"Sportscar racing has always been about the people who come to the track, not TV."
I disagree. Sports car racing when it started was about manufacturers showing off their cars, and rich people getting thrills. No one much cared about the fans.
Endurance racing even more so.
What sports car racing Used to be all about is not really relevant anyway. If sports car racing is going to survive in a changing world it might have to change.
Sports car racing didn't used to be on TV, for instance, and wasn't live on TV, and all that. Sports car racing used to be two short heats on Saturday and Sunday sometimes (look at the original Can Am) and mostly long races, and a whole bunch of things.
And sure, before it was televised, it made money from the people at the track, but do you think people picked 1000 km or 12 hours thinking of the track attendees? No, those distances/durations were picked to test the cars and teams. (Yeah, Mille Miglia was All about giving the fans a good show.
)
Endurance Racing (as opposed to just Sports Car Racing) has always been six hours, 1000k, or longer, if we want to play the "tradition" card. But what about also considering the "financial health" card?
Financial health involves a few things: keeping factories involved, keeping long-time fans involved (you know the ones who already spend all day at the track even for a 3-hr race) and getting good TV coverage top draw in more sponsors.
I am all for long races. I understand that some series cannot afford long races all the time (e.g. ALMS/USCR) I understand that tradition is important, fan expectation is important, TV costs are important.
But it is also important that we keep the argument focused on fact.
Every time I have been to a sports car race, people showed up early and stayed late, whether it was a three- or a twelve-hour race. And That is the tradition.
I recall a picture form a race in the late '50s showing a couple with a blanket, a wicker picnic basket, bottle of wine ... set up on a knoll with the track wrapping around it. That was sports car racing---pack a lunch and spend all day in the sun. No timing and scoring on the smartphone---not even a track announcer on the PA, because the speakers were only on the front straight near the grandstands.
The question is, what is best for the health of the sport right now; what race length is most likely to keep viewers, maybe increase the nu8mber fo viewers, and attract more sponsors?
I am biased, so I will say, "Longer races keep the infrequent races on TV for a longer chunk of the day, creating more chances for channel-flippers to see the races and maybe get interested."
That's BS, but if we are going to make BS arguments ... why not.
[Sorry for the disorganized post, it is early and I am watching the Tour de France while typing---yeah a five-or six-hour stage where the fans (300,000 today) line the side of a mountain to watch the peloton pass in a few seconds. That is more the tradition of racing.]