Talk:Car of Tomorrow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject NASCAR, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to NASCAR. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. To view recent changes to the project's articles, please check out the related changes page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Air intake
Could somebody clarify this buisness about the air intake being under the car? Is it refering to air being directed to the radiator? Is it refering to air going to the carburator? I've never even heard of this feature before, and I've read my share of articles about it. I'd like to see a refrence about that. Mustang6172 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's from the first reference article. All it says is that it is below the front bumper. I changed the "External links" section to "References", as those articles were all used as reference for this article. I hope this helps a little. Royalbroil 16:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Car Models" section
This section could stand to be clarified a little, since the Car of Tomorrow, by definition, has even less in common with any particular passenger car model than the current/outgoing NASCAR formula. I assume this just means these are the car models whose names and faux grill/headlight shapes will be painted on the cars? Mjj237 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's my assumption too. Sheet metal and decals to make it look somewhat like a street car, just like the current racecars. Royalbroil T : C 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that since the current generation of cars seems to look so little like something you would find on the road, that the COT should look more like a real car. Not like THE real cars, just a generic car that looks more down to Earth. Mustang6172 03:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that this whole thing is unnecessarily nitpicky. Should we go around to other racing-related articles and change every reference to a manufacturer "running" a type of car because said car does not bear anything in relation to its road-going counterpart than a name? No. But, I'll hear anybody out and won't go rashly reverting the article. --TopGear 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why does one person's opinion hold more "weight" than another? One person's "rash revision" is another's improvement. Isn't there a better way of handling difference of opinon rather than having a "revision war?" Can't a compromise be reached rather than going back and forth between two versions?
- To say "chevrolet will run the "Impala" in the car of tomorrow races and the "Monte Carlo" in the other races is not correct - Chevrolet did not build either of these cars. To say Chevrolet is running the Impala is plain wrong and covers up the fact that all of the cars of tomorrow are the same. Cheverolet branded cars of tomorrow are CALLED "Impala," but they are common cars with Impala stickers and a front with some styling cues from an Impala. I'd LOVE to be able to buy a RWD manual transmission Impala at my Chevy dealer, but that just won't happen.
- I'll delete the expository material about the cars if we can come to some sort of compromise here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs).
-
- I hate how this article even mentions the makes and models. It had none when I originally started it. [1] What is the relevance? I think that we should delete the entire section as irrelevant. None of the manufacturers actually make the cars. The cars don't look like any of the real models. It is just sheet metal bent to look like NASCAR's template. Just like most racecars run everywhere across the nation. What does everyone think of deleting the section as a compromise? Royalbroil T : C 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Connection to Earnhardt Accident
The article said the changes were mainly due to the death of Dale Earnhardt, so I expected to see a discussion of the causes of the Earnhardt crash and how these causes would be corrected by the COT design. From what little I know about it, the safety issues in that crash centered around the seat belts and head restraints, and these do not seem to be part of the COT design changes. Maybe it is just the general increased concern for safety following Earnhardt's death and not specifically correcting the causes of the accident?Harold14370 21:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's my opinion. The death increased awareness. Another thought is that many drivers were constantly complaining that their model was worse than the others. The universal body killed the complaining, and the constant tweaking of each car model to make a leveler playing field. Royalbroil T : C 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Design Section
I would like to see some clarification on the design section. It mentions that the Car of Tomorrow was a response to the death of Dale Earnhardt. It then states "The then-current cars were based on Holman Moody's 1966 Ford Fairlane." Is someone trying to say that there were no changes/improvements in NASCAR technology in 35 years? I read the referenced article about Holman-Moody and could not see where this statement comes from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steelcitytbirds (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
- The statement used as the basis for the sentence is "The 1966 Holman & Moody Fairlane is the basis for today’s NASCAR racecars." from here. The statement needed to be somewhat modified because the Motorsports Hall of Fame article was written in 2005 before the design of the Car of Tomorrow was finalized. The COT was redesigned from the ground up. I take the MSHoF statement to mean that the previous car was slowly modified and tweaked as technology increased, but there was no major redesign from scratch. Obviously the 1966 car was different in almost all respects from the 2006 car. I bet there were a few things that had only minimal modification. Please edit the article if you think that there is anything wrong with either my interpretation of the source sentence or my wording. Cheers! Royalbroil T : C 04:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Are all drivers forced to use it?
The article didn't answer this, are all drivers forced to use this model, or can they stay with the old models? Dionyseus 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they have to. --D-Day 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
Does a criticism page backed up with references sound like a relevant and positive idea for this article? --FiftyOneWicked 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds too negative and unneeded. One can often critize any major change like this to death. Royalbroil T : C 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
