BOP : Fan or not?
Discussion
rev-erend said:
The BOP seems to make for close racing but we're new cars like the Aston unfairly penalised.
What's your thought's
It's a really difficult one. We all want close races, I wouldn't really want to go back to Audi dominance of the past for example. But, at the same time I certainly want to feel that the best car/team/driver combo wins, which I don't at the minute. Rather than mucking about directly with the performance of the cars, I'd rather they allow more development resource for struggling teams. So if you are running down the back you can have more testing miles, new parts or whatever to get you up to speed. Everybody gets some development, but the stragglers get a lot more than the leaders. This would take a lot longer to influence the outcome than the current system, but I think it would make for a better championship/race overall.What's your thought's
I guess the issue with this (and what current BOP can be used to to prevent) is how to manage sandbagging for the 24 hours. I'm sure there are teams that would sacrifice their whole-season performance to look slow and get more development so they could turn up to Le Mans with a rocket ship.
In general it works well, especially in LMGT3 but in Hypercar... I think it all gets more political/less scientific.
I mean you have Ferarri, Le Mans winners for the last 2 years and clearly ahead of everyone in WEC this year but suddenly being "beaten" by almost everyone else through free practice and qualifying (coincidentally where the Le Mans BoP can be reassesed and changed) - only, to the shock of almost nobody, to have them streak away from everyone else in the race, while if memory serves also being able to put in 13 lap stints. Humm, balanced, sure.
Even on Wednesday the friend I was with was saying "Despite the position it's clearly Ferarri's race to lose" and sure, they gave it their best shot with speeding in the pit labe while serving a penalty for something else so getting a stop-and-go and a mechanic noticing a missing rear wing retaining bolt but the team not going "That's not right, bring the 50 in for a rear clip change" but instead thinking "Bolt coming out of the rear wing are fine, right?". Queue 4 missing bolts at the race end and disqualification - only for them to say they were "surprised by the decision"!
I mean you have Ferarri, Le Mans winners for the last 2 years and clearly ahead of everyone in WEC this year but suddenly being "beaten" by almost everyone else through free practice and qualifying (coincidentally where the Le Mans BoP can be reassesed and changed) - only, to the shock of almost nobody, to have them streak away from everyone else in the race, while if memory serves also being able to put in 13 lap stints. Humm, balanced, sure.
Even on Wednesday the friend I was with was saying "Despite the position it's clearly Ferarri's race to lose" and sure, they gave it their best shot with speeding in the pit labe while serving a penalty for something else so getting a stop-and-go and a mechanic noticing a missing rear wing retaining bolt but the team not going "That's not right, bring the 50 in for a rear clip change" but instead thinking "Bolt coming out of the rear wing are fine, right?". Queue 4 missing bolts at the race end and disqualification - only for them to say they were "surprised by the decision"!
blueST said:
It's a really difficult one. We all want close races, I wouldn't really want to go back to Audi dominance of the past for example. But, at the same time I certainly want to feel that the best car/team/driver combo wins, which I don't at the minute. Rather than mucking about directly with the performance of the cars, I'd rather they allow more development resource for struggling teams. So if you are running down the back you can have more testing miles, new parts or whatever to get you up to speed. Everybody gets some development, but the stragglers get a lot more than the leaders. This would take a lot longer to influence the outcome than the current system, but I think it would make for a better championship/race overall.
There's pros and cons.Let people develop the cars and it becomes LMP1. Sure amazing cars, much better than the Hypercars IMHO, but by god expensive cars...to the point if you're not winning the board pulls the plug and you're down to 1 team.
Sure you can try to limit the spend, limiting development for the best/permitting more for the worst - but that's how the current LMP2 regs were written and when was the last time you saw a Dallara, Multimatic, or Ligier? If you're a new team buying a new chassis do you buy the proven best one or one that has more development tokens so might become as good/maybe better? No question, you buy the best one. And of course because if nobody's buying your chassis there's no money to pay for developing it, no matter how many tokens you may have.
And of course at the end of the day we have BoP because the front of the WEC grid would only be the ACO "LMH" cars, so Ferrari, Toyota, Peugeot, and Aston Martin. The rest of the current grid (and I think all the upcoming cars so McLaren, Ford, and Genesis) being IMSA "LMDh" cars.
Edited by //j17 on Thursday 19th June 12:56
It worked well in past years but in 2025 they've got it wrong. Ferrari clearly have built an excellent car but they also obviously hide their true pace until Le Mans race day. I wouldnt say they get BoP breaks but they are definitely not penalised in the way others are. Why did the BoP nerf the Peugeot, BMW and Alpine so much?
The stated goal was to equalise top speed, so Ferrari being 5km/h faster than everybody else shows how it failed.
The stated goal was to equalise top speed, so Ferrari being 5km/h faster than everybody else shows how it failed.
//j17 said:
blueST said:
It's a really difficult one. We all want close races, I wouldn't really want to go back to Audi dominance of the past for example. But, at the same time I certainly want to feel that the best car/team/driver combo wins, which I don't at the minute. Rather than mucking about directly with the performance of the cars, I'd rather they allow more development resource for struggling teams. So if you are running down the back you can have more testing miles, new parts or whatever to get you up to speed. Everybody gets some development, but the stragglers get a lot more than the leaders. This would take a lot longer to influence the outcome than the current system, but I think it would make for a better championship/race overall.
There's pros and cons.Let people develop the cars and it becomes LMP1. Sure amazing cars, much better than the Hypercars IMHO, but by god expensive cars...to the point if you're not winning the board pulls the plug and you're down to 1 team.
Sure you can try to limit the spend, limiting development for the best/permitting more for the worst - but that's how the current LMP2 regs were written and when was the last time you saw a Dallara, Multimatic, or Ligier? If you're a new team buying a new chassis do you buy the proven best one or one that has more development tokens so might become as good/maybe better? No question, you buy the best one. And of course because if nobody's buying your chassis there's no money to pay for developing it, no matter how many tokens you may have.
And of course at the end of the day we have BoP because the front of the WEC grid would only be the ACO "LMH" cars, so Ferrari, Toyota, Peugeot, and Aston Martin. The rest of the current grid (and I think all the upcoming cars so McLaren, Ford, and Genesis) being IMSA "LMDh" cars.
Edited by //j17 on Thursday 19th June 12:56
I know LMDh is different but I hate that concept anyway. Manufacturer's vying to win the world's greatest motor race outright should have vehicles of their own design in my view
I'm a fan, but you have to understand what it's for.
This year's WEC results were irrelevant as LeMans BoP is based on last year's race.
Ferraris did indeed have a higher top speed and seemed to benefit particularly from a tow, but were already pegged back significantly on power > 250km/h, having the joint lowest power alongside the Pugs. Ferrari have obviously built an exceptionally slippery car.
Maybe BoP should specify a minimum Cd?
This year's WEC results were irrelevant as LeMans BoP is based on last year's race.
Ferraris did indeed have a higher top speed and seemed to benefit particularly from a tow, but were already pegged back significantly on power > 250km/h, having the joint lowest power alongside the Pugs. Ferrari have obviously built an exceptionally slippery car.
Maybe BoP should specify a minimum Cd?
Re: LMP2, one of the ACOs most bizarre decisions, amongst a litany of such, was when Ligier wished to use some jokers to update their chassis and re-homolgate the car. They knew the Oreca was far far superior, everyone knew, so giving Ligier a bit of a hand to improve their car and get the chance of some real competition of chassis in the class was a totally sensible move.
The ACO agreed and allowed Ligier to make the updates.
Only they also allowed Oreca to update their chassis at the same time, "to be fair". Which resulted in a lot of money being spent and nothing changing.
To be fair though, Ligier have dominated P3 to the exclusion of others.
The ACO agreed and allowed Ligier to make the updates.
Only they also allowed Oreca to update their chassis at the same time, "to be fair". Which resulted in a lot of money being spent and nothing changing.
To be fair though, Ligier have dominated P3 to the exclusion of others.
If the power was delivered in a similar way using similar fuels etc.. then yes you could harmonise that easily. But if you are comparing NA to Hybrid and hybrid is delivered to the front axle, rear axle, both axles, different harvesting, potentially (as was) with diesel involved etc... You would either have someone run away with it or you have to accept the BoP to try and level the playing field.
A lot of the cars were on the same lap - I kept on watching Hypercar P4 - P12 or so being covered by very few seconds lap after lap. So in my mind BOP worked well. The Ferrari is undoubtedly a great piece of machinery. I think if you look purely at the results then they are winning 'everything' - but during the race there is ebb and flow and various cars were in the lead.
Tyre management, driver skill and driver line ups are so skilled and experienced now - I keep on looking at most line ups and seeing quality through and through. It used to be that some line ups were less than optimal but the standard is just stupidly high right now. Plus when I say tyre management I mean the use of the sets and keeping the sets for the right time in the race.
Saying all of that the favourite before the race was Ferrari - but I don't think many would have called the 83 the likely winner, however they did seem super focussed and slightly confident in the practice sessions. By the end of the practice sessions I thought they looked the strongest or at least the most focussed in terms of the race and not qualifying/hyperpole for instance.
A lot of the cars were on the same lap - I kept on watching Hypercar P4 - P12 or so being covered by very few seconds lap after lap. So in my mind BOP worked well. The Ferrari is undoubtedly a great piece of machinery. I think if you look purely at the results then they are winning 'everything' - but during the race there is ebb and flow and various cars were in the lead.
Tyre management, driver skill and driver line ups are so skilled and experienced now - I keep on looking at most line ups and seeing quality through and through. It used to be that some line ups were less than optimal but the standard is just stupidly high right now. Plus when I say tyre management I mean the use of the sets and keeping the sets for the right time in the race.
Saying all of that the favourite before the race was Ferrari - but I don't think many would have called the 83 the likely winner, however they did seem super focussed and slightly confident in the practice sessions. By the end of the practice sessions I thought they looked the strongest or at least the most focussed in terms of the race and not qualifying/hyperpole for instance.
It just needs to work better. So either based on the spa or test day results. Maybe top speed. Make sure fuel allows same stint length etc. At the same time a piece of crap car shouldn't be rewarded by given pace to run at the same as a team who have put the effort in.
Otherwise concessions or something
Otherwise concessions or something
joema said:
It just needs to work better. So either based on the spa or test day results. Maybe top speed. Make sure fuel allows same stint length etc. At the same time a piece of crap car shouldn't be rewarded by given pace to run at the same as a team who have put the effort in.
Otherwise concessions or something
Base it on anything other than last year's LM24 will just see teams sandbagging in whichever session you've chosen due to the prestige of winning Le Mans.Otherwise concessions or something
HardtopManual said:
Base it on anything other than last year's LM24 will just see teams sandbagging in whichever session you've chosen due to the prestige of winning Le Mans.
It's not based on last years Le Mans. It's majority based on homologation data with previous races in a season used to do minor tweaks, and for Le Mans only they use last years race.I dont think the issue with BoP has been so much making cars faster, rather slowing down cars that didn't need slowing down. It's enabled Ferrari to use their development to increase top speed ahead of everybody else. There's a reason everybody in the paddock was saying Ferrari were still favourites despite a poor buildup to the race.
No BoP, then we don't see all these manufacturers, it's that simple; and we get an early 2000's Audi dominance, most likely.
However, it needs to be better applied; it should be trying to even things out - but it's job is not to make a poor car able to win. From a data point of view, the more data you have, the more accurate the BoP outcome. So, data should be used from all races from last year's Le Mans, including all WEC races. Like how handicapping in horse racing works......
Ferrari have won all WEC races this season; that should mean they were hit hard by BoP, but weren't......
However, it needs to be better applied; it should be trying to even things out - but it's job is not to make a poor car able to win. From a data point of view, the more data you have, the more accurate the BoP outcome. So, data should be used from all races from last year's Le Mans, including all WEC races. Like how handicapping in horse racing works......
Ferrari have won all WEC races this season; that should mean they were hit hard by BoP, but weren't......
Rewtle Litand said:
No BoP, then we don't see all these manufacturers, it's that simple; and we get an early 2000's Audi dominance, most likely.
However, it needs to be better applied; it should be trying to even things out - but its job is not to make a poor car able to win. From a data point of view, the more Idata you have, the more accurate the BoP outcome. So, data should be used from all races from last year's Le Mans, including all WEC races. Like how handicapping in horse racing works......
Ferrari have won all WEC races this season; that should mean they were hit hard by BoP, but weren't......
This sums it up nicely for me. BoP is a necessary evil and it, with the cost capped format, has made it attractive for so many. We are in peak top category endurance racing from an entry perspective.However, it needs to be better applied; it should be trying to even things out - but its job is not to make a poor car able to win. From a data point of view, the more Idata you have, the more accurate the BoP outcome. So, data should be used from all races from last year's Le Mans, including all WEC races. Like how handicapping in horse racing works......
Ferrari have won all WEC races this season; that should mean they were hit hard by BoP, but weren't......
But, it was a one (manufacturer) race and only Estre’s brilliance challenged this. ACO/FIA beware as we’ve seen entrants pack up with little notice in the past. There needs to be a better balance.
Gassing Station | Le Mans | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff