Balance of Performance, Behind Closed Doors

In the twenty year science experiment that is Balance of Performance, it was only a matter of time before one of the series fully dependent on the constantly moving goalposts for it's regulations to lay bare the reality of the matter. It would be the FIA World Endurance Championship to blink first, after it was disclosed on the Thursday before the season opener at Imola by series officials regarding the updated procedure for setting the BoP for the headlining Hypercar class. Those figures and variables that get adjusted before every race will no longer be made visible to the public. Perhaps, it shouldn't be a surprise it was the WEC.

Both the WEC and IMSA already prevent teams and drivers from discussing or criticizing the Balance of Performance in public or fear monetary fines, similar to the NBA fining coaches for publicly criticizing referees. It has become the talking point in both series, with it often being the perception from the outside that favoritism to certain constructors exists and that there will always be haves and have-nots; especially with Ferrari and Toyota often dominating in WEC and the Penske-run Porsche 963s being the team to beat in IMSA.

There is more to it working in Toyota and Ferrari's favor, as they're operating in the more bespoke set of regulations within the Hypercar class that allows them to fully make and develop their car compared to their GTP counterparts who are building up a car to compete using one of the four base LMP2 platforms and a spec hybrid system mated to a internal combustion engine of their choice. Both set of regulations don't have a lot of hard limits and ceilings which historically functioned as a more natural BoP, with these cars built to conform to relative "performance windows" that are then locked in via homologation before letting the series do the hard work by setting those balancing measures. If you are in more control of the car you build, or have additional variables at your disposal, you'll be more likely at the pointy end in a class that is meant to have parity though it often comes away more that everyone has already resigned to their fate.

This was the case in the first year of the similarly run "performance window" regulations of GTE in 2016. Those regulations opened up the possibility of turbocharged engines in the production-based class at Le Mans for the first time since the Porsche 993 GT2 ran in the late 1990s. The difference this time around was the intelligence of the internal combustion engine had jumped by leaps and bounds in twenty years, and teams could now manipulate fuel and air delivery into the engines in ways that the Automobile Club de l'Ouest was not prepared for. After playing coy and sandbagging in the opening two rounds of the WEC, the teams running turbocharged power at Ferrari and Ford made their move at Le Mans and blindsided the ACO and the other GTE Pro constructors with their true pace. An emergency BoP adjustment was made before the Grand Prix of Endurance was run, but there was only so much that could be done in the moment and a run-back of Ford and Ferrari's showdowns from the 1960s was on the cards. Porsche, Corvette and all but one Aston Martin were effectively background players when they too invest heavily into their programs on the expectation of a balanced system for all involved.

Those teams that ran naturally aspirated engines didn't run a bad race in the 2016 Le Mans 24, or the cars they were running were bad racecars in it of themselves. Arguably, there isn't suppose to be bad racecars anymore in such a class. If a car is underperforming and proven to be not a deliberate mirage, help will be on the way assuming the car, team, and drivers will be up to the task and the teams that are near the pointy end are pegged back in kind too; but it doesn't always work out that way. In regards to Ferrari, Toyota, Peugeot and Aston Martin, they will always have that little something extra in their hand that the ACO will have to deal with to make sure that they, and rest of the factory efforts that define the WEC and IMSA, are happy with the results come the end of a race and season. It's not like there's an actual underdog, independent effort in either series to act as a bad entry anyways; especially after the two-car rule was made mandatory for WEC last year effectively ruled out Vanwall and Isotta Fraschini.

If underdogs and independents have been outlawed from competing, additional measures in place to ensure the Balance of Performance is working as intended, in classes and series built all around those systems purely to make big money manufactures feel good about their marketing exercises, what is the point of making those BoP adjustments public to us plebeians anyways? As was noted by ACO deputy director of competition Bruno Famin, the actual numbers that get changed don't tell the story of how it will change the racing on track and the relative performance pecking order. Especially in a race over a 24 hour distance, there is so much that needs to be looked at and potentially manipulated to allow for such changes to actually stick the landing, though it's hard to see it's full effectiveness as long-form pit strategies lack the same impact as they did before these "performance window" regulations. Regardless of if the changes are made public, fandoms supporting their manufacture of choice will complain either way if they aren't seen as being favored in the BoP, it's now a matter of lacking that justification and transparency whether or not they're in "the right" to complain or not. That lack of transparency can lead to conspiratorial thinking by those on the outside, which will be equally as bad if it gets to it. You can't put that genie back in the bottle, as much as the ACO and company probably wish they could.

There is a quiet reality in the BoP no longer being disclosed within the WEC; that in a sense the actual on-track product doesn't actually matter doesn't matter to those who've paid to be in the dance. A "good race" as it's historically been understood, being a good, satisfying story that builds to a satisfying crescendo at or near the finish, isn't really the goal anymore of Balance of Performance categories. Cars will be close to each other on track and technically battling for position, but how much meaningful battling is actually going on?

Manufactures don't care about a good race, they want to look good and it's their money that talks.

When BoP first entered the public consciousness within the American Le Mans Series, the explicit goal was to help make good endurance racing where strategy could still matter, there were battles throughout, and could lead to satisfying finishes and results in a series that lived off of it's marketing tagline For The Fans. Early politicking by Aston Martin and Chevrolet in 2006 in their battle for GT1 honors, as well as by BMW during the Sebring pre-season test in 2009 regarding the pace of a privateer running a Dodge Viper Competition Coupe, were those initial ripples that would lead us to today, though ensuring the people watching in the stands and at home were still left satisfied with the full race they witnessed was still at the core of Don Panoz's vision. Making sure the big money spenders were happy would start to become the focus of those BoP adjustments in later years, as the discipline would begin to transform to what it is today. ByKolles and Rebellion were never going to have a fair chance, as much as they should have.

I watch a modern endurance race, like the 6 Hours of Imola or Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach from this past weekend, and I get the impression that it's no longer there to make me, a fan of racing and former die hard of the discipline, happy. It's become white noise, with most of the competitors effectively locked to their fate while the bean-counters that have been courted to be happy to be on the grid believing they have a chance at glory. So it really doesn't matter that the public doesn't get to know what the Balance of Performance for a race actually is, it's not like it's there to produce a good race as we were made to believe it does. Balance of Performance racing for those of us watching in the stands isn't artificial, it's insincere. There is a dichotomy between what we on the outside are told is happening, and what the results when the chequered flag waves actually tell us. It was only a matter of time before someone decided to commit to that reality of who this current era of endurance racing is actually for and put Balance of Performance fully behind closed doors. Yes there is still a race that has to be run and there will always be a truth in 24, but it's not the same as it once was.

That insincerity sure looks good on a Instagram reel or on TikTok though, and that's entirely the point. At the same time, what inevitably happens after every boom period in endurance racing regardless of if it's a Golden Age or a Fool's Golden Age?