The decision by the World Endurance Championship to stop publishing Balance of Performance figures for its top classes has provoked discussion across the paddock. Critics have called the move a step away from transparency, while supporters argue it protects the integrity of competition. Balance of Performance (BoP) has long been a mechanism used to equalize different machines in GT racing; its escalation into the highest class of endurance sport has only intensified public interest and scrutiny.
At the centre of the debate is Stephane Ratel, the chief executive behind SRO Motorsport Group and a pioneering architect of GT3-level BoP work. Ratel has publicly backed the WEC’s choice to keep detailed BoP data confidential, arguing that secrecy serves a sporting purpose rather than concealing malpractice. His perspective reframes the issue: rather than a lack of openness, the move is an attempt to preserve the unpredictable element essential to spectator sport.
Why secrecy, according to Ratel
Ratel outlines three pillars he believes are central to sports appeal: nationalities, heroes and uncertainty. For him, the latter is non-negotiable — if outcomes are predictable, fan interest dwindles. The strategic use of BoP adjustments aims to keep results competitive by bringing disparate cars into closer performance windows. That objective, he says, justifies not publishing the raw figures used by officials.
He highlights examples from various series where a single manufacturer’s dominance erodes interest — pointing out that if one entrant wins consistently, television numbers and audience engagement suffer. Ratel places the responsibility on promoters and regulators to engineer conditions for surprise and variety, and views confidential data as one tool in that broader effort to maintain a healthy competitive ecosystem.
Context: how BoP works in modern endurance racing
The task of balancing cars in the Hypercar class sits with the FIA and the Automobile Club de l’Ouest, the co-promoters of the WEC. That responsibility is complicated by the existence of two distinct technical routes in top-level prototypes: LMDh and LMH. The two approaches produce machines with differing design philosophies, which increases the challenge of assigning fair performance limits.
Historically, BoP in GT3 was accepted as a necessary mechanism to allow manufacturers of different platforms to race together. When BoP principles moved to Hypercar, scrutiny naturally rose because the stakes and visibility are higher. Manufacturers have cited BoP outcomes as explanations for on-track competitiveness; notable teams have publicly questioned the system when it left them at a perceived disadvantage.
Manufacturer concerns and recent controversies
Some factory programmes pointed to BoP as a factor behind lacklustre results, while others used BoP debates to frame strategic decisions. These public disputes fed a narrative that data transparency would resolve dissent. Ratel rejects that premise, arguing that publication would not eliminate accusations but might instead fuel a continuous search for conspiracies among observers, rather than focusing discussion on sporting performance and setup choices.
The practical aim: closer fields and varied winners
For Ratel the measurable target is straightforward: narrow performance gaps. He suggests that achieving small lap-time differentials between cars would be an ideal outcome — a state where organisers could be proud of creating the most competitive grids possible. The practice of adjusting power, weight, aerodynamics or fuel parameters under the BoP regime is intended to bring cars into that range.
Ratel emphasises that the goal is not to artificially dictate results but to create the conditions for genuine racing. By aiming to have cars within tenths of a second of each other, promoters hope to encourage overtaking, varied podiums and the storytelling that sustains motorsport followings. In his view, whether the specifics of adjustments are public or private is secondary to delivering those outcomes.
What this means for fans and teams
The shift toward confidentiality leaves different stakeholders with distinct reactions. Fans who crave technical transparency will be dissatisfied, while others may welcome closer competition and less predictable race calendars. Teams and manufacturers must adapt to a framework where the parameters guiding parity are controlled by regulatory bodies and not open to public scrutiny.
Ratel’s final point reframes the controversy as a cultural tendency: a public inclination to suspect hidden agendas where governing bodies act in the sport’s interest. He invites observers to judge outcomes — the quality of racing and diversity of winners — rather than the availability of internal adjustment sheets. For him, the success of the policy will be visible on track, not in the release of technical spreadsheets.
Looking forward
As the debate continues, the essential question remains whether secrecy around BoP will deliver the tighter competition organisers promise. The answer will emerge through season-by-season performance, evolving regulations and how stakeholders respond. For now, Ratel stands by the decision as a pragmatic means to protect what he regards as the sport’s most valuable asset: uncertainty.
