CoT Rant

[call_me_andrew]

<rant>So I'm watching that special SPEED Channel did for the Bristol test, and I believe it was Larry McReynolds showing the templates for the CoT. To show how manufacturer identity is still represented by showing a brand specific template for fitting the rear windows.

THE F--KING WINDOWS!

It's a piece of Plexiglas surrounded by sheet metal, and that's what makes it "more like a street car"? I thought the Chase would be the worst thing to come out of Brian France's coked up little head.

You can buy a box generic-o's, take the bag out, and put it in a Cheerio’s box, but you're still eating generic cereal.

I want to see something Ford worked long and hard on racing against something Chevrolet (or Toyota or Dodge) worked long and hard on. I don't think they put that much thought into the shape of a rear window, and if they did, God help us all. </rant>

[Jag_Warrior]

The aerodynamic shape that makes a good race car might not make an attractive road car. So I understand why they decided to go where we are now, as opposed to where we were in the 80's. The case for the CoT, I can't say I really understand. It looks like it came out of the same person's head who dreamed up the Daytona Prototype's basic form. But like most things, I figure people will get used to it... in time.... maybe.

As far as wanting to see what some Ford design engineers or stylists might dream up... well, I'd say the CoT probably isn't so far off that mark. :D

[call_me_andrew]

As far as wanting to see what some Ford design engineers or stylists might dream up... well, I'd say the CoT probably isn't so far off that mark. :D

Unless there's a story behind the name Jag-Warrior that I don't know about, I'd have to wonder if you thought that statement through.

[nigelred5]

Unless there's a story behind the name Jag-Warrior that I don't know about, I'd have to wonder if you thought that statement through.


Have you seen a Ford Lately? I think they forgot how to draw a curve. Practically everything they sell is a box.


I swear the COT was purpose built to keep Micheal Waltrip in a car. This thing all started right around the time they tested the escape hatch for him. It's openly built from the inside out around a bigger safer drivers compartment. If it was all about the areo, they could have made their wonderful templates more specific without making the cars so boxy. they could have eliminated all of the offset bodywork and different wheelbase and chassis locations under the templates.

[call_me_andrew]

Have you seen a Ford Lately? I think they forgot how to draw a curve. Practically everything they sell is a box.


Square is the new round.

[harvick#1]

Have you seen a Ford Lately?

friends don't let friends drive FORDS :p :

[Jag_Warrior]

Unless there's a story behind the name Jag-Warrior that I don't know about, I'd have to wonder if you thought that statement through.

Well yeah, there is a story behind it. But I have to be sure the statute of limitations is up before I tell it. :p :

Ford is commonly known to have some, shall we say, styling challenges. Jaguar? Let's just say I'll be glad when Ford sells it to a company that still has an automotive soul. They've been working on a (true) sports car for how long?

On the CoT, I'm guessing more than a few fans will scratch their heads the first few times they see it. Even on TV, it does look a little odd.

[dont_be_jack]

friends don't let friends drive FORDS :p :

Fix Or Repair Daily!

F***ed Over Rebuilt Dodge!

[cgs]

thr COT does look a bit odd, but i think the racing should be about the driver's ability and not on the engineering of the car. thats why i watch NASCAR. if i wanted to watch a race about which manufacturer can make the best car, i'd watch the snore-fest that is F1!!!!

[dont_be_jack]

thr COT does look a bit odd, but i think the racing should be about the driver's ability and not on the engineering of the car. thats why i watch NASCAR. if i wanted to watch a race about which manufacturer can make the best car, i'd watch the snore-fest that is F1!!!!

I think you meant to say "which manufacturer can purchase the best computers and develop the best software for them." If you can afford the best electronics in F1, you're good to go. It's such a sham. I bet Montoya loves being out of there and actually driving a car that is based more around him.

[Lee Roy]

Don't be so down on F1, it's a great series, of course in my opinion.

YMMV

[dont_be_jack]

I'll watch F1 when there's nothing else to watch, but it's not my preferred racing series. There's no passing, no challenges, nothing. It's essentially watching the best cars drive around the track for an hour or two.

[Lee Roy]

I'll watch F1 when there's nothing else to watch, but it's not my preferred racing series. There's no passing, no challenges, nothing. It's essentially watching the best cars drive around the track for an hour or two.

First, like any other racing series or sporting event, to really enjoy the event you have to be familiar with the participants and have an interest in seeing one car/team prevail over the field/another team.

Second, over the long term, in F1 it's fun to see a team finally prevail over the field after years of being an also ran. I can remember years when Ferrari couldn't get out of it's own way in F1. But this type of enjoyment requires long term interest in the series.

Third, attending an F1 race helps. Those cars have to be seen (and heard) in competition to really appreciate them. They're amazing.

[cgs]

i don't doubt that F1 cars are amazing pieces of engineering and appreciate that it takes a lot of skill to built one. i just don't think that they are very good RACE cars.

[luvracin]

It looks like it came out of the same person's head who dreamed up the Daytona Prototype's basic form.

To me the line between NASCAR-COT and the Daytona Proto is really blurring.

The COT is now more than ever a dictated shape whose rememblance to a real car is only via decals. Beyond that, it's purpose race car. The only real difference between COT and Daytona Proto now is engine position and a few electronics.

[Jag_Warrior]

There's no passing, no challenges, nothing.

Hmm, don't tell that to Fernando Alonso, Kimi Raikkonen, Robert Kubica, or even "ol' man Shoemaker". There may not be enough passing to suit your taste, but it's inaccurate to say there is "no passing". And no challenges? :confused:

But hey, different strokes for different folks...

[call_me_andrew]

Ford is commonly known to have some, shall we say, styling challenges.

http://www.dealersinsight.com/images/ford-mustang-svt.jpg
http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/images/ford-focus-rs-wrc-3.JPG
http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/ford_gt_smokey.jpg


I'm sorry. I just drifted off for a moment. Did you say something?


thr COT does look a bit odd, but i think the racing should be about the driver's ability and not on the engineering of the car. thats why i watch NASCAR. if i wanted to watch a race about which manufacturer can make the best car, i'd watch the snore-fest that is F1!!!!

But wasn't NASCAR built on the principal of what one showroom stock car can do against another showroom stock car? While that may not provide for fast racing today, it would certainly keep the manufacturers happy.



I've determined that there are two distinct versions of measuring the difficulty of a racing series:

How overwhelming the speed of the car is to the driver, and how difficult it is for the driver to control the car.

If driving an F1 car is as difficult as driving a Bugatti Veyron, then driving a NNC car is as difficult as driving a Mack Truck.

I used to say a lot of manufacturer bashing acronyms myself... Then I grew up.

[Jonesi]

To put things in perspective, two of the three cars you posted are really just modern mild updates to +40 year old designs (probably their best looking designs BTW). For everyone of those cars sold there were probably 10,000 Pintos, Granadas & Torinos with a vinyl roof, etc. ;-)

[cgs]

But wasn't NASCAR built on the principal of what one showroom stock car can do against another showroom stock car? While that may not provide for fast racing today, it would certainly keep the manufacturers happy.



things move on and develop according to the market. change is good IMO. if things stay they same they become stagnent and boring.

in the moonshining days, it was all about who has the best car, but now things have developed and its is no longer a competition between 2 tuners. its now about entertainment so things need to adapt accordingly

[Lee Roy]

[But wasn't NASCAR built on the principal of what one showroom stock car can do against another showroom stock car? While that may not provide for fast racing today, it would certainly keep the manufacturers happy.


I imagine the manufacturers are quite happy not to have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to continually redesign cars for competition and re-tooling to manufacture them.

[cgs]

also, imagine a race between a stock Dodge Charger and a stock Ford Fusion!!!

[Lee Roy]

also, imagine a race between a stock Dodge Charger and a stock Ford Fusion!!!

Yep. You'd wind up with a witch's brew of different rules for different cars like you do with other series. Different weights for different cars, different fuel capacities for different cars, different air intake resrtictions for different cars, etc., etc.

You think people are b!tching about the CoT . . . :rolleyes:

:edit: cgs, the rolleyes are not intended for you. ;)

[DEI8151]

The cars are ugly, they look like the Trucks

gonna be a big learning curve here when this starts at bristol. there was alot of wrecking at the test so i can imagine how much there will be race weekend.

whats gonna be interesting is to see this car go around a 2 mile track like California.

[Jag_Warrior]

http://www.dealersinsight.com/images/ford-mustang-svt.jpg
http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/images/ford-focus-rs-wrc-3.JPG
http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/ford_gt_smokey.jpg


I'm sorry. I just drifted off for a moment. Did you say something?

Hmm hmm. You've shown a nice current production car (arguably the best looking car in the Ford brand's lineup), a pure racing version of a road car (not known in the U.S.) and a very nice, but out of production, specialty car.

I have nothing against Ford. Because of their business, a good deal of food has been put on my table over the years. I'm simply stating industry perception that Ford has the weakest design and styling group among the Big 3. I hear debates about whether Chrysler Group has been overtaken by GM on that front. But I've never heard anyone argue that Ford (as a brand) was leading in that area.

[call_me_andrew]

I'm simply stating industry perception that Ford has the weakest design and styling group among the Big 3.

Well what has Chevy made that's so damn pretty? The C6 is ugly, the so called Camaro is ugly, and don't get me started on the Aveo.


Yep. You'd wind up with a witch's brew of different rules for different cars like you do with other series. Different weights for different cars, different fuel capacities for different cars, different air intake resrtictions for different cars, etc., etc.

That's EXACTLY what I want. The only thing keeping me watching NASCAR, is the fact that those other series won't run on ovals.

And it wouldn't be that much different than the NASCAR 10 years ago.


things move on and develop according to the market. change is good IMO. if things stay they same they become stagnent and boring.

in the moonshining days, it was all about who has the best car, but now things have developed and its is no longer a competition between 2 tuners. its now about entertainment so things need to adapt accordingly

But does that make it good? Just because the majority of the population finds something entertaining, that doesn't make it a good thing.

Examples to support that statement: pop music, American Idol, movies with Johnny Depp, coconut, Dane Cook, Family Guy, and grapefruit juice.


I imagine the manufacturers are quite happy not to have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to continually redesign cars for competition and re-tooling to manufacture them.

Yeah, it would be a real shame if they had to get off their asses and make a compeditive product.

http://www.lhmopars.com/Visitors_Rides_Images/1969%20Dodge%20Daytona%20clone1.JPG

[harvick#1]

Well what has Chevy made that's so damn pretty? The C6 is ugly, the so called Camaro is ugly, and don't get me started on the Aveo.


The Impala and Monte Carlo are fine. how is the C6 ugly, yeah it doesn't look good as its racing sister, but the C5 wasn't as good as its racer as well.

theres a problem with the C6 where

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9gnMiehOO5FeQYALgijzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=12c5olhgc/EXP=1173326369/**http%3A//www.cowtownvettes.org/images/C6A/black_C6-3_L.jpg

but unlike Chevy, I don't see Dodge or Ford running the Viper or GT40 today in top endurance racing series.

Ford is Ford, you love'em or you hate'em. I haven't seen one good car to come out of Ford besides the GT40. the GT is gay and just a mockery, and don't even get me started on those stupid mustangs

[call_me_andrew]

The C6's headlights remind me of a nerd with think-framed glasses with thicker lenses.

I believe the Viper has been racing in GT2 at Le Mans and won the Rolex 24 overall in 2000.

The GT doesn't meet ACO regulations (I've checked, you can't have a supercharged engine of that much displacement). And Grand-Am pre-selects the cars acceptable for competition. But Ford did use the money they made when the sold Jaguar F1 to fund the Aston Martins.

But please, elaborate on the Mustangs.

[harvick#1]

a Viper hasn't raced in ALMS or Lemans in 6-7 years

you can't remake a 67 Mustang into that, if Ford wanted to remake the model, then remake it the correct way. by replicating it to the 67 version, not lets make it half and half.

yes the new "old school" cars that FORD, Dodge, and Chevy are making are awful. a 4 door Charger :rolleyes: the camaro :rolleyes: a 67 Mustang :rolleyes: they are all horrible looking

[cgs]

But does that make it good? Just because the majority of the population finds something entertaining, that doesn't make it a good thing.

Examples to support that statement: pop music, American Idol, movies with Johnny Depp, coconut, Dane Cook, Family Guy, and grapefruit juice.

i think that statement is so flawed. i think you need to inform us of what you define "good" to mean. my definition of "good" in relation to an entertainment product is something that appeals to a large percentatage of the population and makes money for the organisers and/or participants so that those people stay with the product for the long term so that they can continue to entertain people.

that is exactly what the above examples you point out do.

i think you need to get away from the "good is what i say i like" atitude.

[Lee Roy]

That's EXACTLY what I want. The only thing keeping me watching NASCAR, is the fact that those other series won't run on ovals.

I know you do, and I respect you for that. But I know that there would be so much screaming and complaining if, for example a. Chevy's were allowed to have a 5 gallon larger fuel tank than other makes; b. Dodges had to run with intake restrictors on all tracks; c. Fords were allowed to be 300 pounds lighter than other makes; etc.; etc. And these rules continued to change as the season went on. You would be the only one who would like this.


Yeah, it would be a real shame if they had to get off their asses and make a compeditive product.


Riiiggghhhhtttt. These automotive companies that are losing billions of dollars should be spending hundreds of millions more just to make a car that's competitive in NASCAR. Yeah, that's gonna happen. :rolleyes:

BTW, I agree with cgs assessment of your "good is what I like" statements.

[Jag_Warrior]

Well what has Chevy made that's so damn pretty? The C6 is ugly, the so called Camaro is ugly, and don't get me started on the Aveo.

Well, I appreciate your opinion, but understand, that's what it is: your opinion. Some people don't like the Chrysler 300/LX series. But enough people do, and so Chrysler has found great success with that car. The same could be said for the current Corvette, except that it is focused on a smaller segment. The Camaro? It may not be for you, but it will be a big seller. The HHR has also gotten good reviews as a modern retro (rip-off of the PT Cruiser... the same person styled both vehicles).

Look, I can't tell you what you should think is attractive in cars, women or anything else. Heck, some people may like the CoT before it's over with. But whether it's because of styling or quality concerns, it's hard to argue that cars that don't sell well are anything more than (maybe) diamonds in the rough. Ford has been criticized for trying to style cars that don't offend anyone, but please everyone... and failing on both counts. Peter DeLorenzo has had some good pieces on Ford's stying challenges over the years. He's sort of like the Robin Miller of the auto industry. Check him out if you get a chance.

[call_me_andrew]

a Viper hasn't raced in ALMS or Lemans in 6-7 years

you can't remake a 67 Mustang into that, if Ford wanted to remake the model, then remake it the correct way. by replicating it to the 67 version, not lets make it half and half.

yes the new "old school" cars that FORD, Dodge, and Chevy are making are awful. a 4 door Charger :rolleyes: the camaro :rolleyes: a 67 Mustang :rolleyes: they are all horrible looking

But they're not trying to "remake" a 67. The new Mustang is just every previous generation mixed together.

And as far as "horrible looking" goes, I'll just use that "good is what i say i like" thing cgs said to my favor.

Riiiggghhhhtttt. These automotive companies that are losing billions of dollars should be spending hundreds of millions more just to make a car that's competitive in NASCAR.
I've always thought that competiton brings out the best in product. Besides, they've done it before (see Dodge Daytona picture).

[Mark in Oshawa]

First off, whatever the manufacturer puts on the street, the resemblance to the NASCAR version has been weak at best the last 10 years. The minute the Chevy boys were able to put a wider rear deck lid on the Monte Carlo when it debuted that was about 6 inches wider than stock, the body modification rules quickly got right out of hand. As NASCAR tried to equalize the makes, things got right out of hand, and eventually all the cars were massaged to the point they had very little in common with the street car. So lets stop the fiction that these cars have anything really to do with the nameplates. They are vague facimiles, so the leap to what the CoT is really the next step.

CoT will be interesting, and I never really saw the point of what NASCAR was doing, but if the racing is better, than they were right to do it and I am wrong. As for the styling, if you see better racing, you will get over the goofy styling. I notice when the cars are painted up, they look a lot better than when you see them in their testing gray.

Of course, it is just artfully applied lipstick on the pig, but it is in many ways, still a pig. Just these piggies will put on a better show perhaps? I think the acid test for the concept isn't Bristol, but a place like Michigan or Kansas, where Aero Push has made for some bland racing....

[call_me_andrew]

First off, whatever the manufacturer puts on the street, the resemblance to the NASCAR version has been weak at best the last 10 years. The minute the Chevy boys were able to put a wider rear deck lid on the Monte Carlo when it debuted that was about 6 inches wider than stock, the body modification rules quickly got right out of hand. As NASCAR tried to equalize the makes, things got right out of hand, and eventually all the cars were massaged to the point they had very little in common with the street car. So lets stop the fiction that these cars have anything really to do with the nameplates. They are vague facimiles, so the leap to what the CoT is really the next step.

That's nice, but I'd like to reverse the last 10 years.

DTM can do it, V8 Supercar can do it, SPEED world challenge can do it. It's just a matter of doing it on an oval.

[BenRoethig]

That's nice, but I'd like to reverse the last 10 years.

DTM can do it, V8 Supercar can do it, SPEED world challenge can do it. It's just a matter of doing it on an oval.

DTM is also in the same boat as NASCAR. The MB C-Class and Audi A4 you see have nothing to do with the on road versions. They are dedicated rear wheel drive space frame machines that are actually much larger than the cars they represent. In the Audi's case the actual production car sits on a heavily modified version of a VW front wheel drive platform. DTM just does a much better job of making them look like the car they represent.

[BenRoethig]

also, imagine a race between a stock Dodge Charger and a stock Ford Fusion!!!

Unless the Charger was the base model with the 2.7L v6, it wouldn't be close to fair.

[RaceFanStan]

I will reaffirm the fact that I like the COT. :D
The front splitter looks cool & I love the rear wing ! :s mokin:
I am a fan of the DRIVERS, not the cars anyway.
They could all race VWs, Jaguars, Mercedes .....
I don't care as long as they race side by side on the ovals @ 160 to 180+ mph. :laugh:

[call_me_andrew]

DTM is also in the same boat as NASCAR. The MB C-Class and Audi A4 you see have nothing to do with the on road versions. They are dedicated rear wheel drive space frame machines that are actually much larger than the cars they represent. In the Audi's case the actual production car sits on a heavily modified version of a VW front wheel drive platform. DTM just does a much better job of making them look like the car they represent.

But DTM still uses silhouettes. So there’s still factory involvement. I don’t care if the chassis are made from scratch or if it doesn’t come with RWD. I’m not asking for the moon here. I just want the manufacturers to play a bigger role (or A role).

[DonnieB]

In DTM, aerodynamics won't make or break a car.

In 20 years (+/-) of production, Ford had exactly two (count 'em) body styles for the Taurus. Most of the cars made today are on similar design cycles. This makes it hard to correct for aerodynamic deficiencies.

It takes three years to go from clean sheet of paper to showroom floor--way too long for any team to wait for the manufacturer to catch up.

A manufacturer shouldn't have to build a jellybean that nobody will buy just to be competitive, especially if it has to replace a hot-selling, but aerodynamically uncompetitive car. NASCAR has no obligation to accommodate the manufacturers, and they have no obligation to accommodate NASCAR.

If they had 100% stock sheet metal, they would still be slicker than the cars used circa 1984, which had less hp, and so would still need restrictor plates with smaller holes than what the COT will be using.

An engine small enough to eliminate the need for R-plates would be too slow at the other tracks, and would likely be radically different in design, thus increasing engine development costs.

It is impossible to apply an equitable equivalency formula to stock-bodied cars. Someone will always have an advantage, and overcorrection is always a distinct possibility.

If you like listening to participants squeal continuously like stuck pigs, go for the equivalency path. Two of the possible ways to end the squealing: Make the rules the same for everyone and wait for the hot setup to dominate to the point that all the other makes drop out (common templates by default, see NASCAR circa 1965), or make the cars all the same (CoT). NASCAR reached the point where they couldn't stand the whining any more. I won't rule out that there may have been "business" reasons behind it, too.

IMO, the manufacturer's only role should be as parts suppliers--no factory-built race cars, no secret R&D, no preferential treatment to "factory" teams. It is supposed to be all about the individual teams and drivers. Every team using the same brand of car starts with the same parts. It is up to the individual mechanics (hot-rodders, if you please, not "tuners") to figure out how to make them go fast.

If I was in charge, I would have looked the other way when Junior Johnson showed up with his Yellow Banana and Smokey with his 15/16 Chevelle. I'm sure, however, that things would have gotten totally out of hand by the mid-70's, so that probably isn't a good solution either, but I'm curious to see what would have developed.

[call_me_andrew]

You don't need to completely redesign a car to be competitive. Back in the 80’s Chevy came up with a new rear window to add as an option for 500 Monte Carlos. GM didn’t take 3 years to redesign the whole car to make it competitive; they just tweaked what they had. The same thing happened with the Dodge Daytona. The Daytona package was just added to the Charger. It wasn’t a whole new car.

NASCAR has been considering switching to smaller, less powerful engines for a few years now.

A spec series will not thrive long term. Champ Car and IRL may be spec series now, but they don’t intend to stay that way. They’re just playing defense. IROC has been a spec series for 25 years. Look at where that got them.

If people didn’t feel some kind of connection between the cars they see and the own (or covet), then no one would bother watching.

[Lee Roy]

Champ Car and IRL may be spec series now, but they don’t intend to stay that way.

That's for sure. They'll both be dead soon.

[RusH]

That's for sure. They'll both be dead soon.

No biggie. The fans that left are already watching Nascar. The few fans left will move on to other series, or quit watching. Nobody will ever notice.
I might add there is nothing wrong with being a spec sport as long as the racing is good. There are other issues for me, like the competition yellows.

In Nascar I can tune in the last 20 laps to see the managed debris cautions, in F1 I can tune out after 20 laps if there is a runaway winner. Works out pretty nicely, LOL.
So far MotoGP and Grand-Am has them all beat.

[luvracin]

I will reaffirm the fact that I like the COT. :D
The front splitter looks cool & I love the rear wing ! :s mokin:
I am a fan of the DRIVERS, not the cars anyway.
They could all race VWs, Jaguars, Mercedes .....
I don't care as long as they race side by side on the ovals @ 160 to 180+ mph. :laugh:

I have just one reservation about COT now since I saw one at the Detroit Autorama over the weekend....

The front splitter is carbon fiber. I'm worried about longer cautions while they clean carbon fiber shards up.

[call_me_andrew]

That's for sure. They'll both be dead soon.

They're in a persistent vegetative state and could come out of it any day now!


I have just one reservation about COT now since I saw one at the Detroit Autorama over the weekend....

The front splitter is carbon fiber. I'm worried about longer cautions while they clean carbon fiber shards up.

It doesn't seem to have any effect on the truck races.

[rainbow warrior]

To me NASCAR is about Big V8 American cars - doing mach 1 + around an oval inches apart.

But the CoT to me looks like some cheap Japanese import - more suited to The Fast & The Furious than the Daytona 500...!!!

Just my honest (british) opinion ;)

RW