[WEC] BoP. Brilliant or Pants.

[kobefly]

Applying Balance of Performance in a prototype car category where all competitors design and build their vehicles according to a common set of regulations is just absurd for so many reasons:

- The very essence is that all teams follow the same technical and design regulations. This ensures a level playing field where performance differences arise from engineering prowess, innovation, and team strategy rather than external adjustments.

- BoP adjustments undermine the fundamental principles of engineering and technical development. Teams invest significant resources into optimizing their cars within the given regulations. Applying BoP disrupts this competitive engineering effort by artificially leveling the field, penalizing successful innovations and rewarding less competitive designs.

- BoP is intended to balance performance disparities in categories with diverse car specifications and designs, such as GT racing, where different manufacturers bring vastly different vehicles. In a prototype category, the uniformity of regulations means that performance disparities should naturally result from the teams' ability to exploit these regulations effectively.

- Prototype racing thrives on pushing technological boundaries and encouraging continuous improvement. BoP adjustments can discourage innovation. This effect is counterproductive to the primary goal of prototype racing, which is to advance automotive technology.

[Adam43]

Prototype racing thrives with loads of competitors. That’s why we have this pragmatic solution.

Love your utopian ideal. Doesn’t give us a healthy good series though. Nor does it give us such a competitive field where there is so much engineering and endurance strategy at play.

A lot of people love competition and seeing excellence of many different competitors. I can still see so much of people doing a better job than others.

[veeten]

Unfortunately, Adam, we will constantly run into people like this, whom think that teams and manufacturers spending untold amounts of money will make a series interesting, to them at least. The truth, as we know it, is that there has been several examples of this, especially in sportscar racing, that have lived very shortened lives, usually with manufacturers leaving in droves for not wanting to get into a war of diminishing returns.

It's the BoP that makes it possible to have this many entries, and an enticement for others to join later on. Right along with the bringing together two ideas of prototype engineering on balanced terms. If it weren't for the heads of IMSA, FIA, and ACO coming together in the spirit of making the sport more accessible and more affordable, we would be still floundering about looking for yet another short lived series. Some are just not satisfied unless there's a team that's practically running away with everything, so as they have a bandwagon to jump upon.

[TF110]

You don't HAVE to spend absurd money amounts. You can do a budget cap and a cap on personnel, but I guess they don't care for that. It's a little ironic because this set of regulations is supposed to be extremely inexpensive (relative to lmp1), but there's been plenty of articles on the prices being much higher than anticipated. So, there's always going to be a problem with something. It may be price, equalization, competition levels etc. There's always something. As far back as I've been paying attention to motorsports it's been this way. I'm no fan of bop either, but I feel like complaining about it does nothing to change it. We don't have that much influence over the rule makers

[Simmi]

A rare bit of info around the BoP process from the ACO. A lot of specific details held back, but some might find it interesting.

https://www.dailysportscar.com/2024/...rformance.html

[J Jay]

Relevant to the discussion - ACO explains 2024 Balance of Performance.

Some salient points:
- BoP in Hypercar has three steps: homologation parameters, platform equivalence and manufacturer compensation (LMGT3 has no platform equivalence).
- Le Mans BoP makes use of the previous year's race, so it is not necessarily a continuation of BoP from Spa
- Only homologation parameters have been adjusted for Le Mans this year (i.e. no platform adjustment or manufacturer compensation)
- Power differentiation (above/below 250kph) is an additional measure to avoid excessive adjustments to overall weight and power.

Edit - Beaten to it.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by J Jay

- Le Mans BoP makes use of the previous year's race, so it is not necessarily a continuation of BoP from Spa

Kinda dumb if this is accurate info, many cars weren't present last year and for example 499P and 963 this year are nothing like they were last year.

[kobefly]

Originally Posted by veeten

Unfortunately, Adam, we will constantly run into people like this, whom think that teams and manufacturers spending untold amounts of money will make a series interesting, to them at least. The truth, as we know it, is that there has been several examples of this, especially in sportscar racing, that have lived very shortened lives, usually with manufacturers leaving in droves for not wanting to get into a war of diminishing returns.

It's the BoP that makes it possible to have this many entries, and an enticement for others to join later on. Right along with the bringing together two ideas of prototype engineering on balanced terms. If it weren't for the heads of IMSA, FIA, and ACO coming together in the spirit of making the sport more accessible and more affordable, we would be still floundering about looking for yet another short lived series. Some are just not satisfied unless there's a team that's practically running away with everything, so as they have a bandwagon to jump upon.

I understand that, at the end of the day, this is all a business. And that is why the best product will always be the one consumed by the greatest number of people. Unfortunately, the percentage of those who wish to analyze all aspects of an auto racing competition is small, and there are many more who are simply entertained by watching something they do not fully understand. This was once called "Bread and circuses" in Rome, and to this day it remains relevant as so many are willing to shed their critical spirit.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Relevant to the discussion - ACO explains 2024 Balance of Performance.

Some salient points:
- BoP in Hypercar has three steps: homologation parameters, platform equivalence and manufacturer compensation (LMGT3 has no platform equivalence).
- Le Mans BoP makes use of the previous year's race, so it is not necessarily a continuation of BoP from Spa
- Only homologation parameters have been adjusted for Le Mans this year (i.e. no platform adjustment or manufacturer compensation)
- Power differentiation (above/below 250kph) is an additional measure to avoid excessive adjustments to overall weight and power.

Edit - Beaten to it.

It reads like malarkey in some places.

For 2024, the analyses conducted by the FIA and the ACO and the restrictive nature of the applicable technical regulations have meant that BoP has been kept to a minimum. Only “homologation parameters” have been corrected based on measured data. Weight and power adjustments have been adapted on this basis to the Le Mans circuit, but no platform equivalence or manufacturer compensation have been applied. The merits of each constructor will therefore be appreciated at their just value.

The merits of each constructor cannot be considered at their "just value", if the cars are being balanced to make a homogenous category. Just value implies no balance of performance.

I have no problem with this by the way. BOP was the best way forward. Just pointing out the ACO's contradiction. They should discuss this more in the mind of GT3 which everyone has a fuller understanding of. Different cars like a Lexus sedan and a Ferrari supercar can compete together because performance balancing is used. It encourages participation of multiple brands, and places more emphasis on drivers and team performance. That is nothing to be ashamed of. It should be highlighted more. It's a team competition, not a spending competition. Spending competitions do not work in this economy.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by tomcug

Kinda dumb if this is accurate info, many cars weren't present last year and for example 499P and 963 this year are nothing like they were last year.

I think you are overweighting this point. They are surely aware of how much Porsche and Ferrari have advanced.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Articus

I think you are overweighting this point.

Could be, at least I hope I am

[PhilipR]

OMG TOYOTA FASTESTET IN FIRST TEST DAY PRACTICE!! BOP IS A MESS AND A JOKE!!!

I will edit the above depending on who finishes first in the 2nd practice :P

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

OMG TOYOTA FASTESTET IN FIRST TEST DAY PRACTICE!! BOP IS A MESS AND A JOKE!!!

I will edit the above depending on who finishes first in the 2nd practice :P

There's a 15-minute time limit on editing posts - you'll need to make a new post instead

Originally Posted by tomcug

Kinda dumb if this is accurate info, many cars weren't present last year and for example 499P and 963 this year are nothing like they were last year.

They have changed, but in terms of performance, only within the parameters, which the ACO are confident are already quite narrow. I don't think they are ignoring this year's data either, but using Le Mans (owing to its unique nature) as an additional measure sounds reasonable.

Originally Posted by Articus

The merits of each constructor cannot be considered at their "just value", if the cars are being balanced to make a homogenous category. Just value implies no balance of performance.

I read that as a more generic statement that the homologation parameters, will be accurate (e.g. mitigating any potential sandbagging).

[Adam43]

The explanation from the ACO was pretty good. It reaffirms the process.

No point in adding more detail, as much as we pretend it is needed and would be useful for us, would add little value and probably just give people more stuff to misunderstand.

There is some interesting titbits in there.

[GasperG]

Long time not active on this pages, so just saying hello

BOP is a must have and a great tool, I agree, but ACO job is not to BOP too much the best cars in class, BOP should be for teams that are struggling and this way give them a chance for good result. Or in the case one team dominates them all, it should newer be used to make one team dominate even more. I know hard to achive before hand, but we can always see the end results (if ACO failed or not).

In the end if a car that was not on the most favorable BOP wins, ACO has done a great job (eg. Ferrari 2023). But if a car with the one of the most favorable BOP wins then I can just say they failed.

I'm sorry but this year it seams to me it's all set up for Porsche, yes small differences, but still.

[Articus]

It would be interesting for the ACO to provide a demonstration of how the system works using a trial set of data (mock data for a group of fictional hypercars, as I can understand that the manufacturers do not want their homologation data to be shared with rivals).

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by tomcug

Kinda dumb if this is accurate info, many cars weren't present last year and for example 499P and 963 this year are nothing like they were last year.

It uses last year. Obviously it also uses the other races. Other races will prioritise the latest and greatest. Sensibly they pay attention to this track.

It would be kinda dumb is they didn’t for this unique track.

And we get the power change over 250km/h. For Le Mans. Also not dumb.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Long time not active on this pages, so just saying hello

BOP is a must have and a great tool, I agree, but ACO job is not to BOP too much the best cars in class, BOP should be for teams that are struggling and this way give them a chance for good result. Or in the case one team dominates them all, it should newer be used to make one team dominate even more. I know hard to achive before hand, but we can always see the end results (if ACO failed or not).

In the end if a car that was not on the most favorable BOP wins, ACO has done a great job (eg. Ferrari 2023). But if a car with the one of the most favorable BOP wins then I can just say they failed.

I'm sorry but this year it seams to me it's all set up for Porsche, yes small differences, but still.

Porsche have the worst power to weight of all the LMDh, but still.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Articus

It would be interesting for the ACO to provide a demonstration of how the system works using a trial set of data (mock data for a group of fictional hypercars, as I can understand that the manufacturers do not want their homologation data to be shared with rivals).

Probably be pointless. And a lot of effort. For little gain. Could even be detrimental.

Also, and I hope this is the case, the “formula” might well change as they develop it. It could even have ML components to it.

And finally, even with dummy data, you don’t want to give it away as the teams might start playing to it.

What they have provided is the principle. That’s all we’re getting and I can’t really disagree with that approach.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Probably be pointless. And a lot of effort. For little gain. Could even be detrimental.

Also, and I hope this is the case, the “formula” might well change as they develop it. It could even have ML components to it.

And finally, even with dummy data, you don’t want to give it away as the teams might start playing to it.

What they have provided is the principle. That’s all we’re getting and I can’t really disagree with that approach.

Of course, the average person doesn't need to know the ins and outs because it would be at best, confusing, but the manufacturers themselves often seem confused and angry when changes are made (or not enough changes are made).

The difference with Le Mans is that the ACO said the basis for the Le Mans BoP is primarly homologation data. There is no "team performance balancing". So to share the inner workings of this system does not jeopardize anything. The cars are homologated. There is no mechanism for gaming a BOP system based purely on balancing of homologation parameters that are measured by the ACO. The cars cannot be changed between races. Even if they could, then the manufacturer would submit new homologation data, and any "Advantage" of the new package would be balanced out again against the others.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Articus

Of course, the average person doesn't need to know the ins and outs because it would be at best, confusing, but the manufacturers themselves often seem confused and angry when changes are made (or not enough changes are made).

The PR quotes can seem like that. Or interpreted like that.

The difference with Le Mans is that the ACO said the basis for the Le Mans BoP is primarly homologation data. There is no "team performance balancing".

Did they?
I don’t recall them ever saying this and in fact quite the opposite. Including their most recent press release.

I presume you mean manufacturer not team? Obviously they never do team. And that would irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

https://www.dailysportscar.com/2024/...rformance.html

Half of the problem is that they are being judged against things that aren’t the case.

BoP is meant to be x. The ACO said y.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The PR quotes can seem like that. Or interpreted like that.
Did they?
I don’t recall them ever saying this and in fact quite the opposite. Including their most recent press release.

I presume you mean manufacturer not team? Obviously they never do team. And that would irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

https://www.dailysportscar.com/2024/...rformance.html

Half of the problem is that they are being judged against things that aren’t the case.

BoP is meant to be x. The ACO said y.

I'm confused. What I said is right there in your link:

For 2024, the analyses conducted by the FIA and the ACO and the restrictive nature of the applicable technical regulations have meant that BoP has been kept to a minimum. Only “homologation parameters” have been corrected based on measured data. Weight and power adjustments have been adapted on this basis to the Le Mans circuit, but no platform equivalence or manufacturer compensation have been applied. The merits of each constructor will therefore be appreciated at their just value.

Can you highlight where what I said contradicts this?

Originally Posted by Articus

The difference with Le Mans is that the ACO said the basis for the Le Mans BoP is primarly homologation data. There is no "team performance balancing".

Are these not the same thing?

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Porsche have the worst power to weight of all the LMDh, but still.

Ok, then I don't understand the numbers you provided on page 38.

Toyota: 508 kW / 1053 kg = 0,482 kW/kg (Boost >250 kph +0,09% = 0,487 kW/kg)
Ferrari: 508 kW / 1043 kg = 0,487 kW/kg (Boost >250 kph -1.7% = 0,479 kW/kg)
Porsche: 511 kW / 1042 kg = 0,490 kW/kg (Same 0,490 kW/kg)

[Articus]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Ok, then I don't understand the numbers you provided on page 38.

Toyota: 508 kW / 1053 kg = 0,482 kW/kg (Boost >250 kph +0,09% = 0,487 kW/kg)
Ferrari: 508 kW / 1043 kg = 0,487 kW/kg (Boost >250 kph -1.7% = 0,479 kW/kg)
Porsche: 511 kW / 1042 kg = 0,490 kW/kg (Same 0,490 kW/kg)

He said of LMDH cars, meaning compared with Alpine, Cadillac, BMW, and Lamborghini.

Toyota and Ferrari is LMH.

[Adam43]

So it is, cheers.

They adjust by constructor merits instead