COT car of tomorrow or car of trash?

[wildthing18]

What are your thoughts on the cot, i personally like it because it is safer for the drivers. it dont look that bad either

 

[MattSRD28]

There's no way one season is anywhere close to enough to make a judgement on the COT. Right now the ratio is 59 seasons with traditional design to 1 season with COT. I much prefer to wait and see before calling the COT on a pass/fail grade.

What no one should be poo-poo'ing is that the COT is a great deal safer than previous designs have been. Making cars safer is never a bad thing.

 

[dalejrgamer]

First impression's everything, unfortunately, and my stance is that it's a horrible idea in terms of execution. Still have to wait for next season if NASCAR actually did anything (which they won't).

 

[MattSRD28]

Still have to wait for next season if NASCAR actually did anything (which they won't).

Why the pessimism? If NASCAR's shown us anything in the past 20 years, it's that they aren't afraid to change rules when they feel they need changing. They surely didn't build a whole R&D Center just to sit on their hands, call the COT the greatest thing ever, and not do anything to improve it.

The "old car" was a 59-year work in progress. It changed nearly every year in some form or fashion. Then even when common templates came around, tweaks and changes were still made right up until the COT came around. I expect a similar future for the COT.

 

[DavidCarter2]

i haveta aggree with ya davey on that one. all things motorsports evole look at any series and find a time when they didn't tweak at least a little something. rules regardgin cars in SCCA change yearly if not monthly.

the cot in my opinion has proven it self as a racecar and although not the beloved imaged we've had for some years now. the cot is loose but in control like a pinto with a 5.0 motor and bald tires but a great suspension. but the cot as also shown that it can save some disasters with that big ole wing how many great saves have there been this year when the rear steps put then steps right back in. what saddens me the most about the cot is the timing imagine some of the older drivers still racing with a little fire and skill to want to be able to drive it like they stole it. we can sit back and bash this COT till where blue in the face but's here and i like it. i give it 4 1/4 stars

here's to mark taking this turd to championship GO mark GO !!

 

[celticfang]

Agreed with the OP about the safety, anything that reduces driver safety is a good thing, but...IMO, race cars (all types) should be something that looks fast, and goes fast. Compare a 1970s NASCAR and the COT for instance, I'd love to see a 43 car field of 70s type cars, with the safety of the COT.

Although, I don't think NASCAR will change anything about it, apart from improving safety. The racing this year was good (in parts), and to me it only seemed good on the 1.5 mile tracks. Although with the wing, I don't know if anything can be done to improve the show.

Eh, I'm rambling, And back from a long absence

 

[nascarbrake]

I thought at first the cot was a bad idea until mcdowell's horrific qualifying crash at texas made me then relize it is safe in my opinon

 

[celticfang]

Agreed wwe99, but IMO it should be safe, and look good, rather than being like a shed on wheels

 

[MattSRD28]

Well the whole "shed on wheels" bit was a deliberate attempt to make the cars more boxey-looking. The theory was that a hinderance on aerodynamics would lessen the impact of aerodynamics on racing. Less dependance on aerodynamics makes it easier for cars to pass each other, which would improve racing. That was the theory, at least.

Question is, and IMO its a valid one, at what point does appearance of car override appearance/excitement level of racing? That's a bit of a tightrope walk. In the years leading up to the COT, the balance was more on the appearance which took away from racing. Now it's swung back to the racing, which has taken away from appearance. I don't think the perfect solution will ever be found there. It'll forever be a game of tweaking to find a comfortable balance.

 

[e4pap]

In my honest opinion the COT is still a work in progress and will be for some time. I whole heartedly agree about the saftey of this car vs the COY. The racability of the car compared to the COY is about the same. It is still highly dependent on aero more or less than it's predicessor. Personally I think when it comes to the racing if I remember correctly it has been too much aero dependence since 1998 when the Taurus was introduced. Prior to that yes there where the powerhouse teams but the smaller guys still had a better chance when it came to aero. Last time I sa one of the smaller teams able to be competitive was I believe 2000 or 2001 when Johnny Benson almost won the 500 in a basically plain white car with a lower level sponsor(Lycos). That was the last glimpse of any small teams having the opportunity to have a chance. Nascar's idea that the COT would even the playing field and cut costs for the smaller teams has once again backfired. Hence the Wood's cutting back to 12 races and the Petty teams which yes have been in a downward spiral since 99 will most likely be gone soon because the likes of Roush, Hendrick, Childress, Gibbs, and Evernham have the money and means to pump ungodly amounts of money into the development of the chassis and bodies.
I am rambling on but I feel that the COT is still in wait and see mode overall but there will be very few teams that will be able to afford to keep up with the financial sides and the Recession that the economy has been in and will be for some time will only hurt the smaller teams of 2 or fewer cars per team.
My opinion is truly bring it back to how it was in the 80's and prior where the cars had to have STOCK Hood, Roof, and Trunk. That would give individuality to eack make and also would probably make it harder to "tweak" the cars bodies as opposed to what the teams have been able to either try or do get away with. Keep it to where the fron end may have the valance to help Downforce but put a tiny if not go without a rear spoiler to make the cars harder to drive. Heck that would make the races more interesting with that setup IMHO because it would be to some extent the better teams but the drivers would either really stand out or just show us they only ran well because the team could setup a superior car and the driver just had to keep it going in the right direction.
I appologize for going on and on but those are my opinions on this topic.

Overall grades(opinion only):
Body: C
Aero Dependence: F (still way to dependent)
Safety: A++
Cost Cutting: D
Levelling Competition: C

Overall:C maybe C+ tops

Eric

 

[racemaxx24]

In my honest opinion the COT is still a work in progress and will be for some time. I whole heartedly agree about the saftey of this car vs the COY. The racability of the car compared to the COY is about the same. It is still highly dependent on aero more or less than it's predicessor. Personally I think when it comes to the racing if I remember correctly it has been too much aero dependence since 1998 when the Taurus was introduced. Prior to that yes there where the powerhouse teams but the smaller guys still had a better chance when it came to aero. Last time I sa one of the smaller teams able to be competitive was I believe 2000 or 2001 when Johnny Benson almost won the 500 in a basically plain white car with a lower level sponsor(Lycos). That was the last glimpse of any small teams having the opportunity to have a chance. Nascar's idea that the COT would even the playing field and cut costs for the smaller teams has once again backfired. Hence the Wood's cutting back to 12 races and the Petty teams which yes have been in a downward spiral since 99 will most likely be gone soon because the likes of Roush, Hendrick, Childress, Gibbs, and Evernham have the money and means to pump ungodly amounts of money into the development of the chassis and bodies.
I am rambling on but I feel that the COT is still in wait and see mode overall but there will be very few teams that will be able to afford to keep up with the financial sides and the Recession that the economy has been in and will be for some time will only hurt the smaller teams of 2 or fewer cars per team.
My opinion is truly bring it back to how it was in the 80's and prior where the cars had to have STOCK Hood, Roof, and Trunk. That would give individuality to eack make and also would probably make it harder to "tweak" the cars bodies as opposed to what the teams have been able to either try or do get away with. Keep it to where the fron end may have the valance to help Downforce but put a tiny if not go without a rear spoiler to make the cars harder to drive. Heck that would make the races more interesting with that setup IMHO because it would be to some extent the better teams but the drivers would either really stand out or just show us they only ran well because the team could setup a superior car and the driver just had to keep it going in the right direction.
I appologize for going on and on but those are my opinions on this topic.

Overall grades(opinion only):
Body: C
Aero Dependence: F (still way to dependent)
Safety: A++
Cost Cutting: D
Levelling Competition: C

Overall:C maybe C+ tops

Eric

I must say I pretty much agree with you on this. I acctually don't think the CHEVY COT looks bad. But if NASCAR could find a way to incorperate the safety ideas on the COT into the COY(For instance make it wider so they can still fit there foam into the sides and make it taller like the COT), NASCAR would still be much better off. Even if the car is a foot wider and a foot taller, its still going to have MOST of the same aerodynamics properties as the old car because it still is the same type. This is just my opinion but I think NASCAR should have looked into ways of making the COY safer because not only does it race better, it still KINDA looks like a car you would see on the road right now...

 

[celticfang]

Well the whole "shed on wheels" bit was a deliberate attempt to make the cars more boxey-looking. The theory was that a hinderance on aerodynamics would lessen the impact of aerodynamics on racing. Less dependance on aerodynamics makes it easier for cars to pass each other, which would improve racing. That was the theory, at least.

Question is, and IMO its a valid one, at what point does appearance of car override appearance/excitement level of racing? That's a bit of a tightrope walk. In the years leading up to the COT, the balance was more on the appearance which took away from racing. Now it's swung back to the racing, which has taken away from appearance. I don't think the perfect solution will ever be found there. It'll forever be a game of tweaking to find a comfortable balance.

Precisely

But, as racemax said, the COY looked like something you could go to the showroom and buy, I have a copy of Autosport here, there's one good quote from it, "How can Joe Fan in row Z at Daytona, tell the difference between a Chevy and a Toyota?"

That is a key point to me, NASCAR missed a trick with the COT, making it standardised, in that it took away the manufacturing details.

Well the whole "shed on wheels" bit was a deliberate attempt to make the cars more boxey-looking. The theory was that a hinderance on aerodynamics would lessen the impact of aerodynamics on racing. Less dependance on aerodynamics makes it easier for cars to pass each other, which would improve racing. That was the theory, at least.

Since when does NASCAR theory translate to reality? But, again, if they take away aero, they still have mechanical grip, which teams can spend hours finding.

Question is, and IMO its a valid one, at what point does appearance of car override appearance/excitement level of racing? That's a bit of a tightrope walk. In the years leading up to the COT, the balance was more on the appearance which took away from racing. Now it's swung back to the racing, which has taken away from appearance. I don't think the perfect solution will ever be found there. It'll forever be a game of tweaking to find a comfortable balance.

Depends, the COT solvd one set of problems, and created a whole new set, don't forget people where whining about it before it was introduced (sound familiar? )

 

[Bazmeister]

I'm going a bit off topic here, but imho the best looking stock cars currently are the ones used in the Canadian Tire Series (CASCAR).

They're box-shaped and they look real racy, real fast.

 

[Alex Kessler]

I would have to agree with you. They CASCAR cars look the most like the street cars, they are big and safe, and they don't look like they are out of the movie Tokyo Drift.

 

[DannyM]

I cannot stand the wing on this car of tomorrow. I always believed the spoiler is what separated Nascar from the stupid rolex cars. Also, since the splitter punches such a big hole in the air, the guy running behind the leader or whatever has very little amounts of wind pressing on the wing's wicker. That is the reason you cannot pass with this car. The wing provides no downforce at all.