[vincesanity82]

Observers cite three reasons for the spike in incidents this season. Chief among them: NASCAR's use of two model cars in its Cup series. The Car of Tomorrow, designed with closer, more competitive racing in mind, posed handling challenges. An influx of drivers to Cup and outside pressures on drivers were other possible factors. NASCAR said it will review all phases of the sport before 2008, but vice president of competition Robin Pemberton sees little cause for alarm. "I think (an increase in incidents) is coincidental," he said. "All this stuff goes in cycles." -- USA Today

Accidents, spins pile up in '07 Chase races - USATODAY.com

[Bob Tanner]

I agree with Pemberton.

[The Dude]

It's a coincidence, plain and simple. The introduction of the COT was supposed to increase safety, so I can't see it raising crash numbers, besides, we know those things can take a beatin anyway with the few physical finishes we've seen this year.

[wingkey1]

Ummmm ----

The data would seem to show that accident and caution rates for 2006 and 2007 were pretty much the same with both being clearly less than 2005. 2005 was actually the "high spike" if ya will in the series of years shown (referring to the bar graphs).

Now it just seems possible another way this might be seen is that - even with the introduction of a second and completely new vehicle (COT thingy) being used for near half of the season, accidents and cautions remained pretty much the same.

Could be the writer was enough "anti-COT" that the one tenth (.1) increase in the accident rate was enough to trigger his/her - COT no good - brain cell.

But what do we know?!?!

[Racer Duck]

I think when you look at what publication this article came from, you'll see it as it is: an attempt to make a story out of none.

Any first year journalism student knows "Sensation Sells!" So how boring to say "2007 was statistically the same as 2006, and a whole lot less than 2005."

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I think when you look at what publication this article came from, you'll see it as it is: an attempt to make a story out of none.

Any first year journalism student knows "Sensation Sells!" So how boring to say "2007 was statistically the same as 2006, and a whole lot less than 2005."

Agree. Perhaps we need to be a bit more selective around what articles we put/place/post here. Hate giving idiots a free forum for their uninformed and worthless ramblings.

We ought all commit to be better than your - "Any first year journalism student knows "Sensation Sells! So how boring to say 2007 was statistically the same as 2006, and a whole lot less than 2005." - just to keep the quality here higher than that.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Agree. Perhaps we need to be a bit more selective around what articles we put/place/post here. Hate giving idiots a free forum for their uninformed and worthless ramblings.

We ought all commit to be better than your - "Any first year journalism student knows "Sensation Sells! So how boring to say 2007 was statistically the same as 2006, and a whole lot less than 2005." - just to keep the quality here higher than that.

I don't have a problem posting an article if there's a "controversial" point to explore. Even when the author has cranial-rectumitis. But we ought to at least point it out before spending excess effort analyzing their postulations. I mean, it's usually pretty evident long before you get halfway into the article...

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I don't have a problem posting an article if there's a "controversial" point to explore. Even when the author has cranial-rectumitis. But we ought to at least point it out before spending excess effort analyzing their postulations. I mean, it's usually pretty evident long before you get halfway into the article...

Here! Here! The Honorable Gentleman from Texas speaks with great lucidity.

In this forum I think all published articles and personal inclination will get an objective analysis from all who post here. Whether the article be pro-NA__AR or critical, it will be openly discussed. I know such discussions have caused me to view things from a different perspective than originally held and I feel better for the occasion.

[PenelopePitStop]

I couldn't get the article to load, but based on other's comments ...

I guess I must have been living under a rock for the 2007 season. I thought there were actually less incidents with the COT. Can't seem to drive up to the bumper to get a car loose anymore causing a spin out ... or "rattle their cage". Where are the stats on "who" the drivers were that wrecked ... repeatedly? That's more telling to me than blaming the COT. I'm not a COT or a COY-lover. I don't really care what they drive as long as it has fenders.

The one thing that sticks out in my memory about the COT is that the drivers complain that they can't see through or into the car in front of them. I know I've mentioned that before. To me, that's pretty flippin' scary.

[SpaceCadet]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

I couldn't get the article to load, but based on other's comments ...

I guess I must have been living under a rock for the 2007 season. I thought there were actually less incidents with the COT. Can't seem to drive up to the bumper to get a car loose anymore causing a spin out ... or "rattle their cage". Where are the stats on "who" the drivers were that wrecked ... repeatedly? That's more telling to me than blaming the COT. I'm not a COT or a COY-lover. I don't really care what they drive as long as it has fenders.

The one thing that sticks out in my memory about the COT is that the drivers complain that they can't see through or into the car in front of them. I know I've mentioned that before. To me, that's pretty flippin' scary.

If memory serves me, which it often doesn't but I'll give it a go anyway, the guys that wrecked what at least to me seemed like more often than others would be the same ones that wreck the most anyway, COT or no COT. You have a good point there, Penny. I remember Shrub wrecking a lot but I don't attribute that to the COT, but to his driving style. He is one of the few drivers that just plain drive all out to win, and when you do that you take more risk and push that envelope a little farther. I'm not a big Shrub fan, but I like that about him. And Tony's stinky year was brought on mostly by himself and his ego, not the COT. I'd like to see him be competitive again next year because he's a great talent and I love watching him race. He can drive anything on wheels, including the COT if his head isn't up his hoohaa, which greatly obstructs one's view. But I think you're right - who does the wrecking paints the picture, at least for me.

[LSC9901]

I'm not big on stats to begin with but consider this. The COT may have been involved in more accidents but with less of an impact on the race ability of the car after the accident.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I don't have a problem posting an article if there's a "controversial" point to explore. Even when the author has cranial-rectumitis. But we ought to at least point it out before spending excess effort analyzing their postulations. I mean, it's usually pretty evident long before you get halfway into the article...

Is that a nice way to say 'Head up their a$$"?

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Quality88

Is that a nice way to say 'Head up their a$$"?

no, just using fewer, albeit larger, words.

[PenelopePitStop]

Originally Posted by SpaceCadet

If memory serves me, which it often doesn't but I'll give it a go anyway, the guys that wrecked what at least to me seemed like more often than others would be the same ones that wreck the most anyway, COT or no COT.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by SpaceCadet

You have a good point there, Penny. I remember Shrub wrecking a lot but I don't attribute that to the COT, but to his driving style. He is one of the few drivers that just plain drive all out to win, and when you do that you take more risk and push that envelope a little farther. I'm not a big Shrub fan, but I like that about him.

Not a Shrub fan, to say the least, but I do think that many (if not all) drivers drive all out to win, sometimes causing wrecks. A certain 2007 Rookie comes to mind. However, if they didn't drive to win, what would be the point? COT is not to blame.

Originally Posted by SpaceCadet

And Tony's stinky year was brought on mostly by himself and his ego, not the COT. I'd like to see him be competitive again next year because he's a great talent and I love watching him race. He can drive anything on wheels, including the COT if his head isn't up his hoohaa, which greatly obstructs one's view. But I think you're right - who does the wrecking paints the picture, at least for me.

Funny you mention Tony. Whether his head is up his hoohaa or his yahoo, I don't think the COT has anything to do with it. I read in another thread that Tony's "spirit" seemed to change after he was berated for questioning NASCAR. I hope he comes back with a fierce 2008. Seeing him and Jr. battle for the Cup next year would be fantastic!

Let's face it: Even the best of the best will wreck from time to time. COY, COT, or Midgets ... doesn't matter.

[PenelopePitStop]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

I'm not big on stats to begin with but consider this. The COT may have been involved in more accidents but with less of an impact on the race ability of the car after the accident.

That was my observation as well.