.5mph on a 530bhp

530 would be a bit low, no? I think 550+ would be more accurate given this year's restrictors.

**PascaLM** · 2 May 2011, 15:51 (Ref:2872965)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The 300 hp quoted doesn't seem reliable. Simple calculations for hp absorbed given the top speed achieved by the AMR-One requires a unrealistically low drag coefficient to achieve the 187 mph trap speed the AMR-One set in the first practice session. Calculating for hp absorbed using the 187 mph top speed and a frontal area of 1.71 m^2 yields a .cd of .37 from 303 hp. A realistic LM .cd for an open top car is approaching .6 (.57-.59), around .5 for a closed top car.

Working the other way and solving for hp and again utilizing the 187 mph top speed, 1.71 m^2, and a more representative .57 cd yields 468 hp at the wheels, about 520 hp at the dyno. Going "high side" and using .59 gives us 485 at the wheels and 539 hp before transmission loss.

Hello MulsanneMike.
For Le Mans, a cd of 0,6 for a open top car seems high. I would say 0,4 or 0,45, even for the AMR ; while 0,6 would suit better to a shorter circuit.
And do you consider also in your calculation the force which is proportionnal to the speed (from friction of tyres, transmissions) or do you think it's negligible ?

MulsanneMike · 2 May 2011, 16:04 (Ref:2872969)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PascaLM

Hello MulsanneMike.
For Le Mans, a cd of 0,6 for a open top car seems high. I would say 0,4 or 0,45, even for the AMR ; while 0,6 would suit better to a shorter circuit.
And do you consider also in your calculation the force which is proportionnal to the speed (from friction of tyres, transmissions) or do you think it's negligible ?

.4 to .45 for a open top car at LM seems much too low. That's more closed top range. I have figures in front of me for both an open top and a closed top car in LM spec and the open top numbers are in the .56-.59 range. Having said that, I believe even this is too high, and I'm made adjustments and reran using .52-.55. Off the top of my head that showed low side 475, high side a shade over 500. That's at the brake (not at the wheels). And yes, I take transmission loss into account and I always specify power at the wheels vs. power at brake.

Deleted · 2 May 2011, 20:31 (Ref:2873154)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

The Vantage GTE is running competitively these days but how many people discuss the program?

Let's face it, the V12 Vantage program has just been one big failure... and while the future is definitely looking brighter - as the car does have potential in right hands - it just isn't DBR9. I'm 100% certain that the GT1 wins at Le Mans brought more attention to Aston Martin than "let's fight for top P1 petrol honours" or non-works GT2/E ever did, or will.

gwyllion · 2 May 2011, 20:39 (Ref:2873160)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiana

Let's face it, the V12 Vantage program has just been one big failure...

V12

The GTE/GT2 version of the Vantage has a 4.5 V8 engine and so does the GT4 version.

The GT3 version, which is planned to replace the DBRS9 in 2012, will have a V12 engine.

Deleted · 2 May 2011, 20:50 (Ref:2873162)

Sorry, that just slipped from my mouth... err keyboard!

Carry on.

JAG · 2 May 2011, 22:19 (Ref:2873215)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdsavage

530 would be a bit low, no? I think 550+ would be more accurate given this year's restrictors.

Petrol teams and constructors want you to believe diesel teams are vastly underestimating their power outputs, which they likely are, but then play the same game themselves.

*Not saying they don't need some help, but in 2010 a P2 lapped quicker than all of this years petrol P1's, and Highcroft confirmed their 2011 P1 is quicker than last years P2!

Mal · 3 May 2011, 18:01 (Ref:2873621)

Exactly - if Aston manage to make the car work properly and be truly competitive and then they can start arguing about the equivalency rules. Until then there is no argument, as neither they nor anyone else are putting the same resource into a petrol car as Pug & Audi are into Diesel. When a top line manufacturer steps up to the plate then I am sure the ACO will take the steps necessary.

Just look at the progress made by Audi and Pug have made already to claw back the time lost by the rule changes. So far the petrol cars have not made anything like the same progress.

It will be interesting to see what HPD can do with what is an interim car. I suspect they will give a clearer picture as to where the true equivelency lies

reef1234 · 3 May 2011, 22:37 (Ref:2873758)

Petrol cars have been racing for decades so the rate of development now is so small as there is no huge steps to be made. The diesels are still in there very early stages relatively and each season will be making huge gains just because there is still plenty to learn. Whatever ACO do to peg back diesels it is less than the development made during the year.

Oldtony · 4 May 2011, 04:06 (Ref:2873829)

Quote:

Originally Posted by reef1234

Petrol cars have been racing for decades so the rate of development now is so small as there is no huge steps to be made. The diesels are still in there very early stages relatively and each season will be making huge gains just because there is still plenty to learn. Whatever ACO do to peg back diesels it is less than the development made during the year.

And that is EXACTLY why rules should favour newer technology.
If racing is to inprove the breed the rules shouldn't be the equivalent of a vasectomy.
Let's hope that hybrid technology gets the same breaks from the ACO.

Pandamasque · 4 May 2011, 06:39 (Ref:2873849)

Since when performance breaks improve the breed? Darwin would surely disagree.

GTfour · 4 May 2011, 08:10 (Ref:2873883)

'Let's hope that hybrid technology gets the same breaks from the ACO.'

Let's not.

reef1234 · 4 May 2011, 19:31 (Ref:2874179)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldtony

And that is EXACTLY why rules should favour newer technology.
If racing is to inprove the breed the rules shouldn't be the equivalent of a vasectomy.
Let's hope that hybrid technology gets the same breaks from the ACO.

So you are saying that if you decide to run petrol then don't expect to compete!!??

MulsanneMike · 4 May 2011, 20:05 (Ref:2874212)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

.4 to .45 for a open top car at LM seems much too low. That's more closed top range. I have figures in front of me for both an open top and a closed top car in LM spec and the open top numbers are in the .56-.59 range. Having said that, I believe even this is too high, and I'm made adjustments and reran using .52-.55. Off the top of my head that showed low side 475, high side a shade over 500. That's at the brake (not at the wheels). And yes, I take transmission loss into account and I always specify power at the wheels vs. power at brake.

Gotten a hold of some other figures and they agree with the .56-.59 range. Think the main problem might be that there aren't any open top cars designed bespoke to the new rules. Thus any reference figures aren't from optimized cars. Might consider taking 15% off .cd reference figures, would put us into .51 or so range, to create a "bespoke" open top LM figure. Still need more information I think.

gwyllion · 4 May 2011, 20:28 (Ref:2874227)

A bit on the Aston Martin straight six heritage: http://www.doubledeclutch.com/?p=1152

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Favourite Aston Martin?	TimD	Classic Cars	38	16 Feb 2008 14:08
David Ellis' Aston Martin GT700	Kid Prozac	Sportscar & GT Racing	2	18 Apr 2002 22:08
Aston Martin	Speedworx	Sportscar & GT Racing	3	22 Nov 2001 22:52
Aston Martin meeting June 24th	TimD	Trackside	8	25 Jun 2000 21:40