Buddy Bakers Daytona

[therealmoparman]

💩

[tan top]

 interesting stuff , thanks for sharing ...

[odcics2]

2 vintage photos of DC-84, the car used at both the Daytona 500 and the April Talladega race.
First photo is a documented pic from a vintage newspaper.
Second is from a vintage Cotton Owens-dodge press release.
Closely look at the tape on the steering column. Same in both vintage photos.
No conspiring here, just fact.

Now look at the photo of the Owens Dodge owned by Canapa.
Plainly seen is the totally different roll cage designs when comparing DC-84 to the Canapa owned car.

It has been often stated that the Canapa car is "just like it rolled off the track."  

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[Golden-Arm]

i have no dog in this fight, and i think the canepa car is interesting in it's own right, even though it appears to just be a show car. you said here:

Unfortunately I do not have Cotton's contract with Chrysler from 1969-1970

and that's understandable. you can't come back later and say, though:

The contract proves that there was no financial renumeration or incentive for COG to build a "show car" that never raced.

it doesn't matter what was in a 62, 63, 64 contract, etc. it wouldn't matter what was in a 71, 72, 73 contract. the only contract that would matter for 69 and 70, aren't represented. again, the car should be able to stand on it's own, as the last cotton owens garage built hemi daytona. doesn't matter why it was built, it was built. it's an awesome car, and thanks for sharing your families race documents, with the community.

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[Aero426]

The "show car" is an animal unto itself.   It would not be part of the normal year to year contract from Dodge to COG.    It was a special one time project.

Further, the cars built in 1969-70 period would all originate at Nichels Engineering and be finished at COG.   The cars from the contract you posted would be tear downs built completely in-house at COG.

[Aero426]

As has been stated many times the interior, exterior, trim and anything, including roll bars, dash, whatever, could have been changed when the car was prepared for Darlington museum. Interesting that your photos show the actual race car photos have door panels on them. Obviously they put carpet in it and window cranks for the museum, so perhaps they had a reason to modify the roll cage and many other things. Please note that no representations are made for any modifications that have subsequently been made by Canepa, who has attempted to put it into more of a race prep form.

It should also be noted that the same car was used for several years, 1968 - 1970. It was changed in various forms from Charger to Daytona, with various modifications made for NASCAR rule changes as well as manufacturer changes.. so who knows exactly what it looked like from week to week or year to year. 

More photos can be found here:

http://cottonowens.com/daytona/index.html

The central roll cage behind the driver and dashboard differences are significant.  It would not be typical to alter those parts of the car.   

Cars delivered from Nichels Engineering were equipped with partial carpets.   It was typical to have asbestos mat under them.    The carpets on the existing car have been removed by the current owner for reasons unknown.   Window cranks were necessary when the cars raced with side glass.

[Redbird]

With the 1/22/1992 letter saying that the #6 car was on the auto show circuit as a show winner for 2 years, is the premise that a Nichols car painted in #6 livery was used for the auto shows in late 1969 to 1970 no longer being promoted?

Or is it now the contention that a Nichols car was used for one year and a COG garage car was used for 2 more years-for a total of 3 years of #6 Daytonas at auto shows?

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[moparnation74]

Let's not re-hash old photos and old arguments anymore shall we?  

I have posted new documents that state that actual race cars were to appear at auto shows, per Chrysler. I have also posted documents that make the same claims made all along at least 16 years before the car was sold on ebay.

These documents raise a lot of new points and I've posited a lot of questions that no one has yet to answer to specifically. If you would like to address any of the new points or questions these documents raise, I'll be glad to engage in a conversation with you.

Your Cottons Grandson correct?  I am late in this thread but just knowing your relationship to Cotton it would be difficult to refute anything from you.

[therealmoparman]

💩

[Aero426]

From your extensive photo archives, I will challenge you to post a photo of a 1968 or 1969 bare body in white sitting at COG waiting to become.  

[held1823]

you state this........

Here you go again, trying to establish your case by using 100% completely un-related examples. Whether or not these examples are true or not is not relevant. Because lots of other cars may or may not be fakes does not pertain or have any bearing on this specific case, your honor. It's like saying "well I know lots of guys who cheat on their taxes, so every guy must cheat on their taxes."

and later respond with

Unfortunately I do not have Cotton's contract with Chrysler from 1969-1970, however I do have others including 1962, 1963, 1965. They are all pretty much the same though with exception of few details. The scans I am uploading are pages 1 and 2 from 1963 contract. These contracts (like every contract) are very specific. They detail exactly what Chrysler will provide to COG, and what COG will provide to Chrysler.

Of importance is what they DO NOT say. Specifically, they make no mention of COG to build special "show cars." They do say "... you will, upon request of Chrysler, display the Special Test Car at dealerships, auto shows and other special events."

If Chrysler wanted COG to build a show car(s), it would have explicitly requested it in this contract. If it was not specified within the four corners of this document, then COG would have had no obligation or inclination to build a "show car."

you're so convinced you know what you're talking about that the irony coming from your own mouth escapes you, doesn't it?

i don't have the contract from 1969, but i can tell you what it does or does not say, based on unrelated contracts from other years

[C5HM]

It is interesting that folks automatically ascribe to a family member...knowledge that they don't possess (as in Nichels never built a COG car). Same thing happens with Lee Holman. With similar uninformed results. My favorite risible line above is : "Let's not rehash old photos". What a hoot. It is THOSE very photos that undermine/refute the suggestion that Canepa's car was, as contended, The Southern 500 winner. And even ever a Daytona race car. So yes, by all means...let's NOT consider the concrete, non speculative, irrefutable facts. Let's instead wander off into conjecture and tendentious self interested speculation.
For sure.

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[therealmoparman]

💩

[Redbird]

Just for me, and I know not everyone will agree, the following is a logical idea of the history of the #6 show car. Again, just my thoughts based on the information presented, I don't have to be right. And I really like the show car.

Spring of 1969 Dodge decides to build the Daytona.

Sometime mid 1969 Chrysler contacts COG to build a NASCAR show car for the 1970 Auto Shows which will start in Fall of 1969.

COG takes a real NASCAR car from it's stable, probably a used short track car, and converts it to a Daytona show car.

That car travels to auto shows for the 1970 auto show season. Dodge makes the decision to again use the car for the 1971 auto show season and it again travels all over the country.

There are any number of pictures of a Red #6 car at auto shows in 1970-1971.

COG builds a Daytona for Buddy Baker to race in the 1969-1970 period. There are accidents with it, it gets rebuilt, it wins a very big race, it places well throughout the season.


Here is a story that does not make sense to me. Again, just for me.

Spring 1969 Dodge decides to build the Daytona.

Chrysler makes the decision to build a show car for the 1970 season, so they call Ray Nichols, and ask him to build a #6 copy. Ray calls Cotton and tells him of the deal. Ray asks Cotton for the paint codes so he can get the right colors. Cotton also sends Ray details on how to do the Number lettering right.

[Aero426]

Document seems to predate the 1968-70 period by several years and has no bearing on the subject of the Daytona.  

[Aero426]

Hey smart guy.. I have 60 years of paperwork, contracts, photos and archives direct from the source. I also have 40 years of first-hand knowledge straight from the horse's mouth, the guy who was there, lived it, breathed it, made the history you know so little about other than from anecdotes, hearsay, and books you may have read but failed to understand. For any clarifications needed, I can just ask my dad, who worked on the COG team. Please refrain from further posts in this discussion, you have disqualified yourself already.

In your put down, you have left out "books he has written".   

[moparnation74]

It is interesting that folks automatically ascribe to a family member...knowledge that they don't possess (as in Nichels never built a COG car). Same thing happens with Lee Holman. With similar uninformed results. My favorite risible line above is : "Let's not rehash old photos". What a hoot. It is THOSE very photos that undermine/refute the suggestion that Canepa's car was, as contended, The Southern 500 winner. And even ever a Daytona race car. So yes, by all means...let's NOT consider the concrete, non speculative, irrefutable facts. Let's instead wander off into conjecture and tendentious self interested speculation.
For sure.

Hey smart guy.. I have 60 years of paperwork, contracts, photos and archives direct from the source. I also have 40 years of first-hand knowledge straight from the horse's mouth, the guy who was there, lived it, breathed it, made the history you know so little about other than from anecdotes, hearsay, and books you may have read but failed to understand. For any clarifications needed, I can just ask my dad, who worked on the COG team. Please refrain from further posts in this discussion, you have disqualified yourself already.

What do you guys have against this guy?