Rolex 24 at Daytona, 27/28 January 2018: #912 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Earl Bamber, Laurens Vanthoor and Gianmaria BruniDisappointing is the only way that you can describe the result for Porsche at Daytona this last weekend. Porsche and Ferrari are the only two manufacturers who can claim an unbroken racing presence in all the major endurance races around the world since the 1950s. This is important for these two manufacturers, because both have produced sports cars as their core business since the companies were founded. Motor racing was thus the foundation, the raison d’être, for their very existence.
Rolex 24 at Daytona, 27/28 January 2018: #911 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Patrick Pilet, Nick Tandy and Frederic MakowieckiDaytona 24 Hour race result
GTLM class (9 cars)
| Pos. | Car No. | Car | Drivers | Team |
| 1 | 67 | Ford GT | Westbrook/Briscoe/Dixon | Ford Chip Ganassi Racing |
| 2 | 66 | Ford GT | Hand/Müller/Bourdais | Ford Chip Ganassi Racing |
| 3 | 3 | Corvette C7.R | Magnussen/Garcia/Rockenfeller | Corvette Racing |
| 4 | 4 | Corvette C7.R | Gavin/Milner/Fässler | Corvette Racing |
| 5 | 62 | Ferrari 488 | Vilander/Pier Guidi/Calado/Rigon | Risi Competizione |
| 6 | 912 | 911 RSR | Bamber/Vanthoor/Bruni | Porsche GT Team |
| 7 | 24 | BMW M8 | Krohn/Edwards/Catsburg/Farfus | BMW Team RLL |
| 8 | 911 | 911 RSR | Pilet/Tandy/Makowiecki | Porsche GT Team |
| 9 | 25 | BMW M8 | Sims/de Phillippi/Auberlen/Eng | BMW Team RLL |
GTD class (21 cars)
| Pos. | Car No. | Car | Drivers | Team |
| 18 | 73 | 911 GT3 R | Bergmeister/Lindsey/Siedler/Pappas | Park Place Motorsports |
| 19 | 58 | 911 GT3 R | Long/Nielsen/Jaminet/Renauer | Wright Motorsports |
| 20 | 59 | 911 GT3 R | Cairoli/Müller/Smith/Walls/Prozcyk | Manthey-Racing |
Rolex 24 at Daytona, 27/28 January 2018: #912 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Earl Bamber, Laurens Vanthoor and Gianmaria BruniSo, when Porsche enthusiasts look at the performance of the company’s GT cars in the major endurance races around the world and see that the 911 is regularly filling the lower positions in class, they must wonder what has happened to the all-conquering model. The reasons for this disappointing performance could be a poorly designed car, inexperienced or reckless drivers, or opposition that is much stronger and which has left Porsche behind in terms of research and development. But, all of these reasons can safely be kicked into the long grass, because Porsche has some of the best works drivers in the world, and the 911 RSR is cutting edge in terms of development. Porsche also has one of the most advanced R&D departments on the planet, having continuously developed and improved their facility at Weissach since its inception in the early 1960s, when they would carry out engineering consulting work for other manufacturers.
Rolex 24 at Daytona, 27/28 January 2018: #58 Wright Motorsports Porsche 911 GT3 R, drivers: Patrick Long, Christina Nielsen, Mathieu Jaminet and Robert RenauerThere are two other variables which could be tabled as contributing to the 911’s less than sparkling performance over the last few years. One would be racing accidents caused either by other cars on track, or driver error which has a very rare occurrence. The only outstanding factor is the Balance of Performance (BoP) which is a tool used by the various racing organisers around the world to equalise the performance of all cars in a particular class. The justification for doing this is to bunch all the cars in that class together so that in theory they can all cross the finishing line abreast of each other. This is obviously not only impractical, but also impossible given the presence of so many other cars on the track, not to mention unexpected mechanical problems during the race.
Rolex 24 at Daytona, 27/28 January 2018: #59 Manthey-Racing Porsche 911 GT3 R, drivers: Sven Müller, Matteo Cairoli, Steve Smith, Randy Walls and Harald ProczykThe very existence of BoP goes against the very reason for racing in the first place because engineers work hard to get their car to be the fastest on the track. When a race car stands head and shoulders above the others, the authorities then slap a penalty on that car or team in an effort to slow it down or hinder that team’s performance potential. That renders the work done by those development engineers pointless, and rather a waste of money. Teams may as well take the previous year’s car, which would be slower than a newly developed version of that car, and then apply to the race organisers for a waiver to enable their previous year’s car to compete on an even playing field with the others in class.
6 Hours of Silverstone, 16 April 2017: #91 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Richard Lietz/Frederic Makowiecki finished third in GTE Pro
6 Hours of Silverstone, 16 April 2017: #92 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Michael Christensen/Kevin Estre – not classified in GTE ProThis argument is very much tongue in cheek, but if one looks at the 2017 Le Mans 24 Hours, the two oldest cars in the GTE Pro class were the only cars competing for overall class honours. One reader posted a comment on our website asking how it was that the two “oldest barges” in class were the only two cars in with a chance of winning. The answer lies in the BoP applied by the race organisers. For the 2017 WEC season, it had been agreed by the organisers and manufacturers that for the first two races of the year, the old subjective method of calculating the BoP in the WEC would remain the same as it had been previously, but as from the fourth round at the Nürburgring, it would be left to a computer to objectively calculate this factor. The third round, the Le Mans 24 Hours, the BoP would be at the discretion of the race organisers. The results were rather predictable, because the top 911 RSR finished third at Silverstone, and a rather distant fifth and sixth at Spa where the two 911s ran faultlessly. At Le Mans, as expected, the newly developed top Porsche finished in fourth place, behind the two oldest cars in the class.
6 Hours of Spa, 6 May 2017: #91 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Richard Lietz/Frederic Makowiecki finished fifth in GTE Pro
6 Hours of Spa, 6 May 2017: #92 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Michael Christensen/Kevin Estre finished sixth in GTE ProInteresting though, was how well the Porsches did at the Nürburgring, where they qualified on pole and in third place, and finished second and third in the race. This remember, was the new computer-generated BoP system, with minimum human intervention. Needless to say, the 911 RSRs continued to do much better over the remainder of the year.
Le Mans 24 Hours, 17/18 June 2017: #91 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Richard Lietz/Frederic Makowiecki finished fourth in GTE Pro
Le Mans 24 Hours, 17/18 June 2017: #92 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Michael Christensen/Kevin Estre retired in GTE ProAnother reader commented to me that BoP is essential in today’s racing because the sport is all about entertainment and the manufacturers spend millions of Dollars or Euros to get their cars to do well and finish in a tight bunch because it is more entertaining. I agree with the part about the manufacturers spending millions in whatever currency, but why be satisfied with regularly finishing fifth and sixth when your cars used to be regular winners before BoP ever existed. I don’t know which management book the organisers have been reading, but I go to the races to see the best car win because it is the best car. If the others get beaten regularly, then they will soon get the message and up their game, but I cannot see the logic of penalising the winner of a race. That would eventually encourage manufacturers to plan to finish second and third in every race, and through such consistency, win the championship at the end of the year.
6 Hours of Nurburgring, 16 July 2017: #91 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Richard Lietz/Frederic Makowiecki finished second in GTE Pro
6 Hours of Nurburgring, 16 July 2017: #92 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Michael Christensen/Kevin Estre finished third in GTE ProDisappointing too was Porsche’s response after the Daytona race, where they cited the lack of speed as one of the reasons why the #912 car could not keep the leaders in their sights. That is purely a BoP issue. The other issue highlighted was the fact that there were too few caution phases in the race, just four compared with the 21 of the previous year. With just four cautionary phases, this made it impossible to close the gap to the leaders when behind the safety car. Apparently, the race director uses this method after incidents on the track to herd the field together and thus keep suspense high. That’s entertainment and not racing.
6 Hours of COTA, 16 September 2017: #92 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Michael Christensen/Kevin Estre finished second in GTE Pro
6 Hours of COTA, 16 September 2017: #91 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Richard Lietz/Frederic Makowiecki finished sixth in GTE ProSpeaking to many GT drivers over the years, I have been told by several of them (who were prepared to make their feelings felt) that it has been very frustrating when other class contenders simply out-pace them on the straights. Again, that’s purely a BoP issue where the organisers have got it wrong. Other drivers, towed the corporate line by smiling through the interview that this was all okay, but you could see their underlying frustration.
6 Hours of Bahrain, 18 November 2017: #91 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Richard Lietz/Frederic Makowiecki finished fourth in GTE Pro
6 Hours of Bahrain, 18 November 2017: #92 Porsche 911 RSR, drivers: Michael Christensen/Kevin Estre – not classified in GTE ProThe Porsche 911 RSR has the smallest naturally aspirated engine in class, and yet it still, despite constant unfavourable BoPs over the years, remains a threat. I suppose, if you want to put a positive slant on that situation, you have to smile and agree that the authorities, and the other class competitor’s, have reason to be worried that the 911 will show its teeth all too easily, given just half a chance – because the 911 really is that good!
Written by: Glen Smale
Images by: Virtual Motorpix/Glen Smale & John Mountney
I’m not a Porsche fan (in fact not any makes fan at all), but completely support the idea. I should say that FIA should leave at least 2 or 3 free engineering classes to show constructors’ competition. With all that BoP nonsense we only see Advertising Departments’ racing. If you drop this engineering competition out of racing you’ll get either a single series or a complete joke masking as a show.
If you’ve had a chance to sit in one of the manufacturer corrals/meetings, the team principals acknowledge that BoP is a necessary evil in sportscar racing. They all want some ROI from the races and having one marque dominate just isn’t good for business and they don’t want to get into spending wars. That being said, IMSA certainly whiffed on the Daytona BoP. The race was Ford in one class, Porsche, Corvette, and Ferrari in a class, and then BMW being nowhere close.
Looking at the results of the previous 3 seasons, BoP seems to be doing what the series and manufacturers want:
2017 wins
BMW – 4
Corvette – 4
Ford – 2
Porsche – 1
Ferrari – 0 (1 non-factory entry)
2016 wins
Corvette – 5
Ford – 3
Porsche – 2
Ferrari – 1
BMW – 0
2015 wins
Porsche – 5
BMW – 3
Corvette – 2
Ferrari – 0
Ford – N/A
It would be nice to know you’re thought’s on what will happen now, and what you think should happen.
I agree with your article and the comments, BoP isn’t working, but then F1 is boring mainly because it is dominated by the biggest spender.
I’m not sure how to fix the current situation as it appears that the winner is the organisers choice. But, i would suggest: The rule book need’s very clearly defined rules that set a standard for one year, no BoP, with all work’s team being able to comment/participate in rule making.
Thanks not only for your return question, but also for your added comments. This is not an easy fix, but the racing organisers have got this current BoP index all wrong because, as you pointed out, the winner is often decided in the boardroom. I would suggest a much simpler system, because basically the best car, both technically and in build quality or durability terms, should be the winner. To attempt to make a front engined car, a mid-engined and a rear engined car with engine sizes differing from 4-litre to 5.5-litre NA and turbo-engined, all perform to the same level is crazy. The paying public is not stupid, they know what is reasonable to expect performance-wise, and what isn’t. I would suggest that the organisers take their hands off the rule book for a minute, and make the whole thing much simpler, and then to introduce some kind of Group C variation as far as fuel is concerned. Racing is all about engineering, and right now there is little incentive for innovation and so racing is not feeding innovation back to the street production car market as it should be doing. Right now racing is purely about marketing the brand by being present on the starting grid, and if the organisers like you that year, you might get a break or two. I agree that if any control must be applied to the technical performance of the cars, it should be done at homologation time, and then left alone – that will show whether the manufacturers or teams have done their homework or if the organisers have messed up with some subjective BoP calculation. You don’t want the same silly ‘economy’ racing series that Group C seemed to encourage, but you can get the clever guys to come up with a variation of that series. Group C was the most successful racing era in recent history, so much so that it threatened the popularity of F1, and so Ecclestone changed the WEC rules back then to make sure it didn’t survive. This is well known history now, but the current world sports car championship is in danger of disappearing altogether. How you can have a World Championship where the winning team is influenced or even decided by the race organisers, is not a World Championship! The teams and spectators deserve more, much more!
Well, where do we stand now? Because the results sheet shows #911 in 1st and #912 in 3rd, but my opinion is they probably weren’t fast enough, but both car’s drove a clean and tidy race, staying out of trouble (apart from a small bumper change for the #912) in a race where many others had problems.
I think it will be difficult to determine a genuine BoP with the results so far as we’ve had 2 very different race’s with different results, but I don’t think we can learn too much of how the season is going to pan out yet
Good question – where do we go now – I agree that the first two races were completely different from each other in almost every respect. But if the race authorities were to take their hands off the controls and cease the constant & minute changes to the BoP, and stick to some broader regs for the whole season, then the whole field would sort itself out in the long run. But by constantly tinkering with this team’s fuel capacity and that team’s restrictor size, they create a false situation. Just like in Economics 101, demand and supply will eventually balance out in a free market situation. If a particular team breaks the rules, there will be consequences, but let the cars race!
Well I would not say it (BOP) was a disaster at Daytona this year. In fact the qualifying times were very close in all three classes. Yes, the LMP2 cars were at a slight disadvantage I think due to the fact that by rule, they must run the FIA approved body kit- that is all they can do. THe DPi cars seem to make more downforce, but maybe suffer a little only on top speed. In GTLM, the qualifying times were again very close, the issue becomes, over the course of a fuel stint, with no yellow or pace car, what can you do? Ford were the only ones who could maintain the pace over the course of a fuel stint. And given the way this race played out (very few yellows or pace cars), speed over the course of a complete stint became critical. What has become clear in IMSA GTLM,(I cannot speak to WEC) at least in my opinion, is that the IMSA race tracks differ widely in terms of layout, and weather over the course of the season. Tire selection (note GTLM tires in IMSA are open by rule, not a spec tire) and how your car works on the particular tire Michelin has brought for you at that circuit and in those weather conditions, play a big part. There will be subsequent races where the Fords will drop back and other cars will run at the front. Last year at Lime Rock, the Porsches lapped the field. Granted it was Hot, and it is a short bull ring type of circuit. Give it a few races to see where we are. I suspect the Porsches will run better at Sebring, as it will be hotter than Daytona, and will run well at Long Beach as it is a street circuit.
Thanks Martin for that very considered response. It is true the two series, IMSA and WEC, are very different and the BOP calculations in each will likewise be quite different. The WEC rule makers are also the body responsible for setting the BOP, and while I don’t want to point fingers, they could have shown a bit more of an objective attitude in dishing out the BOP calculations. This can be seen with the Porsches for instance, because they set pole in their first year in 2013 and the next time was in 2017. Thats hardly evidence of a good record of BOP calculations, so one can easily understand why Porsche enthusiasts are a little cynical about the BOP in WEC. Hopefully with this new computer generated system it will be a little more even-handed.