#1 Cochran - PSR Showdown
Is the COT good or bad for NASCAR?

Good...In Time
By Sam Ross
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

NASCAR has an initiative in motion to make racing safer for the drivers and more interesting for the spectators. So why are so many panning the Car of Tomorrow? Nextel Cup driver Elliott Sadler offered some penetrating analysis of the furor during a recent COT testing session in Richmond.

"I think when you hear guys lash out against the Car of Tomorrow, they're just frustrated because it's something new," Sadler said. "They haven't hit a home run with it yet, like Jimmie Johnson and some of the other guys have."

Critics of this new car are taking their lead from Tony Stewart, who promptly pronounced the car a "flying brick" when it was first unveiled for testing.

Stewart's sense of aesthetics is offended by the car being higher and wider - safety concessions to allow more protective space for the drivers and add-ons such as energy-absorbing foam in the doors. A side benefit of the height and width is that the greater wind resistance is expected to slow down the cars on the longer tracks.

Stewart complaining should come as no surprise. Stewart doesn't like anything. He called Goodyear's tires for the Las Vegas race the worst he'd ever run on. He routinely critiques fellow drivers, NASCAR, the media, track renovations. And on. And on. And on.

Most days, Stewart isn't even sure he likes himself.

But he's not alone in bashing the COT.

Kyle Bush won the first COT race and proclaimed the car "sucks." No wordsmith, Kyle. Better stick to driving.

Criticism reached the heights of absurdity when some griped that the matching front and rear bumper heights of the COT made it harder to spin out the car ahead and execute the so-called bump-and-run pass.

A moment of silence, please, for dirty driving.

NASCAR, with all its monolithic corporate aspects, is an easy target for criticism. But, for all those eager to junk the COT, remember that the car it is in the process of replacing is the product of roughly two decades of refinement.

The COT is a concept with much to recommend. All that is needed is the time to demonstrate the benefits to the nay-sayers and other assorted members of the Flat Earth Society.

Sam Ross covers auto-racing for the Tribune-Review.

Thumbs Down
By Doug Kennedy
Pittsburgh Sports Report

After winning the first Car of Tomorrow (COT) race at Bristol in March, winner Kyle Busch summed up his feelings towards the car.

"It sucks," he said.

Former driver-turned-commentator Rusty Wallace said that the car created a boring, single-file racing environment with little left for passing or crashing, something that made the sport so popular.

The always outspoken Tony Stewart referred to COT as a "flying brick" and went onto say that the car could end up becoming NASCAR's biggest disaster.

And we certainly have to listen when Dale Earnhardt, Jr. speaks.

"It wasn't a disaster like everybody anticipated. It worked out, I reckon."

Way to go Junior - a lot of substance in that comment.

Are all these guys really wrong? No, they're not. NASCAR reacted to a situation that didn't need to be addressed.

In all fairness, COT has been run at only two tracks and both were short tracks - Bristol and Martinsville, where the need for downforce is hardly a factor. So how can we truly access COT? Let's see what happens at Dover, Phoenix or Talladega in the fall.

Appearance wise, the most obvious differences between COT and the current body styles is the huge rear detachable wing that looks more like it should appear on an open wheel car. We haven't seen these in NASCAR since the Plymouth Super Bird of more than 30 years ago.

We now also have a common template for the cars, one size fits all. All of these changes are designed for safety, performance and competition and cost efficiency for teams. With one template and one car, NASCAR feels that the lower budgeted teams will be able to compete on a more level playing field because they can run one car as opposed to a variety depending on the type of track they will be running.

I know, the argument was that it was very difficult to distinguish that the Fusion was a Ford, the Monte Carlo a Chevy, the Charger a Dodge, or the Camry a Toyota.

But it's worse now. This car is downright ugly.

I have to give a huge thumbs down on this one.

Doug Kennedy contributes to PSR as well as several auto-racing publications.