DOES BOP HARM SERIES? Opinions on Whether BOP is Good or Bad for Motorsport

Something that came up in the Group C video recently and also the 919 video I did, is BOP and how those cars weren't subjected to it as much and that they could run what they brung, in effect.
But that then got me thinking. What if BOP didn't exist? Would you have one manufacturer ruining it by winning due to being able to spend, and would grids collapse because no one was interested?
So, I weight up the pros and cons, and see if BOP is good, bad or just something we have to deal with.
Enjoy! And remember to like and subscribe for more!
Ross McGregor's Flickr: www.flickr.com...
------
Wikipedia images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
Flickr images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
Business enquiries: [e-mail]
Patreon: www.patreon.com/aidanmillward
Discord: / discord
Instagram: amillward01
Twitter: Aidan_Millward
Steam: AdmiralLaWind
----
CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 @3.9gHz
Motherboard: MSI B450 Mortar Micro ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8gb @ 3000mHz
GPU: MSI GTX1660 w/ slight OC
Editing Software: Sony Vegas 14 Steam Edition
Wheel: Simucube 2 Pro - Cube Controls Formula Pro Rim
Pedals: Fanatec Clubsport V3 with Brake Performance Kit

[@gerglmuff]

it doesn't matter if its good or bad, the reality is that without BOP, most racing wouldn't exist.

[@markokozic]

+

[@fourutubez7294]

With BOP you don't get racing, you only get "The Show"

[@soisaidtogod4248]

It would very one sided.

[@simoneburini4036]

Do we really need BOP in TCR and LMDH?

[@FluppiLP]

@@simoneburini4036 ask WEC how LMP1 went and then you have your answer

[@markus0056]

BoP is keeping motorsport alive right now in my opinion. All legendary classes over the years have died because of escalating costs. Why do you think GT1 is dead? Or Group C? Or LMP1? Sooner or later you end up with a dominant car and escalating costs by trying to preserve the gained advantage or by trying to catch up which leads to a lack of entries in a series. Think of all the series utilizing GT3/GT4 or TCR right now. That's quite a lot. As soon as you get rid of BoP those classes and most importantly the series running them would collapse within 5 years. The racing world would take decades to recover from a disaster like that as there would be a distinct lack of series running with limited competition in those as everyone would either be running the same fastest car or get swallowed up by those using said car. And no organisation would be able to replace all of these classes in the necessary time to keep the national or regional series alive. Bigger continental or worldwide series would maybe survive until a new class is found but as seen with the WSC, if a class dies there might not be a series for the new cars to even run. Wheter you like BoP or not, it seems to have given the motorsport world a lot of stability it was lacking before and in a few years many might start to look at it in the same light as they might be less blinded by the nostalgia of LMGT1, early LMP and Group C.

[@atlantisfromtheinternet]

All three classes you mentioned were only great to watch UNTIL a certain time point, after then there was always one car better than all of the others and no new cars or even evolutions of cars because of how dominant this one car would be

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

@@atlantisfromtheinternet guess the answer could also be to each time create a rule that bans that one car, and then wait until they find the next, and come up with a way to ban that.... that's what formula seems to do!

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

are you sure this is not just unicorn blood for the sport? *(and yes, that is a Harry Potter reference) I feel, the competition is not really genuine when you give that amount of power to a regulatory body. sometimes I feel a more accurate thing would be to call it an motor-skill show (in the same way you have an airshow for airplanes)...

[@olerothemberg3869]

i would love to see how it would play out when series would switch to a cost cap like f1, but i can imagine that that can be quite hard to monitor, the fia already takes ages to controll the f1 teams, how would a smaller regulatory body for a smaller series manage that

[@peekaboo1575]

Group C was doing just fine until they decided to meddle with the formula.

[@3twelveworkshop312]

It's a necessary evil, and sometimes they get it wrong... though the 992 at Daytona was hilarious!!!

[@minenhledlamini334]

Those Porsches were abysmal on the straights

[@RACECAR]

Can't blame the BOP for that, Daytona was the very first event for that car AND the Huracan Evo 2 AND the 296 and yet the Porsche was the slowest one.

[@PandyTimBR]

@@RACECAR and both porsche and Ferrari did not request a bop change

[@Anon24052]

I reckon that outside of F1 a fair BOP has its place. Last year’s 6 Hours of Monza had an absolutely fantastic race for the win in Hypercar because of BOP- the total lap times for the Alpine and the Toyota were very close but the Alpine had better aero while the Toyota was faster on the straights and it made every lap exciting as the advantage would go from one car to the other very quickly. If BOP still allows for racing like that to happen then it’s worth it.

You nailed it!

[@sherqyanstromain9580]

I feel like ppl have a problem with bop not as a concept but how its used, like sometimes they to heavy handed with it and teams, especially (factory teams) are good at finding the faults with them

[@fourutubez7294]

That happens for real without BOP or gets pre-scripted with BOP. Which would you prefer to watch , the sport or the soap opera?

[@sherqyanstromain9580]

@Four utubez so would it but better if became a spec series or bop kept the cars competitive

[@Th3_Gael]

@@fourutubez7294 precisely why I've given up on most racing and the chap you're talking to is why I'm unsubsceibing from this channel, the last racing related channel I watched. I don't want eastenders, manufactured racing isn't racing at all

[@atlantisfromtheinternet]

I think BoP is just kinda necessary to keep GT racing going right now, otherwise we would be in a GT1 style situation after about 2005-2006 with basically no new cars being homologated because it wasn’t worth having your new car’s face kicked in by Maserati

[@cowcocky]

Early on Group A looked the greatest thing out with lots of brands and large fields. Then the Sierra RS 500 showed up and it became a bit of the Ford show; especially in Australia. Then Nissan’s Godzilla appeared and disappeared into the distance. The category was dead.

[@NewbombTurk.]

The SCCA has taken an interesting approach to "balance" for Trans Am racing. The SCCA has divided the prime series into 2 parts, TA1 and TA2. TA1 is more no holds barred, but they do have some restrictions (no electronic aids). TA2 is more a "spec" series where all teams are required to run the same HP, same wheels and tires, and a similar aero package. Since both classes are based off of production cars (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) there isn't any crazy over engineered aero cars in either class.

[@Stryker_-qd4nq]

Its definitely necessary to keep gt racing in particular alive. Series that are built on private teams buying cars need bop to avoid the manufacturers leaving

[@alexjenner1108]

8:44 In the 1983 Australian Touring Car Championship, there were accusations that Allan Moffat was driving to win by as little as possible in the Mazda RX7 with the 12A version of the rotary engine. This was because he wanted to use the 13B engine at the Bathurst 1000km race, where he needed more torque climbing the mountain and more speed on Conrod straight. So it was alleged that he had been sandbagging all season, so that he would have a chance at winning the most important race of the year at Bathurst.

[@Christoffski]

If costs are capped and teams are forced to share stuff to make cars safer,more reliable and efficient the field could arguably balance itself. Instead of just saying "Nice race car. Let's stick a piano on it. It's just too good at racing. 😂" biggest argument is costs. But usually BOP gets abused either way. Great video.

[@invalid8774]

yeah I really like the cost cap approach but that quite difficult in a world of customer teams. Then you have to force them to run the spec car without any changes or you have to monitor costs for the teams aswell and it just becomes a massive headache. I like the BOP concept in GT3, sure there needs some tweaking but overall Id say its working okish. If you look at the cost cap in F1, thats hasnt delivered a grid even remotely that competitive. And I dont expect it to do so.

[@Christoffski]

@@invalid8774 in the ill-fated hybrid era maybe. I still remember F1 doing the right thing by Brawn and showing genius can prevail when the mountain isn't set by design too crazily high. A car set to not run and without an engine only went and won it all.

[@rafikusuma9989]

its a good point for prototype racing. but for road car based racing like gt3/e and touring car the field is naturally unbalanced because of the road car theyre based on really influenced their peak performance. prime example is the bmw m8 and the ford gt at le mans. theres no way the ford gt wont dominate without a bop

[@seventh-hydra]

​@@rafikusuma9989 Can always factor model price into the budget cap. It'd be interesting to see a category with "video game rules." Ie, everyone gets a 500k budget. They buy their car, whatever they have left over, they can spend on publicly available aftermarket parts.

[@D3Vlicious]

@@invalid8774 F1's cost cap is arguably more about making the teams money-by making sure that teams make more than they spend and making them attractive to investors-than it is about balancing the field.

[@herbertkraft7379]

BoP gifted us with amazing GTE Pro races in the last WEC season and with a 13+ car grid in Hypercar. I'm all for it. Even if it means that my team gets slowed down.

[@jackarmstrong7285]

I like BOP personally. And engineering still plays a huge factor because now it’s about how consistently fast can you make your car reach its theoretical bop lap time vs out and out one lap pace.

[@jonnyb1990]

Yeah but this is the real problem is that it actually kills the racing and leads to The GT3 Train. The cars are so refined that even silvers won’t make mistakes, so unless the BoP is actually wrong, or you have the previous model-year SVG aboard, nothing happens without contact

[@jackarmstrong7285]

@@jonnyb1990 that’s more down to the driving assists and not the BOP. GT3 cars are unfortunately easy on the drivers. Though it can lead to incredible endurance racing where cars are nose to tail for hours on end

[@JackKeithley]

I think SRO has got it absolutely nailed down with how they do BOP and it has shown, it has kept many cars makes happy that are happy to stay in the various championships they are all in. It really does just come down to who has the best drivers.

[@felixstiller8056]

Really? You haven‘t seen any SRO events lately haven‘t you? Like 12H Bathurst??

[@AntoniusTyas]

Yes. I remember the 2015 Spa 24 fiasco. Suddenly 6 out of 10 cars on top were AMG GT3s. SRO put the hammer down and top 5 HTP and Black Falcon cars were told to sod off to the 20s and given 12 (or was it 20?)-minute penalty.

[@Guybrush1816351]

I would love to see some dynamic BOP changes during (endurance) races. Give the organizers a knob to twist when they get it wrong.

[@scordatura9259]

Might be a safety concern since the drivers and teams wouldn't have time to adapt to the car

[@TonyWhitley]

And then put Michael Masi in charge of it?

[@TassieLorenzo]

@@TonyWhitley Masi is (still) well regarded in Australia! Regardless the proposal sounds like the fan boost in Formula E.

[@Guybrush1816351]

@@scordatura9259 Was thinking of changes to fuelling or RPM limits flashed into ECU during a pitstop.

[@katt7512]

See I was thinking weight. Before a fuel stop a pit official gives the team instructions to add weight to the car and hands them the weight to be added. The team rips the passenger door open and bolts 20kg (or whatever) to the center mass of the car. The teams are given a "Knob" or 2 to turn to increase the ride height of the car that's only adjustable from outside the car to prevent on track jiggeryfuckery on straights verses corners. The teams are given 3 or 4 laps notice to prepare. But it all depends on whether your after something entertaining that people show up to watch or you want "pure racing" that dies a slow boring death because 1 team gets all the sponsorship and ends up xyz seconds a race faster than second place.

[@camrsr5463]

BOP is, like most things, a mixed blessing. I judge the BOP based on how close the championship finishes. IMSA I think does a good job of keeping the racing close and keeping an eye on the championship points. Rarely do we see total blowouts. but they can still happen. its far from a perfect system. And BOP works much more effectively when everyone is on the same tires and Gearbox. Success ballast is also used in some series but I don't think it works well in endurance racing. its better for single make sprint races. Its for the fans. we want good racing and this BOP system seems to accomplish that

[@thirdwheel1985au]

Another good example of a "homologation special" is the Holden Monaro CVR that won both Bathurst 24 Hour events - that car wasn't eligible to race anywhere else and it was a real pain point for the international teams. The local motorsport press called it "a plain old Holden" but with a Chevy 427, wishbone suspension and a tall diff to suit the long straights, it was anything but.

[@andreass2301]

If there is too much 'balance' they might as well all be in the same car. Some of the most fun F1 seasons I remember were when some cars where better at some things, and as a result better at some tracks, but not at others, and in-season development meant teams could catch up, or sometimes screw up. Ideally, there should be total freedom within a well defined set of parameters, which is easier said than done. I think the cost cap might be the way to go though, as the real benefit of balancing is keeping costs down, so just go for the jugular and cap what teams can spend. However, with in that spend, allow them to do anything - for example, if Red Bull want to use up their cap bringing a new engine to every race like the old days then fine, they just have less to spend on testing (which should be unrestricted again).

[@Yabe_uke]

In a perfect world, BOP should not exist. But this is not a perfect world.

[@Jgreendyk1]

I understand the existence of BOP. My issue with it is the every race BOP changes. Make the BOP changes happen less frequently. I mean it is kinda annoying when the week before a race I am having to keep a close eye on the news to see who has been slowed down or sped up so I can have an idea of how the race is going to go.

[@tgiencke]

For those that are interested I suggest people go to their local library and request back issues of Racecar Engineering magazine. The actual people that set and govern BoP for many series have written about BoP. The TL;DR is: BoP is a physics equation. Nothing more, and nothing less. Not something manipulated. On a side note that is why the manufacturers are concentrating on ease of driving at the limit and limiting tire degradation.

[@EbinH92]

The drawbacks of BoP are well worth it for the benefits, not just for diversity of brands on the grid, but also diversity of design philosophies. It's been really interesting to see the nimble mid-engined Audis and Lambos start to look nervous and twitchy in the rain, while the more stable Bentleys and Mercs had predictability on their side. Or to watch the Porsches bet on their downforce and agility vs. the Mercs' grunt at Mt. Panorama. There are plenty of spec series to showcase more "pure" racing, but for a spectator (and sponsor) sport, BoP makes a huge difference.

[@acegarcia3719]

My issue with BOP is that it's far too artificial in the car performance levels. What would be so much better is a black and white rulebook limiting things like PWR and drag coefficient that cannot be adjusted as long as the car meets the regulations.

[@alexandriashannon7438]

Remember joe Gibbs racing placing magnets under the throttle pedal so their post race dyno resets would be lower?

[@arkustheone277]

BoP is needed, the down side is outweighed by the upside which is a healthy competitive grid like you said in the video. The trouble is sand bagging, either intentional or perceived. I think better ways to do the preseason testing to implement the BoP would help. Rather than having a factory team for say Porsche show up and run laps with their driver and their mechanics etc, why not have the governing body (SRO, ACO, etc) put THEIR driver(s) in each car and run them to gather the data? A driver not tied to any one manufacturer or team but is capable in any car would provide better more realistic feedback on each cars performance. Maybe? Love the videos sir keep them coming!

[@VykronianF1]

I hate BOP but I understand it. But a better solution would be cost caps, and a limit on the amount of personnel working so everyone has the fairest starting point, then apply BOP as needed but in a way that highlights the cars strengths. Say Porsches can brake harder so instead of a weight increase have hp reduction so it’s braking characteristic stays.

[@joshjackburns]

I simply don’t like it because race cars are way too similar to each other now, that’s why my favourite era of Formula One is by far the mid 70’s. However, good racing is key to enjoying whatever series you’re into…

[@Chip_in]

I love watching gt racing with all different manufacturers...probably why I enjoy it more than Supercars these days ⛳

[@TassieLorenzo]

Yes, it makes no sense that the "*Australian* Touring Car Championship" will only be contested by two muscle cars from Detroit, Michigan.

[@Chip_in]

@@TassieLorenzo lt was cool when Supercars raced the gt's back in the day and when the Volvo's, Merc's and Nissan came in but... ...l'm a greedy race fan and two manufacturers just don't cut it for me 🤣⛳

[@brodiemiller2296]

BOP also shows, in my opinion, how great a car is built if it’s had to be bop’d to high hell, because without it it would just blow all the competition away, and if a car can carry that bop better than everyone better else also in other cases

[@offintheesses]

Might be controversial but I think that IMSA has been handling BOP for new cars well in recent years. They seem to be showing a trend of each new car that enters be quite slow and then progressively improve it to the point where the car is about equal with the other cars in its class. The Corvette and BMW are examples from last year. Out of the gate at the Rolex they were quite slow but as the season progressed they were gradually improved with both cars being competative by around the mid point of the season. It seems like they are taking a similar approach this season with the new Lambo, Ferrari and Porsche (while I think they missed the ball on Porsche and overdid it). With the age we are in where manufacturers are looking for more cost effective ways to be involved in racing I think that BOP is mandatory in a large majority of racing series. Great video!

[@AidanMillward]

They borked it with the 992 tho. 🤣

[@offintheesses]

@@AidanMillward Oh they 100% did, it was ridiculous how slow they were 😂

[@mrFiiSKiiS]

BOP creates limitations that breed creativity.

[@willomalley7619]

Tcr is becoming one of my favorite series and the bpo is pretty good. What do you think about the gtr in Australia tearing up the mountain? Also you could use a panel of drivers to set the laps for testing

[@TankSlappr]

BOP is a necessary evil. Without it one car would clearly dominate and it would drive costs up substantially running out current and potential manufacturers. Even if you mandated a cost cap all that would do would maintain the current hierarchy of vehicle performance giving new manufacturers less potential to catch up. A high manufacturer count is the main sign of a healthy category and modern GT3 has that.

[@acegarr22]

The only thing I will say is that as long costs dont spiral out of control and we don't have small car fields, and with tons of manufacturers involved, then i'm all for it. This is also why I'm excited for WEC this year. So many manufacturers coming back is exciting. I never got to experience Toyota racing Porsche and Audi in LMP1 until it became a Toyota parade but at least adding privateers made it a little exciting

[@Strangekabuki]

I would be interested to see if there is a correlation between those who are Driver oriented or Car oriented and being in favor of BOP. If you are there to watch drivers compete and the best DRIVER/TEAM win, then spec racing is the way to go. Winning comes down to the driver, strategy and pit crew performance. On the other hand, if you love to see innovation in engineering and lots of grid differences you probably would be in favor of BOP. I just like good racing. I don't have a favorite team or driver. Last year I found the best racing was in the touring cars (BTCC/WTC) and F2/3 races. A single race where a driver comes from way back to win is exciting. A whole season, not so much.

[@GarretSpenstHGF]

do like an 80% bop and then success penalties for pits via current race pos and championship pos adding up for like +3sec time in pits, for example. allows cars to still use how theyre better (bit) but keeps the race even short and long term

[@seventh-hydra]

Does anyone know what the Chris Harris video is called? I'd like to watch it.

[@codyrunsfast1]

every find it? I'm trying to find it too.

[@the.bavarian]

I always liked how BTCC created interesting races with success ballast and partially reverse grids, without the need for BOP. Reverse grids obviously only help in sprint races. But why do not more racing series apply a ballast system? And of course there is always the cost problem with racing, as you said. What I didn't understand back in the day with homologation specials problem is why they didn't raise the required minimum production numbers. If companies need to sell let's say 50k cars a year and if only minor modifications would be allowed, that would limit car cost a lot. Of course, this does not help top tier racing with supercars, open wheelers, prototypes - the stuff that is sexy for the media. However, I'd prefer a down to the basics touring car championship with success ballast, just to have good and close racing without all the bling bling around it.

[@ainmeile]

There's one sporting analogy you could use: the drafts that the major American sports conduct at the start of the season gives the lowest-finishing team from the previous season gets the first pick of the new recruits. It's a remarkably controlled, regimented (dare I say sOciALisT) system from the Land Of The Free but it goes some way to keeping the field level. All hail the Algorithm

[@donnypopovski7251]

Nobody was complaining about Indycars being the "Lola Cup or "Reynard Cup" til 25 years later when a guy made a YT video about it. The wave of changing manufacturers/constructors is a part of motor racing. It's market forces at work.

[@fuller9x]

When applied properly, BOP can produce some awesome racing, however applied improperly, see WTCC/WTCR, the sandbagging was so obvious and then suddenly smashing the opposition (cough cough Lynk&co) in the main race

[@Spike-sk7ql]

Solve that easily by having the sanctioning body have live time telemetry access to each car on track during practice. Would be easy to see sandbagging that way. Or at least turn telemetry in to the officials at the end of each session. The 12 hrs of Bathurst had live telemetry to the officials during the race. They used it to hand out penalties for driving incidents with video too.

[@fuller9x]

​@@Spike-sk7ql It was so blatent that you didn't need telemetry to see it. 20 cars all fighting to be in the mid pack, you would have DQ'ed everyone.

[@Spike-sk7ql]

@@fuller9x Yes, but if the teams knew that the officials had their telemetry on hand, it wouldn't have even been an issue.

[@Dochartach]

Apart from levelling the playing field, I feel that BoP also adds drama, in the sense of who gets weight added/ taken away etc... and how some teams try and sandbag to get around the BoP. For me, anyway, I enjoy it sure, i'd like to see all the shackles taken off manufacturers and teams, so they go wild... but I can fill that void by watching time attacks, hillclimbs and other calls to the wall disciplines I guess

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

I'm one of those who is completely split down the middle on this. I want to see the best engineers and drivers, who have, by definition, won on merit, but then I also want full grids. And watching a single class get artificially split into two "sub classes" just because the top team or two can spend more than the others is very disheartening. At least with development cost caps, we're starting to see more engineering genius come to the fore, particularly in F1. It'll probably take a couple of years for the field to become that bit more equal because ideas from the past don't cost anything if they live in an engineer's head. A few years of copying such ideas without having all the money around to throw at it to improve on someone else's idea _should_ balance itself out (more or less). I guess that's my opinion then. No BOP unless necessary, but cost caps for development to get a similar result. Any team able to manage its finances and still runs away with a championship frankly deserves to win it 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@TonyWhitley]

"I want to see the best engineers and drivers, who have, by definition, won on merit" Surely BoP mostly gives you that? The best car designers will lose out, their great ideas nullified by BoP, but the best race engineers setting up the cars for the best drivers will win. Even then, the best car designer can make a car that stands out in other ways than absolute speed - easier to drive, more tweakable, more suited to different tracks and so on.

[@doubled1978]

The reality is that even F1 has now realised that open budgets and development is a road to ruin. No other series, except maybe the WRC has been able to survive the open chequebook approach. WEC certainly can’t, and neither could GT3. This new Hypercar/LMDh WEC has attracted so many manufactures purely because they should all have a chance at a sensible cost. The choice between the possibility of having around 20 cars that can win Le Mans or watching Toyota drive around on their own when LMP1 fell apart is no contest. I know BOP isn’t perfect and never will be, but it’s better than going through years of no series at all because 1 manufacture spent double the others and killed it.

[@robertcook4215]

hhhmmm GT3 started in 2005 below GT2 and GT1. This year we had a new Porsche and Ferrari, next year a new Corvette and a Mustang. This is on top of Aston, Mercedes, Lexus, McLaren, Honda, Toyota, BMW........... The manufacturers have spoken.

[@robertcook4215]

Ok, the toyota is still in Development. I forgot Audi and Lamborghini.

[@driver1140dg]

I wish the series organizers would make more parts standard such as gearbox/tyre/brake/etc. that would let the car designers focus on a few things like engine, aero and, suspension. that could keep cost down and make it more fair.

[@gavinmoore8802]

Surely the world’s big enough for a bit of both worlds? A few bop’d series, wheel to wheel, never know what’s gonna happen races, while other series are run what you brung and the deepest pocket wins.

[@TassieLorenzo]

The question has to be: what are the last of the series that do NOT have BOP? Classic Formula 3? Some of the (rare) non-one-make club racing series? It was certainly a glorious area when regulations like Group A or Super Touring allowed for relatively large freedoms and a lot of development. But there seemed to be cost problems or problems of everyone choosing the same car (e.g., the BTCC becoming Formula Sierra) with that. Technical equivalence is a popular BOP alternative: World Rally Championship -- no BOP, but they have technical equivalence instead -- so all the same spaceframe now, all the same hybrid system now etc? NASCAR -- same deal, technical equivalence (so the "different" makes are all the same) instead of BOP? BTCC NGTC -- no BOP, but they do have technical equivalence for downforce/drag and the majority of the vehicles use the same front-wheel-drive version of the standard subframes and the same standard TOCA engine?

[@simoneburini4036]

Do the lower classes in rallying have BOP?

[@sherqyanstromain9580]

@Simone Burini technically yes it's called homologation

[@simoneburini4036]

@@sherqyanstromain9580 aren't the various parameters (weight, air restrictor etc.) determined by the rulebook without further modifications? If so, then that's not BOP (at least not like GT3, TCR, LMH etc.), am I right?

[@sherqyanstromain9580]

@Simone Burini yeah bop is a thing I most racing just given different names and done in different ways like spec parts or one make tires

[@simoneburini4036]

@@sherqyanstromain9580 yeah but those parameters don't vary from one race to the next based on the performance level of each vehicle

[@nickklavdianos5136]

There are definitely positives and negatives. Cost, variety and competitiveness are definitely a plus, but we don't get legendary cars like the Ford Sierra Cosworth, the Godzilla R32 Skyline and the Oreca Viper. It's a tight line to walk between cost, competitiveness, variety, manufacturer engagement and also rewarding engineering brilliance.

[@savageduck4487]

Do like the commentary about the mustangs getting nerf batted to buggery during the supercars until the holdens started winning. Wonder if the same will happen to the chevs?

[@basher20]

BOP makes sense in production-based or even production-appearing series. For open wheel and prototype, I'd like to see a loose formula written and allow teams and manufacturers to innovate to go fast and/or efficient. Rather than adjusting the cars to prevent a single-marque series, perhaps juggle the prize and payout structure to reward lesser spending teams, nullifying the advantage of spending additional dollars for lower and lower incremental results. Indycar ended up as an effectively spec series not becasue of the open formula, but becasue the rules allowed cars to be built to multiple formulas, allowing things like the Penske Beast engine to drive up costs. Somehow there has to be a sweet spot between auctioning off the trophy to the highest bidder and awarding it via roulette wheel becasue all the cars are identically limited to some standard beneath their capabilities.

[@aojracing4885]

To stop sandbagging, it would be fun to have a test session where drivers test their rivals' cars. Of course there's a lot of reasons why this wouldn't work, but Ican guarantee they would try to go as fast as possible.

[@Tacko14]

I really don’t know, I’m here for the ALgoRItHM :) If anything, I’d say it depends on whether you want a drivers’ championship or a constructors’. If A, make it a one make series and have done. I liked A1GP, but I may have been very lonesome in that opinion. If B, no bopping and NO driver’s title. That’s where F1 goes wrong imo, driver egos trump everything. Something’s wrong when drivers earn more than the development cost of the car. I wish they’d bop those salaries, take ‘em down a notch. You’re not the Second Coming for driving fast in a car, mate. If differences are too big to stomach, air intake restrictors seem to do well. They did in the wrc. Well, except for when Toyota had a cunning plan. I do like how it’s done in games, if it’s done well. Even with Bop some cars are suited to some tracks and not others. But there you get to pick a different car every race. If the same effect applied irl, I’d say fair enough

[@Bumphuk]

I wouldn't even call it 'evil' just necessary. Anyone who has been to a race will tell you how much more exciting it is to see and hear all these different cars going toe to toe. People do keep complaining about it holding back potential, but at the end of the day it's drivers that win races not cars.

[@mrpots31]

BOP keeps the racing interesting. To me, BOP is like a net court in tennis: dependent on where you are stood, it's rubbish or brilliant. The decision making rubric for BOP adjusting must be quite difficult. I hope so anyway. I'm curious as to how many times the govs have gotten it wrong and handed out victories. Success ballast is much easier to assign owing to the clear cut application: if you skinny and when, we will turn you into a plumper version of yourself aaaand you'll still probably win. Anyway thanks Aidan. This is s good one.

[@paulgilbert9346]

BOP most certainly is necessary nowadays.

[@km6832]

I feel that the ceiling should be a bit higher though. These engines are 700hp capable engines i feel like running them at 600-650 would be much more entertaining

[@Space_Reptile]

i like BOP, but i think the sanctioning body needs its own drivers to evaluate performance to prevent sandbagging basically they submit the car, the body drives it and then goes "okay this is how it performs compared to others" and then does the adjustments

[@sterny7341]

At the end of the day racing is entertainment and it needs to be entertaining to survive. If it was truly an engineering competition no one would race. You don’t hand out trophies for best car design. You had out trophies for who wins the races. You need BoP to keep the sport alive

[@Le3eFrereBrunet]

The best BOP is a single car series, like the Honda series or Porsche lights… But the lack of different car manufacturers kill the interest for it…

[@GazQwertyTv]

When was the last time a new car in a bop series dominated? Seems like the opposite is the issue nowadays looking at the last 2 GT3 releases

[@minibus9]

it's something that is needed, i admit i would prefer if it was the best driver and best engineers who won all the time but then that would quickly becaome a bigger issue than what BOP is as people would get board and stop watching

[@caphowdy666]

There was also the opposite of sandbagging in F1 which obviously due to the way F1 works these days, is no longer done so much but what about when the teams struggling with budgets used to set lap times faster than anyone else in pre-season testing (usually because their car was not strictly legal). While as I say this is not so much of a thing anymore, imagine being penalised for having the fastest car pre-season when your car is actually a dog. You would go from having an outside chance of points to no chance. I do kinda miss that ingenuity. I remember the Prost team being particularly impressive pre-season one year only to be one of the back markers, but at least they got sponsorship to keep the team afloat ha ha

[@shig.bitz.3205]

I think it's contextual and it mainly depends on the 'spirit' of the discipline in question. For example, I don't think BOP would be good for F1 necessarily. I feel like the cost cap solution is better suited in that situation. I do think it works in GT racing for the most part though. the difference is there are way more manufacturers sticking around than before because it is possible to win in most of the cars on the grid in say GT3. Although some cars seem to have a slight edge and BOP isn't always done right, gone are the days when GT grids were 60-70% Ferrari or Porsche. Although those are still popular cars, in GT1 & 2 they dominated the numbers back in the day with most other cars being there in comparatively low numbers. It seems to me that sports that have more customer teams than works teams benefit from BOP.

[@jordza2k11]

The Klopp reference... love it theres one reason why watching Liverpool fail this season has been gold the mans losing his mind again at 7th season syndrome

[@AidanMillward]

Klopp is a legendary manager tho. United fans have been obsessed with him for years.

[@jordza2k11]

@@AidanMillward Oh everyone has been, I personally just can't stand the smarmy attitude hes always had as a manager and thats even before he left Dortmund, one of those sorts you just look at and know you'd hate the guy (racing equivalents are probably Brian France when in charge of NASCAR and for drivers Jacques Villeneuve/Nico Rosberg)

[@neblolthecarnerd]

For me it depends on the series. If a championship is more customer team focused like gt3 series then bop is a great idea to give everyone a chance and to have a competitive field. I also love the unique take btcc has put on it with the hybrids. However series that focus on car development like the top class le mans cars and F1 cars should not have bop in my opinion as the car development and innovation is a key part of the sport so it shouldn't be made meaningless.

[@albert_gyorgy]

I'm on the same opinion, but the problem is, F1 is the only series that can afford to have no BOP, because people will watch it regardless of how balanced it is. Or not even F1 since it has cost cap and wind tunnel time limit. We all know what happened with LMP1. Running almost any non-spec series nowadays without BOP is unsustainable. Interest for Le Mans skyrocketed because of the number of manufacturers. Without BOP we would have 2 to 3 manufacturers at most.

[@doctorfunkopolis7311]

I think BOP is a good thing for racing. There's plenty of nuance in different cars if it's administered properly

[@Formaldehydex]

I can’t really offer an opinion on European series because I don’t get to watch many races here in the US. But it has been an unqualified success in IMSA for many years. It isn’t unusual to have a string of cars nose to rail with 5 or 6 different vendors. Granted, the full course yellows has a lot to do with it. But the cars stay that way for lengthy periods.

[@thomasjensen5099]

Was the Roland Dane "Peugots" a joke, they ran Holdens haha?

[@stevegillies1687]

I think BOP makes a lot of series viable and more entertaining, sure keep F1 as it is but otherwise its all fair game. I think that the people who are against using bop would be very bored very quickly if they actually got their wish, more often or not.

[@herbertkraft7379]

Okay just to talk about the Tennis Analogy: BoP would mean you get a better racket (?) Than Federer to balance it out, but you still have to play and score the points. All GT Porsches get the same BoP and still Estre has faster Laptimes than other pilotes, so it depends not only on the engeneer but also on the drivers how fast you are going.

[@TheFarCobra]

As always, even in things not racing related, is that it becomes a problem of “Who will be the Arbiter of Truth?”

[@dapprman]

I'm not a big fan of BOP though I can understand the arguments for it, however I think Japanese Super GT has a really good method. In each class (GT300 and GT500) there is success ballast that adds up over the season. Additionally if I car keeps doing too well then there is fuel restrictions. All this is up to and including the penultimate race. For the final one all restrictions are dropped. Last two seasons both classes have come down to the final race with at least 3 cars in the running for the championship. In 2021 GT300 came down to the very last corner and GT500 the last lap. Very close racing.

[@keystonedriving8180]

BOP certainly worked in GTE Pro over the last couple of years. Only 5 or 6 cars in the class but normally covered by a very small margin indeed. It sort of goes against the principles but if it works then I'll enjoy the racing.

[@jonnyhollywood]

2017 LeMans 24 GTPro battle at the end. That’s why we need BOP

[@Sephiroth5200]

I would like to see a series with spec engines that put out roughly 300hp and actually sound good, but open the rules on using electric motors, with only the cap of deploying 700Kw like F1 uses in place to prevent 2000hp monsters. The rules would be completely open on the recharge side. Go nuts. Do whatever you want, Smokey Yunick style, until you have tiny, screaming engines paired with unlimited deployment. Just random thoughts.

[@1fastjetta]

It'd be nice to do 1 BOP-less race a year.

[@meekrab9027]

In GT3 that wouldn't make any sense, what even is a BOP-less McLaren 720S GT3 or Ferrari 488 GT3? 700+ horsepower and unrestricted chassis configuration? Yikes.

[@creepingjesus5106]

BOP can only ever be a baseline for the reasons you mention - two tests at Paul Ricard can't cover all the variables, but can at least mitigate for half a season's development. That's fine by me, as a fan and as an armchair engineer. But it can't prevent The Toyota Show, for instance. Podium weight penalties might, and if a team can keep winning with several socks full of pound coins stuffed under the driver's seat, then good on 'em. Anti sandbagging judgements apply to both methods, to try to keep the teams honest. Or honest-ish. After all, it's one of the challenges in racing we enjoy best - 'playing' the rules. Makes for good stories, doesn't it?

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

having multiple classes of cars is preferable in my opinion... this way, a car can still win in it's class, and get the points, prizes, etc. for who you want to win, BOP style, but you also get the actual difference between cars, and who wins outright on speed, for those fans who care about that side more... yes the system is more complex, but, I feel it's much more fair.

[@mazza8133]

Anything that keeps cars on the grid is a good thing. If it wasn't for all the social media BS, BoP and parity would barely rate a mention

[@Frostfly]

BOP makes widely divergent cars roughly equal which makes for racing being about drivers and teams and reliably, not just who can build the fastest car. If you just want the fastest, dragsters are for you. BOP is why IMSA had something like 9 manufactures at Daytona in GTD this year. IT's why the Peugeot and the Toyota looks different in WEC. if you want lots of manufacturers involved, and still get good racing. BOP isn't just good, it's essential. If you only watch F1....it's 3 teams racing while 7 teams pick up scraps. wouldn't it be fun if everyone was actually in the race? (and if you try to tell me they already are, laugh)

[@A.F.Whitepigeon]

I want to watch the best racing. I couldn't care less about watching the best engineering. Good engineering is generally quite uneventful, which is good if you don't want a bridge to collapse under you or your car's breaks to fail at high speed, but not so great for entertainment. BOP, when done well, can produce some of the best racing around, not just because it facilitates large grids and close competition, but because it allows different cars to be faster in different places, generating sustained battles through different parts of a track and season-long drama as you go to tracks that suit different cars. The problems arise, though, when the organizers get it wrong. This is why I'm still not 100% sold on Hypercar. Good BOP should be unnoticeable to the casual viewer, making it look like the cars are all running the same pace purely by happenstance, with none obviously pulling away or getting left in the dust. Unfortunately, the ACO has shown no indication that they are able to achieve this. Typically, their attempts to balance performance are either woefully inadequate (e.g. the Fords in 2016, as mentioned in the video) or laughably ham-fisted (e.g. the Astons in 2019).

[@falconberlina8488]

BoP is absolutely necessary when the mechanical specs of cars vary as wildly as they do in GT3. Undecided about TCR but it's still probably a good thing. Plenty of folks complain about the technical parity used in Supercars, but at the end of the day the ATCC has been run under the most stable set of reg for 30 years. Yeah, the cars are no longer production based chassis and the mechanicals has increasingly become more and more control parts. But Howard Marsden(ran plenty of racing programs in Australia in the 70's, 80's, 90's) said it best.. "No manufacturer wants their cars to be seen on race tracks being uncompetitive(beaten by 6 laps at Bathurst) or dying horrible deaths on the trackside, thanks to weak factory parts" Viewers want a good show and manufacturers want to put on a good show!

[@Eagleracer38x]

I'm okay with B.O.P. if it is done to when money a company spends in that series gets a big advantage, like the Cadillac DPi for awhile.

[@HeavyMetalGamingHD]

You either have a spec series (indycar, f2, f3 etc.), tight technical regulations (f1) or BOP (GT3). And all 3 concepts are flawed and not completely fair. We still see massive performance gaps between teams in spec series, due to engine variation and setups. The winning f2 car can easily be 1.5 seconds faster than the back of the midfield. It's always the same teams who win f2 and f3.

[@GregBrownsWorldORacing]

How did we get all the way through BOP, Yet, not a mention of J M Balesst... 🤔 That's right, featured already this week!

[@TonyWhitley]

Horse racing has handicaps (the first ever handicap race was won at Ascot in 1790) for much the same reason as BoP though more to do with betting than making the racing per se exciting. Amateur golf too and some running races. I think a difference is that the handicaps are constantly updated, more like the success ballast in BTCC than twice-yearly BoP adjustment.

[@jonnyb1990]

I do enjoy BoP racing most of the time, GTE was always spectacular in pretty much any WEC or IMSA race I can think of (outside of the odd Le Mans safety car). It does bother me that it’s spreading quite so successfully into the top echelons of sports car racing though, you can’t help but think it actually does kill innovation. As a recent example I would point to the GT300 Prius that could affordably use the TS050s capacitor setup because it was the best in the world and it already existed, no one will want to use a (new) GTP hybrid system as it’s already out of date tech

[@obakengpilane7875]

You're right BOP is a necessary evil I want large variety of cars on the grid and obviously I want the best to win BOP endures the variety but I'm not really sure the best always wins

[@Alex.The.Lionnnnn]

I don't understand how they're supposed to make it completely fair without standardising the cars completely. Regardless of max torque/power/rev limit/ boost limit/ weight limit/ aero etc etc. I mean every car, regardless of BOP is going to have a different torque curve. Some better lower down, some higher up, some more flat. Do you just cap torque? Cap power? Impose a minimum weight? What about the fact that every car is going to have a different drag coefficient, differing levels of downforce etc. With so many variables it just seems incredulously hard to make it level enough that participants and fans aren't going to have tantrums like a year old that hasn't had their nap. Edit: as for your football analogy, it is implemented in A league football in Australia. There is a maximum total spend on player salaries, with the exception of 3 marquee players who fall outside of the salaray cap. The beauty of this is that the "top teams" tend to only be the top teams for a few seasons. Players get opportunities overseas, etc etc. Also really encourages the devlopment of young local talent. It's a great system in my book.

[@DeMichel93]

I hate and love the BoP, I wouldn't watch certain racing series without it. I love the variety.

[@adrielquiroga7901]

I think it would be good if there were 2 of each series, one with BoP and one without. For example, I don't think Pikes Peak has BoP, but it hasn't died yet. All I heard and watched about it is that they have the best cars and barely any regulations, just safety ones.

[@sophiaemily1819]

presonally i think BOP is kinda great, yes in un bop-ed series like f1 we get these waves of manufacturer involvement but those really arent much compared with the diversity we've seen in gt3 series or the btcc etc

[@KgomotsoJacobNkagisang]

If all sportscars were super quick and equally measuring performance on all racing cars it would be better that's a BOP

[@FarrYaweh]

I think I speak for most when I say I enjoy BOP when it's implemented correctly and I hate it when it isn't. If I can smell BOP on track it's not working properly. BOP shouldn't ever visibly disadvantage a competitor.

[@Winchester1979]

Without BOP, what happens is that the manufacturers that can't afford to be the top spenders on R&D go home and stop making cars, because they'll always be laps down compared to the competition that *can* afford it. Which eventually means you're down to one brand and the cancellation of the series because there's no point. No "sport" is supposed to be won entirely on the strength of the equipment you can afford to buy. Also, there *is* still incentive to spend money on development for the cars, because it's a bit of a badge of honor to have your car nerfed harder. And frankly, look at the sheer variety we get on track. There were thirteen brands of cars represented in GT3 racing last year, and thirteen brands of GT4. Not all in the same race. And no car was utterly dominant, sure there were a lot of Mercs but there were almost as many of the other big brands. As opposed to the early 2000s when the GT class had six brands, and half of the cars in the GT World Championships were Porsches because the rest of them weren't fast enough to win.

[@TheJosu145]

you can put a extra weight, Air restrictors, but, you can't anulate the original features of the car and their behaviours até the track!

[@jeremyleemartens801]

I was always confused by BoP. Imagine a driver being absolutely insane, winning every race. Then, his car is made worse

[@Hustler9g]

I'd rather see full grids in a variety of cars wheel to wheel than one amazing feat of engineering stomp everyone for 4 years and end up being the only car on the grid

[@willlasdf123]

I strongly do not think BoP should be touching sports cars prototypes unless we have something involving the convergence of WEC and IMSA systems - and then only between the best of classes. Have a tight reg, and then it's up to people figuring how to maximize it, and then price cap it so it doesn't become just who is willing to catch a billion dollars on fire to win Le Mans and have everyone else quit. However - totally agree that for GT3 and Touring series to maintain car counts and diversity, you absolutely need BoP. I still wouldn't mind a generational return ever so often to a no-BoP tight regged GT2/GTE/GTLM type sports car that manufacturers can prepare for. But we may only have time for one more of those before ICEs sunset