What is Aston Martin up to?

[The Badger]

Ok , I officially dislike that Aston ..... it just doesnt look nice at all .

[Andy77]

Originally Posted by Number7

How can they do so bad? On the Audi footage in the R18 thread we can hear Dr. Ullrich say that an ugly race car is never fast. If we look at this AMR one from the side, It's hard to argue. It is ugly, and it is so slow. Depressing! I was looking forward to see AMR challenge Audi and Peugeot.

Maybe they (AMR) secretly apply for the car of tomorrow in Grandams DP class

[Nordic]

If it does not improve pretty darn quick I suspect it will scratch from Le Mans.

No way AM will want to be seen with every tom dick and harry passing it down a straight.

[GTfour]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Clearly they have got the rules wrong when a car that has done pretty much no testing isn't in contention for victories

Ohw come on... Not immediatly running at the front or not even being able to close a gap of five seconds to the leader. That's like two weeks in sportscar terms.

I stand by my point,it's the rediciulously strangeling rules for petrol turbo engines that's doing this.

[Lola T70]

Originally Posted by GTfour

Ohw come on... Not immediatly running at the front or not even being able to close a gap of five seconds to the leader. That's like two weeks in sportscar terms.

I stand by my point,it's the rediciulously strangeling rules for petrol turbo engines that's doing this.

As spoken about on the Ricard race thread, engine regulations have got very very little if anything to do with the car speed in the twisty 1st and 3rd sectors where they are seconds off the pace.

Interestingly, there was not one word about regulations and balancing in the AMR official press release after the Paul Ricard race so maybe they do not share your view.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by GTfour

I stand by my point,it's the rediciulously strangeling rules for petrol turbo engines that's doing this.

You claim that the equivalence between NA petrol and turbo petrol is wrong.

A quick look at the restrictor size for petrol engines in the ACO rules in the last years. The (absolute) boost pressure of a 2.0 turbo engine has always been limited to 2.5 bar.

• 2001 LMP675
  • 3.4 NA: 44 mm -> 1521 mm2
  • 2.0 turbo: 43 mm -> 1452 mm2
  • 1452 mm2 / 1521 mm2 = 0.96
• 2003 LMP675: -10% in restrictor area
  • 3.4 NA: 41.7 mm -> 1366 mm2
  • 2.0 turbo: 40.8 mm -> 1307 mm2
  • 1307 mm2 / 1366 mm2 = 0.96
• 2004 LMP2: same as 2001 LMP675
  • 3.4 NA: 44 mm -> 1521 mm2
  • 2.0 turbo: 43 mm -> 1452 mm2
  • 1452 mm2 / 1521 mm2 = 0.96
• 2007 LMP2: -5% in restrictor area
  • 3.4 NA: 42.9 mm -> 1445 mm2
  • 2.0 turbo: 42 mm -> 1385 mm2
  • 1385 mm2 / 1445 mm2 = 0.96
• 2009 LMP2: -10% in restrictor area
  • 3.4 NA: 40.7 mm -> 1301 mm2
  • 2.0 turbo: 39.9 mm -> 1250 mm2
  • 1250 mm2 / 1301 mm2 = 0.96
• 2011 LMP1
  • 3.4 NA: 43.3 mm -> 1473 mm2
  • 2.0 turbo: 42.9 mm -> 1445 mm2
  • 1445 mm2 / 1473 mm2 = 0.98

As you can see the equivalence has been kept constant during the last decade. This year a small change was made to give turbo petrols a slightly bigger air restrictor, in relation to the NA petrols.

[gwyllion]

Just as a reminder. According to http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerturbolmp2I4.html AER claimed 550+ bhp and 620 Nm for their 2.0 turbo with a 43 mm restrictor.

With direct injection and perhaps a VGT turbo Prodrive should be able to get more than the claimed "approx 540 bhp" from their straight 6, iff the engine sees more development.

[knighty]

Originally Posted by Lola T70

As spoken about on the Ricard race thread, engine regulations have got very very little if anything to do with the car speed in the twisty 1st and 3rd sectors where they are seconds off the pace.

Interestingly, there was not one word about regulations and balancing in the AMR official press release after the Paul Ricard race so maybe they do not share your view.

correct, they are basically testing in public with a very raw car which is in the very early stages of development, they are obviously taking a slamming on this forum, but you have to start somewhere, yes the car is ugly, but I think they are being quite brave to be honest, and there is nothing wrong with that........the engine appears to be belching black smoke after corner exit and hard acelleration, which really does indicate a lack of boost & too much fuel........I havent seen that for years from a turbo car and its really indicative of how much work needs doing, but best of luck to them.

[gwyllion]

On http://www.dailysportscar.com/viewAr...07B2D01BBF0055 George Howard Chappell said

Without a doubt we need to make progress with the engine in terms of reliability. We’re running it here in a very conservative spec after a few teething problems when we ran it in anger for the first time at Dijon last week!

That probably means that they had to tune down the boost a lot.

[gwyllion]

http://86400.fr/articles/150-6-heure...au-cafouillage has an interesting rumor about the new engine.

The rumor of Sebring was that the 6-cylinder in-line breaks like glass on the engine bench. They were talking about eight or nine blocks broken during factory testing.

In that case the term reliability issues is a big understatement

[gwyllion]

Andy Meyrick is packing his bag for Paul Ricard, where AMR will continue testing on Tuesday-Wednesday: http://twitter.com/AndyMeyrick/status/54803714166362112

[chernaudi]

And if that's the case, then that's why Audi chose a V6 if they decided to do a 6 cylinder engine (which we all know that's what the R18 has).

In addition to being shorter, the block is more rigid, and that's why the V8 has largely replaced the straight 6 as a performance engine-shorter and lighter if casted right, and stiffer and more durable, as are V6s.

That's why there are no more inline 8 engines, and even the better ones--Jano's Alfa Romeo straight 8s and the Bugatti inline 8--were basically two inline 4s bolted together and joined by a gear train between the blocks to drive the valve train. Anything that's long and narrow will enevitably have a lot of flex to it.

I hope that this isn't true, but if that AMR inline 6 is lightly built, you have to worry about the block or head flexing, and the damage that can do the crank and the valve train.

[gwyllion]

You should not exaggerate the stiffness issues of the straight 6 layout.

Engine tuners have put superchargers and turbochargers on the old BMW S54 engine and made them produce in excess of 800 bhp without major issues.

[chernaudi]

Then, I ask this: If BMW can do that, why can't AMR get less power out of the engine without worries about reliability, considering that Aston has inline 6s in their past?

[gwyllion]

The engine is completely new. Give them some time to sort out their issues.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Then, I ask this: If BMW can do that, why can't AMR get less power out of the engine without worries about reliability, considering that Aston has inline 6s in their past?

because BMW is a considerably better engine manufacturer then Aston Martin, so that coment makes no sense.

Give Aston a break, the engine is compleatly new and that means everything is new, and there are no comparisons. what we should complain about is that they are very late in the game and most likely will be a totla failure at Le Mans this year due to the lack of development and testing, But I am hopefull of nex year. this year its just too late in the game to make a reliable and fast car out of a car that is bout slow and unrelible.

[gwyllion]

http://pitlane-vision.com/fils-dactu...la-course.html has some interesting comments from Primat:

The main problem is the engine, it is completely down on the power level: this is not a question of the rules, just that it does not exploit all the capabilities of the engine. There are a lot of developments that will happen, within a month things will be very different.
...
Normally we will test on Tuesday and Wednesday, if the engine has no problems, because there exist only two blocks, and we should still learn a lot.

[skycafe]

Sounds like what they are going to learn is how to quickly and effectively change blown engines.

[Andy77]

Originally Posted by skycafe

Sounds like what they are going to learn is how to quickly and effectively change blown engines.

More like quickly and effectively building new ones

[Tim the Grey]

Just run the thing on low boost, to sort the chassis. Then apply more power.
By which time, the revised, stiffer castings should be available, to make an engine that doesn't break quite so often.
We shall see?

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

We shall see?

Hopefully.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Just run the thing on low boost, to sort the chassis. Then apply more power.
By which time, the revised, stiffer castings should be available, to make an engine that doesn't break quite so often.
We shall see?

and in the mean time sit back and watch audi and Peugeut win it all. I mean who in their right minds rols out an unfiished car in april and expect to fight for a 24h victory in June

[gwyllion]

They have said from that start that it is a 2 year project. So they don't expect to win in June

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by Nordic

If it does not improve pretty darn quick I suspect it will scratch from Le Mans.

No way AM will want to be seen with every tom dick and harry passing it down a straight.

Just imagine a picture in the paper of Tracy Krohn flashing the Aston with his headlights and then passing by! Ultimate embarrassment.

DK

[isynge]

While I'll stand by my comment that a gestation this troubled does not augur well for the Aston Martin becoming a regular race winner I would have thought the chances of them scratching the Le Mans entries are precisely zero.

The whole programme is funded by pre-sales of the chassis to collectors, and the value of a car like that is in the racing provenance - obviously success boosts value but linked to that is the portfolio of races they enter. In any case, I'd be enormously surprised to see them consistently slower than an LMP2 let alone a GT come June.