Why brilliant Le Mans must not tempt F1 down Balance of Performance path

Ferrari’s victory in this year’s Le Mans 24 Hours will go down in the history books as a classic. The head-to-head duel between the Prancing Horse and Toyota was on a knife-edge throughout – swinging back and forth as strategy, errant squirrels, power cycles and spins all played their part in deciding the outcome.

In the end, the surge of interest triggered by Ferrari’s first triumph at the endurance classic since 1965 says all you need to know about the value that a big manufacturer duel and an unpredictable battle for a win can bring – especially in a year when Formula 1 has been a bit too rinse and repeat at the front.

But, amid all the hype and brilliance that Le Mans delivered, there remained some lingering questions about how much of the fight at the front was about pure racing, and how much of it had been decided in the days before the race when Le Mans organisers introduced a late Balance of Performance (BoP) change for the Hypercar class.

Presented as a fait accompli by the FIA and the ACO, rather than with the agreement of the manufacturers, the changes hit Toyota hardest with a 37kg weight increase, as Ferrari got a 24kg hike. It was little wonder that Toyota, which had put so much effort in to its bid to win a straight sixth Le Mans crown, was mightily annoyed at the last-minute decision. Kamui Kobayashi claimed it would cost it 1.2 seconds per lap, with data suggesting the Japanese manufacturer was 10km/h slower on the straight.

OPINION: Did Le Mans Balance of Performance change create an end that justified the means?

Whatever the ultimate motive of the change – be it to spice up the Le Mans centenary edition to stop Toyota dominating again, or to make things more equal among all the Hypercar squads (note Peugeot’s weight remained unchanged) – the end result was ultimately a battle for victory that did not disappoint.

While the BoP tweaks may not have been great for Toyota, Ferrari certainly had no complaints. And, judging by audience figures and the way Le Mans grabbed headlines around the world and dominated social media, there are probably few regrets at the FIA or ACO either.

In a year when F1 has been stuck with the same team winning, and there being little sign of that changing in the short term, what happened at Le Mans has inevitably triggered some thoughts about whether or not grand prix racing’s chiefs should get a bit more hands on in closing things up.

The factors behind the enthralling Le Mans 24 Hours has put F1's rules back into the spotlight

Photo by: Motorsport Images

After all, it would be the simplest of rule changes to force a race-winner to carry an extra 10kg of ballast for the rest of the season. That roughly 0.3 seconds per lap handicap would easily be enough to have dragged the Red Bulls back and deliver us a much closer 2023 title battle.

It's a no-brainer, isn’t it?

Actually no. To make such a change would a dishonour F1’s history of a being a pure meritocracy; a characteristic that has been at the core of its success for decades now. Winning in F1 is about being the best in every area; the best drivers doing the best job in the best car designed by the best brains and run by the best mechanics. Nothing should ever be given out free of charge.

Such purity of competition delivers its own value. But, of course, it can be a double-edged sword because, as 2023 is showing, it sometimes lead to periods of absolute domination where the championship’s bosses have to simply swallow what’s going on and wait for other teams to catch up.

"If we start to put in a Balance of Performance we will ruin this sport. This is a meritocracy: best driver and best car, spending the same amount of money, wins the championship" Toto Wolff

But therein lies the true spirit of F1. When Mercedes or Ferrari or Aston Martin do finally manage to knock Red Bull off its perch, it won’t be because of some contrived interference from outside to spice up the show. Instead, it will be because they finally did a better job.

And that is what will make that moment so special. A changing of the guard at the front, whether we have to wait a few more days, a few weeks or even until the start of 2024, will mean something proper when it finally comes. That in itself means more than if the rules are changed on the fly to make sure we get a rotation of winners.

This is not to say that F1 has completely shut itself off from efforts to close things up. The cost cap is the greatest of all equalisers, and the Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions that offer a sliding scale of allowances, so the best performing teams get the least amount of development firepower, is all about a more competitive grid.

It should be down to Red Bull's rivals to stop its domination, rather than F1 intervening with rule changes

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

But, as F1’s former managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn was always keen to emphasise, there is a very clear line between rules that deliver competitive opportunities and those that deliberately hold back those doing the best job.

“It still maintains the meritocracy, you’ve still got to go out on the track and win the race,” he said ahead of the introduction of the ATR.

“We’re not doing anything to handicap the driver when he’s out on the track – it’s not success ballast. It’s rather like the NFL with the draft, where the least successful teams get the greatest opportunity initially, but they still have to deliver. It’s not like they have points given to them.

“I think it’s an opportunity and an encouragement for the smaller teams. If you consider the very real situation of somebody investing in Williams, Williams can now quite legitimately say we have this opportunity in the future to get off the back of the grid. That’s a nice incentive. I think it will have a gentle effect on correcting the competitiveness of the field, without distorting it.”

It is lack of distortion that thankfully F1 remains committed to. This is something that’s probably been helped by fans having long made clear their dislike for the idea of success ballast in F1 – with it consistently being one of the most hated sporting rule changes in all the recent official F1 Fan Surveys (and up there with reverse grids).

But perhaps even more critically to ensure F1 does not get tempted by the short terms gains that could come from a bit of BoP is that the current competitors have no interest in it at all. Even Mercedes boss Toto Wolff, who recently admitted that it ‘pisses him off’ to admit that Max Verstappen is currently on a different level, has an unwavering conviction that F1 steer clear of any meddling with the pace of the teams.

“I think if we start to put in a Balance of Performance we will ruin this sport,” he said recently. “This is a meritocracy: best driver and best car, spending the same amount of money, wins the championship. If you break the rules in either, you should be heavily penalised, but only then, and not for a good job.”

BoP looks set to stay out of F1 for now

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images