Aston Martin AMR22

[PlatinumZealot]

It's just one race. Back in 2020 it took them a while to get on top of the Mercedes concept and the same here.

[continuum16]

I find it odd that Aston Martin did not introduce a new front wing to go with the rest of the car. If they really did develop two different concepts in terms of floor and sidepod design (regardless of whether it has a 'resemblance' to other cars), it seems odd to use a shared front wing design, given the downstream components will surely interact differently.

It seems like either the front wing was not optimized for the previous concept and it is now and they just haven't found a good setup, or there will be a new front wing soon which is more suited to this concept. My guess would be the latter but either way it seems strange.

[coaster]

There was a youtube of Lance strolls cars steering wheel wagging about wildly whenever he would let go, very fundamental design flaws like wheel offset or scrub radius.
The american Corvair had this problem and i believe it was related to negative castor, much like a sidecar motorcycle.
When designers are bodging stuff like this and copying top teams it suggests a deeper organisational issue, maybe overlap of ideas not being harmonised by a key player like a Newey or a Byrne?

[Zynerji]

There was a youtube of Lance strolls cars steering wheel wagging about wildly whenever he would let go, very fundamental design flaws like wheel offset or scrub radius.
The american Corvair had this problem and i believe it was related to negative castor, much like a sidecar motorcycle.
When designers are bodging stuff like this and copying top teams it suggests a deeper organisational issue, maybe overlap of ideas not being harmonised by a key player like a Newey or a Byrne?

Interesting.

I could see the teams trying negative castor, as it would make kerb hitting much smoother with the missing hydraulic systems. It would also mean its a lazy SoB on turn-in

[collindsilva]

I find it odd that Aston Martin did not introduce a new front wing to go with the rest of the car. If they really did develop two different concepts in terms of floor and sidepod design (regardless of whether it has a 'resemblance' to other cars), it seems odd to use a shared front wing design, given the downstream components will surely interact differently.

It seems like either the front wing was not optimized for the previous concept and it is now and they just haven't found a good setup, or there will be a new front wing soon which is more suited to this concept. My guess would be the latter but either way it seems strange.

Seems the upgrades were pushed forward, it was originally planned for Silverstone, maybe the new front wing and other bits and pieces should be available by next race...

[Andi76]

No it is not. Alpine and AT have the same concept, but different detailing. Independent development will always have different detailing, because the design is interlinked with front wing design, suspension design etc.

If AM had a design with identical detailing in the wind tunnel in November, that can realistically only have been the result of data transfer. The only legal option is that they copied the detailing after the Bahrein test.

Only, its not identical.

The idea might be, but that is not illegal.
I believe this is convergence of an identical idea. But if you look at the pods, they AM tapers down more gently, and the detailing is not 1:1 copied.

RB added a stay onto their bib in the last race, an idea copied from AM which was very similar. Are we to treat that the same?

The identical two outboard floor leading edge strakes, the detailing of those strakes, the identical floor edge, the identical channel in the sidepod (even if not down to the mm), that is to much similarity to arrive to independently. If they had that in the wind tunnel in November, Occam's razor tells us they are guilty of IP theft. If they copied it are after Bahrain, I have no issue with it at all.

I totally agree on that. There are literally trillions of different shapes and geometries. And we are not even talking about different positions, angles, height etc. So how big is the possibility that two teams are independantly at almost 100% identical designs? It is impossible. Absolutely impossible. If you look at the position, height, the shape and the angles of the bargeboards, its exactly the same. Also the sidepods. And its totally impossible to arrive there independantely. And at the same time there were design-informations downloaded from a Red Bull Server or Computer? Come on... i think the FIA knows that and has proof, but as another Spy-or Copygate would be disastrous for F1 and AM they do not want that to become public.

[Quantum]

No it is not. Alpine and AT have the same concept, but different detailing. Independent development will always have different detailing, because the design is interlinked with front wing design, suspension design etc.

If AM had a design with identical detailing in the wind tunnel in November, that can realistically only have been the result of data transfer. The only legal option is that they copied the detailing after the Bahrein test.

Only, its not identical.

The idea might be, but that is not illegal.
I believe this is convergence of an identical idea. But if you look at the pods, they AM tapers down more gently, and the detailing is not 1:1 copied.

RB added a stay onto their bib in the last race, an idea copied from AM which was very similar. Are we to treat that the same?

The identical two outboard floor leading edge strakes, the detailing of those strakes, the identical floor edge, the identical channel in the sidepod (even if not down to the mm), that is to much similarity to arrive to independently. If they had that in the wind tunnel in November, Occam's razor tells us they are guilty of IP theft. If they copied it are after Bahrain, I have no issue with it at all.

It's not identical, I'll reiterate that.

Having a similar concept on the drawing board and then presenting a refined version of that concept after 6 races with the benefit of having RB as a guide(for both development updates and confirmation), is plausible.
I'm confused why copying it earlier would not lead you to maintain your position this was IP theft.
Dan Fallows wasn't the only departure at RB to AM. There were 3 others with knowledge of this concept.

We know Fallows started on 2nd April this year. Production time on parts varies but can have around 3 to 4 week lead times.
It stands to reason everything was on hold before Fallows arrived so that he could sign it off when he joined.
If we are to invoke Occam's razor, I'd say this is the least line of assumptions.

[collindsilva]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... r-top-ten/

Aston Martin missed out in Barcelona and still made headlines. Because of the similarities to the Red Bull, many wondered how there could be so much similarity. By the way, it's not that much if you take the Racing Point RP20 from 2020 as a benchmark. From the tip of the nose to the rear wing, it was a decal of the 2019 Mercedes. This time, the identical parts are limited to the area between axles.

And even then, the B version isn't the complete mirror image of the Red Bull. The cooling inlets are different, the asymmetrical gills on the left and right, also the arrangement of the radiators and the engine cover. The nose, front wing and rear section were taken from the presentation model or further developed on this basis.

In addition, the AMR22B is at the weight limit, which the Red Bull has not quite achieved. "We even drive with ballast," reveals Chief Technology Officer Andy Green. The A version of the car was 20 kilograms overweight at the start of the season. By Miami they had lost ten kilograms.

On paper, Aston Martin's second infusion is a significant advance. "A car for the top ten," the engineers are convinced. That was already indicated in the free practice sessions, both for one lap and in the long run. But in qualifying, the lap time fell by the wayside.

The engineers had to switch to the second largest cooling configuration because of the heat, which pushed the vehicle balance forward. Because it reacted incorrectly with the front wing, the drivers did not recognize their car. "It oversteered like a rally car." There was also trouble with the DRS mechanism, which also required additional setup time.

In the race, the drivers then had to cut back a bit because the cooling was still at the limit. There would have been a better option, but that would have cost too much downforce. The strategists sought their salvation in a two-stop strategy to get Sebastian Vettel off the road. After all, it was enough for 11th place, but 15.9 seconds behind the last place in the points. Team boss Mike Krack admitted: "We were too slow for points."

The B version of the car is so different from the base model that it starts the season over again for Aston Martin. The concept is almost contrary, explain the engineers. The aerodynamics of the A version could only work in a configurations that are low and hard. The bouncing prevented from getting into this area. With the B model, the rocking was gone. "With the new car we can go higher and softer. It's a completely different aerodynamic platform," explains Green.

That's why the team is also optimistic for Monte Carlo. If you want to be fast there, you need suspension travel. And if you have to drive low and stiff, you have a problem. "It would have been difficult with the A version. It would only have worked with little ground clearance. And it swung so hard on bumps that the whole car rocked," admit the engineers.

Nevertheless, Sebastian Vettel and Lance Stroll cannot appear completely free in the city classic. "We are extremely short on spare parts. In Barcelona, ​​any accident would have meant that one of the drivers would have had to switch to the A car. It's a little better for Monaco, but still not relaxed," says the team. Green nevertheless praises his production department: "The guys in the factory have done incredible things in the last few weeks. We sometimes had 36-hour shifts."

With the next three races taking place on street circuits, engineers expect it will take some time before the AMR22B is fully understood. At the home game in Silverstone it should be so far at the latest. Mike Krack shares the confidence of his design department: "The new car is better than the old one in all areas. In slow, medium and fast corners."

Secretly, Aston Martin was almost relieved that the B version didn't hit the ground running in the first race. Otherwise Red Bull might have made even more noise about an alleged data transfer. At Aston Martin, that's the point of view. "The FIA ​​inspectors are the only ones who have seen all the evidence that was with Red Bull and with us, so they are the only ones who can judge this case."

[NAPI10]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... r-top-ten/

Aston Martin missed out in Barcelona and still made headlines. Because of the similarities to the Red Bull, many wondered how there could be so much similarity. By the way, it's not that much if you take the Racing Point RP20 from 2020 as a benchmark. From the tip of the nose to the rear wing, it was a decal of the 2019 Mercedes. This time, the identical parts are limited to the area between axles.

And even then, the B version isn't the complete mirror image of the Red Bull. The cooling inlets are different, the asymmetrical gills on the left and right, also the arrangement of the radiators and the engine cover. The nose, front wing and rear section were taken from the presentation model or further developed on this basis.

In addition, the AMR22B is at the weight limit, which the Red Bull has not quite achieved. "We even drive with ballast," reveals Chief Technology Officer Andy Green. The A version of the car was 20 kilograms overweight at the start of the season. By Miami they had lost ten kilograms.

On paper, Aston Martin's second infusion is a significant advance. "A car for the top ten," the engineers are convinced. That was already indicated in the free practice sessions, both for one lap and in the long run. But in qualifying, the lap time fell by the wayside.

The engineers had to switch to the second largest cooling configuration because of the heat, which pushed the vehicle balance forward. Because it reacted incorrectly with the front wing, the drivers did not recognize their car. "It oversteered like a rally car." There was also trouble with the DRS mechanism, which also required additional setup time.

In the race, the drivers then had to cut back a bit because the cooling was still at the limit. There would have been a better option, but that would have cost too much downforce. The strategists sought their salvation in a two-stop strategy to get Sebastian Vettel off the road. After all, it was enough for 11th place, but 15.9 seconds behind the last place in the points. Team boss Mike Krack admitted: "We were too slow for points."

The B version of the car is so different from the base model that it starts the season over again for Aston Martin. The concept is almost contrary, explain the engineers. The aerodynamics of the A version could only work in a configurations that are low and hard. The bouncing prevented from getting into this area. With the B model, the rocking was gone. "With the new car we can go higher and softer. It's a completely different aerodynamic platform," explains Green.

That's why the team is also optimistic for Monte Carlo. If you want to be fast there, you need suspension travel. And if you have to drive low and stiff, you have a problem. "It would have been difficult with the A version. It would only have worked with little ground clearance. And it swung so hard on bumps that the whole car rocked," admit the engineers.

Nevertheless, Sebastian Vettel and Lance Stroll cannot appear completely free in the city classic. "We are extremely short on spare parts. In Barcelona, ​​any accident would have meant that one of the drivers would have had to switch to the A car. It's a little better for Monaco, but still not relaxed," says the team. Green nevertheless praises his production department: "The guys in the factory have done incredible things in the last few weeks. We sometimes had 36-hour shifts."

With the next three races taking place on street circuits, engineers expect it will take some time before the AMR22B is fully understood. At the home game in Silverstone it should be so far at the latest. Mike Krack shares the confidence of his design department: "The new car is better than the old one in all areas. In slow, medium and fast corners."

Secretly, Aston Martin was almost relieved that the B version didn't hit the ground running in the first race. Otherwise Red Bull might have made even more noise about an alleged data transfer. At Aston Martin, that's the point of view. "The FIA ​​inspectors are the only ones who have seen all the evidence that was with Red Bull and with us, so they are the only ones who can judge this case."

It will be exciting to watch the development of 'B-spec' over the next 4-5 races.AM certainly need to bring few more parts like front-wing to complement new philosophy.

[collindsilva]

There is no news or pics from paddock for AMR...
seems no changes or updates on the car.

[AeroDynamic]

[zioture]

[Aerofentse]

Does anyone have pics of the spec B underfloor ?

[diffuser]

There is no news or pics from paddock for AMR...
seems no changes or updates on the car.

Not surprising considering the size of thier last update. They're getting to grips with the car's setup though, atleast Seb is.

[vas_04614]