[WEC] BoP. Brilliant or Pants.

[Articus]

I don't know if that response is to me or to Gasper G (regarding the LMDH P-to-W), but in any case, this year the BOP is said to be entirely based on the homologation data and weight and power matched to the Le Mans circuit.

This year Toyota is only 10kg heavier than the Ferrari and the Porsche. This compares with something like +20-30 kg extra weight last year compared to Ferrari and Porsche. If the homologation has not changed for any of the cars then it can only mean the BOP was also balancing the performance/experience of the different teams last year. One can understand better why Toyota was upset.

I like the direction change they have made for this year. There is no entitlement to be competitive as a new manufacturer. You have to learn the ropes and extract the performance of your car. It may take a year, but this really adds to the reward of winning. The story is better also when you fail, take your learnings, and then triumph.

[Adam43]

Yeah it was to you

They adjust by constructor

[Articus]

I find this to be a really nice summary of what the more technically interested folks would like to understand about the BOP: https://www.pmw-magazine.com/feature...-analysis.html

A mock trial of BOP to fictitious hypercar data and complete with laptime simulation: https://www.pmw-magazine.com/feature...-analysis.html

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yeah it was to you

They adjust by constructor

Okay I see what you are saying. I was using "team" and "manufacturer" synonymously. The BOP table does not issue one BOP value for Team Jota, and another for Team Penske so I assumed that was clear.

Let us not forget many years ago that the ALMS did give a real "team" specific BOP to the Scott Sharp's ESM FErraris because they were so off the pace. So that happened before

[Articus]

Driver weight issue being brought up again. Calado at Ferrari says 10kg driver weight difference is worth 4 tenths at Le Mans.

***Ferrari driver James Calado believes that the current driver weight rules have the potential to put off Formula 1 world champion Max Verstappen from entering Le Mans in the future, estimating that a discrepancy of 10 kg between drivers in the same car is worth a lap time deficit of four-tenths of a second around the Circuit de la Sarthe.

***He said: “You see F1 drivers saying they won’t come here because of it. Maybe if [the rule makers] read the media they will change it, because one of the big names [Verstappen] isn’t coming because of that. He can’t compete fairly with unequal weight.”

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...y-notebook-11/


It also perfectly validates Toyota's estimate from last year that the additional 37 kilograms added for Le Mans cost them 1.5 seconds per lap.

4 tenths per 10kg is equivalent to 1.5 seconds per 37 kg. Both produce a result of 0.4 tenths per kg. So Ferrari and Toyota are consistent in their understanding of the contribution of weight to laptime which means Toyota was not making up numbers last year as some suggested.


The driver weight detail is important because BOP changes are made in the same range. A team with heavier drivers is punished relative to those with lighter, smaller drivers. 5kg BOP adjustments go out the window when a driver change produces a 10kg adjustment.


It also influences the performance perception of the drivers, in favor of the lighter drivers. I suppose this is an issue in all sports, not just motorsport. It's a grey area to decide whether to "balance" the physical characteristics of the athletes which can be heavily influenced by genetics (tall driver always weigh more).

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Adam43

https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...86#post4159186

These are all dodgy numbers. Another comedy reference point is from Kobayashi who says 36kg is 1.2 seconds lap time impact.

36kg 1.2s. Fact.

[Articus]

I misspoke and that was what I was referring to. It doesn't change the point. We have a reference for the sensitivity of the lap time to weight. 0.3-0.4 tenths per kg at Le Mans.

I still don't understand your post because you called it "comedy" and "dodgy", and then later call it fact. You are coming across in a very confusing way and I still have not worked out whether you are calling these numbers a joke or not. Regardless, I am happy with the reference points that I have provided even if you think they are dodgy. It's the right ballpark.

[Adam43]

I’m just being silly, but also making a point about relevance. They are reasonable, but also not certain. They are worth using, but also we must accept that it can be inaaprioate to use them.

You will see last year I used them to assess the impact of pre Le Mans changes but note the pitfalls of doing so. I downplay how much we should conclude from the analysis while still being happy we have learnt something.

[Articus]

Has anyone determined what meaningful insight we can draw from the stint energy allocations?