[Bob Tanner]

It gratifying to see that not only the faithful who enhabit this forum, but also a respected motorsports journalist, isn't afraid to question the "Stock" in NASCAR.

That's Racin' | 03/02/2007 | NASCAR wrestles with terminology - this is no 'stock' car

[wingkey1]

Oh Brother!?!

Seems naive on the part of the writer to be inclined towards intimating / suggesting that COT was the crossover point to something "un-stock". Must have been a slow news day.

Comes across like new to the sport. Somebody got to give the boy a measuring stick or simply a side by side of a showroom Fusion, Charger, Monte Carlo next to what is running today as same.

Interesting that from the more upright windshield standpoint, COT is closer to the showroom models than what is running today.

[wingkey1]

Wow. And even the manufacturers say that COT gives "more brand identity" that the current "car".

Holy Moly. Has NASCAR (in at least the eyes of the competing manufacturers) taken, in COT, a step towards "stock".?

Whoa! Earth off axis!!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Oh Brother!?!

Seems naive on the part of the writer to be inclined towards intimating / suggesting that COT was the crossover point to something "un-stock". Must have been a slow news day.

Comes across like new to the sport. Somebody got to give the boy a measuring stick or simply a side by side of a showroom Fusion, Charger, Monte Carlo next to what is running today as same.

Interesting that from the more upright windshield standpoint, COT is closer to the showroom models than what is running today.

I see your point, Wing. My take on Ed's piece was just a validation of what most of us here already knew; NASCARmobiles are hardly "stock."

I've looked and looked but have yet to see any similarity between the NASCAR.v2 and the Chev's, Fords, MOPAR's and Toyotas we see on the street. There is where Hinton and I part ways, opinion-wise.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I see your point, Wing. My take on Ed's piece was just a validation of what most of us here already knew; NASCARmobiles are hardly "stock."

I've looked and looked but have yet to see any similarity between the NASCAR.v2 and the Chev's, Fords, MOPAR's and Toyotas we see on the street. There is where Hinton and I part ways, opinion-wise.

Yup, Yup.

Interesting (redundant comment from me here) that the manufacturers see COT as providing "more brand identity" than the current "thing" being run. Good 'ol NASCAR moved (at least in the eyes of the competing manufacturers) a step towards stock identity. Unfortunately if left to the manufacturers we'd likely see the most current version of the "superbird" as they tried to out do one another for Sunday supremacy.

Here goes my viewpoint - it is they (the manufacturers) who own significant reaponsibility for 'ole Junior Johnson (hardly a wimp) to cry for help - "they gotta do something beofre somebody gets killed". The manufacturers response was essentially - shut up and race it hayseed, or we'll find someone who will. The "they" that stepped in was "the" Mr. France. And THAT was the long and controversial beginning on the road to what we've all come to affectionately (?) refer to as COT.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Yup, Yup.

Interesting (redundant comment from me here) that the manufacturers see COT as providing "more brand identity" than the current "thing" being run. Good 'ol NASCAR moved (at least in the eyes of the competing manufacturers) a step towards stock identity. Unfortunately if left to the manufacturers we'd likely see the most current version of the "superbird" as they tried to out do one another for Sunday supremacy.

Here goes my viewpoint - it is they (the manufacturers) who own significant reaponsibility for 'ole Junior Johnson (hardly a wimp) to cry for help - "they gotta do something beofre somebody gets killed". The manufacturers response was essentially - shut up and race it hayseed, or we'll find someone who will. The "they" that stepped in was "the" Mr. France. And THAT was the long and controversial beginning on the road to what we've all come to affectionately (?) refer to as COT.

I see your point. However I guess that it's a matter of perspective. I've never traced it back to Junior's ownership, but now that I think about it, I see some merit. I trace it back to Ford's wanting a wider and higher rear end to make up for the perceived advantage the then new Monte Carlo design would have in the series. But then I've also had people argue that it could be traced back to NASCAR's allowing Holman-Moody to run a shop-built chassis in place of a stock frame...

The bottom line is the NASCARmobile.v2, COT, CON (Car of Now), vehicle-racing- NASCAR- one each, or whatever we choose to call it, is a reality. We'll all just have to see how it all plays out. I'd like to see it make the drivers safer (IF this is indeed the case, then why aren't they running it in Cup Lite? That Series isn't as dangerous as Cup?), and do away with this aero-push crap. If it does all this, and makes better racing, then the thing will be better than a jab in the eye with a sharp stick.

However and why ever it got here, the thing is here and I'm just a spectator, expecting to be entertained every race day. If it does that then how bad can it be?

[simple simon]

well im sure the point has been made in other threads.....but i think the COT races are just the rebirth of the IROC series

nothing stock about them

no brand individual identity really........which is supposed to be one of the key points of racing isnt it ?...............my Chevy is better then your Ford

the COT removes that totally from the equation.........which is a shame imo

[Nevadastars]

National
Association of
Spec
Car
Auto
Racing

[clutch]

Well I can tell you the Michael is itching to qualify at Bristol, that rear wing will give some much needed downforce at the rear .....which right now seems to like the wall.


I'm looking forward to it myself and hope it is completely fazed in next year

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by simple simon

well im sure the point has been made in other threads.....but i think the COT races are just the rebirth of the IROC series

nothing stock about them

no brand individual identity really........which is supposed to be one of the key points of racing isnt it ?...............my Chevy is better then your Ford

the COT removes that totally from the equation.........which is a shame imo

Probably the most disturbing truth that Ed gave in his article was:
"In sports-car racing, such cars have long been called prototypes. But that would be a blatant admission by the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing of the decades-old truth: that its race cars no longer are in the same technological universe with “stock cars.”"

The ONLY thing Chevrolet, Ford, MOPAR or Toyota about NASCAR today is the wind tunnel time those mfg's give certain teams and the logo's on the hood.

When they put a restrictor plate on the cars at Talladega in the fall, IROC will be almost EXACTLY what we'll have.

[Bob Tanner]

Another racing journalist weights in on the subject of the NA$CARmobile.v2; Rick Minter of the Atlanta Journal Constipation.

Today's race car shares only decal with showroom model | ajc.com

The legion of those of us who lament the loss of "Stock Car" in stock car racing is growing.