[WEC] Pundits who "don't talk about BoP"

[broadrun96]

How dare you, I NEED to know who has no idea what race or even event is going on but they need to be there to promote their name and brand. How else would I keep up with pop culture

[TF110]

I agree the pundits don't talk about the bop (critically) because they're on the payroll. It's just like the teams, who are forbidden by the regulations to even talk about it. It's not something I'm fond of, but it is what it is, hopefully for a short period of time.

[flatlandsman]

I agree actually I think the endless cutting was not as routine, I know in Reddit etc there are people who like me have contacted the website, it is all you can do really.

But they are doing what they think is a job and it might be the ACO who want this, not the tv people, they do things that are a little odd at times. If you recall it used to be a very annoying aspect of F1 coverage and that started to wane.

The daft aspect is there is a full access that Goodwin and Haven endlessly plug that can cover all of this, that could easily be longer aswell. They must get stack of footage.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

I agree the pundits don't talk about the bop (critically) because they're on the payroll.

It's this. In the past we've had the pundits tell us variety is what makes WEC great. Then we got told LMP2 was incredible and who needs variety. Now we're back to variety.

Pundits won't criticise the series that is paying them. And honestly, that's completely understandable and probably a deal all of us would sign too.

[flatlandsman]

I think it is actually more sinister, I do not think teams are even allowed to talk about BoP, so maybe commentators are not allowed to either!! not in the way they perhaps might want to anyway.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

I think it is actually more sinister, I do not think teams are even allowed to talk about BoP, so maybe commentators are not allowed to either!! not in the way they perhaps might want to anyway.

But do they really? Perhaps they'd really rather just talk about the racing......

[flatlandsman]

Oh I am sure they would and that is what we all want, but at times BoP is an obvious aspect of that, so why not be allowed to even mention it, they do but only in very particular circumstances.

There is very clearly a mandate about it, I am fine with that as I am intelligent enough to find out otherwise, but there is a slightly sinister air to the secrecy sadly.

[seanyb505]

I saw this in an LM24 wrap up article, specifically in regards to the race management evaluation and fallout from the 83 Ferrari and BMW incident:

"First things first, opinions from the public domain will always have less validity than those made by anyone personally responsible for the consequences of their actions and decisions."

I'm reading into this a lot, but it does feel this is the attitude wec management and subsequent communications take toward a number of decisions. From a black and white perspective, sure. This is their job, and annual bonus kpi are not "please the anoraks."

In the same way I look at my office management while pulling a face for obvious budget manipulation to boost their bonus, without transparency it's difficult to believe aco want a fair race instead of fanatical headlines, or instead of rewarding manufacturer's continued participation when VAG pulled out.

But, as pointed out by people much closer, my opinion isn't as valid compared to decision makers. Neither are yours.

[helgi]

Is it possible to talk about GT3 differences without BoP? For example that story with Mustang non fitting in a wind tunnel - is it part of BoP-non-talk? And more tiny tech details between WEC and SRO spec (not mentioning Super GT). How can you explain it without "commenting BoP results"? We should just believe? Feels like some sort of a cult.

[Adam43]

It’s a cult! Ace.

[flatlandsman]

If you talk to people who follow other series, it is one of the biggest issues they comment on about why the racing is not essentially "pure"

I am sure if they watched it for any length of time the real quality of said racing would win them over.

Hence if you are trying to entice people from other series or newcomers,m surely you HAVE to talk about it where necessary, simply to explain! I think they do, but on a very limited basis

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

I do not think teams are even allowed to talk about BoP

They aren't, but that's even more justifiable. Why give teams an uncontrollable outlet to try and dictate the narrative around BoP?

They should not be blamed for doing so, but when teams discuss BoP, it is almost always to try and gain an advantage. There is no point in making the job more difficult with constant sniping/queries from people with vested interests in the outcome.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

But do they really? Perhaps they'd really rather just talk about the racing......

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

Oh I am sure they would and that is what we all want, but at times BoP is an obvious aspect of that, so why not be allowed to even mention it, they do but only in very particular circumstances.

There is very clearly a mandate about it, I am fine with that as I am intelligent enough to find out otherwise, but there is a slightly sinister air to the secrecy sadly.

It could (would?) look hypocritical for BoP to be discussed relatively freely officially, but be forbidden for teams. At least at the moment there is some form of consistency.

I'd argue it would be more sinister for the ACO to allow more discussion of BoP on their own media while still forbidding the teams from doing so. Then the majority of fans would only get the ACO's point of view. At the moment, we get nobody's, unless you (like I, and lots of us are) go looking for deeper analysis.

[Graham Goodwin]

Evening! I've been offline for a few days - it seems there's plenty for me to catch up on.

For starters - I do have a couple of policies on BoP reporting for DSC.

We cover changes in BoP in two ways - we outline the revised values in a preview - and we will comment in the aftermath of a race if we believe BoP specifically was a major issue.

What we don't do is write screaming headlines around every race around a template that says "Insert name of team hit with insert number of kilograms" choosing the biggest number to accentuate the story.

I'm genuinely not interested in that as a story and frankly neither are most of our readers.

For TV we do talk about BoP, to explain the process, its purpose and it's practical implementation.

We are - very specifically - NOT instructed not to talk about it - indeed I provide briefing notes to all other international commentators to explain the system, its methodology, purpose and practical execution.

Very specifically you'll hear me on TV, and on #TWISC explaining that BoP is set to establish a level of performance that should be achievable according to the specification of each car - the trick is getting to that level and maintaining it for as long as possible.

As an example - take a look at the values that applied to the Porsche 963 last season - then take a look at the values for this season.

Those differences, where they exist, in no way account for the transformation of performance for the cars in 2024 - That has been achieved by the teams working hard to get the best out of their package.

BoP is an important part of the Hypercar and GTP formulae - but now we have it it's simply just another part of the rules package, the challenge for the teams is the same as it ever was, to get the most out of their machine for as much of the race as possible - BoP isn't irrelevant, but neither is it the factor that defines who wins - that coms down to the pursuit and achievement of excellence, strategy, great pit work and, great driving.

As for fans of other forms of racing querying the purity of the racing in Hypercar (or in GT3 for that matter) - There is barely a single form of racing left that doesn't attempt to equalise performance and/ or restrict development in some way - and with good reason.

From F1 (cost cap) down, nobody is in a hurry these days to allow unfettered development.

More that happy to engage on this matter.

[flatlandsman]

Do you not think that even with all the parameters in place, there are still odd occasions when things slip the net?

These teams employ very clever people (usually far cleverer than the stewards can) to find loopholes that any steward will probably find, or know about but cannot perhaps prove etc?

I found it interesting that at LM, as soon as the Ferrari got behind the 963 and romped past, Lotterer and Estre were both basically "that is us done then"


Now that is ether a decision they made for their performance or it is something Ferrari found that made their car very good on the straights, or it might have been a very clever piece of engineering that managed to bypass a BoP parameter in a tiny way to enable a fraction more top speed.

I do not think that won them the race but I am sure Porsche lost it partly due to having that issue. We will never know but it sure adds interest.

[Graham Goodwin]

One of the fantastic things about the sport is that those 'very smart' people literally never stop - the key once again though is that they never stop getting as close as possible to the 'glass ceiling' that BoP defines - and keeping the car there!

Part of the problem with much of the 'debate' about BoP is that it presumes that cars are having performance significantly restricted by the process - look for a piece on DSC in the coming days that explains it rather differently, from the perspective of a Team Principal that has had LONG experience with the process.

At present I think we have three groups of Hypercar teams - Those that are capable of getting close to and maintaining the maximum performance defined by the process (and the design of their cars), those that can get there but not keep it there, and those that are working to get there.

If I'm correct you should see one or two teams make similar strides later this season and into next that PPM and Jota did this year - with good, sustained two stint pace where they massively struggled to do that in 2023.

It is a subject worth discussing, writing about and talking about, but not in the rather lazy way that some choose (IMHO!)

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

Do you not think that even with all the parameters in place, there are Now that is ether a decision they made for their performance or it is something Ferrari found that made their car very good on the straights, or it might have been a very clever piece of engineering that managed to bypass a BoP parameter in a tiny way to enable a fraction more top speed.

A little OT: This isn’t a BoP parameter. It isn’t in BoP that they have the same top speed. It is engineering, but it isn’t bypassing anything.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

It is a subject worth discussing, writing about and talking about, but not in the rather lazy way that some choose (IMHO!)

I could not agree more.

[flatlandsman]

The big issue is that as fans, if there is so little information given about it by the various people who can, what are you to do? You can only offer it up as a possible reason why a certain car struggles at a venue, aswell as the other reasons such as driver pace or poor car setup. Or simply the car not suiting a track.

Therefore if it is not talked about as much, it gets forgotten in that conversation which is exactly what the ACO want.

I have no issue at all with BoP, but I do think at times even though the work done now is excellent, at times it does occasionally lose a team races or better results. And I do not think you will ever really get away from that.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

It is a subject worth discussing, writing about and talking about, but not in the rather lazy way that some choose (IMHO!)

This is a good point; there are more than enough examples of article headlines that drive engagement by headlining certain adjustments to BoP over others. Lazy is a god way of putting it; it is not deliberately manipulative reporting, but it is numbers-driven first, with reasoning and fact-finding relegated to secondary concerns.

If there was a binary choice between the above an absolute radio silence on BoP, I'd choose the latter. Thankfully that is not the case.

[S griffin]

BOP does confuse things and means it's hard to tell who's actually done a better job on performance alone. So I don't envy those who have to report it. But there's always a way to do it without stirring things up more