[vincesanity82]

The racing is what's crucial, not the salaries of crew members or how much team owners are shelling out. All of that pales in relation to how the COT races and what kind of product we get to see on Sunday afternoons. But the COT is a lemon, a dud, an Edsel-like flop taking the place of something that's worked for a very long time and was fairly easy for everyone to identify with, including fans who know that even the current Monte Carlos and non-COT Fusions are nothing like a stock car — but are much easier to accept than the COT. So maybe it wasn't introduced to us, just forced on us, at Bristol. Perhaps the resulting bad COT races, including the ultra-popular night race at Bristol, which has very few dull moments, was the telling sign, especially after the trucks and current cars performed so well in their races that weekend. Next year, we get the COT entirely, not here or there at short tracks and smaller intermediate superspeedways. So the importance of NASCAR testing the car between now and Speedweeks 2008 is important, even more than the developmental stages over the last few years leading to its introduction this spring. If NASCAR gets it right in winter testing and improves the car, then it will prove it knows as much about car-making and tweaking rides as Detroit does. -- TC Palm

Bill Whitehead: NASCAR, the COT is a dud; fix it, our else : Columns : TCPalm

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by vincesanity82

The racing is what's crucial, not the salaries of crew members or how much team owners are shelling out. All of that pales in relation to how the COT races and what kind of product we get to see on Sunday afternoons. But the COT is a lemon, a dud, an Edsel-like flop taking the place of something that's worked for a very long time and was fairly easy for everyone to identify with, including fans who know that even the current Monte Carlos and non-COT Fusions are nothing like a stock car — but are much easier to accept than the COT. So maybe it wasn't introduced to us, just forced on us, at Bristol. Perhaps the resulting bad COT races, including the ultra-popular night race at Bristol, which has very few dull moments, was the telling sign, especially after the trucks and current cars performed so well in their races that weekend. Next year, we get the COT entirely, not here or there at short tracks and smaller intermediate superspeedways. So the importance of NASCAR testing the car between now and Speedweeks 2008 is important, even more than the developmental stages over the last few years leading to its introduction this spring. If NASCAR gets it right in winter testing and improves the car, then it will prove it knows as much about car-making and tweaking rides as Detroit does. -- TC Palm

Bill Whitehead: NASCAR, the COT is a dud; fix it, our else : Columns : TCPalm

No wonder the Daytona newspaper fired Whitehead.

One race at Bristol where the entire racing surface was new and everyone was concerned about that most wonderfulest of things, the Playoffs, and <presto!> Señor Whitehead calls the thing a bust?

Hey, Bill. The drivers are complaining because this one doesn't steer itself. This one, so far anyway, (the engineers having yet found a way to screw it up) actually has to be DRIVEN.

I'll agree with you. It's a piece of crap. But, it isant as crappy as that twisted up, abortion they called a race car that they drove on the big tracks this season. So far NA__AR hasn't allowed to Knause's, the Osbpourne's and the Zippy's to tinker with this one too much. (So far...)

It sure ain't stock but, from where I stand, it look a whole lot more like a stock car than the old, down force car did, even with the cheesy wing and the dumb-looking splitter.

[DOF_power]

>



^ Bob I disagree here that less downforce + crapier suspensions + crapier tires = better racing.

A car that is unstable in traffic due to the above mentioned won't showcase driving and exciting racing, just how to keep a car steady and "feed" the guy in the back turbulence so he won't be able to keep the line to overtake.

I know that because that's precisely what happened in F1 since they banned the active ride cars, then the slick tires and so on.

The old school factor won't really help, as there other factors to consider, namely aerodynamics and ultimately the tires (how their brought into temperature, their pressure, degradation and ofcourse how all (including aero, suspension geometry and weight distribution) comes togheter to make them grip the surface) , witch radically alter the picture as opposed to 40 years.

[jks812]

Like Bob I think the drivers don't like it because they have to actually put in an effort to drive it. Every time they run it one driver complains about" you just can't pass with this thing", but yet the majority seem to be able to pass with it. I think the "new" fans don't like it cause it's not a wreck every so many laps. I for one like the fact that we don't hear " yellow is out" constantly. I also like that when they do wreck, unlike the "old" car, this one doesn't just come to pieces. But above all I like that Nascar basically isn't letting them mess with this one.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

>



^ Bob I disagree here that less downforce + crapier suspensions + crapier tires = better racing.

A car that is unstable in traffic due to the above mentioned won't showcase driving and exciting racing, just how to keep a car steady and "feed" the guy in the back turbulence so he won't be able to keep the line to overtake.

I know that because that's precisely what happened in F1 since they banned the active ride cars, then the slick tires and so on.

The old school factor won't really help, as there other factors to consider, namely aerodynamics and ultimately the tires (how their brought into temperature, their pressure, degradation and ofcourse how all (including aero, suspension geometry and weight distribution) comes togheter to make them grip the surface) , witch radically alter the picture as opposed to 40 years.

"I'll agree with you. It's a piece of crap. But, it isn't as crappy as that twisted up, abortion they called a race car that they drove on the big tracks this season.'"

I'm completely with you that less down force +plus hard to decipher suspensions don't automatically lead to better racing. I meant the new race car at least looks something, though minor, like a stock car. The old car was tinkered with so much by the engineers that it was what I euphemistically refer to as a "camel." (We all know a camel is simply a cow designed by engineers)

I admit complete ignorance IRT the technical side of F1. If you were to tell me the cars are lubricated by composed pumpkin seeds, I'd be force to believe you. I've noted my solution to the problem here many time; cars which meet a factory template, shorter and slower tracks, b eefed suspensions with radical suspension modifications made ONLY for safety's sake.

Actually, I believe the bottom line is that you and I are usually in, shall we say, agrement,, or înţelegere? (not sure about the last one)

[Racer Duck]

It was interesting to listen to Sam Hornish talking about the COT on Trackside Live tonight after the truck race. He claimed it's a "stable platform" much like his IRL car. He said that made it easier for him to get accustomed to and to drive because it was stable and he knew what to expect. To say the least. it put an interesting (and somewhat different) perspective on the COT.

[oncea3fan]

ok. I am forced to go off topic,
Bob, I love reading your posts.....................but what does IRT stand for, I been racking my brain on that one and I am sure I'll be like DUH but Iam stumped

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by oncea3fan

ok. I am forced to go off topic,
Bob, I love reading your posts.....................but what does IRT stand for, I been racking my brain on that one and I am sure I'll be like DUH but Iam stumped

Bob can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it's "in regards to".

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

It was interesting to listen to Sam Hornish talking about the COT on Trackside Live tonight after the truck race. He claimed it's a "stable platform" much like his IRL car. He said that made it easier for him to get accustomed to and to drive because it was stable and he knew what to expect. To say the least. it put an interesting (and somewhat different) perspective on the COT.

A "Big Name" driver (I'd say an Indy 500 victory and two or three - I forget how many - IRL Championship rings qualify him as "Big Name") saying something positive about the new race car? Methinks the primadonna's will count that as blasphemy.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Bob can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it's "in regards to".

Twenty-two years of writing military messages is hard to break.

IRT = In Regards to
IAW = In accordance with
Ref = Referencing
Germane = relevant to

...are a few I drop in usually without thinking about it. I'm sorry for the confusion.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

It was interesting to listen to Sam Hornish talking about the COT on Trackside Live tonight after the truck race. He claimed it's a "stable platform" much like his IRL car. He said that made it easier for him to get accustomed to and to drive because it was stable and he knew what to expect. To say the least. it put an interesting (and somewhat different) perspective on the COT.

Kinda like/enjoy that near every recent transfer from the top levels of open wheel (Montoya, Carpantier, etc., etc.) are consistent with comments around - ya gotta drive the car. Try to jerk it around like the (comparatively) "sucked into the track" aero foils, and your in up to your knees.

Hornish not really saying any different here (a perspective from repeated experience). "Knew what to expect" - the key words. Many is the time we did our set up "magic", or so we thought, and the driver feedback would be - "it's stable and I know what to expect". At times being alert we'd query - "does that mean it's a good race set-up"? To which response was more than once - "frig no!!! It's just that lap upon lap it's consistent, and changes result in performance that while different is at least consistent / predictable. Real racers/drivers can work with this definition of "stable".

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

"I'll agree with you. It's a piece of crap. But, it isn't as crappy as that twisted up, abortion they called a race car that they drove on the big tracks this season.'"

I'm completely with you that less down force +plus hard to decipher suspensions don't automatically lead to better racing. I meant the new race car at least looks something, though minor, like a stock car. The old car was tinkered with so much by the engineers that it was what I euphemistically refer to as a "camel." (We all know a camel is simply a cow designed by engineers)

Bob how about the DTM solution ?!

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The cars are supposed to be fast and spectacular, while still rather cheap to build and run. All DTM race cars have RWD and 4.0 L V8 engines which are air-restricted to 470 hp, no matter if similar layouts or engines are available in the road cars. Instead of the road car bodies, unrelated purpose-built chassis are used, which are closer to prototype racing. Many drivers have in fact described the handling of the cars as closer to single seater racing cars than road cars. Only the roof sections of the road cars are put on top of the roll cages, and lights and other distinctive design features are used in order to provide a resemblance to the road cars. Also, in order to save money and provide close racing, many common parts from third party specialist are used, like transmission (from Hewland and Xtrac), brakes and Dunlop Tires. The all-important aerodynamic (outsourced to a third party) configurations are tested in wind tunnels before the season, brought to an equal level (all cars), and kept that way throughout the season.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Bob how about the DTM solution ?!

Apart from the decal wraps, radical air dam and side aero package, it looks like a car one might see tooling down the autobauhn. It even has door handles!!??

NA__AR "could" take a lesson from this (but my bet is that they won't).

[wingkey1]

the DTM solution - see dtm.com, select English

This puppy is as much, perhaps even more, a "spec" or governing body controlled car than COT. Except for fact multiple manufacturers are involved (very few though), it reads like IROC.

Neat looking though. All races on road courses which likely helps the controlled aero (by the governing body) effort.

Restrictor plates, sealed engines, - EuroCOT

[DOF_power]

True, but at least you could demand standard production engines like on the FIA GT along with the "standard" look.
I'd be for real stock cars, but this would be as good as it could get.