In the world of the World Endurance Championship (WEC), few topics are debated and controversial such as the Balance of Performance (BoP).
While it has been designed as a tool to ensure fair competition and stimulate the participation of smaller teams, it often proves to be a source of frustration and controversy.
In this article, we will explore how the bop works in the context of the WEC (with a focus on the LMH class), analyzing how a theoretically beneficial mechanism can sometimes turn into a big problem not only for championship management, but also for the image of FIA and ACO, lately more and more in the eye of the storm.
What is BoP?
Before starting, however, it is necessary to explain what the Balance of Performance is, and why although discussed it remains a necessary element for the current state of the competition.
The BoP, born in 2021 from the ashes of the Equivalence of Technology of the now retired LMP1 class, is the element that, theoretically, should go to level the performance of the various cars.
Its need is felt because, with the current regulations, manufacturers enjoy considerable freedom in the development of very different aeromechanical concepts, each with merits and defects in certain areas.
The bop therefore sets a series of parameters that each car must respect, in order to ensure fair competition for all. At least, that’s what you should do.
Although the basic concept is correct, in fact, this system brings a series of issues that are in fact unsolvable. But let’s go step by step.
How is performance regulated?
Before each race weekend, FIA and ACO, the organizers of the championship, publish a document containing a table listing the different parameters that each car must meet for the entire event.
These are ballast, power curve and peak power, maximum energy per stint, any additional time at the pit stop and finally, only for hybrid LMH, the minimum speed of activation of the all-wheel drive is also established.
The parameters are controlled in real time by the FIA through some special sensors placed on the cars, which by regulation must remain in operation for the entire duration of the race. Think that in Portimão, late in the race, the Toyota #7 had to go back to the pits to replace an entire rear axle because of the malfunction of one of these sensors.
Everything is calculated by relating the data from the simulations with those collected on the track on the fastest cars of each manufacturer, according to the federation "after the analysis of a huge number of laps".
And that’s where the first problems come in.
In fact, without proper correlation work, the data from the simulations and the wind tunnel are not reliable. We said this in the article about the Peugeot 9X8 and we will never get tired of repeating it.
These tests are conducted in conditions that are too ideal and tend to overestimate the aerodynamic performance of the cars, thus influencing their ratings.
The problem, among other things, is amplified with the entry of new manufacturers: the absence of official data on track forces the federation to rely on virtual data. And here’s how to serve a disaster.
But the headaches don’t stop there.
In fact, for the calculation of the BoP, the race lap times are also considered.
Times that can vary - and a lot - depending on traffic.
This shows how, therefore, in reality, not even the data obtained on the track turns out to be completely truthful, making evaluation errors grow exponentially.
First rule of BoP: you do not talk about BoP
When things aren’t handled in the best, you know, the best way to not talk about it is... to keep teams from talking about it!
Yes, you read correctly: manufacturers cannot utter a word against the Balance of Performance, otherwise, heavy penalties.
Totally democratic attitude, right?
From the very beginning, almost everyone took this move as a kind of admission of guilt from the federation, which continues to argue that "the BoP should not be the perfect excuse of the loser".
A remark that is undoubtedly valid, but that clashes with reality, especially if you look at the management of the post-Le Mans Balance of Performance last year.
The "case" of Le Mans
For those who haven’t followed the series for a long time, or for those who may have forgotten it, don’t worry, we’ll give you a quick memory refresher.
The centennial edition of the historic French event was characterized by an excellent levelling of performance between the various manufacturers - which is also admitted by the FIA.
This has meant that, in turn, all the great manufacturers - Ferrari, Toyota, Porsche and Peugeot - have taken the lead, with the opportunity to try to escape.
Porsche, Peugeot and Toyota, however, have taken these chances and have thrown them away like a javelin, between accidents, failed hydraulic systems and so on.
Ferrari’s victory was therefore not achieved with an overwhelming technical superiority planned at the desk, as someone - Toyota in the first place - insinuated.
Everyone expected minimum BoP changes for the next race.
But the FIA probably had other plans.
So, out of nowhere, Ferrari found itself with 16 horsepower (12kw) less. In Monza.
A track where the engine doesn't count at all, right?
You can therefore imagine how it ended, with the two 499P that have gone from being feared like lions to being adorable domestic kittens, beautiful and cuddly but absolutely unable to bother the Toyotas, that concluded the last races dominating far and wide.
A look at the present
And with the arrival of the new season, the situation does not seem to have improved, indeed.
The management of the new constructors in the LMH class was, without a doubt... creative, with Isotta Fraschini who got even 55kg of ballast - just to connect us to the issue of wrong simulations - which until now have literally sunk it.
The complete revision of the parameters arrived at Imola, therefore probably the umpteenth proof that the FIA has completely lost the compass and is no longer understanding anything.
What we want to make clear is that, especially in endurance, races are decided by something uncontrollable, like Ferrari’s suicidal strategy at Imola.
And, consequently, it remains unthinkable to level the performance of cars based on totally different concepts simply by playing with the powers or with the ballasts as if they were Lego bricks.
We are talking about extreme engineering, and it takes little to undo years and years of work.
The Balance of Performance remains therefore a controversial and often flawed system, in fact, incapable to guarantee a true parity between the cars. Although it rightly tries to offer a fair competition, it ends up leaving many questions from enthusiasts and insiders unanswered.
Comments