What is Aston Martin up to?

[gustavobamba]

I agree that the main issue is the engine, so IMO they should do more bench testing.
If they begin now i think that they will be competitive in next year Le Mans.

Off course they need to developed the aerodynamics, and put a roof on that car

[GTRMagic]

Maybe I missed something, but in the 2011 Le Mans event, there was no prize for '1st Petrol'... so why would that even be an aim of a works Aston Martin/Prodrive program??

I understand why a private team like Pescarolo may choose proven petrol power.. but for a new signature car, with the carmaker's name all over it... odd!

Also odd is their choice not to use Knighty's 'option one' antilag system... yes it burns fuel if not well set up, but is an off the shelf item from the likes of MoTeC... is that kind of technology not cutting edge enough for these guys?

Too weird...

[isynge]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Maybe I missed something, but in the 2011 Le Mans event, there was no prize for '1st Petrol'... so why would that even be an aim of a works Aston Martin/Prodrive program??

I understand why a private team like Pescarolo may choose proven petrol power.. but for a new signature car, with the carmaker's name all over it... odd!

From a marketing perspective I can see a lot of benefit in Aston Martin taking a slightly 'different' approach. To sell to their target market - high net worth individuals who are buying an Aston Martin as a lifestyle statement - they don't need to win - they need to be distinctive and there or thereabouts competitively.

So long as a dealer is able to stand in corporate hospitality at Le Mans and talk to a prospect and say "sure, the Audi's fast, it's a diesel - and it doesn't use much fuel, but we do a very good petrol car, which is what you want from an Aston Martin isn't it?" - and time for when a readily identifiable, emotive, car goes past the job is largely done.

The same point holds true for the core racing car business model of selling cars to collectors. The message here is, sure, you could go and get a Lola, or you could maybe look at getting into the historic market and see if you could track down an Audi, but this is something different and will have a story associated with it, and when you run it, you'll stand out. All this appeals before you get into the scarcity argument and how this should lead to a decent return on capital (especially as you've bought it prior to the racing provenance being established).

These two points are what I think still are highly persuasive reasons for Aston Martin to persevere with the programme. The failure at Le Mans wasn't the speed - it was the catastrophic error in last minute fiddling that led to the catastrophically early exit. When they were running they looked and sounded good, and had they run through to nightfall Aston Martin could have got a decent return on their hospitality investment. Get the car so it can run reasonably well at Silverstone (and there's no reason why they can't do this) and the programme will be a long way towards being back on track.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by isynge

The failure at Le Mans wasn't the speed - it was the catastrophic error in last minute fiddling that led to the catastrophically early exit. When they were running they looked and sounded good, and had they run through to nightfall Aston Martin could have got a decent return on their hospitality investment.

I'm wondering if you watched the same race I did.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by isynge

From a marketing perspective I can see a lot of benefit in Aston Martin taking a slightly 'different' approach. To sell to their target market - high net worth individuals who are buying an Aston Martin as a lifestyle statement - they don't need to win - they need to be distinctive and there or thereabouts competitively.

So long as a dealer is able to stand in corporate hospitality at Le Mans and talk to a prospect and say "sure, the Audi's fast, it's a diesel - and it doesn't use much fuel, but we do a very good petrol car, which is what you want from an Aston Martin isn't it?" - and time for when a readily identifiable, emotive, car goes past the job is largely done.

The same point holds true for the core racing car business model of selling cars to collectors. The message here is, sure, you could go and get a Lola, or you could maybe look at getting into the historic market and see if you could track down an Audi, but this is something different and will have a story associated with it, and when you run it, you'll stand out. All this appeals before you get into the scarcity argument and how this should lead to a decent return on capital (especially as you've bought it prior to the racing provenance being established).

These two points are what I think still are highly persuasive reasons for Aston Martin to persevere with the programme. The failure at Le Mans wasn't the speed - it was the catastrophic error in last minute fiddling that led to the catastrophically early exit. When they were running they looked and sounded good, and had they run through to nightfall Aston Martin could have got a decent return on their hospitality investment. Get the car so it can run reasonably well at Silverstone (and there's no reason why they can't do this) and the programme will be a long way towards being back on track.

I take all that on board, but what do you do with all the guests in corporate hospitality when you dont have a car to cheer on?

The usual solution is to ply the inhabitants within appropriate champagne...

[AGD]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Maybe I missed something, but in the 2011 Le Mans event, there was no prize for '1st Petrol'... so why would that even be an aim of a works Aston Martin/Prodrive program??

AMR does not have the budget like Audi and Peugeot. AMR has to raise their funds on their own through sponsorship, pay drivers, and selling cars to collectors and privateers. Their budget is probably better than most or all of the other petrol teams, but I don't think they had the money to do a diesel program properly. Whether they had the money to do everything they did do is questionable in itself. Also, diesels don't fit with AM's road cars.

No, there isn't a trophy for first in the petrol "class." But what winning the petrol class does give one is the ability to whine and complain and say that they would have won had the balancing rules been "fair." Anyway, balancing wasn't why AMR lost Le Mans, although they may still be trying to fool people with that nonsense.

[isynge]

Originally Posted by AGD

I'm wondering if you watched the same race I did.

Suspect it was the same race... Middle part of June in Sarthe region right?

During qualifying the AMR-ONE looked and sounded reasonable both through the Esses and into Tertre Rouge - so long as you left times out of it - which a lot of reasonably casual observers would - it was a distinctive racing car. Even at the pace it was running - i.e. pretty slow, had it run until sundown the corporate guests would have been happy enough, drunk sufficient champagne, and cheered every time one wailed past, rather than felt they were at a wake and wishing they'd accepted a different invitation.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by cmk

Given that the car was relatively quick through the Porsche Curves and suffered almost exclusively from drivetrain reliability and performance shortcomings, why on earth would you go to a wind tunnel first? Sure, there may be some deficiencies which will show up when it's got a proper lump underneath it, but revealing those in a tunnel will be of little use if they can't reach that pace on a track.

You dont need the engine to do wind tunnel aero ..... and it would be a step in the right direction . I dont think CAD/CAM is as efficient as they say , Audi do both for example .

I suggest that when the car finally does work , it will look differant , and whats the point of dropping a decent engine into something that aerodynamicly needs work , and I believe it needs work .

[KA]

Originally Posted by The Badger

You dont need the engine to do wind tunnel aero ..... and it would be a step in the right direction . I dont think CAD/CAM is as efficient as they say , Audi do both for example .

I suggest that when the car finally does work , it will look differant , and whats the point of dropping a decent engine into something that aerodynamicly needs work , and I believe it needs work .

Trouble is, sorting the aero won't actually help them that much at this point- Even if they totally rethink the aero and hypothetically came out of the wind tunnel with an upgrade that makes the Audi and Peugeot look like tractors, it's not much use until they've got an engine that actually holds together and produces the power output it was meant to.
There aren't any prizes for having the 'most aerodynamically-efficient car behind a recovery truck' any more than there are for 'fastest petrol-engined car'
Fixing the engine has to be the first priority- sure they can do wind tunnel aero, but actually testing that aero stuff on the track or fixing any chassis issues isn't going to happen while it keeps breaking down

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Maybe I missed something, but in the 2011 Le Mans event, there was no prize for '1st Petrol'... so why would that even be an aim of a works Aston Martin/Prodrive program??

I understand why a private team like Pescarolo may choose proven petrol power.. but for a new signature car, with the carmaker's name all over it... odd!

Also odd is their choice not to use Knighty's 'option one' antilag system... yes it burns fuel if not well set up, but is an off the shelf item from the likes of MoTeC... is that kind of technology not cutting edge enough for these guys?

Too weird...

Quite agree - diesel cars and associated technology are core to Audi and Peugeot product range, thus it makes perfect sense for them to race a diesel LMP1. Clearly Aston Martin can't do this and must believe that the old 'performance balancing' would make a petrol competitive (which they weren't).

More of a puzzle is why AMR would go to the expense of LMP1 when their market is GT which they seem to have handed over to customer teams to compete in and they would never have the budget to compete with Audi and Peugeot anyway.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Quite agree - diesel cars and associated technology are core to Audi and Peugeot product range, thus it makes perfect sense for them to race a diesel LMP1. Clearly Aston Martin can't do this and must believe that the old 'performance balancing' would make a petrol competitive (which they weren't).

More of a puzzle is why AMR would go to the expense of LMP1 when their market is GT which they seem to have handed over to customer teams to compete in and they would never have the budget to compete with Audi and Peugeot anyway.

but then again they also dont heave the budget of michelotto and porsche either, nor as good as a road car

[godlameroso]

I'll go as far to say that their chassis is good, it's their engine that straight blows in more ways than one. They had to make a brand new engine, this alone would be a nightmare for most car manufacturers, let alone a smaller company like AM. Perhaps the restrictor interferes with the way the car produces and holds boost pressure. If the old school Nissan RB26 could rev to 8,000rpm I'm sure a smaller 2.0 could go higher reliably. The problem is the turbo, the turbine they have chosen isn't very efficient with the restrictor. Sometimes a turbine that appears peaky on paper is completely different when forced to breathe through a restrictor, and vice versa.

I remember this old Mitsubishi rally car I was helping a buddy with. When we took off the turbo, we noticed the a/r, and upon referencing it with Garret's own pressure maps, it seemed like a completely inefficient turbo for the power band of the car. So we ran the car, and as predicted it was horrible, the turbo would have the most violent onslaught and would only hold max boost for 1,500 rpm after spool, which was at around 4,400, no amount of tuning would help. Then we tried it again but this time with the restrictor that the car came with. We had to retune the ecu, but even with a baseline tune the difference was night and day. Sure the restrictor limited the overall power to about 320'ish wheel hp, but the powerband had changed dramatically. Now we were getting full boost at 3,200rpm up to 5,800, and tapering off to redline @ 7,000. So perhaps they need to pick a different turbo.

Most turbo engines aren't made for maximum thermal efficiency, they're made to take boost, lots of it. I think AMR tried to make too many compromises with their engine.

If I were them, I would use a larger compressor. I would also have two separate exhaust manifolds feeding the turbine individually. Instead of lining up six exhaust pulses you would only be doing it for three, and this would improve the exhaust gas TE.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

More of a puzzle is why AMR would go to the expense of LMP1 when their market is GT which they seem to have handed over to customer teams to compete in and they would never have the budget to compete with Audi and Peugeot anyway.

The very reason this thread is so long, albeit filled with criticism and negativity, publicity.

The GTE Vantage had a similar troubled start, yet garnered a handful of posts.

Likewise, the RSR Jaguar program, after initial interest, has slipped off the radar, if they were in P1, interest and comment would be relentless.

That's not to say the AMR-One's struggles can continue indenfinately, with their reputation remaining intact.

[canam]

AMR racing is like any other privateer manufacturing effort--except they can leverage the Aston Martin brand name to raise funding. Other privateers (Pesca, Oreca, Courage, Creation, Zytek, Embassy, Radical) never had that additional feature--and all of these entities launched their new cars infinitely more successfully--with podiums, finishes etc. Yes, they all leased motors externally--apart from Zytek.

The fact that AMR One is such a "dog" may seriously damage AMR's ability to raise further funds for a prototype programme and, realistically, it ought to be damaged.

It will be very hard to 'sell' any further investment to the 'investors' in this project.

We know the engine needs work--a lot of it. That will take a lot of time and money--and the results may be unpredictable.

Despite all the chat about the chassis, we really don't know how good it is. The car is too slow to make any real judgement. They ought to drop in an engine of known power (like Bentley did with a 3.8 Nicholson McLaren Cossie) to see how good the chassis really is. There is work involved but it can be done at a modest cost (belhousing, mounts, exhaust routing) and, at least, AMR will know if the chassis is any good. I suspect that it, too, is a dog.

I think AMR will resist this as it will definitely put an end to the project. By blaming the engine for everything, there is hope. If the chassis stinks, the project will get binned.

[AstonGeoff]

I think we should all take a breather here and let AMR work on the engine and chassis and, hopefully, return to the fray at Silverstone in September.

If it's still the "dog" that everyone seems to think it is then maybe it's time for AMR rethink the engine or chassis or both, but let's face it they are not very far down the development path and have done pretty much all of their testing in the public eye. If we compared the man hours and testing hours that Audi and Pug (and they had a history with LMP1) do then AMR are probably only a couple of weeks in compared to the months and months that Audi and Pug have done!

As an aside (and OT) is it time for a LMP1.5 class that sits between LMP1 (for the big boys) and LMP2 (for the true privateers), giving the likes of AMR, Rebellion, Pesca, et al at least a chance of a class win?

[MitchZ06]

LMP1-Petrol is what that class should be.

[AstonGeoff]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

LMP1-Petrol is what that class should be.

Not necessarily, if a big manufacturer, like for example Toyota, decided to throw huge amounts of money at a petrol hybrid then I've no doubt it would be on the pace of the Audis and Pugs.

[Fogelhund]

So how does one qualify for 1.5? I mean Aston is technically a constructor, so wouldn't the Pesca's etc. have reason to suggest that there needs to be a 1.75 for them, so they don't have to compete against Aston money?

There is one class, LMP1. Compete, or don't.

If you can't, try LMP2 or GT.

[Audi Racer]

Considering that that would require a complete rewrite of the rules because the Petrols have been given perforamance breaks to catch up to the diesel and now suddenly the diesels dont matter?

Henri Pescarolo doesnt come to finish second. 2005 was such a heart break. The 05 pescarolo was on the order of 3-4 seconds faster than the Audi but reliablilty issues crept in.

[JAG]

The time to judge Pescarolo, and much of the privateer field, is when they run new chassis.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by JAG

The time to judge Pescarolo, and much of the privateer field, is when they run new chassis.

Yes. Thats why im a little bit suspicious of the cat and mouse that toyota are playing. They may have duped us all. how convenient of them to run a toyota engein in a rebellion to show the ACO they interested. Now the ACO is going to really try to close the pertrol diesel gap even though its old petrols vs new diesels.

Heres how this works for toyota. When they build their new LMP1, not if, but when theyll swoop in having taken advantage of the engine regs for petrols beeing given giant restrictors and win Lemans. Im all for it though. i mtired of Audi and Peugeot havig it all their way. Let Toyota stick it to them.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by JAG

The time to judge Pescarolo, and much of the privateer field, is when they run new chassis.

Well, Signatech, Oreca, PeCOM, and Race Performane all had a completely new for 2011 chassis/engine combination and qualified in front of the mighty AMR One as well as of course a better race run, only difference is that those were LMP2 teams.

Not to mention all the work Rebellion put in over the offseason, which resulted in a solid race for the #12 car, as well as OAK Racing a 2011 updated Pesca with a new engine package.

[canam]

Why is there such delusion when we enter the Petrol vs Diesel debate.

On current regs, Diesel wins. If a big manufacturer comes in and provides a fleet of cars to the ACO, builds large buildings in the track area, resurfaces the road and constructs a factory in the Sartre THEN the petrol regs may move to a balance. Right now, the ACO could not care less about the 'Petrol "Class"'. They had a great race in 2011 and more people watching and through the gate. Why is change needed?

They don't give a 'monkeys'! about the so-called petrol class.

Proper manufacturers know the score. The regs need to change for a Petrol car to have a chance. that is why they are still on the sidelines.

DR will not have the leverage to make the ACO change its approach

[Tim the Grey]

There Is an existing Petrol class. Trussers invented it, a while back. LMP1bis...

AMR will get what they want by being where they are right now.
Racing at Le Mans. That is all that matters.
They get a tidy Hostility Unit just down from Ford Chicane, champagne, and DPR on tap, and Invited Glitterati who aren't THAT fussed about the actual race.

It works for them!

As to their woes at LM. I thought it telling that Thursday Night Practice, they still hadn't got the pit wall timing booth up. This is AMR/Prodrive, to whom this is second nature. From the lack of manpower to erect a simple booth, I took it to mean the cars were in DEEP trouble. In practice, they were fine. They ran, if slowly, and from trackside, sounded fabulous. Come raceday it all fell apart. Due to a change from a pulley that cracked, to something beefier, that broke, at a guess, half the car.

Too late to get the green light, not enough funding for rapid development, and perhaps, too ambitious a project? I don't know, I'm just sad it's not working.

[MitchZ06]

Maybe they got the crew from Top Gear to subcontract the engine work? You their saying, ambitious but rubbish!