could anyone explain it easily?

Quote from scania :

could anyone explain it easily?

Could you explain your question a little better? By "old rule", do you mean the old car?

All I know is that Dale SR's death sparked development for a safer car. The seat is positioned more in the middle of the car for safety, there's foam in between the roll cage and the body, the car is bigger (height and width). Smaller gas tank I think(and stronger If I'm correct). The obvious differences are certainly the new spoilers, the bumpers are alligned(and the grille is on the bottom of the front now) and the windshield is more vertical.

Also: less downforce, more drag, more weight, less crossweight.

And the little rear wing rather than the rear spoiler, and an adjustable front splitter. Supposedly it has reduced the need for having specific types of chassis for different races. In essence it's a more effective aero package but attached to a general body that produces much more drag, supposedly they had to give them over 1,000 more revs at Talladega to run the same speed.

Quote from duke_toaster :

And the little rear wing rather than the rear spoiler, and an adjustable front splitter. Supposedly it has reduced the need for having specific types of chassis for different races. In essence it's a more effective aero package but attached to a general body that produces much more drag, supposedly they had to give them over 1,000 more revs at Talladega to run the same speed.

Yep, they run a smaller restrictor plate for the COTs so they run at 8,800 RPMs instead of 7,000 on the old cars.

The old cars have different bodies for Toyota, Dodge, Chevy and Ford, whereas the COT have near identical bodies (other than the small differences on the nose, hood and rear quarter panel window to make them look like the road cars they represent)

Quote from hansonator69 :

The old cars have different bodies for Toyota, Dodge, Chevy and Ford...

Could have fooled me...

Quote from Forbin :

Could have fooled me...

Does that even look like the same chassis to you?.... :rolleyes:

I will admit that the CoT is near identical between each manufacture and that's kinda lame imho

Quote from lizardfolk :

Does that even look like the same chassis to you?.... :rolleyes:

Of course not, one has slightly different stickers on it.

Any perceived shape difference that can be seen in that image between those 2 cars is merely an optical illusion as a result of, as Quicksilver pointed out, the different logos.

See pic attached.

Quote from Forbin :

Any perceived shape difference that can be seen in that image between those 2 cars is merely an optical illusion as a result of, as Quicksilver pointed out, the different logos.

See pic attached.

:rolleyes: Anyone can see that the pontiac 2003 Grand Prix has a kickout in the nose compared to the 2003 Ford Taurus. The Taurus is actually rounder and slightly fatter as well. Also notice that the chevy Monte Carlo in the first pic next to the Taurus has a wavy spoiler as well and a slightly larger back

Also about the old bodies, each car had slightly different bodies for superspeedways, intermediate tracks and short tracks/road courses. So the car run at Daytona is different to the one run at California, etc.

Quote from lizardfolk :

:rolleyes: Anyone can see that the pontiac 2003 Grand Prix has a kickout in the nose compared to the 2003 Ford Taurus. The Taurus is actually rounder and slightly fatter as well. Also notice that the chevy Monte Carlo in the first pic next to the Taurus has a wavy spoiler as well and a slightly larger back

Compared to the visual differences in the cars and bikes in other forms of motorsport*, those details are laughably tiny.

*F1, FIA GT, WTCC, WRC, WSBK, MotoGP, the list goes on

But the fact still remains that each body is diffrent no matter how small the detail is.

Quote from Forbin :

Compared to the visual differences in the cars and bikes in other forms of motorsport*, those details are laughably tiny.

*F1, FIA GT, WTCC, WRC, WSBK, MotoGP, the list goes on

And IndyCar still uses the same Dallara chassis...So what? What's your point? The difference in chassis has made a difference in the outcome of NASCAR races before (i'm talking pre-CoT of course). In fact, the ASA stock cars in Trans-Am racing has shown that individual constructors mattered quite a bit on road courses.

Also, take a look at Turismo Carretera. The Argentina stock car. Each constructor has been incredibly different in regards to performance. But can you see a difference that isn't "laughably tiny"? No? Thought so.



Are you done being an immature troll? :rolleyes:

Quote from lizardfolk :

And IndyCar still uses the same Dallara chassis...So what? What's your point?

As does formula mazda, star mazda, spec ford, spec miata.... Just ignore him, just another ignorant person that bashes stock car racing.

Quote from SidiousX :

As does formula mazda, star mazda, spec ford, spec miata.... Just ignore him, just another ignorant person that bashes stock car racing.

And dont forget V8 SuperCar where the Fords and the Holdens look incredibly similar (save the stickers). The difference between those two are also "laughably tiny compared to other forms of motorsport". :rolleyes: Ignorance is truly bliss

Quote from lizardfolk :

And dont forget V8 SuperCar where the Fords and the Holdens look incredibly similar (save the stickers). The difference between those two are also "laughably tiny compared to other forms of motorsport". :rolleyes: Ignorance is truly bliss

Ehh, not really, they are highly-modified production cars, their dimensions are modified a bit.

Quote from SidiousX :

Ehh, not really, they are highly-modified production cars, their dimensions are modified a bit.

They are similar in relation to each other, I'm not talking about comparing them to their production versions (neither is Forbin)

Quote from lizardfolk :

They are similar in relation to each other, I'm not talking about comparing them to their production versions (neither is Forbin)

I'm not either. The production cars are different, and so are the race cars.

Quote from SidiousX :

I'm not either. The production cars are different, and so are the race cars.

Yes, I know that. But the Fords and the Holdens aren't as different as say the Seats and the Chevys in WTCC. They are very similar in respect to each other.

- hansonator69 stated the old NASCAR models had different bodies.

- I stated they looked the same to me.

- lizardfolk got his panties in a bunch because he interpreted my statement as a slight against NASCAR. As a result, he posted a photo attempting to disprove my statement of opinion.

- I happened to noticed a slight optical illusion in lizardfolk's photo and attempted to point it out with a minor image edit, demonstrating the cars were not as a different as they may seem in that particular photo.

- lizardfolk got further enraged and posted yet more pics in which some minor differences were apparent to further attempt to disprove my opinion.

- I point out other forms of motorsport that have much more significant differences between models, in my opinion.

- lizardfolk runs out of ideas to disprove my opinion and starts name-calling.

- SidiousX joins in the name-calling with lizardfolk because he also interpreted my statement of opinion with regard to the similarity of the cars as a slight against NASCAR.


That about sum it up?

Quote from lizardfolk :

Are you done being an immature troll?

I think if anyone here is being immature, it's you.

Why are you so quick to get offended over how I think the cars in NASCAR look?

Quote from Forbin :

That about sum it up?

Pretty much, yep.

Sure...let's review shall we?

Quote from Forbin :

Could have fooled me...

If this statement was posted by someone else I probably wouldn't have had the interpretation that it was a snide remark.

Quote from Forbin :

Compared to the visual differences in the cars and bikes in other forms of motorsport*, those details are laughably tiny.

*F1, FIA GT, WTCC, WRC, WSBK, MotoGP, the list goes on

Key words that make this post (to me) seem like a derogetory statement. Also the fact that you've listed multiple series that the general consesus seems to be "better" because they have a large variety in chassis and engineering. Did you need to list those series? Of course not, I dont spend 100% of my time watching just NASCAR...but you decide to do it anyway rubbing in the fact that NASCAR is "lower" cause of it's spec like chassis regulation. I've seen that argument used multiple times against NASCAR and even IndyCar (probably from you as well). Nevermind the fact that when it comes to NASCAR, the previous models were more different than Turismo Carretera, ASA and other stock car series. Yet you've ignored the fact that this is a stock car comparison.

Quote from Forbin :

Why are you so quick to get offended over how I think the cars in NASCAR look?

Considering that it came from a highly outspoken critic who shares Tristancliffe and Vinnylegends' hatred of NASCAR, I wouldn't say that assuming your posts as snide remarks are unreasonable. Especially from someone who believes that NASCAR is the absolute bane of motorsports with one of the essential arguments is that NASCAR cars look nothing like their manufacture, nor are their differences big enough to actually mean anything despite having 4 constructors.

Quote from lizardfolk :

<ad hominem>

No comment.