[WEC] BoP. Brilliant or Pants.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by TF110

Right, Toyota's first iteration of the GR010 was mostly built for different rules. I think that was to accommodate Aston Martin who then withdrew. I recall they did a big update on the car for 2023 which Peugeot were not too happy with.

Yup. Changes between between 21 and 22 spec were the tyre size swap and aero modifications to adapt for the change.


A little more explanation from PV via enduance info;

"We had to reduce the weight of the car (by 70 kg in an ideal world), which we did for the most part, but not completely", Pascal Vasselon reminds us. "We had no other choice. But the problem is that by doing so we lost control of the front-to-back mass distribution because we had no ballast at all. The weight ended up being much more on the rear than expected. This is why the car was no longer suitable for the 31 cm wide tyres at the front and rear (it is now 29/71-18 at the front and 34/71-18 at the rear). The change of tyre mount in the 2021-2022 off-season allowed us to remedy this in part. A big evolution which led us to modify the bodywork a little.

So I suppose no ballast at all for the previous spec. The "Evo" spec has lost more weight, but is it less than 1000kg? Not so sure.

[TF110]

Makes me all the more interested in what Peugeot is doing for '24! I wonder if the changes are wholesale or a lil evo. Looking forward to seeing what winter brings.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

All sounds good, I just hope that the BOP doesn't **** off the likes of Toyota to the extent they decide to quit.

Doesn't look that way. Toyota absolutely dominated 2023, they literally smoked their competition. 6/7 wins and the only one they didn't win was because of their own driver crashing.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by tomcug

Doesn't look that way. Toyota absolutely dominated 2023, they literally smoked their competition. 6/7 wins and the only one they didn't win was because of their own driver crashing.

Perhaps so, but any time you get heavy investment from car makers the writing is on the wall in terms of their interest, all it takes is a bad season or a seemingly unfair deal of the cards and they will be out of the door. You could indeed substitute Peugeot into that position.

[veeten]

The reason why they went with a BoP was to avoid the pitfalls of previous attempts, where it would turn into a spending war, with many manufacturers walking away. By reducing the costs and making budgets a little more relevant (by involving said manufacturers in the discussion of rules, regs and such), we have more cars, teams, and manufacturers racing than practically any other point in history. And with more angling to get in, it stands to reason that sportscar racing will be quite healthy for years to come.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by veeten

The reason why they went with a BoP was to avoid the pitfalls of previous attempts, where it would turn into a spending war, with many manufacturers walking away. By reducing the costs and making budgets a little more relevant (by involving said manufacturers in the discussion of rules, regs and such), we have more cars, teams, and manufacturers racing than practically any other point in history. And with more angling to get in, it stands to reason that sportscar racing will be quite healthy for years to come.

I think all that makes sense, but what they must not do (in my opinion) is to fiddle too much with the balance. If the BOP is generated by maths equations based on potential performance of a car's strengths, then thats fine, its then up to the team to extract that performance from the car, not rely on the ACO/FIA to bend the rules and give them performance breaks.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think all that makes sense, but what they must not do (in my opinion) is to fiddle too much with the balance. If the BOP is generated by maths equations based on potential performance of a car's strengths, then thats fine, its then up to the team to extract that performance from the car, not rely on the ACO/FIA to bend the rules and give them performance breaks.

What's the guarantee that simulation of theoretical performance is 100% accurate? Does the wind tunnel testing tell perfectly how each car behaves aerodynamically in real racing conditions? Answers are - none and probably no. That's why there were and will be performance breaks for specific cars. Some may of course benefit of that due to their poor execution but let's not exaggerate This is "balance of performance", not "balance of theoretical performance".

[Steve McQ]

Originally Posted by tomcug

What's the guarantee that simulation of theoretical performance is 100% accurate? Does the wind tunnel testing tell perfectly how each car behaves aerodynamically in real racing conditions? Answers are - none and probably no. That's why there were and will be performance breaks for specific cars. Some may of course benefit of that due to their poor execution but let's not exaggerate This is "balance of performance", not "balance of theoretical performance".

It doesn't matter if the simulation is not 100% accurate. What matters is that all cars are tested the EXACT same way and are granted the same potential on the start line through the same evaluation. It's down to them to extract the potential. Then it's racing and spoiler aler : there will always be a winner and many losers even with the most perfect BoP in the world. If as a competitor you are not prepared to endure defeat, you'd better go home and do some knitting or whatever.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by tomcug

This is "balance of performance", not "balance of theoretical performance".

I’m not sure this is true:

Originally Posted by Simmi

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...r-bop-process/

Amazing quote from Richard Mille. Maybe we could change the thread title to Balance of Pillows?

Originally Posted by Richard Mille

For next year, we hope to do something more simple but it’s a work in progress, something where more responsibility is given to the manufacturers because they have to take the responsibility of being performant,

The BoP is not a pillow of laziness. If a competitor is expecting the BoP because either they [made] a bad choice or didn’t perform, etc, the BoP will bring everybody back, it’s just a dream. It’s not possible

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by Steve McQ

It doesn't matter if the simulation is not 100% accurate. What matters is that all cars are tested the EXACT same way and are granted the same potential on the start line through the same evaluation. It's down to them to extract the potential. Then it's racing and spoiler aler : there will always be a winner and many losers even with the most perfect BoP in the world. If as a competitor you are not prepared to endure defeat, you'd better go home and do some knitting or whatever.

Well said. Thanks. +1. IMO.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I’m not sure this is true

It's a lobby game imo. Toyota commited to a category that was announced as BOP class right from the start and now they want to force the ACO to change it into an engineering class, at least to whatever extent possible. While others are expecting and want BOP breaks to close the gap to Toyota. Last but not least we got Ferrari who aren't exactly sure what they want (reportedly supporting Toyota in BOP debate recently despite moaning about BOP after Monza). Now let's wait and see how these lobby wars end

[Adam43]

Teams will put their case, but those remarks from the ACO was to remind them it isn’t a lobbying war.

It’s not an extreme lobby war, neither is it perfect BoP and there will be adjustments.

[veeten]

What can you say, adam. Too many are used to and expectant of the old ways, never wanting to believe that there can be consistency in how the BoP is applied. This is not the 'bad 'ol days' of Balestre, Ecclestone and Moseley... and both sides of the Atlantic are working together to insure that the racing is fair and competitive.

[TF110]

This article is a great read if you want to talk about the bop not making everyone winners. The best part about it is the driver quotes on just what makes the difference in the class during races.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by TF110

This article is a great read if you want to talk about the bop not making everyone winners. The best part about it is the driver quotes on just what makes the difference in the class during races.

That was pretty good, and the other teams drivers were quite complimentary about Toyota as a team.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by joeb

and the other teams drivers were quite complimentary about Toyota as a team

They are just honest Operationally Toyota is in another league compared to the rest.

[RL17]

It’s either set theoretically at the start of a season and left alone (save the odd LMH v LMD h platform adjustment) or it just becomes a performance ballast system like British GT. Ine off changes out of left field to appease Peugeot and Porsche don’t do it any good.

[Adam43]

It’s not just set at the beginning of the season and that it isn’t does not make it like the success ballast example.

They do get data through the year to help calibrate and there are track differences.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Adam43

They do get data through the year to help calibrate and there is track differences.

Exactly, good points. Btw, Daytona testing is next week so we'll have some glimpse of how good (or bad) Lambo's car is.

[TF110]

Will Alpine be there as well?

[tomcug]

I don't think so, only those willing to race in IMSA in 2024 are required to participate in Daytona testing.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by tomcug

I don't think so, only those willing to race in IMSA in 2024 are required to participate in Daytona testing.

I thought that was their intention? Unless thats for 2025.

[RL17]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It’s not just set at the beginning of the season and that it isn’t does not make it like the success ballast example.

They do get data through the year to help calibrate and there are track differences.

I can understand a difference for Sebring track - for the rest of schedule why should you adjust? Different cars performing differently on different tracks is what racing is about surely? (No longer allow a special aero pack for LM so why make teams keep changing weights and power usage - way too overcomplicated).

Original 2023 BOP post Sebring had a 13kg spread, (2,3 & 4 all same) before they changed rules. Suddenly went up to 50kg at LM.

That bigger spread just shows up how much the original theoretcial calculations didn't work.

FIA/WEC admit themselves they have made it too complicated - just seemed to mess it around too much in 2023. Why increase energy usage per stint in pretty much same proportion as kg gain - just to make it look close on one lap optimum performance? Separate BOP adjustments for last 3 tracks totally unneccessary - just muddying the waters. ( The big weight spread from Le Mans pretty much stayed with minor changes apart from Ferrari).

Either Ferrari or Toyota could have won LM due to wet race (tyre limits less important) and neither had a perfect race.

Porsche and especially Peugeot were the big winners on pre-LM rule change. Post LM Ferrari were hit with more weight and less power (switch from pre-LM adjustments when both went up) - does add weight to Toyotas claims (once they forgot about squirrels and squirrelly driving).

The contracts prevent public BOP comments by manufacturers but surely they were post Spa just making overly complicated adjustments to even things up race by race when various key teams were lobbying for them.

Don't disagree with aims, but I think they try to dress it up as very scientific. Should probably be more honest about BOP.

8 wins for Toyota next year may well kill off the current interest. Need more tyres per race - let them race over many hours not just be close on paper for qualifying.

[Adam43]

Yep, it’s not perfect. But it ain’t success ballast.

I found the post Le Mans changes interesting. Although it didn’t close the field up in terms of lap times, they grew towards the end of the year. If they hadn’t made them then the gap would have been bigger.
https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...=157807&page=2

Not that they got big, overall the gaps were very small, relative to any era of sportscar I can think of. Seems relatively successful to me.

Still, I think they have learnt this year and maybe won’t tweak as much this year. Which is probably a good thing.

A couple of other points. Moving energy per stint when you change weight makes sense. I’ve wondered whether this was the very reason for doing so.

I’m fine with track changes, esp3cially considering how the initial balancing is done to be in a window of performance. Not set downforce or drag, but a ratio of the two.

As for more tyres per race. I don’t like that. Managing things like that is what is what (endurance) racing is about surely. I see tyre warmers are back for Le Mans, I get why and it is a conservative approach, but I’m a bit disappointed in that. Last year this was much more important that any BoP changes.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Adam43

As for more tyres per race. I don’t like that. Managing things like that is what is what (endurance) racing is about surely. I see tyre warmers are back for Le Mans, I get why and it is a conservative approach, but I’m a bit disappointed in that. Last year this was much more important that any BoP changes.

I fully agree. Especially since tyre management isn't something that can't be improved. In its first races the 963 was eating tyres that were suppsed to last 2+ stints in 1 stint already. While in the final races they were ok with tyres, compared to everyone else except Toyota, and I'm sure there's more to unlock with more learning how to setup the car and with upgrades they're preparing for 2024 (including suspension changes). About tyre warmers, in IMSA they're racing without them for years and teams just had to adapt, there was no alternative. Daytona is in January while Le Mans in June, average temperatures are lower in the US race so why can't they race in France without tyre warmers? Unless I'm missing something