Since I do not watch any NASCAR shows during the week. I did not watch the pre-race activities. So, in my case, I do not think it is over-hyped. On top of that, I enjoyed the race.

RobsanX - 19 May 2008 10:15 PM

Tony didn't even make it through practice, and the other two didn't make 100 miles... Did they forget to dyno these things for crying out loud?! It sucks for Tony and Denny, but other than that it could bode well for the rest of the season...

"We got some new stuff coming and it is really good and we should've brought it, but we got greedy and brought more than that," he said. "So it was just probably more my greed than anything, but you come to this race with all your guns loaded."

..."It was a valve train problem," Cronquist said. "We knew [the engine] was really radical. I thought it would go 300 miles, but I mean Tony's [Stewart] went really early. Kyle and Denny's went longer. We have stuff at the shop and know what we have now, but this race pays too much money not to bring everything in your arsenal."

http://www.nascar.com/2008/news/headlines/cup/05/19/kybusch.dhamlin.tstewart.all.star.engine/index.html


But be of good cheer, Toyota fans:

"...Yes, it broke midway through the All-Star race, but even on seven cylinders, Busch was outrunning most others in the field. With a little bit of polish in the new valve-train still to be done, Toyota appears ready to turn things up another notch, and that should worry the competition even more."

Now I know there are going to be some Busch fanboys eager to say that it was just Busch's great driving that enabled him to outrun most of the cars in the field on 7 cylinders, but even Lee White doesn't believe that:

"Kyle is having a great year … but now there are some really good drivers this season, and not taking anything away from Kyle, who is an unbelievable talent, but there is a lot more going on here than just the driver," White said."


"Things have improved since last year, in terms of the shape of the engine power curve," White said, referring to more balanced power and acceleration through the RPM range from coming off one corner and going into the next. "That's evolutionary. And we've seen other manufacturers doing the same, especially the Roush-Yates-Ford guys.

"The car is evolving. But having Joe Gibbs' guys drive this stuff and compare it to what they had last year, that's helped."

Is it really a wonder the Chevy teams are struggling? They've got their R07 engine, and it is what it is. Gibbs goes over to Toyota, sees what TRD has done with the engine package (and all accounts are that it was already strong on hp), and gets to tinker and refine it with the R07 technology that they're already familiar with. They say that by July they should have their engine package together.


http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2008/may/20/new-engine-may-give-toyota-teams-another-boost/

jc4321 - 19 May 2008 11:58 PM

J. - 19 May 2008 11:55 AM

AMP2003 - 19 May 2008 06:37 AM

Although, some people are talking about the 77 car and it's ability to pass on long runs.

If you have a significantly better car, and you have a longer run with people willing to get out of your way - yes, you can get through the field. As I said, Jimmie was able to pass some cars until he started running out of time in that segment and then people weren't willing to cut him any slack. If the guy in front of you doesn't want you to get around him (and there are no other cars to complicate the scenario), it's going to be much harder than it needs to be for the guy to accomplish the pass.

You and I don't agree much, but I respect your opinions and you generaly have a good arguement to debate. However, this just sounds ridiculous...

We know Jimmie has a good car. We know that earlier in races there is a lot more give and take. However, it sounds like you want guys to get out of the way late in the race cause here comes #48? It's harder than it needs to be??? What does that mean?

If it sounds ridiculous it's probably because you've read tone into my post that isn't there. I never said anyone should get out of the way for Jimmie. What I said was that in the closing laps of the segment, fewer drivers were willing to get out of the way. I wasn't blaming them, and I didn't say they should. The fact is that for most of the cars out there they can't pass unless the guy in front of them works with them.

The fact that the "cars are more equal than they've ever been" only means that when you find an advantage it becomes an even bigger one.

jc4321 - 20 May 2008 12:01 AM

RobsanX - 18 May 2008 12:19 PM

TeamRMP - 18 May 2008 11:54 AM

It was like when Tiger Woods isn't in contention in a tournament and everyone loses interest. When their boy Kyle went out the announcers were kind of lost. It looks like NASCAR will have to call a lot of debris cautions in the 600 to keep everyones interest because without having to stop for segments Kyle would have lapped the field.

Ummm, no... His engine still would have blown up...

Given that all the Gibbs cars blew up, have you considered that possibility that they were trying some over the edge stuff that they may not try in a points race?

Have you considered reading my post in context? I was simply replying to his assertion that Ky. would have lapped the field if not for the mandatory cautions...

It wasn't boring, Was nice not having a caution every 5 min.

So some of you would be in agreement with me that you don't need cautions and wrecks for an interesting race? Even Carl Edwards said once that you don't need wrecking to have a good race. "Good TV" my rear end. A race is a race. Some of us just seem to care more or put more emphasis on wrecks than racing. I try not to. You can tag fenders. You can give "love taps." You can ram somebody into the outside wall like back at Darlington in 2003. But it's not required to have wrecks for a race to be good. Some people just have the demolition derby, Saturday-night-at-the-short-track mentality about races. That every race has to be a wreck-fest to be great. They don't! This is just an All-Star Race. They don't have to wreck each other and possibly risk injury heading into the Coca-Cola 600. I call the Coca-Cola 600 as NASCAR's version of the 24 Hours of Le Mans because the race is the longest on the schedule. Endurance is crucial at Charlotte and for over 600 miles.

Was the fact that this race didn't have any wrecks or cautions a deterrent as to why this race wasn't as interesting to some people? Do you think races NEED wrecks just to entertain even the most discriminating NASCAR fan?

JohnM - 20 May 2008 03:25 PM

So some of you would be in agreement with me that you don't need cautions and wrecks for an interesting race? Even Carl Edwards said once that you don't need wrecking to have a good race. "Good TV" my rear end. A race is a race. Some of us just seem to care more or put more emphasis on wrecks than racing. I try not to. You can tag fenders. You can give "love taps." You can ram somebody into the outside wall like back at Darlington in 2003. But it's not required to have wrecks for a race to be good. Some people just have the demolition derby, Saturday-night-at-the-short-track mentality about races. That every race has to be a wreck-fest to be great. They don't! This is just an All-Star Race. They don't have to wreck each other and possibly risk injury heading into the Coca-Cola 600. I call the Coca-Cola 600 as NASCAR's version of the 24 Hours of Le Mans because the race is the longest on the schedule. Endurance is crucial at Charlotte and for over 600 miles.

Was the fact that this race didn't have any wrecks or cautions a deterrent as to why this race wasn't as interesting to some people? Do you think races NEED wrecks just to entertain even the most discriminating NASCAR fan?

You are right about some people determining how good a race it was by how many wrecks. Then, there is a second group that want the races run entrely with the cars side by side all around the track. And even 3 and 4 wide is better.

Apparently Daytona or Talledega was the first race they ever saw, and believe all races should be like that.

NoviVespa3 - 20 May 2008 03:33 PM

JohnM - 20 May 2008 03:25 PM

So some of you would be in agreement with me that you don't need cautions and wrecks for an interesting race? Even Carl Edwards said once that you don't need wrecking to have a good race. "Good TV" my rear end. A race is a race. Some of us just seem to care more or put more emphasis on wrecks than racing. I try not to. You can tag fenders. You can give "love taps." You can ram somebody into the outside wall like back at Darlington in 2003. But it's not required to have wrecks for a race to be good. Some people just have the demolition derby, Saturday-night-at-the-short-track mentality about races. That every race has to be a wreck-fest to be great. They don't! This is just an All-Star Race. They don't have to wreck each other and possibly risk injury heading into the Coca-Cola 600. I call the Coca-Cola 600 as NASCAR's version of the 24 Hours of Le Mans because the race is the longest on the schedule. Endurance is crucial at Charlotte and for over 600 miles.

Was the fact that this race didn't have any wrecks or cautions a deterrent as to why this race wasn't as interesting to some people? Do you think races NEED wrecks just to entertain even the most discriminating NASCAR fan?

You are right about some people determining how good a race it was by how many wrecks. Then, there is a second group that want the races run entrely with the cars side by side all around the track. And even 3 and 4 wide is better.

Apparently Daytona or Talledega was the first race they ever saw, and believe all races should be like that.

I am in neither of those groups and I didn't like the race. I hate RP racing and lots of wrecks gets on my nerves because it takes away from the racing and cautions take a long time if it's a bad wreck. I just didn't like the race because whoever was in the lead car was untouchable no matter if it was a 15th place car or the best car on the track.

Posts numbered 76 and 77 are way off base. It has nothing to do with wrecks or running 3 or 4 wide all day. It has to do with faster cars being able to make passes rather than races being dictated solely by track position. Now quit assuming that none of know what we are talking about.

I missed the inverting. I always liked to see if the guys up front could make it back up front while back in the dirty air. That's just me though. Thought it was pretty cool that Kasey won.