Smaller teams discovering salvation comes at a price (cont'd)

In NASCAR parlance, it's known as a smaller technical "box," limiting the amount of leeway teams have in making adjustments to the car. That much was obvious in the recent COT test at Bristol, where every organization struggled to get through inspection. Those limitations, Loomis believes, can help give Petty Enterprises a chance.

"When you're a smaller organization, a lot of time you're chasing what the bigger teams are doing. They're able to react and respond to things quicker, and make changes quicker to the body and offset the roofs and do different things. Whereas in a smaller team, it seems like you're always one step behind what the latest, greatest thing is. Now, they've drawn a little bit of a tighter box around a lot of areas."

Car of Tomorrow

• Cost Management
• Driver Safety
• Improved Competition
• A New Era

But getting there isn't cheap. Richard Childress, who operates a three-car team, estimated earlier this year that the COT program is costing each Nextel Cup organization an additional $1.6 to $1.8 million. Those numbers are expected to increase as NASCAR makes changes to the car after its initial runs at Bristol and next week at Martinsville Speedway. And they make some wonder if the COT is indeed the great equalizer some believe it to be.

"I think the teams that feel good about it are the ones that are probably not winning right now, because they think this car is going to bring them into a box that's going to keep costs down and also maybe get the competition a little bit closer. I hope all those things are true. But I still think the top teams are going to be the ones that come out on top," Jeff Gordon said.

"The teams that are excited about this car because they think it is going to bring them closer to the front, I think they are going to be surprised about how much more engineering you are actually going to need with this car. The smaller the box they put you in, the more work that it takes to figure out how to find that speed that you need."

Tony Stewart agreed: "You still have technology involved," he said. "And as long as you have technology and engineers and wind tunnels and seven-post shake rigs and all this, there's somebody that is going to find an advantage over somebody else. As long as there is that advantage, you're never going to keep everybody real close together."

Results from the recent COT test at Bristol were inconclusive. Drivers from large, multi-car powers dominated the first two sessions. But in the final session, Ward Burton of Morgan-McClure Motorsports, Jeff Green of Haas CNC Racing and Tony Raines of Hall of Fame Racing all cracked the top 10.

"All the systems that are in place have been developed for this one package," Custer said. "Everybody is on an equal playing field from all that. It's not just the knowledge, it's the equipment and the systems are all at a ground level. We know that will benefit us. We'd rather take the new package and build on it, rather than take the car of today and try to get to the same place."

Darby admits that teams are spending "a substantial amount of money" to develop the COT, but believes those same operations will see savings in the future by using one car at multiple tracks. Custer wonders if that's the case -- even when the COT is fully implemented, he said, Haas CNC's car count will drop from 20 to about only 16. He also believes he COT is more fragile than the current car, leading to questions over how often one can be used.

"There's the potential for these cars to be fragile. In other words, when we wreck them, we won't repair them as easily as the existing cars. So it appears we're going to see more chassis. Are they cheaper to build? It appears they're cheaper to build per chassis, but if you're building more of them, that savings goes somewhere else," Custer said.

"We may need fewer cars, but if we total them more frequently, we're building more cars. They may be cheaper to build, but we're building more of them. When will all that settle out? I'm not sure. There may be a gain financially, but I'm not counting on the gain. I'm counting on it costing more."