What is Aston Martin up to?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

No .... the Lola is a designed and built in house chassis , which is copywrited . Nobody has the authority to rename a copy protected invention .

Thats like some dude recently , asked me to made some equiptment storage boxs from aluminium for an air ambulance . He said that he would pay me ..... but then he also wants a drawing . Whats that for , so he can give it to someone else to make cheaper ?

Its my drawing ..... and if he wants it , he pays for it . And I still get credit for it if it is copywrited . and not him !!!

And Mal ..... Lola did a lot of business before AMR ever came along and ever existed. Just because AMR has bought several chassis from Lola , doesnt give them the right to ignore copywrite laws ?

One wonders what Dave Richards would do in a reversed situation ? ..... I think not .

I don't think, I got it written that well before .
I share your opion, and it was what i meant!.
If AMR wants the new Lola AMR to be an AMR car alone, then they would have to pay Lola to do so!, but this haven't happened, otherwise all this mess wouldn't have happened!.

[NightStalk3r]

Originally Posted by CTD

The 3rd car has already been confirmed by ACO, for Le Mans!. So the 3rd car will be build, and AMR will receive it!

It means nothing of the sort.

[td2001]

What if the 3rd car has already been built?

[canam]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Nobody really knows the full story here, even those who may know more than what has been stated publicly. Apparently those involved felt that it could not be sorted out behind closed doors, perhaps for a very good reason. We don't know what has occurred behind closed doors, and sometimes that is a good thing.

What should, and should not have happened don't matter though. What matters is whether this effort is competitive, and we should all hope for the best on that front.

It may be a bit more than that. If the cars aren't Aston Martins, there could be a risk that the ultimate purchasers (who are effectively funding the project) may back out. After all, they may have proceeded under the notion that they would be buying an LMP1 Aston (something quite unique)--not an LMP1 Lola (which, if you have the money, anyone could buy). In this ever-worsening economic climate, some folks may be looking for a way out and this would be a pretty good way out.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by td2001

What if the 3rd car has already been built?

Probably if it's going to be delivered this week... at least so that Autosport story from Saturday said. And about this same link, I am confused about that "plans to run a third Gulf-liviered car had yet to be set in stone". Maybe it is just language barrier mixed with my optimism, but in the context of the whole story, does "plans" mean Paul Ricard test?

[cmk]

As I said above, indications are that while the third car received an entry, that does not mean the funding is in place to run it yet.

This may be a problem in the LMS this year as well as at LM, where teams have entered on spec without actually having driver/funding packages sorted. Horag, for instance, has a series entry for the LMS but says they won't run this year. Just because something has been granted an entry, it doesn't mean the team can afford to make it show up...

[JAG]

Aston Martin ought to have a little more confidence in their brand, we know it's a Lola chassis with AMR tweaks, an Aston Martin engine, and run by the factory team. A Lola Aston Martin has just as much credibility as a TWR Jaguar or Mclaren Mercedes, the only difference is the chassis isn't used exclusively by them.

If only Jaguar did the same with Zytek, Oreca etc.

[SebringMG]

Neither of them come out of this episode well - I can understand both their viewpoints, the car is no longer really a Lola product given the changes but is also not sufficiently an AMR product to be renamed. Just kiss and make up boys!!

[CTD]

Originally Posted by SebringMG

Neither of them come out of this episode well - I can understand both their viewpoints, the car is no longer really a Lola product given the changes but is also not sufficiently an AMR product to be renamed. Just kiss and make up boys!!

Not to be an *******, but why isn't it a Lola product anymore?

[SebringMG]

Because only the tub and part of the front suspension are (apparently) designed and built by Lola - rear suspension, bodywork etc is AMR. As such the chassis is a synergy of lola and AM.

To be called a full AM product it would need to have the co-operation of Lola - which looks like it is not forthcoming lol

[CTD]

Originally Posted by SebringMG

Because only the tub and part of the front suspension are (apparently) designed and built by Lola - rear suspension, bodywork etc is AMR. As such the chassis is a synergy of lola and AM.

To be called a full AM product it would need to have the co-operation of Lola - which looks like it is not forthcoming lol

As far as i understand from the press release from Lola!, that is not the case!. What i understand is that the whole car is designed and build by Lola, after an order from AMR!?. And there for it's a Lola car, paid by AMR, so therefor the Lola Aston Martin name!

[SebringMG]

Who says Lola is telling the truth? I suspect it is somewhere in the middle....hence why i stated 'apparently'

Well the rear suspension last year was very definately not Lola by all accounts - that was stated by GHC in an interview last year and never denied by Lola.

It all depends upon what is delivered by Lola (from their point of view) the car may well be delivered whole at which point Prodrive throw away parts of it they do not need....

Certainly the bodywork is NOT built by Lola, they have no involvment in that whatsoever. Combined with the rear suspension that is a hefty chunk of non-lola parts (if true).

[deggis]

AMR said it will be “concentrating on getting its cars ready,” rather than responding to Lola’s statement.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090303/FREE/903039976

[canam]

Originally Posted by SebringMG

Because only the tub and part of the front suspension are (apparently) designed and built by Lola - rear suspension, bodywork etc is AMR. As such the chassis is a synergy of lola and AM.

To be called a full AM product it would need to have the co-operation of Lola - which looks like it is not forthcoming lol

The Lola public statement suggests that very little of the car is AM derived. If I spent millions designing and building a car, why should I let someone else develop my car for a tenth of that amount and call it their own? Without the Lola, there would be no 'AM'.

[marcush.]

the Charouz Aston Lola was featured last year in Racecar Engineering and even back then AMR claimed a big chunk of the effort was on their side,everything behind the rear bulkhead save the rear uprights really.It was even stated AMR was doing their own aero development already.So what´s the fuzz about a car even more AMR than last years?
I guess lola must have good reason to make those statements now.

[SebringMG]

Originally Posted by canam

The Lola public statement suggests that very little of the car is AM derived. If I spent millions designing and building a car, why should I let someone else develop my car for a tenth of that amount and call it their own? Without the Lola, there would be no 'AM'.

Not disagreeing with you but who is to say Lola is telling the whole truth?

Obviously it is possible to come to an agreement like Acura and Courage did - we do not know the details but suspect money changed hands, it appears AM are not willing to pay so i agree that it should not be called an AM.....

BUT we do not know the full story - best not to go blaming either side imo as only a handful of people actually know the full details and a press release is not necesarily to be fully believed much like DR may not be fully aware of the details involved.....

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by deggis

Probably if it's going to be delivered this week... at least so that Autosport story from Saturday said. And about this same link, I am confused about that "plans to run a third Gulf-liviered car had yet to be set in stone". Maybe it is just language barrier mixed with my optimism, but in the context of the whole story, does "plans" mean Paul Ricard test?

The Aston Martin Estern Europe chassis was due for delivery to Banbury yesterday - There are no plans for the third car to test at ricard - and no time to build it up to do so - The specific quote from David Richards referred to the plans for the car to race at LM as needing some detailing - but that they would be working hard to see it happen

[The359]

I don't know what is going on, but it all just ****es me off. As if suceeding in doing what I've dreamed of for many years wasn't hard enough, they find a way to shoot themselves in the foot before they've even started.

[TWK]

The third Lola will be delivered to be built up no earlier than March 12, and likely exactly on that date.

[Adam Larnach]

If they're are small silver rectangular badges affixed to the bodywork everywhere, then you can be sure it's not an Aston. Chances are about 75% of the car's parts will have a Lola part number.

As far as Charouz's entry last year, what was so different other than the gearbox assembly (that includes rear suspension)?

[GTfour]

Let's hope Aston Martin and Prodrive can put as much development and design into this car,because if there's one thing Lola has shown through it's history,it's the fact that they really need the help and knowledge from a factoryteam or a specialist outfit like prodrive to produce a winning sportscar...

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Adam Larnach

If they're are small silver rectangular badges affixed to the bodywork everywhere, then you can be sure it's not an Aston. Chances are about 75% of the car's parts will have a Lola part number.

Since the new car will feature full bodywork (aside from the tub) manufactured by AMR then its doubtful that your initial supposition is correct.

Have you a source for the 75% statement Adam?

The car is a Lola Aston Martin - Lola because of the homologated tub, front floor front suspension and uprights, Aston Martin for the engine, rear suspension, dampers, gearbox, body and aero.

[td2001]

I think that calling an Xtrac gearbox and Koni dampers, wheels etc, Aston Martin, a bit of a stretch. What we seem to be talking about, or AM is, is the interlectual property?

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by td2001

I think that calling an Xtrac gearbox and Koni dampers, wheels etc, Aston Martin, a bit of a stretch. What we seem to be talking about, or AM is, is the interlectual property?

Its a reasonable point but the reality is that the components we're talking about are supplied to an Aston spec, under an Aston contract

None of this gets away from the fact that the car is a Lola Aston Martin

[Adam Larnach]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Since the new car will feature full bodywork (aside from the tub) manufactured by AMR then its doubtful that your initial supposition is correct.

Have you a source for the 75% statement Adam?

The car is a Lola Aston Martin - Lola because of the homologated tub, front floor front suspension and uprights, Aston Martin for the engine, rear suspension, dampers, gearbox, body and aero.

I do believe Lola was responsible for the CFD and manufacturing... then again I could be wrong.

To be completely fair to Aston Martin, if we use the same principles I suppose one could say that the R10 was actually a Dallara. Then again the R10 wasn't based off a Dallara design, however the Aston Martin is based off an existing Lola design.