Disappointment

I was wrong. I predicted that there would be some racing at TMS, which isn't even called TMS anymore, but the Great American Speedway. I predicted that the parity brought about by the Sprint Cup car would result in some good fender to fender competition, of which, in reality, we saw very little.
This is not to belittle Carl Edward's victory--the #99 Roush-Fenway Ford team had its act together--something not many of the other teams seemed to have. So it wasn't a case of "the wrong guy" won the race, but that, similar to Atlanta, it was a race of attrition, rather than one of drivers' and crew chiefs' skills.
Jeff Gordon fell off early, with a car that wasn't prepared for the track at all. He ended the race in position 43, for only the second time in his sixteen year NASCAR Cup career. Greg Biffle who had a promising start to the race, and looked good early, also had to drop out of competition, if not the race.
The problem this time wasn't the tires, but all the yet unknown qualities of the new car and how it reacts to differing track conditions. Testing on one intermediate track is not good for all, as there is really no such thing as "cookie cutter" tracks. Therefore, this blogger takes some solace in the fact that he was correct in his original surmise that the refusal of NASCAR to allow testing at Texas would result in actions detrimental to the fans' enjoyment of the race.
We discovered that the era of the phantom caution is not over after all. We saw at least one of those, and if the purpose was to tighten up the field, it was too late. By that time thirty-three of the forty-three cars were a lap or more down.
We expected some lapped cars, especially at GAS (no, I won't call it that, it is still TMS to me), where the high speeds often separate the men from the boys. In addition lapped cars make the restarts exciting and should run some interference for the leaders to allow the rest of the field to catch up. But lapped traffic was overdone at TMS this time, because there were only ten or so cars that came to the race with a competitive set-up.
Still, all this means is that the teams have much more work to do. The more the car is used, the more the engineers and crew chiefs can figure out what they need to make the car more competitive. So there is something positive to take from Texas. After all, the sold out crowd seemed to have a great time at the race--it is better to be there than to watch the race on television, especially with the mediocre race coverage we saw. The teams can take the positive route and put the Samsung 500 behind them as a learning experience. The racing can only get better from here.

Some questions to ponder. If TMS was a track owned by NASCAR's ISC, rather than Bruton Smith's organization, would NASCAR have allowed an extra testing session there?

If Kyle Busch was criticized for not sticking around last year after he wrecked his car, should Jeff Gordon be criticized for quitting when he had a car that didn't handle the way he wanted it to?

If the "core fan" yearn for racing the way it was in "the old days," shouldn't the Samsung 500 have been a reason to celebrate?

And finally, to Jimmy Spencer, who declared that Carl Edwards would have won four races if it hadn't been for mechanical failure at Atlanta, doesn't that mean it would still only be three if Tony Stewart hadn't cut a tire at Las Vegas?