What is Aston Martin up to?

[JAG]

A low drag, open car and flexible turbo motor could be distinct advantages over cars that were designed for the previous P1 era.

Pretty much all the cars on the grid look the part, conforming to a now familiar design philosophy, but different is sometimes good.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by JAG

They already had the best petrol car, three years on the bounce, so much so Pescarolo was classifying them as yet another class seperate to petrol teams.

Yes, because they had a proven car (Lola) with a proven engine... now they had to start from scratch which is obviously too big of a task for them under the budget they´re operating.

Face it, this car will go nowhere. The design is just too flawed, both in terms of aerdynamics and engine layout... and don't take my word for it but listen to all the expert who agree.

[JAG]

If I knew what was so flawed I may agree, internet speculation doesn't count, the track record of Prodrive does.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

If I knew what was so flawed I may agree, internet speculation doesn't count, the track record of Prodrive does.

Ulrich Baretzky isn't some keyboard jockey dummy. I'm sure he is confident in his criticism if he was willing to say what he said publicly.

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by AGD

This is just my opinion and I could be WAY off, but I think AMR's strategy was to build a car that simply is the best petrol car (low hanging fruit aside from the HPD) and then complain and whine that the balancing was off and hope that the ACO would give them huge breaks to make them competitive with Audi and Peugeot.

Interestingly, I remember an interview with George Howard Chapell on RLM a couple of years ago concerning the Vantage GT2 program, and essentially he admitted that this is exactly what they had done with that car - develop it on the cheap, and get up to speed through lobbying and performance balancing. I get the impression that this is AMR's way of going racing, and I'm not quite sure I like it...

[Victor_RO]

In other news, the Kronos Lola-Aston's livery for Le Mans... http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...LolaKronos.jpg

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

In other news, the Kronos Lola-Aston's livery for Le Mans... http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...LolaKronos.jpg

It's quite good looking!
But from i read, it's not completely done yet.

[nobster]

Originally Posted by CTD

It's quite good looking!
But from i read, it's not completely done yet.

Hope so, it could do with some nice coloured flashes around the side, would make it more interseting on photo!

[Le Vieux]

Perhaps any forum member who happens to be driving down the M40 later this week could keep an eye open for an AMR transporter. Additionally anyone living on the east side of Banbury may be able to tell us something - or possibly even at Gaydon where they may do a shake-down prior to departure.

I, for one, will be pleased if they at least turn up at Le Mans. Proof of any progress will have to wait till Wednesday evening at LM

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

In other news, the Kronos Lola-Aston's livery for Le Mans... http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...LolaKronos.jpg

It looks septic !!!

[acox93]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

Perhaps any forum member who happens to be driving down the M40 later this week could keep an eye open for an AMR transporter. Additionally anyone living on the east side of Banbury may be able to tell us something - or possibly even at Gaydon where they may do a shake-down prior to departure.

I, for one, will be pleased if they at least turn up at Le Mans. Proof of any progress will have to wait till Wednesday evening at LM

The trucks have already left!

[Le Vieux]

Originally Posted by acox93

The trucks have already left!

In which case, it seems that the trucks are fitted with the same engines as the cars and will struggle to complete the distance to Le Mans.

It's a journey they should complete easily within 24 hours which begs the question : What are they doing between now and next weekend? Stopping off for more testing somewhere? Completing the build of the cars?

At least it's an indication that they intend to turn up at Le Mans.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AGD

Ulrich Baretzky isn't some keyboard jockey dummy. I'm sure he is confident in his criticism if he was willing to say what he said publicly.

Baretzky knows as much about the engine as you or I, it's a straight-six turbo, working on a BMW motor thirty years ago has little relevance.

Engine choice is as much a marketing decision as engineering, Audi's big, heavy V12 TDI was a backwards step from the 3.6T V8 FSI, but favourable regs ensured Audi's marketing needs could be met.

Aston have the same needs, it's why any manufacturer competes, going the turbo route is also a sound choice, they have many performance and efficiency advantages over an atmo, and dominated Le Mans for the past thirty years.

[Samoan Attorney]

Originally Posted by JAG

Baretzky knows as much about the engine as you or I, it's a straight-six turbo, working on a BMW motor thirty years ago has little relevance.

That is a staggering assertion. Dr. Ulrich Baretzky is Audi Sports' Head of Engine Technology. This is not an accident, it is because he is one of the best in the business.

As a person I found that he will say what he thinks and is able to back that up with facts and genuine achievements. While technology has improved over the years, the laws of physics remain constant.

It is correct that Audi's marketing needs and laws regarding future fuel efficiency from our masters at the EU are also factors but there is little point in having a marketing driven solution to a problem if that solution does not work in the real world.

Quite why AMR chose the straight six engine configuration will become clear with the passage of time but any rational examination of the evidence available is that they are going to struggle to be competitive at Le Mans in a few weeks. That will be a pity as having them being able to race head to head with Audi and Peugeot would add to the spectacle.

[Le Vieux]

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but was brought up to believe that a straight six was the perfectly balanced engine. Quotes from those high up in Audi seem to say the contrary, which leads me to believe that perhaps there's an attempt going on to sow a seed of doubt in Aston-Martin's minds.

Both Porsche and Jaguar managed to run successfully with six-cylinder engines, Jag's of course being an in-line six. Doubtless others more knowledgeable than I can add to that small list.

A quote from Wikipedia:
"An inline six engine is in perfect primary and secondary mechanical balance, without the use of a balance shaft. The engine is in primary balance because the front and rear trio of cylinders are mirror images, and the pistons move in pairs. That is, piston #1 balances #6, #2 balances #5, and #3 balances #4, largely eliminating the polar rocking motion that would otherwise result. Secondary imbalance is avoided because an inline six cylinder crankshaft has six crank throws arranged in three planes offset at 120°. The result is that differences in piston speed at any given point in rotation are effectively canceled."

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

In which case, it seems that the trucks are fitted with the same engines as the cars and will struggle to complete the distance to Le Mans.

It's a journey they should complete easily within 24 hours which begs the question : What are they doing between now and next weekend? Stopping off for more testing somewhere? Completing the build of the cars?

At least it's an indication that they intend to turn up at Le Mans.

Meyrick just posted something on Twitter about final testing at Monza. So there's obviously some pre-LM preparation still happening.

[JAG]

Aston chose the straight-six turbo because future road cars will use such a configeration, presumably, including future GT cars.

All engines have their pros and cons, the Aston V12 was heavy with a high CG, while much of the petrol P1 field use high reving atmo V8's, engines it was claimed couldn't complete 24hrs before the RS Spyder and HPD proved otherwise.

This is restrictor racing, all configerations are meant to have an equal chance, none have benefited more from this stance than diesel's.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Samoan Attorney

That is a staggering assertion. Dr. Ulrich Baretzky is Audi Sports' Head of Engine Technology. This is not an accident, it is because he is one of the best in the business.

As a person I found that he will say what he thinks and is able to back that up with facts and genuine achievements. While technology has improved over the years, the laws of physics remain constant.

It is correct that Audi's marketing needs and laws regarding future fuel efficiency from our masters at the EU are also factors but there is little point in having a marketing driven solution to a problem if that solution does not work in the real world.

Quite why AMR chose the straight six engine configuration will become clear with the passage of time but any rational examination of the evidence available is that they are going to struggle to be competitive at Le Mans in a few weeks. That will be a pity as having them being able to race head to head with Audi and Peugeot would add to the spectacle.

Agree. Marketing aside, Baretzky certainly ran through every engine permutation prior to deciding upon the V6 for R18. And in fact I'd say he knows quite a lot about the benefits and disadvantages of a turbo I6. Contrary to some opinion. To dismiss him so blatantly is to put the wool over one's eyes.

I haven't been so bold to suggest as much, but since I now see it out in the open, Aston's project DOES indeed screams of a car designed to a minimal budget with the hope that it will be performance balanced competitive. I certainly HOPE that's not the case, but I wouldn't put it past GHC. They did pull the trigger based on the ACO's reassurances regarding Article 19 of the regulations. Why were they so concerned about that? Because the choice of the I6 was so totally awesome?

[JAG]

His opinion isn't being dismissed, but writing off an engine based on it's configeration is clearly little more than mind games, especially so in restrictor racing, the very reason the diesel is competitive.

The P1 field now uses former P2 engines, the 3.4 V8's and 2.0T's were all considered too fragile before manufacturer's stepped in and made them work, likewise the challenges of a diesel motor were considered too great before they proved the doubters wrong.

No one goes racing without first playing politics, Audi worked the ACO to ensure diesel's were competitive, every GT car on the grid from BMW to Corvette have performance breaks, Aston are playing the same game everyone else is.

[KA]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

I haven't been so bold to suggest as much, but since I now see it out in the open, Aston's project DOES indeed screams of a car designed to a minimal budget with the hope that it will be performance balanced competitive. I certainly HOPE that's not the case, but I wouldn't put it past GHC. They did pull the trigger based on the ACO's reassurances regarding Article 19 of the regulations. Why were they so concerned about that? Because the choice of the I6 was so totally awesome?

Mike, to put an alternative spin on that, is there any chance AMR could have realised from the start that there was no way a petrol engine was going to be competitive, and so opted to spend the minimum possible until a better performance balance is on offer- and meanwhile in the background someone at Prodrive is quietly beavering away designing a more advanced concept ready for that time?

What I really don't get is why, if they're working to a minimal budget, they've opted to go out on such a limb over the engine, by adopting a configuration no-one's used in a prototype for years?

Wouldn't something a bit more mainstream have been cheaper and still given them a bargaining chip over performance balancing?

OK, the straight-6 gives them the marketing link to their history and future road cars, but right now it looks like a high-risk option, done on the cheap which has really turned round and bitten them in the most embarrassing manner.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by JAG

Aston chose the straight-six turbo because future road cars will use such a configeration, presumably, including future GT cars.

All engines have their pros and cons, the Aston V12 was heavy with a high CG, while much of the petrol P1 field use high reving atmo V8's, engines it was claimed couldn't complete 24hrs before the RS Spyder and HPD proved otherwise.

This is restrictor racing, all configerations are meant to have an equal chance, none have benefited more from this stance than diesel's.

my opinion is: AMR/prodrive thougth that as to develope an open sport car was cheaper than a coupè one, to develope a L6 engine with a turbo was much more simple and cheaper than develope a 3.4 V8 too. I don't believe in the "future road cars configuration" because a lmp1 engine hadn't and hasn't NOTHING to share with a road car engine, and aston martin produces only hand-made limited series luxury supercars... i don't think they will use that kind of engine in their future road car

The same reason was the use of the V12 from dbr9 in the lola aston. Why develope a new engine (and spend money) when you got already a powerfull one? (powerfull doesn't mean automaticly competitive)

I said a lot of times that AMR has made some mistakes

1. had to develope better the new car before the release, so the stupid/sad scenes at paul ricard and le mans test could be avoided

2. if aston martin hasn't any knowledge in making some kind of engines, then buy some judd V8, change something and call it AMR-judd (oreca since last year used AIM engines, that simply were modified judd V10).
Maybe is not the most competitive engine in the roster, but at the least you can use more than 300hp to make it run...

3. consequences of point 1, this year the 2 lola coupè could be used in the meanwhile that the new car had a better development.

[Tim the Grey]

Mr. Vieux? All I saw on my run down the M40, to Oxford, this morning were Merc GP transporters going home...
The last Prodrive vehicle I saw, was a van trundling up to their test track.
I'll keep an eye (and ear) open as I return home tonight...

[AstonGeoff]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Mr. Vieux? All I saw on my run down the M40, to Oxford, this morning were Merc GP transporters going home...
The last Prodrive vehicle I saw, was a van trundling up to their test track.
I'll keep an eye (and ear) open as I return home tonight...

Unless you head home via Monza I doubt you will see any AMR trucks, I've just seen a tweet confirming that they are at Monza for some final testing.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

my opinion is: AMR/prodrive thougth that as to develope an open sport car was cheaper than a coupè one, to develope a L6 engine with a turbo was much more simple and cheaper than develope a 3.4 V8 too. I don't believe in the "future road cars configuration" because a lmp1 engine hadn't and hasn't NOTHING to share with a road car engine, and aston martin produces only hand-made limited series luxury supercars... i don't think they will use that kind of engine in their future road car

The same reason was the use of the V12 from dbr9 in the lola aston. Why develope a new engine (and spend money) when you got already a powerfull one? (powerfull doesn't mean automaticly competitive)

I said a lot of times that AMR has made some mistakes

1. had to develope better the new car before the release, so the stupid/sad scenes at paul ricard and le mans test could be avoided

2. if aston martin hasn't any knowledge in making some kind of engines, then buy some judd V8, change something and call it AMR-judd (oreca since last year used AIM engines, that simply were modified judd V10).
Maybe is not the most competitive engine in the roster, but at the least you can use more than 300hp to make it run...

3. consequences of point 1, this year the 2 lola coupè could be used in the meanwhile that the new car had a better development.

If you believe some rumours there are already straight-six turbo road cars testing, this configeration has also been rumoured a number of times.

http://www.pistonheads.com/astonmart...?storyId=23237

AMR want to develop their engineering to produce carbon chassis and engines in-house, a handful of embarrassing outings is nothing compared to the future potential of the dpt., both for racing and road cars. Audi are prime examples of this with racing success and FSI and TDI developments.

Going for an off-the-shelf solution will give you a baseline performance, but to push ahead of the pack and have greater control you need to take things in-house.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by Le Vieux

Both Porsche and Jaguar managed to run successfully with six-cylinder engines, Jag's of course being an in-line six. Doubtless others more knowledgeable than I can add to that small list.

"

The 936 engine was a 2.1 turbo 6, well over 500bhp as well. Renault also did pretty well with a 2.1 turbo six.

So if it could be done over 30 years ago, maybe it can again. Audi can say what they like, the guy is a genius but he does not speak for Aston and wont be privy to all the inmost dealing of the hand grenade on wheels.

Good luck to them, and maybe the engine is not the only problem they face.