What is Aston Martin up to?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Tom908V12

What terribly sad must feel english fans of Le Mans now, as they counted on Aston-Martin to decently represent Britain in endurance

This must be a pretty tough period for the British supporters considering the current state of the RSR Jaguar, the AMR-One, and perhaps the slow Lotus GTEs as well.

I think it would be a smart idea to withdraw one car (at least) from Le Mans and let the Kronos into the race. However, my understanding is that a lot of the factory AMR drivers bring sponsorship and/or money to the team. Those drivers/sponsors might not be happy with not being at Le Mans assuming the drivers can't be placed with other teams like Kronos or the AMR GTE cars.

Speaking of which, I think it would be a wise idea for AMR to pull out of the ILMC and focus on some ALMS races for this year if they plan on sticking with the AMR-One. I know the plan was to do some ALMS racing this year, but I don't know if that has changed now. IMSA may give them some breaks and maybe they have a shot at finishing some of the shorter races. They could also have a chance at winning some races, but I think they will have a tough time beating the Cytosport Lola Aston. Heck, beating Autocon could be a challenge given the current state of the program.

I know it is easy to say now, but even a few months ago I thought AMR might have been biting off more than they can chew by developing their own car and a new engine at the same time. I like the variety the AMR-One brings to the show, but it really is an embarrassing effort so far. Perhaps they should just bite the bullet and stick a customer engine in the AMR-One (if one will fit) or put the new engine in a Lola Aston or something like that. That might be a more realistic goal if they want to stay in LMP1 given their budget.

[JAG]

The car hit the track little more than a month back, they effectively had a public shakedown at Ricard and their Le Mans test was curtailed because planned updates were delayed.

Returning to base early and scrapping the Spa entry to ensure the car is updated and tested thoroughly is exactly what a professional team with aspirations of success should be doing.

The only judgement anyone can make right now is the car is unreliable, it's potential pace is unknown because we havent seen it running cleanly, let alone be dialed in and using it's tyres to their best.

Public criticism is charactor building, Prodrive aren't an organisation who shy away from competition, next week they'll be taking on Ford and Olivier Quesnel in his other role as Citroen team boss, as Mini enter the WRC.

[The Badger]

Eemmm ..... fair point Jag .

Maybe we are expecting too much too soon from Prodrive .

One of the best in the business , hence what I said before , that I fully expect the car to turn good at some point . But Its a bit much right now , to see teriffic results in the near .

Oh ..... results or not ..... its fugly !!!

[AGD]

I'm sure Prodrive can improve the car through testing and development, but I think there were hopeful expectations that the car could challenge the diesels. I don't think that will happen. It could become a frontrunner in the petrol category, but I think the fans and teams expectations were higher than that.

I think we all know Prodrive is a good team, but good teams make major mistakes sometimes. People talk about the Peugeot 905, but how did Peugeot do in F1 right after that? I mentioned this the other day in another thread and I realize that it is a totally different circumstance, but I remember when the Rahal-Hogan and Galles Indycar teams switched from customer Lolas to independently constructed cars in the early 90s. Both were championship winning teams, but their chassis programs were disasters (The Galmer did win the Indy 500, but that was a wild race with every contending car dropping out allowing an off the pace car to win). Galles never really recovered and Rahal-Hogan went from being a championship winning team to not winning a race for several seasons. I'm sure Prodrive will recover, but their program may be too ambitious given their budget.

[Truckosaurus]

I received in yesterday's post my first copy of a new subscription to "Motorsport" magazine, it is their Le Mans Preview issue.

In an interview with Herr Dr Ulrich with one-L, the Audi engine fellow, he is very dismissive of the Aston concept claiming the decision to have an open car and use a six cylinder engine is "inexplicable".

If that's what leading people from other teams are saying in public what must they be saying in private!

[AndyN]

I suppose there is no chance of the ACO allowing only straight 6 petrol engined cars in the future?

On the subject of the current 'development issue' affecting these engines, do we know that that is what it is, i.e. a flawed concept in cylinder liners/ahead of its time, or is it a production/build issue?

If its more the latter, I suppose they could be up and running relatively soon and then get to grips with the other issues they haven't done the track mileage to find yet....

It does seem odd not to bowl out this issue during engine testing though...

[Samoan Attorney]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

I received in yesterday's post my first copy of a new subscription to "Motorsport" magazine, it is their Le Mans Preview issue.

In an interview with Herr Dr Ulrich with one-L, the Audi engine fellow, he is very dismissive of the Aston concept claiming the decision to have an open car and use a six cylinder engine is "inexplicable".

If that's what leading people from other teams are saying in public what must they be saying in private!

Actually Dr. Ulrich Baretzky, one the sport's good guys and not at all part of the politically correct brigade, gives AMR a real shellacking

"They made an open car with the wrong engine. A straight-six engine with a turbo - sorry, but this is one of the worst combinations I have ever seen."

He continues in similar vein for some time. For what it is worth, these views are pretty common down the LMS/ILMC pitlane, the choice of engine and chassis configuration is mystifying. The only rational explanation is that there is some future marketing link with a new road car.

Motor Sport is worth every penny this month for its Le Mans coverage alone, buy a copy.

[Le Vieux]

Originally Posted by AndyN

I suppose there is no chance of the ACO allowing only straight 6 petrol engined cars in the future?

On the subject of the current 'development issue' affecting these engines, do we know that that is what it is, i.e. a flawed concept in cylinder liners/ahead of its time, or is it a production/build issue?

If its more the latter, I suppose they could be up and running relatively soon and then get to grips with the other issues they haven't done the track mileage to find yet....

It does seem odd not to bowl out this issue during engine testing though...

And was it not claimed that Cosworth had a hand somewhere in the engine design/construction? If so, it's surprising that the engine seems to be the principal problem.

[templer]

I don't think that a Peugeot 905 or a BRM P351 can be compared with the AMR-One.
Peugeot started their Group C project with a lot of money but no experience in sports car racing. The first version of the 905 was too heavy, underpowered and lacked downforce especially at the front, but the chassis and the whole suspension was well advanced. The base of the car was already very good. The only real problem was the aerodynamics and Peugeot had the money to change that.
The BRM P351 was well done design in terms of chassis, aero and suspension. The car and escpecially the engine lacked clearly money and development time, but it was never a wrong concept.

The main problem with the AMR-One is perhaps also money but they have sportscar experienced guys and nearly all well kwon guys perviously or still involved into sportscar racing tell that the chassis and the engine layout is completely wrong and the aero is also questionable. So what shall they try?
You will never turn a Virgin into a Red Bull and AMR will never turn the AMR-One into a 908 or a R18. The best will be to start a new design, but for this they may have not the money.

[Gilles lives!]

I'll admit to at one point being totally dismayed at the Aston effort, especially after the disastrous test day display , however I'm now going to get behind them and give them a chance to prove their point.
It's clear that this problem with the engine cannot be resolved before Spa next week, so I agree with their decision to pull out and concentrate on Le Mans. Ok they are not going to compete for a win, a place on the podium or even defeat the Pesca/ Rebellion cars this year, however, I hope that they turn the boost up and give it all until the thing goes bang ! That will get the crowds cheering and give the project a boost for the rest the year .

[Martin Bull]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

In an interview with Herr Dr Ulrich with one-L, the Audi engine fellow, he is very dismissive of the Aston concept claiming the decision to have an open car and use a six cylinder engine is "inexplicable".

Dr Baretzky makes some interesting points, having been involved with BMW's strenuous efforts to make a straight-six work in endurance racing in the 1980s. They never really did resolve the crankshaft-damping troubles - a lesson carried forward to the original 4-pot M3. Have to confess I did wonder a bit when the Aston was launched, but it's a shame to see them struggling.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Samoan Attorney

Actually Dr. Ulrich Baretzky, one the sport's good guys and not at all part of the politically correct brigade, gives AMR a real shellacking

"They made an open car with the wrong engine. A straight-six engine with a turbo - sorry, but this is one of the worst combinations I have ever seen."

He continues in similar vein for some time. For what it is worth, these views are pretty common down the LMS/ILMC pitlane, the choice of engine and chassis configuration is mystifying. The only rational explanation is that there is some future marketing link with a new road car.

Motor Sport is worth every penny this month for its Le Mans coverage alone, buy a copy.

It's said future road cars will use a straight six configeration.

As for the merits of the car, beside Peugeot who has got close to Audi since 2000, a front engined Panoz and various lightweight P675/P2's.

When Aston did run what would be considered a conventional Lola they developed it to be a step ahead of similar cars.

[Great Dane]

car was designed in '08 and built in a rush with no money....

[gwyllion]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/c...artin-amr-one/ has been updated with a bit more information about the engine issues:

Between both cars AMR only completed twelve laps, with one of the pair completing just a pair of laps and the other managing just ten albeit in detuned form, and developing just 300bhp.
...
As a result of the failed PVD (Plasma Vapour Disposition) coating on the cylinder liner and the other ongoing issues with the AMR-ONE Aston Martin has withdrawn from the next ILMC round at Spa.

Sam also posted some pictures on the engine, which indeed is very narrow.

[Truckosaurus]

As a result of the failed PVD (Plasma Vapour Disposition) coating on the cylinder liner

I have a PVD coating on my wristwatch and am always scared about scratching it, either I shouldn't be worried or it's not the sort of thing to use on an engine.

[chernaudi]

Making only 300bhp, when it's rumored that the LMP2 Nissans are making about 500+, and it's rumored that the Audi R18 and the Peugeot 908 are capable of cranking out just under 600bhp!

For the engine to be that de-tuned, it has to be pretty fragile. Maybe with the engine being so narrow, it might not be rigid enough (especially compared to BMW inline 6s), as even BMW had issues to make an inline 6 be a viable prototype engine, and Ullrich Baretzky from Audi worked on that engine (as well as the BMW inline 4 F1 engines), so he'd know of the difficulties there.

Between the unothodox engine layout, cylinder liner issues, and the odd firing order, it's little wonder that the AMR-One has had so little running to sort the car's other issues.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/c...artin-amr-one/ has been updated with a bit more information about the engine issues:
Sam also posted some pictures on the engine, which indeed is very narrow.

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.

[JAG]

Not sure about that figure, to do 3.51 with just 300bhp is pretty spectacular!

[chernaudi]

Even if the 300hp figure is inaccurate, and about 450-500 rear wheel bhp or where abouts is more realistic, that's a big power short fall, as it's rumored that the Nissan/Zytek VK45 (ex-Super GT 350Z/GT-R engine) is making just short of 500hp (about 480+ or so, and about equal to Mike's estimates for the AMR's RW output).

Indeed, most LMP2s were much faster in all sectors. Down the straight, it seemed that they were faster than the Aston, and with the engine issues, I doubt that AMR were really focusing on chassis setup.

A 3:51 wouldn't be bad--for a GT1 car if they were still racing at LM. The car is clearly down on power and doesn't have a good set up, either, that being a much a byproduct of having a car who's engine barely works.

I wonder if AMR knew that the liners were giving them issues at Paul Ricard and in private testing, and they were just trying to exhaust their (admittedly small) stock pile of defective engine blocks?

[JAG]

I doubt anyone at AMR is taking much notice of the test day power output or the cars laptimes, the focus will be on getting the car running reliably and then exploiting it's full potential.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by JAG

the focus will be on getting the car running reliably and then exploiting it's full potential.

I fear the old Lola might have more potential than this car...

[XJR14/WSC95]

The biggest mistake Aston made was falling out with Lola. There best chance of success when competing with the likes of Audi and Peugeot would be a joint effort with an outfit like Lola (Nissan GTP and Group C, MG-Lola EX257) or Dallara (Lancia LC2, Ferrari 333SP Toyota GT One, Audi R8 Chassis Consultancy, Dallara SP1) These manufactures have produced some of the finest prototype racing cars in history. I’m shore if Aston spent the same amount of money with Lola the end result would have been a better bet and there’s no reason why it couldn’t have been a Aston Branded Chassis it just costs a little more money.

[XJR14/WSC95]

Double post

[Mal]

Knowing how professional Prodrive usually are I cant help thinking (and hoping) this is an interim effort cobbled together following late funding of the project. Hopefully we will see some major upgrades and changes for years 2 and 3 of the project.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by XJR14/WSC95

The biggest mistake Aston made was falling out with Lola. There best chance of success when competing with the likes of Audi and Peugeot would be a joint effort with an outfit like Lola (Nissan GTP and Group C, MG-Lola EX257) or Dallara (Lancia LC2, Ferrari 333SP Toyota GT One, Audi R8 Chassis Consultancy, Dallara SP1) These manufactures have produced some of the finest prototype racing cars in history. I?m shore if Aston spent the same amount of money with Lola the end result would have been a better bet and there?s no reason why it couldn?t have been a Aston Branded Chassis it just costs a little more money.

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.