Historically speaking: the commercial relevance of non-production-based motor sport?

[Greg Cozier]

I dream of the day the top levels of international racing return to the 'cars we can buy' mantra but I doubt it will ever happen. The whole argument that prototype and F1 racing are 'engineering development platforms' is hogwash. Touring cars (with loose regs like DTM) and GT are easily as productive.

Originally Posted by nicanary

We're going OT here, but I totally agree. The Le Mans 24-hrs should be for production cars, as originally envisaged in 1923, and it would be a chance for all the supercar makers to prove their products in public view, That'd shut a few of them up.

Every Sunday motoring supplement has a preview of the next "big thing", all claiming to go 2mph faster than the last one. All pipe dreams. Let's see them up against each other, a sort of expanded Blancpain series, with cars in varying classes, according to engine size or price (shock horror), so the paying public know what to buy.

From my thread on 'prettiest sports cars'.

For years I've maintained and debated that the commercial relevance of racing 'prototypes' like GroupC and F1 cars has faded to just about zero. Likewise the commercial relevance of rallying cars on gravel roads decades after most car-market countries paved their public roads.

I think Ford are credited with the 'win on Sunday, sell on Monday' mantra, where did we go wrong? Obviously NASCAR hasn't but both the DTM and British Touring Car series has. Why don't we have supercars at LeMans? Why isn't the DTM formula international?