Well, as F1 is almost a spec series, "in theory" all F1 cars are identical but right now one of them is a lot better than the others. But I see a big difference: with "Formula" regulations, if a car is better than the others you can be pretty sure that this car is the best, and that with time and money other teams can copy and even beat that car. With LMP style regulations, maybe that car is better just because ACO did not make the BOP right, or worse, because for marketing reasons they want that kind of cars to win (i.e. Diesel some years ago). Also, the teams that are loosing don´t need to up their game as they can play the political card very easily asking for a different BOP. This is happening in sports cars (at Le Mans this year Dr. Ullrich was already complaining about their fuel allocation before the race ended), in sports cars (very often) and in Touring cars (some years ago it reached bizarre levels, altering the BOP for each race). Look at all the political BS we already have at F1 right now; and that is with "almost identical" cars. I´d like to see more diversity at F1, but I think they need to fix other things before. Teams need a more stable financial base: technical freedom is useless when most of the teams can´t pay the salaries of their mechanics. The token system and the test limitations make impossible to recover if they´re 20 or 30 bhp down, just imagine what would happen if a team got wrong the number of wheels of their car.
I will no pretend for one second that Le Mans or the WEC are perfect, but LMP does allow more freedom of design than F1 at the moment. That allows diversity of cars, generally good close racing and s good degree of following . Also, in endurance, you don't find the sectarian passion there is in F1. Having said that, AUDI and Dr Ulrich can complain about fuel allocation and minimum weight, that their job. The BOP is up to a point negociated. AUDI has not muc h to complain about a formula (BOP) that allowed AUDI a remarkable string of victories. Yes, the Diesel was favoured by the ACO, and both Peugeot and AUDI benefited from an advantage against petrol cars. One can argue the rightness of that, but after winning several times with petrol cars, AUDI - the only factory team left at the time -was about to pull out of Le Mans. By opening its rules to Diesel, the ACO convinced AUDI to stay and Peugeot to join. Of course the private teams didn't like it, but the ACO probably saved Le Mans by opening the rules. Now, the rules have been rewritten and are not so bias towards Diesel, and Dr Ulrich don't like it.
William is quite correct. There is no BoP between the petrol-engined LMP1 cars only the performance consequences of each manufacturer's decisions regarding their hybrid package. Between petrol and diesel, yes, there is an equivalency factor applied in setting the respective ICE fuel flow limits, but this cannot be changed during the season. Politics are undoubtedly a factor, but keep in mind that at Le Mans this year, Audi and Porsche were very close on pace and Audi set the fastest lap it was mechanical problems that determined the outcome.
In my honest opinion, BoP has no place in motorsport, just as much as the way too many rules in F1 (example is the cylinder bore centres are set ... for fnck sake!). All these rules and BoP are attempting to make a single series artificially exciting. This is NOT required. What happens if left alone is the following: 1. We have a competitive season, over the year one team develops something clever. 2. The next season is dominated, especially early in the season, by the clever team. The other teams usually close up, but if they don't so what, the clever team deserves to win. 3. The following season is likely close again as another team has another idea or has copied and developed that idea further. Worst case you have a couple of years domination ... less than F1 has now, with all the medling! 4. This cycle continues and most of the time we have close-enough seasons. F1 has lost the technically interesting side and has moved close to a spec series in concept other than some cars are not as good and there is nothing you can do about it. So it is in fact worse than a spec series. I admit I got quite excited again for F1 because of the new power units, but they are not freely allowed to develop them ... wtf! In regards to Le Mans, LMP1, etc. why manufacturers accept BoP I don't understand, it is anti motor racing. The cars though are awesome but the best car does not necessarily win. Anybody know why they accept this? Is it the GT3 level, so all manufacturers sell plenty of cars and share the $'s. NASCAR and Aussie V8 Supercars are all exactly the same so the racing is cr@p as it is impossible to pass and the drivers have to resort to hitting each other and hoping they don't get told off ... sigh. Anybody know whether World Rallying Championship is real or not? Pete ps: By far the best racing is your local club racing because it is real and there is less smash and crash passing because they are paying for their own expenses ... often too there is lots of variety in the cars and this makes for good racing, ie. some cars are quick in the corners while other are quick on the straights.
BOP exists in WEC to attract several constructors with different technical solutions and allow them to compete with some chance of success. BOP doesn't interfer with the car design; it levels the cars by adjusting the weight and fuel capacity according to a scale based on performance. That's all. The ACO and WEC doesn't impose any technical solution to competitors; they choose their BOP but obting how much ERS they use in their hybrid system, etc... They can opt for 2 kilojoules of ERS, 4, 8, or even 16 next year. But the constructors have more freedom in terms of power plant design, engine configuration, engine location, etc... which is unheard of in F1. Also, BOP isn't arbitrarily imposed: it is discussed by engineers and consultants of the ACO, in conference with their counterparts working for the constructors. Apart from NISSAN still in its infancy, AUDI, Porsche and Toyota won races, proof that the BOP is working and working well. No, the best car doesn't necessarily win, because it's endurance and many factors intervene, such as race incidents, refueling strategy, team tactics, drivers performance, weather conditions, etc... One year Peugeot was well ahead at Le mans and AUDI soundly beaten at 2/3 of the race. Then rain came, and Peugeot faltered; their cars were unstable in the storm, their drivers less skilled committed errors and AUDI won in spite of being slower. As for BOP in GT3, it has been a great success of the ACO and the FIA to allow such a variety of cars in their respective championships. Never before so many different manufacturers have seen their cars compete together: Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Maserati, AUDI, Mercedes, Aston Martin, BMW, Bentley, Morgan, FORD, Corvette, McLaren, etc.. That's already 13 on top of my head! and as far as I know,each and everyone of these cars has tasted success !! Now tell me if BOP doesn't work!
There is no BoP in LMP1 except in the fuel flow limits and, as William says, the manufacturer's selection of one of the four ICE/ERS combinations. Despite the exhaustive technical analysis and consultation with manufacturers, getting these four options anywhere close to equivalent for the first season of the new regulations last year was inevitably something of a shot in the dark. The quality of the racing last year showed the FIA and ACO did a pretty decent job in this respect. There were some off-season adjustments for 2015 to the fuel flow limits, but whereas ballast, air restrictors, and extra drag devices all make the car less efficient, fuel flow limits force it to be more efficient. Finally, there is no in-season BoP whatsoever, so a well-earned technical advantage is duly rewarded – not taken away. These are the reasons Audi are still involved and Porsche, Toyota, and Nissan have (re)joined the fray.
... which turned out to be a defense of BOP in endurance. Threads drift awy from the subject quite often ...
Actually it wasn´t about the Lotus 88 but about the conflict between individuality and society. Back to the topic, I don´t think that BOP is a bad thing, or at least it´s a necessary evil. In GT and touring cars is necessary to fill the grids as there is a shortage of equivalent cars in the market. In LMP right now they don´t use a BOP strictly speaking but there are several formulae and the manufacturers can choose between them; the problem for me is that this diversity is almost just aesthetical, because, if the regulations are done as they should be and there are not political pressures, etc... all formulae should deliver similar performance, so what´s the point of choosing one thing or another? It´s just a way to keep the PR guys happy so Audi can sell their diesel stuff, Porsche their turbo stuff, etc... In the end, it´s not a terrible thing, and honestly, a 4 liter Ferrari should never have been pitted against a 7 liter Ford. But Formula 1 is called Formula for a reason: I wouldn´t want to see different rules, or BOP, or ballast penalties in Formula 1. And, just to redirect the topic, there should be a way of allowing different designs in F1 without skyrocketing the costs and keeping a relatively leveled field without BOP. What is that way? No idea. We should not forget that the last time F1 teams were allowed some freedom to do something new from scratch was in 2014, and we all are seeing what is happening: one of the biggest motor corporations in the world after spending absurds amounts of money is winning with ease. Are you sure that this is what we want every year?
BOP is OK in GT. Not relevant in F1. To bring back technical freedom, only impose the minimum of parameters and limit the use of electronics. Technical freedom mean diversity of solution not imposed ones. The present formula didn't come about because F1 teams were allowed freedom to start from scratch. The engine manufacturers were in fact coerced to all adopt the same power unit configuration using hybrid system, and devise a token system to limit development costs. Most of them wouldn't have chosen the present path if they had technical freedom.
Very nice. But how do you deal with the rising costs? The rationale behind all these limitations is that teams must spend big cash just to get minimum gains of performance so the smaller teams still can be within striking distance if they get it right. But if everybody can try whatever they want, big teams can explore and test more possibilities than small ones, and let´s remember that modern Formula 1 is too complex to win just with a good idea like in the days of Colin Chapman (well, and even then Chapman needed the money).
Forget about cost capping and equality in F1; it's a daft idea. Grand Prix is the pinacle of motor racing, so it is supposed to be expensive !! People want to join F1 for it's prestige, so it shouldn't be run like a Third World charity; for example you don't get into the casino at Monaco to gamble $10! No, you buy big chips if you want to play! Same in F1. If you cannot afford it, stay in GP2, or F3 or other lower category; there is no shame in it. Let people spend what they want. It doesn't make sense to limit what teams want to invest in F1, apart that it is very difficult to control anyway. Those you spend so much that it doesn't make sense will finally stop one day (remember Toyota's departure and the last Honda team, or further back Lord Hesketh, or Walter Wolf?), whilst other rich participants will get out after achieving a substantial return for their investment - case of Mercedes, and Renault or Red Bull/Toro Rosso perhaps? The core of F1 teams, those who are in for the long run, will stay anyway (Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Sauber) joined by new teams - Haas? The idea of a level playing field enforced with cost control is a non-starter, IMHO. This is F1, not a socialist republic !!
+1. And with the token system there is NO cost saving at all because they will be testing the modifications for squillions or hours on dynos and simulators BEFORE they submit their token(s). So this was/is a complete failure. One suggestion that I'd like to be taken seriously is get rid of the mandatory pitstops. That would immediately mean the racing stays on the track, less confusing to watch AND most of the crew does not have to be shipped all over the world. Far less tyre wastage and cost, and yes a tyre can be designed and made to do the whole race. Another cost saver would be to reduce the money wasting parties for the sponsors and remind them that they are sponsoring CAR RACING, not fancy dancy parties that happen to be where F1 races happen. Heck half the budget of a F1 team must be wasted in this area ... tone it down a bit guys! Surely also we could return to more on track testing and sell tickets for cheap prices. Heck I'd go to a test day if I was in Europe for the right price. Would be interesting. Pete
