[WEC] BoP. Brilliant or Pants.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Sounds like self serving position of you don't know we get to pretend we know from inside info so you have to come to the media to get it and drives clicks/subscription. Or maybe I just don't trust any of those types that want to tell us what we can handle and limit it because arguing isn't good

Just for transparency - I own theracingline.media. I don't write for it, but I do own the name, the url, and CMS, and pay for it all. So I am not unbiased in this discussion.

The article was discussed at length in our group chat before being posted. It wasn't intended as a "you have to come to us to get info", but I can see how it comes across that way.

But the "we need to get the info from the media" is true about everything, surely? Whether that's external media, or the WEC website (which is barely usable), or podcasts, or the commentary team. We rely on media to relay information. Without that every fan would need to dig through the technical PDFs every race, which isn't reasonable.

To argue for the "fans don't need to know" side of things - how many people are aware LMGT3 has success ballast in WEC? Almost nobody. Because it's not mentioned anywhere other than some technical bulletins. The main sites rarely mention it, the commentary team doesn't mention it, RLM doesn't mention it. Since the media isn't talking about it, people aren't aware of it.

Sidenote: If you have an opinion piece you'd want to write but have no where to post it, then theracingline.media is open to anyone on ten tenths who wants to.

[Adam43]

As an aside, I feel I ought to look at GT more. I’ve been automating the review of lap times, speeds, laps, stints, etc… as you might of noticed. For two reason. One is to teach myself python. Another is to make it easier for me to look at the data rather than spend the time pulling it together. Not that it took ages before, but I am time poor.

I mention because one aim to be able to easily switch to look at different classes. Which, apart from Le Mans, I rarely did. Like the TV coverage I concentrated on the top class.

Anyway, I agree, it is rarely mentioned that there is success ballast. I’ve been superficially tracking as I scrape the BoP data which, unless trl get their way is freely available.

And people can’t handle them

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Adam43

They have a point. Basically we can’t take it. We can’t understand it and we will just make stuff up. Discussing the changes are almost impossible to do in a rationale way.

What they are calling for is less transparency and the reason is that we can’t be trusted with that information. Which by and large is true.

I'm not sure if it's really a good idea to make the BOP data confidential. First of all, what would we talk about here!? But most importantly, BOP is already a very "hot" topic if you look at places like SC366's comments section or Reddit. And making it secret would probably only make things worse and ignite even more absurd conspiracy theories than the ones that are currently circulating among fans. After all they must have something to hide if they don't want to show it! And I'm pretty sure every victory would be called gifted by BOP in that case (not that it doesn't happen already but I'd expect the trend to become much worse).

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by tomcug

I'm not sure if it's really a good idea to make the BOP data confidential. First of all, what would we talk about here!?

Ha! Good point!

Just some context. I view this topic as interesting
, but in the world order inconsequential. In the context of sportscar racing it is quite fundamental, but where we are now also, oddly, minor. It has as enabled me to see much more of the wonderful nuanced aspects of endurance racing.

So I am flippant, amused and find the topic fun. Yet, also unimportant.

But most importantly, BOP is already a very "hot" topic if you look at places like SC366's comments section or Reddit.

Why would you look at that!

It does prove the point. People struggle to rationally dissect the bit of information provided !

And making it secret would probably only make things worse and ignite even more absurd conspiracy theories than the ones that are currently circulating among fans. After all they must have something to hide if they don't want to show it! And I'm pretty sure every victory would be called gifted by BOP in that case (not that it doesn't happen already but I'd expect the trend to become much worse).

True. Although does that matter as they probably would do the same just try and use some ropey math to prove it!



But overall I support it. If only because I am interested.

[tomcug]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Why would you look at that!

It's a valid point indeed. But for me sometimes it's impossible to resist the temptation to see what people have to say in other places, only to regret looking there later

[Articus]

I'm curious as to why IMSA's BOP draws hardly any discussion,criticism, or controversy. The last post in the IMSA BOP thread is from July. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is what happens when you remove Toyota

[Adam43]

Less cars. Only one type of car at the moment. They just get on with it.

I haven’t got round to updating the IMSA charts

I guess.

[TF110]

I think the "you can't have this good racing without bop" is not really true. I think it's something that manufacturers see and feel they have a good chance to win, like in GT3. If they were to do another cost-control measure, I think the manufacturers would show up too. Like a budget-cap, or chassis suppliers like now with lmdh/lmp2 (that might not happen).Just my opinion, I feel like bop is the 'easiest' way to appease the group. But it doesn't really stop out-spending by certain manufacturers.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think the "you can't have this good racing without bop" is not really true. I think it's something that manufacturers see and feel they have a good chance to win, like in GT3. If they were to do another cost-control measure, I think the manufacturers would show up too. Like a budget-cap, or chassis suppliers like now with lmdh/lmp2 (that might not happen).Just my opinion, I feel like bop is the 'easiest' way to appease the group. But it doesn't really stop out-spending by certain manufacturers.

For once, I agree. However, the ease at which BoP creates the conditions for close racing as opposed to any form of cost control cannot be ignored.


Some manufacturers would show up for cost-controlled series, as long as they agreed with the level of cost-control. But denying the chance to spend their way out of trouble (regardless of if it works or not) would quickly see them leave.

[Akrapovic]

One issue BoP has is that all of the manufacturers are completely delusional. They all think they're hard done by with the BoP. So now instead of a manufacturer just doing badly (Peugeot), they think the BoP is unfair.

[Adam43]

If they really believe this then it is bad as they might leave. Although they probably would have left, or not even joined, without BoP. So no worse off and if they do a better job than Peugeot they will have a decent chance.

It also could just be talk to make themselves feel better and they understand the actual situation. Which is then just being tedious for no real reason.

Still it could be worse. Pescarolo could have a team

[chernaudi]

Without BOP: we'd probably have a tech/spending war and whoever gets ahead on tech and usually budget will most likely dominate. Same things basically killed Group C and original IMSA GTP, killed original GT1, and ultimately basically killed LMP1 as we knew it.


With BOP: with have the possibility of politicking and sandbagging, as well as cars being restricted from whatever their capabilities might be if the only major rules we had were just basic rules like in LMP 900 and LMP1 such as minimum weight, a power cap (be it air restrictor/turbo boost or fuel flow) and max/min dimensions. (Already happens in GT racing where several cars already due to BOP and overall performance windows the racing cars get restricted down to making less power than the road cars do, BTW).


IMO, neither system is obviously perfect, so I guess it's sort of pick your poison, as with almost anything else in life.


I will say though that when close racing happens organically like in the ALMS in '03-'05, mostly due to all the teams being basically privateer teams and such, I do think that both teams, fans, and even sanctioning bodies do get spoiled by that and they do resort to BOP and overall to the technical regs to try and create that again when a factory team comes back in with a new car and reasserts the dominance that they had a few years before.

[Adam43]

Politicking was just as bad before. There is only one thing people can whinge about and they are asked not to. And if you know anything you can just roll your eyes.

The sandbagging. I’m yet to be convinced that this is anymore than people just running their weekends or natural ebb and flow! Possible is probably a decent way to describe it. As we, again, always had this. Now the governing body actually looks out for it in the data.

[chernaudi]

And IMO, when Pescarolo and Dyson complained to the ACO and IMSA about the R10 having such an advantage and trying to pin that all on diesel engine tech, I do believe that they seemed to forget how much the old R8 thrashed them (often to a worse degree than the R10 ever did) when it was in its prime. And in later years, development on the R8 trailed off (as LMP 900/LMP1 rules were in flux at this time) and were being run by private teams. That allowed other private teams to at least try and catch up. When a factory team comes in with a new car that has tons of development potential, is built around the new rules package, and is fully backed by the factory, can we realistically at the time expect a private team to stick it to them?


IMO, the difference was way more in the camp of factory vs privateer as far as that goes. Only way to mitigate that is with performance balancing (based on team/car capabilities), or cost/tech/performance caps. Unless you want to go down the spec car route.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

One issue BoP has is that all of the manufacturers are completely delusional. They all think they're hard done by with the BoP. So now instead of a manufacturer just doing badly (Peugeot), they think the BoP is unfair.

Which is strange coming from the ACO's line- "pillow of laziness". Bop gives entitlement and then when you look at that statement it's another thing to consider. Results aren't guaranteed but the bop will try to prop you up because your team is not at the front. It's supposed to be based on potential of the car, so I wonder how they figure that, especially for new entries.

[chernaudi]

IMO if it's based on car potential, then BOP only should be changed significantly once or twice a season for the sprint races. Again, my opinion, if you're changing BOP every race, it's either a success/results based penalty/rewards system, or your data is horribly flawed, or the sanctioning body is trying to tweak things for the sake of the show.


Again, my opinion, if that's the intent (trying to drum up excitement for the show), then just say it. Super GT had no issue with saying that's their purpose behind BOP and rewards weight dating well back into the JGTC era.


And as far as why it's not a big topic in IMSA, one, only GTP cars run in IMSA right now (and even when LMH comes in with the Aston Martin, that car will be non-hybrid to my knowledge, though that's still a variable of it's own), while in the WEC and LM LMH (all of which in the series now run FWD hybrid systems) and GTP run together in the LMH class. Two, though IMSA usually makes changes each race in the GTP and GTD classes, they're relatively minor changes than the bigger swings that the ACO takes with the WEC.


Is IMSA's data better than the ACO's? Is it because of the LMH and LMDH/GTP dual subclass structure in the WEC right now? And of course, Aston Martin will also run in the WEC with a hybrid-less car next year, too. So that's another variable.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, the difference was way more in the camp of factory vs privateer as far as that goes. Only way to mitigate that is with performance balancing (based on team/car capabilities), or cost/tech/performance caps. Unless you want to go down the spec car route.

I think the difference was way more in the camp of Audi vs privateers. I think people still don't quite (or no longer) appreciate how much Audi changed the prototype game with the R8. After all, Panoz were quite able hang with both the original R8R as well as the BMW V12 LMR in 1999 while the R8 was head and shoulders above the BMW.

[Adam43]

Where does this it’s about the potential things come from? I’m losing track, but I don’t recall it coming from the ACO. For this iteration anyway. Although we have the language thing and it could well be semantics.

And even if it is you should still be tweaking it all the time, because your assessment of it will develop as you understand it more, get more data, and develop your models of what the potential is. It is false to claim that changing it regularly proves anything to do with it being success ballast.

Tweaking your view as you learn! Imagine that!

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Where does this it’s about the potential things come from? I’m losing track, but I don’t recall it coming from the ACO. For this iteration anyway. Although we have the language thing and it could well be semantics.

First result I found in Google.

Originally Posted by ACO

The purpose of BoP is to balance the cars’ performance potential. In other words, it assumes that each car is exploited to the hilt. It is not designed to erase performance deltas between two cars built by the same manufacturer or to help an abnormally slow competitor make up the entire gap on their rivals. Nor does it replace operational performance – whether that be tyre management, driver ability, pit time or racing performance – which are all decisive factors and the major component of overall performance.

[Adam43]

Perfect, thank you. I didn’t think of using google. Epic fail.

I thought they’d stopped saying it this time round even if was inferred as I didn’t recall it. Inferred because obviously you never get to ultimate potential.

You need lots of data to try and assess the potential, as none of them ever get to potential. Close, but not there. We see that just from the difference of each driver.

So it’s not based on success, nor actual performance, but potential. Which as things going on performance will tend towards.

Small changes as you get data is the best way to make that work. Imagine having extra data and saying oh look, we were weren’t quite right, never mind, or when provide with later information deciding to not look and do a worse job.

[J Jay]

I think this is going to be the ACO's go-to in response to any "success ballast" accusations. Judging by this thread it's not quite getting through...


I assumed the ACO would take data points from each car and plug them into a ChassisSim (or some bespoke version of the same type of software) to produce a theoretical maximum performance, which they reference when deciding BoP. More data refines the model, but it does rely on being close to the "solution" so that the simulation remains aligned with the race-derived numbers.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by ACO-
The purpose of BoP is to balance the cars’ performance potential. In other words, it assumes that each car is exploited to the hilt. It is not designed to erase performance deltas between two cars built by the same manufacturer or to help an abnormally slow competitor make up the entire gap on their rivals. Nor does it replace operational performance – whether that be tyre management, driver ability, pit time or racing performance – which are all decisive factors and the major component of overall performance.

This bolded part, imo seems like the ACO isn't always following this guideline of their own. To me it seems they don't have the cars' potential realized for the bop process, and that's completely understandable because there's teams who don't have their car performing at it's potential. Look at Alpine, they have gained a lot since the beginning of the year. Yes, they received some bop breaks, but Peugeot has been given a better hand of cards in terms of bop but they're not getting the results of Alpine. This is what makes bop hard to understand as an ever-changing thing, the cars themselves are evolving too. So one race from the previous could be a big swing in bop but the team figures something out from the last round and doesn't really need the bop anyway.

[Gerard C]

Of course they're not following guidelines of their own, it's obvious and understandable. I think that for any adjustment they work very hard but can't believe they don't discuss/negociate with the team.

[PhilipR]

My thing with the current BOP it seems to be penalising Toyota for building a very good car that is great on tyres. They almost always seem to get back to the front on the 2nd stint. Even in Fuji when not alright fastest they were climbing up the leader board on the 2nd stints. It seems to combat their tyre advantage they make the cars heavier and less power on a race by race basis. To me if you built a car that is great on tyres that should not be bopped against. It should be on the other manufacturers to do the same

However Toyota did not help themselves with penalties and crashes in the last race.

[Gerard C]

Penalties, contacts, crashes are all about Human Factor all mainly about drivers and sometimes pit wall.This wont ever be BoP'ed.