The ambitious system, which took shape during the second half of last year before debuting in IMSA’s blue-ribboned event, resulted in nearly a dozen technical working group meetings with OEMs that ultimately put the BoP into each manufacturers’ own hands.
As IMSA’s senior technical director Matt Kurdock recalls, an immense amount of work went into validating the new procedure, including organizing a controlled Balance of Performance test during December’s IMSA-sanctioned test days at Daytona International Speedway.
"IMSA dictated what the run plans were, we dictated what tires needed to be on the car, what fuel loads needed to be on the car, what drivers are driving the cars and we were able to collect a lot of data in controlled and similar circumstances, which is something that's very difficult to do during a normal sanctioned event or a race weekend,” Kurdock says.
"Using that data, we were able to then, over the course of the December test, refine the performance targets with the OEMs and have another round of BoP adjustments during the test, again with the goal of working towards common performance targets.
"The performance targets range from lap-time based targets that use a lot of the sector data that IMSA has access to, top speed targets, acceleration targets, things like that. It wasn't just about targeting the lap times, it was targeting an array of performance parameters with the intent to balance the on-track performance not just in one lap but over the course of a stint and taking into account the degradation of performance as the stint carries on.
"We worked through that process at the December test and were able to leave the test with a lot of good, empirical data. We then had a series of working groups with the OEMs where we transparently shared that data and than arrived at targets for the Roar and a collective BoP for the Roar."
Kurdock says that all of the OEMs had a “stake” in the discussion and collaboration on the process and parameters for the Daytona BoP table, with the high level of transparency having continued into race week.
"That final working group is where we all had the opportunity to go through the data, to discuss the performance targets for the Daytona race event and to align on those targets and the appropriate Balance of Performance parameters for all of the cars,” he says.
"Subsequently we ran the race and had continued the process, sharing the data from the race post-race and then we've looked at some of what happened in the race, looked at some of the data on the new tires from the race and then we worked with the OEMs on further evolution on the Balance of Performance process going into Sebring.”
That evolution, will be a back-to-basics approach that will see IMSA dictate the BoP themselves, although with an increased level of transparency that was developed through the months of work behind the scenes to come up with what was essentially on display at Daytona.
IMSA has cited two reasons for abandoning the newly developed system, one being the difficulty that some OEMs faced in nominating its own performance parameters, and also the lack of a sanctioned test at Sebring International Raceway, or at any other road course this year.
Neither Kurdock nor IMSA’s VP of competition Simon Hodgson acknowledged the change was made as a direct consequence of Ferrari and BMW’s post-race penalties for exceeding IMSA’s expected performance levels in the race.
"Our sporting regulations speak of the targeted performance window that allows for competitive equivalency,” explains Hodgson. “Obviously, following the race after we've conducted a comprehensive internal review, we determined that those performance targets have been exceeded.
"It's clear since that time that both IMSA and the manufacturer partners have come to the conclusion that BoP's extremely challenging, especially… with the introduction of three new cars and the new tire and the inputs, it’s based on a lot of calculated data [that] don't always achieve the desired performance. And you know, Daytona was different to Sebring.
"Daytona, we had a sanctioned test. We had plenty of opportunity to define those targets, which were clearly and transparently shared. But as we go into Sebring, there was no sanctioned test.
"We have to look at all of the data we currently have in hand, and I think there's been a realization of recognition from the manufacturer group that complexity and fitting defined performance targets is difficult. And so the decision to revert to controlling the BoP processes, we move forward for the rest of the year."
Despite the change back to the previous BoP system, Hodgson says that won’t eliminate the possibility of IMSA issuing penalties for so-called sandbagging from manufacturers or teams, as the criteria remains written in the regulations.
"It would be incorrect to dismiss that and say no, there won’t be any penalties,” he says. “Again, IMSA’s goal is not to penalize anybody. We’re there to have a very prescriptive set of regulations that give clear expectations for everybody and all concerned. We believe that we follow that with the new evolution of the process going into Daytona.
"As Matt said, we have multiple technical working groups. We had original performance targets upon the conclusion of the testing in December at Daytona, those performance targets were revised. All manufacturers were apprised. They understood what those performance metrics look like. They understood, the expectations. That's the word that is being used, but really those expectations were defined by clear communication on performance metrics.
"We saw some of those performance metrics exceeded, which resulted in penalties at Daytona.
"Again, that is after the course of number of technical working groups, a control test and 24 hours of racing. IMSA chose not to penalize during the race because obviously we wanted to ensure we had the time to fully scrub the data and ensure that those metrics were fully understood. They were also discussed subsequently after that event, with all of the manufacturers, when the penalties were announced.
"So as we moved into Sebring and we challenged the manufacturer partners to project potential BoP values surrounding targets that were initially defined by IMSA. There was a realization that there was an immense amount of complexity and trying to project what the outcome would be, of values in a BoP table to define a competitive window of equivalency that fell within plus or minus a quarter of a percent of targeted metrics was something that that some of the manufacturers weren't prepared to do.
"I think it was an important moment where everybody added an alignment and a realization that what we're trying to do as a group, it's immensely difficult, especially when you you've got so many things outside of your control.
"At that point, the manufacturers, even though they recognize the challenge, they basically declared they wanted to work with IMSA, in support of IMSA but with IMSA in control, making those decisions based on all of the data that is currently available.
“IMSA is still committed, and I think the manufacturer partners as a group, are still committed to, to working towards that window of competitive equivalency. But the reality is, if you look back to the many years we've been doing BoP, there is a nature to this which is inherently reactive to the performance you see following the event.
"So, this event we're going into, IMSA is very cognizant and will be monitoring all of the performance as usual, but we also have in mind that this is the foundation for the BoP for the rest of the year when it comes to road and street course. But again, we do have data. We're looking at live telemetry and certainly we're expecting all manufacturers to run within a window of competitive equivalency. But we'll have to wait and see what the reality of that is."
Hodgson stressed there was no deliberate act to penalize the two manufacturers for exceeding its nominated performance targets.
"I think what we've all realized through this process, it's extremely difficult to achieve the targets and expectations of all concerned, but we're all committed to that,” he says. “What occurred at Daytona occurred, I think, we are very supportive as IMSA of all of our manufacturer partners and their customers. We are not trying to penalize independent manufacturers, but in this instance we had to support the process that had been agreed upon.
"As we move forward, I think going through all of that exercise and understanding the conclusion of Daytona, trying to take the same approach for Sebring, with not as much time available to us, not as many opportunities to carry out testing. Everybody's realized, 'Hey, we have we're in support of IMSA’s process, it needs to be data driven.' We've asked the manufacturers to help us insulate that process so it remains technically driven and IMSA will take the lead in partnership with the manufacturers to define the BoP.
"It has not been a waste of time. The process has evolved from last year to this point to going to those experiences and learnings. It's just unfortunate that two manufacturers were penalized following data. But again, based on our regulation based on everything that was shared and discussed, IMSA had to represent the regulation."
Renee Gracie has moved into Pro-Am with her Only Fans livery. Now has a co-driver too.