[WEC] BoP. Brilliant or Pants.

[Adam43]

I like the attempt to average the power and hence the power/weight (W/g).

As for Lamborghini being overweight. It is my view, as it was with Vanwall and their lower power, that the ACO should not be compensating for this. It could explain the anomalies with the movement.

I have to admit it surprises me a little. I don’t expect them all to be well under weight, but I expect them to be able to hit it.

I don’t subscribe to the view that Toyota are masking anything, but if the ACO seem more potential than they’ve managed to get on track (say due to tyres, I’m thinking Qatar here) then that makes sense with the recent relative changes. We know that the inputs are more than just the simple lap time, sector time and max speed (and results) that we can see.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I have to admit it surprises me a little. I don’t expect them all to be well under weight, but I expect them to be able to hit it.

Same. Still focusing on Lambo they knew of the issue before homologation so logically they should've fixed this but...

Originally Posted by Adam43

It is my view, as it was with Vanwall and their lower power, that the ACO should not be compensating for this. It could explain the anomalies with the movement.

Very true, those are all brand new cars designed to the current regulations (not like the grandfathered LMP1).

[TF110]

I wonder if it's a Lamborghini thing or a Ligier issue with the weight. I'm guessing they're not too far off but the ballast they use for proper front/rear bias has them overboard. I'm hopeful for them though. I think after a few races, maybe the season, they go back and look at areas to fix like most teams.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

Interested in the real weight of the Lamborghini then. Is it stated anywhere by them what they actually weigh? Perhaps they will use an update to produce a car that can make the weight. I don't know if they have to use a joker or not but they'll have to get on top of it!

The weight is not stated in the video but the discussion starts at the 21:15 time marker in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDAqUATbu18

Since the BOP weight in Qatar was 1041kg and the class minimum weight is 1030kg, then they are at least 11 kg overweight relative to class min which is the max dry weight the car should have had before ballast to BOP table.

It was stated that weight cost an additional 0.5 sec at Qatar, so I would estimate that actual dry weight of the car is between 1050-1055kg.

[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.

[Articus]

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.

1.2 seconds from 36kg doesn't seem inaccurate or comedy to me? Your prediction from last year was relatively correct as well. Ferrari had quite a performance margin when their car was dialed in. The pace at Le Mans turned out to be Ferrari>Toyota>Porsche/Cadillac.

I feel that the difficulty now is that performance swings can originate from track conditions, driver quality, driver weight, and so on which are on the same order of magnitude as the performance changes from BOP. This is both good and bad. The good is that it means that BOP is not necessarily the most decisive factor to win (a team with good BOP still needs to maximize other operational aspects), but also that there's a lot of margin for error in adjusting the BOP to achieve an expected balancing effect due to operational shortcomings of the team which prevent them from maximizing their package each weekend.

Porsche has done a great service in this regard. You can see how different teams running the same car are able extract different levels of performance (Jota, Proton, JDC, Penske). It proves that you never know if one particular brand who does not have customer teams is just operationally poor, has slower drivers, or is genuinely slow because the car has not received enough balancing.

[Adam43]

Comedy because it is from a quote. It’s the right magnitude. I just can’t verify it.

[Articus]

While I don't understand the inner workings of the BOP, I would hope that the ACO uses the homologation data as the starting point for expected performance and then assigns BOP with this data fed into simulation models of performance at a given track. In this way, the cars are theoretically balanced and it is on each team to extract the full potential of their package each weekend.

What I fear is happening currently (which is supported by observation of the performance variation amongst the Porsche teams), is that the BOP is adjusted based on results, which does not sufficiently factor out team quality. Homologation was mandated to reduce cost, but I believe the human development should be rewarded, not balanced out. If some teams are well run, and maximize their packages while others don't do any testing, run poor setups, or have slow drivers (Isotta...) then those human elements should not factor into the BOP.

[Adam43]

I don’t see how a variation of performance of Porsche teams shows anything other than there is a variation of Porsche teams. There is more of them, if nothing else they have more chance to have one at the top.

Overall though I agree with your point about opportunity to see teams do a good job. We have clearly seen that testing, experience, drivers, setups all have a big impact on performance. It remains the most important thing.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I don’t see how a variation of performance of Porsche teams shows anything other than there is a variation of Porsche teams. There is more of them, if nothing else they have more chance to have one at the top.

My theory is that with 3 different teams running the Porsche on any weekend, you are more likely to observe the maximum performance of the car under the given BOP parameters. 3 different teams results in 3 different ways of approaching the setup in order to get the most out of the car. With more ways of thinking being used, the odds are higher that we are seeing the maximum performance of the car. With those manufacturers fielding only 1-2 cars, the confidence is less so.

For example, was the GR010 truly slow in Qatar, or did the Gazoo Racing team simply produce a bad setup? Maybe a customer team would have defeated them that weekend. We will never know. The same applies for Peugeot, Alpine, Lamborghini, and the others. In a spec championship like Formula 2 or Indycar, we still observe performance variance from different teams operating the same car.

As another example, if Penske was absent in Qatar and Imola, the Porsche would have been perceived as a much slower car because Jota and Proton were not as fast as Penske on either weekend. This could have led to fewer BOP reductions.

In IMSA, JDC and Proton are nowhere compared to Penske. Without Penske, the Porsche would have likely received hefty BOP breaks while not understanding that JDC and Proton were simply not maximizing the car like Penske have been able to.

I would like to see that maximizing the car is being rewarded and those teams who simply are underperforming in operational aspects are not granted BOP breaks to make up for it.

[Adam43]

Ah, OK I get it.

That’s a subset of the you are more likely to observe maximum performance of the car with teams that do a good job.

Like we did last year with Toyota who had more experience. The ACO are well aware.

It’s also why people shout sandbagging whenever one car is slower than another in any session!

It’s a challenge for sure (allowing for teams doing a good job, not shouting sandbagging that’s just a trope). But they aren’t overly reacting to good bad jobs. And having several teams demonstrates this to the ACO.

[Sodemo]

The problem is with the constant shifting of the bop is that you don’t know if when team A is having a good race it’s because they have found a good setup or made car improvements or if it’s just that they have had a boost by the bop spinning wheel of fortune.

My preference would be to set it at the start of the year then only make adjustments under rare circumstances. I would also wish the maths and reasoning for such decisions are released to the public complete with any evidence.

[Adam43]

That last bit makes no difference to the public’s perception. I’m up for it, but it’s more trouble than it’s worth. You just provide more numbers for someone to find something to moan about. They can pick on a small thing, but not consider the whole. Or have any grasp that uncertainty will always remain. Overall, it doesn’t have to be perfect either, just pretty good. Which it seems like it is, but even with perfection it won’t make any difference.

Further, it is best it remains a secret sauce with the teams. They can know it’s tomato based, but they know any more they might be able to work round it.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

That last bit makes no difference to the public’s perception. I’m up for it, but it’s more trouble than it’s worth. You just provide more numbers for someone to find something to moan about. They can pick on a small thing, but not consider the whole. Or have any grasp that uncertainty will always remain. Overall, it doesn’t have to be perfect either, just pretty good. Which it seems like it is, but even with perfection it won’t make any difference.

Further, it is best it remains a secret sauce with the teams. They can know it’s tomato based, but they know any more they might be able to work round it.

It's a good point that you have made. If the teams know how it works, then they would be able to work around it.

However, a lack of transparency allows the ACO to work without accountability. I doubt there was any objective performance based justification for the boost handed to the Ferrari for the Imola round. The proof is the immediate reversal of 90% of the change for Spa...

With shameless machinations like this, it is exactly why we need transparency.


The best process, I maintain, is one that simply takes the homologation parameters (lift and drag), feeds them into a simulation model, and determines the BOP. From there it is up to the teams to extract all of the performance that the BOP table grants them. This system cannot be gamed or abused by both the ACO and the teams.

[joeb]

I would like to point out that most of the changes being made on a race to race basis are quite small. kg here, kW there...... And there hasn't been a rush to help any of the new teams catch up.

All in all I think they are doing a fairly good job with bop. The manufacturers came in to the championship knowing this is what would be happening and they are ok with it. And it hasn't seem to make a difference deciding who wins each round. All the other things y'all mentioned before from the drivers to teams operations seem to make the difference. 4 tires during a stop, 2 tires, how many laps you run per stint, ability to adjust to changing conditions all seem to be more important than bop in the racing we have seen thus far.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by joeb

All in all I think they are doing a fairly good job with bop. The manufacturers came in to the championship knowing this is what would be happening and they are ok with it. And it hasn't seem to make a difference deciding who wins each round. All the other things y'all mentioned before from the drivers to teams.

This, this is the important part. The guys who make the series exist know it and realize it's what makes the series exist. The Internet experts seem to forget that, lmp1 exploded for a reason

[Adam43]

People will infer what they want. For me that’s their problem, not the ACO’s. It is, after all, easy to sit at home and accuse people of fixing things.

I don’t always get the changes, but more often than not it makes sense when you think about it.

Show me a change and we can come up with a bad reason for it.

What is really odd is really believing it’s fixed and still watching!

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

People will infer what they want. For me that’s their problem, not the ACO’s. It is, after all, easy to sit at home and accuse people of fixing things.

I don’t always get the changes, but more often than not it makes sense when you think about it.

Show me a change and we can come up with a bad reason for it.

It is historical behavior by the governing body which leaves viewers questioning. They earned the reputation and now they should show us that they have changed. Who can forget 2016 GTE Pro race at Le Mans where Ford celebrated their 50th anniversary and coincidentally dominated this event on performance. Or 2018 when Porsche celebrated their 75th anniversary with the Pink pig and the Rothmans cars and their 2 cars were totally dominant in the GTE Pro race.

Are we to believe these were natural occurrences? . Manufacturers celebrating anniversaries and coincidentally showing a form so dominant, that they could never repeat it in any other year?

I like the usage of BOP. It reduces the cost and attracts so many manufacturers. However it can only work when it is objective. The Imola changes did not instill confidence in the process. What will happen to the japanese manufacturer in Fuji? or the french manufacturers at Le Mans?

[Adam43]

You’ll be needing this.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Here is a list of the proofs that the ACO fix this race.

Ferrari - want the prestige
Toyota - make up for last time and reward the support
Porsche - Le Mans history
Peugeot - French
Cadillac - strengthen IMSA relationship
BMW - 25th anniversary
Alpine - French
Lamborghini- show anyone can win
Isotta Fraschini - er, I might buy this if they win because they were faster!

I will chose which one is best based on when I see lap times. I will be able to change as we progress through test, practice, qualifying and race. I will cover this off by saying sandbagging.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

You’ll be needing this.

The list needn't be so long. The only thing I predict this year is that what happened to Ford after 2016 is what will happen to Ferrari this year. The ACO won't make it easy to be a consecutive winner.

[Adam43]

Well you have every other competitor who is trying to beat Ferrari and the inherent closeness of the current grid to help you out with your hypothesis there. You’ll be fine.

Overall it’s good to know that a Ferrari victory will be hollow if it happens. Anyone want to buy any tickets?

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Well you have every other competitor who is trying to beat Ferrari and the inherent closeness of the current grid to help you out with your hypothesis there. You’ll be fine.

Overall it’s good to know that a Ferrari victory will be hollow if it happens. Anyone want to buy any tickets?

I think you misunderstand me. A victory is never hollow. Finishing a 24 hour event is a massive achievement, let alone to win overall. Manufacturers just want to feel like they go into the event with an equal chance on performance. If other factors cost them the race, they can accept it as it was within in their control.

[Adam43]

And in the whole history of Le Mans more teams going into this race thinking they have a chance than, I’m going a little out on a limb, ever before. Ace biscuits.

Your theory that ACO will fix something to the detriment to Ferrari is basically Ferrari v. the field and you’ve chosen the field. You’re grand.

I think I am correct in my understanding that said the ACO will, for reasons other than balancing performance, fix something.

[Simmi]

Been reading through this thread. Thanks for all the collective charts, efforts and good discussion.

Ahead of the test day, would anyone smarter than me care to make a simple list of the eight manufacturers (you can save your energy and omit Isotta), ranking who you reckon came the best out of this BoP update. I'm not talking overall package post-update, just purely from these tweaks who gained most. I know it's a bit finger in the air but I'd be interested to see it, and also if it matches my own interpretation.

[Adam43]

It’s close that a good ranking is very hard to do.

Overall I think we will see Ferrari and Porsche continue their form. They seem on top of their cars.

Then I think Toyota. Especially when we get to the race.

Then potentially Cadillac. Or Peugeot who have got through the new car blues and have their first BoP where ACO have some data.

Then the 2024 newbies.

Overall it will be super close. Especially 3rd down.

Here are some back up for that, which you’ve probably seen:

https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...12#post4211712
The last chart in this post shows the relative movements from Spa to Le Mans. This includes base power and top speed power.

https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=972
In this post Articus has estimated the time above 250km/h and attempted to give an average power to weight.

Those give the relative changes from Spa to Le Mans.

Here is a measure of relative race lap times my after Spa and Detroit. https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...27#post4211527
Followed by my quick view of the form coming out of those two races.

Compared to that I think Cadillac will be better. They can’t keep being unlucky. And Peugeot as they enter the early established phase with the new car.