After the controversy that raised the resemblance between the renewed Aston Martin AMR22 and the Red Bull RB18, the FIA decided to carry out an investigation by appearing unannounced at the team’s headquarters in Silverstone to check if there could have been a transfer of intellectual property between Milton Keynes and the team of Lawrence Stroll .
FIA scrutineers confirmed that they found no file linking the revamped AMR22 to the Adrian Newey -designed car.
The suspicion had a lot of credibility because seven workers moved from one team to another as part of the Canadian owner’s plan: the name that attracts the most attention is Dan Fallows , a former director of aerodynamics at Red Bull who has become technical director of Aston Martin, officially since the beginning of April. Although the FIA appears to be done with its investigation, Red Bull believes it can bring to light evidence of the mastermind theft.
However, from Aston Martin they tell a different story. The car presented on February 10 was a single-seater that was born defective. Lawrence Stroll , at the unveiling, seemed to be attending a funeral rather than the birth of the first ground effect car for which high expectations had been placed.
Andy Green , technical director of the Silverstone team , explained that during the design phase they had explored two different philosophies: the double bottom, later chosen, and the inclined bellies. The latter had been shelved because the wind tunnel data pointed in the former direction, in favor of what appeared to be a simpler development.
The point is that as soon as it hit the asphalt, the Aston Martin concept turned out to be the wrong one and it was unable to score points until Imola, a race in which a package of improvements was introduced that in some parts of the car anticipated the arrival of the “AMR22B ” To Barcelona.
The idea of changing the aerodynamic philosophy became clear at the end of last year, when both Luca Furbatto , who came from Alfa Romeo as head of engineering, and the aforementioned Dan Fallows , expressed doubts about the double bottom concept.
It seems all too clear, then, that the accusation of copying the RB18 with photos doesn’t hold up: the final version of the Milton Keynes car was first seen in pre-season testing, at which point the Silverstone team realized that it seemed to match the ‘AMR22B’ that no one had seen yet.
Giorgio Piola’s study, which compared the renewed Aston Martin AMR22 with the Red Bull RB18 , shows us some of the differences between both single-seaters that show that the projects were born on different bases.
For starters, the “green car” features a Mercedes power unit, while Red Bull uses the Honda engine, with two very different packages. Not even the chassis are consistent: Sebastian Vettel sits in a more advanced position than Max Verstappen (the German driver’s helmet protrudes more from the position of the Halo because the position is more vertical), but also because of the layout of the car, which is different.
Adrian Newey wanted to move the front wheels away from the car’s bellies, and you can see that the actual radiator inlets on the RB18 are significantly further back than those on the AMR22 . Therefore, the Honda engine has been moved further to the rear and Red Bull has opted for a shorter gearbox than Mercedes, with a power unit further forward.
This layout is also found on the W13 and may not be ideal to get the most out of the 18-inch Pirelli tyres. Perhaps, through this design, certain difficulties of the Silver Arrows can be understood, despite having moved the car’s bellies backwards by having that fin profile that acts as a flow diverter and mirror support.
Aston Martin AMR22: push rod front suspension
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Red Bull RB18: the front suspension pull rod
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
In short, there are big design differences between the Red Bull and the Aston Martin , although the two single-seaters have very similar wheelbase measurements. The RB18 was born with the front pull rod suspension and the rear with the push rod scheme, quite the opposite of the AMR 22 which, instead, remained faithful to the concepts used in previous years.
Aston Martin AMR22
Photo by: Giorgio Piola
Red Bull Racing RB18
Photo by: Uncredited
Even the placement of the radiators has few similarities: Red Bull has limited the radiator packs on the sidepods, preferring to mount them above the endothermic engine, while Aston Martin moves closer to the Mercedes cooling system, forgoing horizontally mounted radiators. on top of the first Silverstone car pack.
The belly side design shows an RB18 with a higher line in the center of the side, because the hollow part below is more pronounced, while the AMR22 has more gradient pontoons towards the rear, with a smaller base at the end.
Aston Martin AMR22 bottom detail
Photo by: Uncredited
Detail of the Red Bull Racing RB18 bottom
Photo by: Uncredited
Seeing what happened in Barcelona, it is clear that the controversy over a possible copy is due to the great similarity of the aerodynamics between both cars, since the trend of the bellies, the vents and the rear extractor are the same as those presented by Red Bull .
The AMR22 in Spain did not show more potential than the previous car, but it is fair to remember that it was like a winter test for them. We will find out what they can do with the new concept between Baku and Montreal, because Monte Carlo is really a wheel of luck.
