I get that man and we are going around again full circle because most likely there is no good answer.
My thought would be it needs to be an obscene number of cars produced ie your real production cars because otherwise there is still no point to doing the race, if it's just 500 supercars that they can make and let rot, like they would , it's an unobtainable automobile so you just go back to watching what company has the engineering and money like it always boils down too.
I would be more interested in seeing a race full of actual cars that we can buy to see what a company actually produces. Sure it won't be as fast but racings racing and the competition would end up forcing companies to keep putting out better production products not the same shit with a new body and more gadgets like we see today
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
You can race anything, people race lawnmowers and there is a following for that.
Sure you can't race a production vehicle like an actual built race car, I would never debate that, but that's what makes it actually interesting and not just another division where you have brands attached to a car that is spec and unobtainable. Then you have fans watching rooting for a brands product and team that has absolutely no bearing on anything like any other football, baseball, hockey, paintball or any other sport, all entertaining but completely meaningless.
Its a moot point. There is no real competetion at those costs. When you need ford or Porsche to sporsor a team, or need those companies to fiekd a team outright the spirit is lost, because of the amount of cash and effort. At that point you are watching logos circle a track for 6+ hours, its a commercial! Who gets mad at watching a commercial?
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
GT3 would fall into your definition of a car that has to small of a production run to be able to make a race out of because they could just eat the cost of it to try and win in what I would consider to be a race that could have a meaningful outcome.
my definition of what?
also what the hell is a "meaningful outcome?"
you said something stupid. don't say stupid things, don't win stupid prizes.
to answer your question, it depends. some lower classes are homologated as is, others are done by a modification limit rule, some are BoPed. depends on the sanctioning body, and type of race and type of car. all racing will limit the performance of the car with the rule book though.
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
Where stock racing would turn into prototype racing. Low production numbers of a car they can eat the cost of and make it crazy good in a stock class race format turning it into prototype racing.
Meaningful outcome means there is some weight behind what actually happens on the track. Only reason I'm even interested in this is because you are a very logical thinker and you didn't start a post saying look at what Ford did to skirt the rules in this racing format, you came in angry about something that Ford did and I'm just trying to decide if there is logic behind the outrage or if it is just a fan being irrational about something. Both are fine outcomes by the way, it just peaked my interest on a slow work Friday.