I understand what you're saying, but if they can go faster and win for half the cost then why not do it? If the other drivers are better and want to win that championship they could buy a GT car too instead of an R5.

I don't see why the most expensive car has to win, unless the goal is to make drivers spend more money on those cars (which may be what the R5 manufacturers want, but is it best for the sport?).

I know that young drivers moving up the ranks need experience in the right sort of car if they want to reach WRC and they also want to win championships, but similar choices apply at other levels too - if a young talented driver spends a season in an R2 car to refine his technique while other drivers with less long-term goals jump into turbo 4wd cars sooner, the guy in the R2 wouldn't expect the faster cars to be restricted to R2 pace so that he can win the championship!

Ideally for spectator interest you would have a variety of different cars with different advantages, but equal chance of winning overall. And that may be what they're trying to achieve with the restrictions on the GT cars, but I get the impression its gone too far and now the GT cars have no chance of winning?

Another way of managing it is how NZRC used to run, where faster cars (Grp-A etc) could enter and win events but only Grp-N was eligible for championship points.