Translate

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Is BOP Needed in GTE?

This past weekend was the 84th running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and Ford's victory in the GTE Pro class came about partly as a commemoration of their first victory 50 years ago. This entire season there have been accusations that Ford was "sandbagging" to avoid Balance of Performance (BOP) adjustments that would lessen their chances of winning. In 1966 BOP didn't exist at Le Mans, but strict adherence to the rules and the more primitive technology of the era kept things fairly competitive. BOP came about to attract otherwise non-competitive cars so that manufacturers could run their products in the big races like Le Mans, either by allowing modifications outside the rules, or by burdening the faster cars to "level the playing field".

If that weren't enough, otherwise ineligible cars were granted waivers to allow them to compete, relying on BOP to cover any gross advantages thus created. Two recent examples come to mind: the BMW Z4 V8 and the Viper. At the time the BMW was running in IMSA you couldn't buy a Z4 with a V8 at your BMW dealer, but IMSA wanted BMW so in they came. The Viper's 8+ Liter engine displacement vastly exceeded the GTE/GTLM class limit of 5.5L. Chevrolet, when they moved from GT1 to GT2 (which became GTE/GTLM) reduced their displacement from 7L to 5.5L, but Viper relied on waivers and BOP to put them in the game. I'm not saying that these were bad decisions, but the waiver that allowed Ford to run their new GT before there was a road car was in the same spirit, with the major difference that otherwise the Ford GT is within the technical specs for GTE/GTLM. The impulse was the same: attract another manufacturer into the series. I would have been happier if Ford had started their new GT program a year earlier so that the road car would have been out and the waiver would not have been needed, but I don't think the new rules were out back then. The fact that the competing manufacturers agreed to the waiver makes it a bit more palatable; they realized that adding the Ford brand would bring more attention to the series.

In an ideal world neither waivers nor BOP would be needed. The only cars allowed to compete would be those that fit within the rules, and the rules would be strictly enforced. If a car can dominate within those rules, then it shouldn't be penalized for it, the next year's rules might need adjusting but for at least one year, such a car should reap the rewards for being the better car. Having said that I would hate to see the costs of winning at Le Mans be driven to the stratosphere by companies building road-going prototypes that would require a syndicate to buy. Think of America's Cup yachts. I never have and never will be able to even contemplate buying any of today's road model GTs, but there is a large difference between even a Ferrari and a Veyron.

In 1969 there was a car that debuted at Le Mans that adhered closely to the rules and dominated qualifying and was allowed to compete without waivers or BOP adjustments. This was the Porsche 917, but it wasn't a prototype; Porsche managed to build 25 of them to satisfy the homologation requirements to run in the GT class (S-5000). The air-cooled flat 12-cylinder engine exceeded the new prototype displacement limit of 3.0L. So this pure prototype car competed against the aging, heavy, road-derived 5.0L GT40-MkI and Porsche's official prototype the 908. By the end of the race the 917s had retired and it was left to the 908 and the GT40 to slug it out. The old GT40 prevailed finally, the same chassis that won in 1968. The 917 went on to win the following year as fictionalized in Steve McQueen's "Le Mans". Unlike this year's GTE pole-sitter, in 1969 there was no insistence that there be a BOP adjustment between qualifying and the race.

In my youth I was a committed Ford fan. I was excited when it became known that Ford would enter the 2016 Le Mans 24 and field full-season entries in both the WEC and IMSA series. I knew it was no coincidence that it was the 50th anniversary of their 1966 victory and I rooted for them to win, but I didn't expect that they could in their first attempt. I am happy that I was wrong, but I was disappointed by the last-minute protest of the #82 for leader light failure. I think that was a mickey-mouse move considering that other cars had been allowed to run for hours with the same failure, such a call within the last 20 min. of the race is unforgivable. As a PR move that was as just bad. I am glad that Risi ignored the call, and that the offsetting penalties resulted in no change to the finishing order of the race. Ferrari deserved their podium finish. This is an echo of another bad PR move on Ford's part from that 1966 event; in order to stage a formation finish, team orders went out to the lead #1 GT40-MkII of Ken Miles to slow down to allow the #2 of Bruce McLaren (same lap in 2nd) to catch up and cross the line with the #5 of Ronnie Bucknum (12 laps down in 3rd). In the event the ACO ruled that since the #2 started further back, it had covered the greater distance and was awarded the win. This robbed Ken Miles of the win. Already in 1966 Ken had won the Daytona 24 and Sebring; a win at Le Mans would have been an historic achievement, but this failed PR move robbed him (and Ford) of that legacy. Ken died in testing later that year. The fact that this is remembered 50 years afterward should be a cautionary tale for Ford and anyone else that puts PR above sportsmanship and competition.