Ferrari’s task is to improve step by step, rather than make a quantum leap in Barcelona next weekend.

That is the claim of Spaniard Fernando Alonso, as the famous Italian team disappointed some headline-writers on Tuesday by not launching a ‘B’ car at the Mugello test.

“We have to take a step forward in Montmelo, one in Monte Carlo, another in Canada, and so on,” Alonso is quoted by La Stampa, after topping the rain-affected first day of testing on Tuesday with the improved F2012 car.

He acknowledged that Ferrari cannot win the 2012 season if the performance of the opening four grands prix is repeated throughout the season.

“We have to be qualifying in the top ten, fighting for the top five and having both cars in the points in every race,” he insisted.

Asked if he thinks the title is a realistic goal, Alonso said: “We are optimistic.”

He said he pushed as hard as he could in Australia, Malaysia, China and Bahrain with a sub-standard car.

“It was like walking on a wire a hundred feet up,” said the 2005 and 2006 world champion. “If you do one thing wrong – hit a curb in qualifying or miss a braking point in the race – you’re not in the top ten.

“We do not have the fastest car, but with a team like Ferrari, a good car is enough.

“I’m not the best in qualifying, or in the rain, or on the street circuits, but I try to be a 9.5 in everything.”

High-profile sponsors are nervous, as formula one ploughs ahead with next week’s Bahrain grand prix.

Despite widespread trepidation felt within the paddock this weekend in Shanghai, the FIA has declared that there is no reason the Sakhir event cannot go ahead.

And after meeting with the teams on Friday, Bernie Ecclestone told reporters the race is “200 per cent” on.

But The Times reports that, amid the threat of violence, some sponsors have pulled the plug on providing hospitality for guests next weekend.

“When you have an environment like Bahrain then all the sponsors will be watching developments very, very closely and talking to each other,” a source said.

“It’s a case of ‘watch this space’ basically.”

However, the British newspaper said it is unlikely any major sponsors will pull their logos from the cars.

“(They) will effectively just have to follow the sport,” said Tim Bampton, of the motor sports marketing company Just Marketing.

“They will have to watch and wait to see what happens even though they could be caught in the vortex.”

But, at the same time, it is believed that sponsors’ contracts with the teams – such as Vodafone’s estimated $75m deal with McLaren – contain “brand damage” clauses.

An added complication for McLaren is that it is part owned by Bahrain’s sovereign wealth fund, with Mumtalakat Holdings “on course to own half the business” according to writer Kevin Eason.

Also under heavy scrutiny is the conspicuously silent FIA president Jean Todt, whose son Nicolas shares ownership of his GP2 team with Bahrain’s controversial crown prince.

“We all know why it (the Bahrain saga) might have dragged a bit,” Mark Webber is quoted by the Telegraph.

“F1 is like that. There’s a lot of funding and finances that have come from Abu Dhabi and Bahrain and the Middle East.

“They’re very excited about F1 and they clearly want to give it another go. Let’s see if it works,” added the Red Bull driver.

 The debate about Mercedes’ controversial new ‘F-duct’ solution looks set to speed across the Indian Ocean.
Red Bull team boss Christian Horner, and particularly his Lotus counterpart Eric Boullier, had warned in Melbourne at the weekend that they might protest the qualifying and race results.

They are arguing that Mercedes’ technical innovation is not legal, but ultimately the 2012 season opener was run without a protest being filed.

But the threat is merely on the back-burner, as Boullier and Horner seek urgent talks with the FIA and Mercedes’ Ross Brawn.

“We want to sit together at a table with Mercedes and the FIA and find a solution,” Frenchman Boullier is quoted by Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport.

Separately, Horner agreed: “We are expecting some pretty heated discussions in the next five days.” By then, the F1 circus will be firmly based at the Sepang circuit, for the second round of the season at Sepang.

McLaren, the dominant winner of Sunday’s season opening Australian grand prix, is staying out of the debate about the Mercedes concept.

“I think the system is legal,” said team boss Martin Whitmarsh.

Auto Motor und Sport writer Tobias Gruner explained: “The reason for (Whitmarsh’s) opinion is simple — his engineers at Woking have been hard at work on a copy for some time.”

McLaren and Mercedes look to be leading the way with the latest technical ingenuity in formula one.
Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport reports that the two teams are set to combine the button-activated DRS system with a sort of additional F-duct at the rear of their 2012 cars.

It was believed F-ducts were no longer legal, but new passive systems have emerged on the front wings of some 2012 cars, pioneered by Mercedes.

As for the rear wings, those F-ducts are also still legal “under certain circumstances”, the German magazine claims.

Combining a legal rear F-duct with DRS could result in a “huge top-speed gain”, writer Michael Schmidt claims, with the Mercedes W03 reportedly racing ahead by a whopping 18kph at the recent Barcelona test.

Luca di Montezemolo’s post-race message for Felipe Massa was “subtle but powerful”, according to one formula one writer.

In the midst of rumours he risks being ousted by Ferrari at the end of 2010, Brazilian Massa qualified poorly in Japan and then crashed at the first corner of the Suzuka race.

The dismal performance followed Ferrari president Montezemolo’s pre-event warning that he has “waited with great perseverance” recently for Massa to “shave points off the rivals” of the team’s championship favourite Fernando Alonso.

And the Italian said immediately after Sunday’s events: “I’m sure he will be the surprise of the last three races of the season.

“After this bad day he will be desperately keen to react and we will do everything to give him the possibility to win.”

Also disappointed with Massa’s Sunday at Suzuka was team boss Stefano Domenicali, who said despite his “less than brilliant grid position” had “every chance of a good race”.

The Italian added that Ferrari’s constructors’ title hopes “took a knock” in Japan “because Felipe had to retire”.

A report in La Razon newspaper surmised that Massa had been given an “ultimatum a la italiana”.

Pirelli has acknowledged it has a role to play in boosting formula one’s “show”.

The Italian brand is F1′s new exclusive supplier beginning next year, and some figures see it as an opportunity to create tyres that lead to entertaining races.

In Canada two weeks ago, Bridgestone’s crumbling tyres were credited for producing a spectacular race, and The Observer writer Oliver Owen said on Sunday he hoped “Pirelli were paying attention”.

“We want to create a show — as a fan I’d say it (Canada) was great fun, watching the strategy,” Paul Hembery, Pirelli’s competition director, told Reuters in the Valencia paddock on Sunday.

“Others would say that wasn’t very good for the tyre company,” he acknowledged.

“We can happily make a tyre that would last a whole race and not degrade, but we need to try and balance that with a good show.  I think we want to do the show route,” said Hembery.

The Valencia street circuit is now a “home” for formula one, according to F1 chief executive Bernie Ecclestone.

Ahead of its debut race in 2008, it is believed a seven-year contract was signed.

But the venue has met with criticism, including a 5.4 kilometre layout that has hosted processional races, and a lack of atmosphere due to the absence of many boats in the marina.

There were, however, a healthy 50,000 spectators for Saturday’s qualifying session, and Ecclestone is quoted by the local news agency EFE: “I’m very proud and pleased with Valencia.”

The Briton said he once thought setting up a circuit in the America’s Cup port area was “almost impossible” and a “20 year project completed in two”.

“It’s a miracle,” Ecclestone laughed.

“This is now a home for us.  Today a journalist told me ‘this is another Monaco’,” the 79-year-old added.

However, Telegraph writer Simon Briggs on Saturday described Valencia as “a poor man’s Monaco”.

(GMM)

Team bosses and F1 figures are to appear for a question-and-answer session with fans.

The initiative, organised by the teams association FOTA, will see bosses including McLaren’s Martin Whitmarsh and Lotus’ Tony Fernandes front an audience at London’s British Academy of Film and Television Arts next Thursday.

Telegraph writer Tom Cary revealed that Nico Rosberg’s race engineer Jock Clear, as well as Ferrari spokesman Luca Colajanni and Force India reserve driver Paul di Resta, will also be on the panel.
(GMM)

(GMM)  Michael Schumacher insists he is not motivated to succeed in formula one by the approval of pundits and headline-writers.

The German admits he was “very angry” at himself after the recent Chinese grand prix, when he was notably off the pace of his Mercedes teammate Nico Rosberg.

He has a heavily revised car for the fifth race of his 2010 comeback, but rejects the analysis that how he performs in Spain this weekend could paint the writing on the wall.

“Some like to see it as ‘now I have the car, now I have to perform, and if not then blah, blah, blah’.  I’m less thinking this way.”

Schumacher, 41, believes Shanghai was a blip on his trajectory of improvement this season, and is not swayed by those who think he will soon tire of his new F1 foray.

“The main reason I’m coming back is not to have a nice story in the media or be criticised in the media — I’m coming back because I enjoy driving and that’s what I’m here for,” he told reporters in Barcelona.

“Naturally the joy is higher if you win races, and in China I was very disappointed and I was very angry at myself, but you say ‘things will be different’.”

May 3 (GMM)  Nico Rosberg will soon notch up the first victory of his formula one career, team boss Ross Brawn predicts.

The 24-year-old German finished on the podium just twice during his four-year tenure with Williams, but within four races has already finished in the top-3 twice at the wheel of a Mercedes.

“Nico is very close to winning a race,” Brawn told the Daily Star newspaper.

“Things just need to fall into place — but that will come.  I am sure he’ll do it.  Definitely,” he added.

Rosberg, whose Finnish father Keke won the world championship in 1982, finished third in both Malaysia and China, while his famous teammate Michael Schumacher’s last two finishes have been in tenth place.

“Nico has raised his game,” said former triple world champion Sir Jackie Stewart, who while a sponsor representative at Williams worked close up with Rosberg.

“The boy has extraordinary skills.  I think Michael has been taken aback by that.  It must be affecting him,” added the Scot.

Rosberg’s former boss Sir Frank Williams told the Daily Mail: “Nico is a very self-confident young man with a reasonable amount of justification for being so.

“He won’t be overawed in Michael’s presence.”

But a report in the Telegraph newspaper expressed concern that Mercedes’ decision to alter the wheelbase length of the W01 car could affect Rosberg’s momentum.

“Instead of helping Schumacher get back up to speed, could it just upset Rosberg, costing him the chance to compete for the world title?” wondered writer Tom Cary.

Steve McCormick, in About.com Guide commented regarding Greg Biffle, “Even the fastest car can’t drive itself.  Greg Biffle brings an impressive resume to Daytona: 1998 Truck Series Rookie of the Year, 2000 Truck Series Champion, 2001 BGN Rookie of the Year, 2002 Busch Series Champion and the winner of last July’s Daytona race.”

“Take a guy who is a proven restrictor plate winner and put him behind arguably the best engine in the sport and you’ve got a potential pole sitter. Can anyone tell me why sports writers are calling his pole winning run “shocking” and “surprising?”

“His name may not be on the tip of your tongue when you think of NASCAR NEXTEL Cup stars but this pole run shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone.”

Greg Biffle who was born in December 23rd, 1969, started 7 races in 2002.  His official rookie season was 2003 and he featured a win at the Pepsi 400 in Daytona.  Jamie McMurray beat him for Rookie of the Year honors.

His more outstanding performances have been:

2000 – Craftsman Truck Series Champion.

2002 – Busch Grand National Series Champion.

2003 – Won first NEXTEL Cup Race (July Daytona)

2005 – Finished second in NEXTEL Cup points

Jack Roush picked up Greg Biffle back in the mid 90′s with the idea that with some seasoning he could be great.

Just a few years later Greg rewarded Roush Racing with it’s first NASCAR championship as Greg pushed and shoved his way to the Craftsman Truck Series title. A couple of years after that Greg again came through, this time delivering a Busch Grand National series championship.

Early in his NEXTEL Cup career Greg has proven that he can get the job done. His first victory in NASCAR’s premier division came under the lights in Daytona as Greg won the Pepsi 400 during his 2003 rookie campaign.

There are surely more championships in Greg’s future.  Those stories are still to be written but clearly he knows what it takes to win titles and he is with a top-notch team in the form of Jack Roush.

One question almost every investor asks at some point is whether it is possible to achieve above market returns by selecting a diversified group of stocks according to some formula, rather than having to evaluate each stock from every angle.

There are obvious advantages to such a formulaic approach. For the individual, the amount of time and effort spent caring for his investments would be reduced, leaving more time for him to spend on more enjoyable and fulfilling tasks. For the institution, large sums of money could be deployed without having to rely upon the investing acumen of a single talented stock picker. Many of the proposed systems also offer the advantage of matching the inflow of investable funds with investment opportunities. An investor who follows no formula, and evaluates each stock from every angle, may often find himself holding cash. Historically, this has been a problem for some excellent stock pickers. So, there are real advantages to favoring a formulaic approach to investing if such an approach would yield returns similar to the returns a complete stock by stock analysis would yield.

Many investment writers have proposed at least one such formulaic approach during their lifetime. The most promising formulaic approaches have been articulated by three men: Benjamin Graham, David Dreman, and Joel Greenblatt. As each of these approaches appeals to logic and common sense, they are not unique to these three men. But, these are the three names with which these approaches are usually most closely associated; so, there is little need to draw upon sources beyond theirs.

Benjamin Graham wrote three books of consequence: “Security Analysis”, “The Intelligent Investor”, and “The Interpretation of Financial Statements”. Within each book, he hints at various workable approaches both in stocks and bonds; however, he is most explicit in his best known work, “The Intelligent Investor”. There, Graham discusses the purchase of shares for less than two – thirds of their net current asset value. The belief that this method would yield above market returns is supported on both empirical and logical grounds.

In fact, it currently enjoys far too much support to be practicable. Public companies rarely trade below their net current asset values. This is unlikely to change in the future. Buyout firms, unconventional money managers, and vulture investors now check such excessive bouts of public pessimism by taking large or controlling stakes in troubled companies. As a result, the investing public is less likely to indulge its pessimism as feverishly as it once did; for, many cheap stocks now have the silver lining of being takeover targets. As Graham’s net current asset value method is neither workable at present, nor is likely to prove workable in the future, we must set it aside.

David Dreman is known as a contrarian investor. In his case, it is an appropriate label, because of his keen interest in behavioral finance. However, in most cases the line separating the value investor from the contrarian investor is fuzzy at best. Dreman’s contrarian investing strategies are derived from three measures: price to earnings, price to cash flow, and price to book value. Of these measures, the price to earnings ratio is by far the most conspicuous. It is quoted nearly everywhere the share price is quoted. When inverted, the price to earnings ratio becomes the earnings yield. To put this another way, a stock’s earnings yield is “e” over “p”. Dreman describes the strategy of buying stocks trading at low prices relative to their earnings as the low P/E approach; but, he could have just as easily called it the high earnings yield approach.

Whatever you call it, this approach has proved effective in the past. A diversified group of low P/E stocks has usually outperformed both a diversified group of high P/E stocks and the market as a whole.

This fact suggests that investors have a very hard time quantifying the future prospects of most public companies. While they may be able to make correct qualitative comparisons between businesses, they have trouble assigning a price to these qualitative differences. This does not come as a surprise to anyone with much knowledge of human judgment (and misjudgment). I am sure there is some technical term for this deficiency, but I know it only as “checklist syndrome”. Within any mental model, one must both describe the variables and assign weights to these variables. Humans tend to have little difficulty describing the variables – that is, creating the checklist. However, they rarely have any clue as to the weight that ought to be given to each variable.

This is why you will sometimes hear analysts say something like: the factor that tipped the balance in favor of online sales this holiday season was high gas prices (yes, this is an actual paraphrase; but, I won’t attribute it, because publicly attaching such an inane argument to anyone’s name is just cruel). It is true that avoiding paying high prices at the pump is a possible motivating factor in a shopper’s decision to make online Christmas purchases. However, it is an immaterial factor. It is a mere pebble on the scales. This is the same kind of thinking that places far too much value on a stock’s future earnings growth and far too little value on a stock’s current earnings.

The other two contrarian methods: the low price to cash flow approach and the low price to book value approach work for the same reasons. They exploit the natural human tendency to see a false equality in the factors, and to run down a checklist. For instance, a stock that has a triple digit price to cash flow ratio, but is in all other respects an extraordinary business, will be judged favorably by a checklist approach. However, if great weight is assigned to present cash flows relative to the stock price, the stock will be judged unfavorably. This also illustrates the second strength of the three contrarian methods.

They heavily weight the known factors. Of course, they do not heavily weight all known factors. They only consider three easily quantifiable known factors. An excellent brand, a growing industry, a superb management team, etc. may also be known factors. However, they are not precisely quantifiable. I would argue that while these factors may not be quantifiable they are calculable; that is to say, while no exact value may be assigned to them, they are useful data that ought to be considered when evaluating an investment.

There is the possibility of a middle ground here. These three contrarian methods may be used as a screen. Then, the investor may apply his own active judgment to winnow the qualifying stocks down to a final portfolio. Personally, I do not believe this is an acceptable compromise. These three methods do not adequately model the diversity of great investments. Therefore, they must either exclude some of the best stocks or include too many of the worst stocks. It is wise to place great weight upon each of these measures; however, it is foolish disqualify any stock because of a single criterion (which is exactly what such a screen does).

Finally, there is Joel Greenblatt’s “magic formula”. This is the most interesting formulaic approach to investing, both because it does not subject stocks to any true/false tests and because it is a composite of the two most important readily quantifiable measures a stock has: earnings yield and return on capital. As you will recall, earnings yield is simply the inverse of the P/E ratio; so, a stock with a high earnings yield is simply a low P/E stock. Return on capital may be thought of as the number of pennies earned for each dollar invested in the business. The exact formula that Greenblatt uses is described in “The Little Book That Beats the Market”. However, the formula used is rather unimportant. Over large groups of stocks (which is what Greenblatt suggests the magic formula be used on) any differences between the various return on capital formulae will not have much affect on the performance of the portfolios constructed.

Greenblatt claims his magic formula may be used in two different ways: as an automated portfolio generation tool or as a screen. For an investor like you (that is, one with sufficient curiosity and commitment to frequent a site such as this) the latter use is the more appropriate one. The magic formula will serve you well as a screen. I would argue, however, that you needn’t limit yourself to stocks screened by the magic formula, if you have full confidence in your judgment regarding some other stock.

These four formulaic approaches (the three from Dreman and the one from Greenblatt) will likely yield returns greater than or equal to the returns you would obtain from an index fund. Therefore, you would do better to invest in your own basket of qualifying stocks than in the prefabricated market basket. If you want to be a passive investor, or believe yourself incapable of being an active investor, these formulaic approaches are your best bet.

In fact, if I were approached by an institution making long – term investments and using only a very small percentage of the fund for operating expenses, I would recommend an automated process derived from these four approaches. I would also recommend that 100% of the fund’s investable assets be put into equities, but that is a discussion for another day (in fact, it’s a discussion for Tuesday; my next podcast is devoted to the dangers of diversification). If, however, you believe you have what it takes to be an active investor, and that is truly what you wish to be, then, I would suggest you do not use these approaches for anything more than helping you generate some useful ideas.

If you choose this path, you need to be clear about what being an active investor entails. Read this next part very carefully (it is correct even though it may not appear to be): I have never found a screen that generates more than one buy order per hundred stocks returned. Even after I have narrowed the list of possible stocks down by a cursory review of the industry and the business itself, I have never found a method that can consistently generate more than one buy order per twenty – five annual reports read.

Here, I am citing my best past experiences. In my experience, most screens result in less than one buy order per three hundred stocks returned, and I usually read more like fifty to a hundred annual reports per buy order at a minimum. You may choose to invest in far more stocks than I do. Perhaps instead of limiting yourself to your five to twelve best ideas as I do, you might want to put money into your best twenty – five to thirty ideas. Do the math, and you’ll see that is still quite a bit of homework.

That’s why remaining a passive investor is the best bet for most people. The time and effort demanded of the active investor is simply too taxing. They have more important, more enjoyable things to do. If that’s true for you, the four formulaic approaches outlined above should guide you to above market returns.

Formulas:
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, babies under 12 months of age should be fed either breastmilk or infant formula. No other type of milk provides all of the nutrients in the right amounts to support optimal growth. Formula companies use human milk as a standard and produce a product, usually based on cows’ milk, which contains proteins, fats and carbohydrates in a proportion that is close to human milk. Then they add vitamins, minerals and other ingredients to bring the final product as close to human milk as possible. As ongoing research reveals factors in mothers’ milk that were previously not known, the drug companies that manufacture infant formula add them, and advertise the product as being “new” or “improved.” Some recent additions are ARA and DHA. Read labels carefully to know what is in the brand you purchase. When you choose a formula for your baby, it is usually best to start with one that is milk-based, since these are tolerated by most babies and are lower in cost than the specialized formulas. If your baby does not tolerate his formula, consult your pediatrician about which one to try next. While soy based formulas contain all of the nutrients needed to sustain growth, they also contain phytoestrogens that may affect a baby’s growth and development, and they hinder the absorption of zinc and calcium. According to an FDA paper, the AAP states “Healthy full-term infants should be given soy formula only when medically necessary.” (http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/596_baby.html) Specialized formulas for allergic babies are more expensive, and should be used on the recommendation of a pediatrician.
Bottles:
If your formula feed your baby, you will need bottles, nipples (teats), and a bottle brush for effective cleaning. There are many types and styles of bottles available, and what you choose depends upon your preference.
Bottles with disposable liners are fairly easy to use and easy to clean, but they are more expensive than other types because the liners have to be purchased throughout the months that your baby uses a bottle. Plastic bottles are lightweight, and most are easy to clean with hot soapy water and a brush. In recent months, news articles have warned about possible dangers from the leaching of a chemical called bisphenol A or BPA into milk from the plastic when bottles are heated, and also from the linings of the can the formula comes in. Although the FDA states that plastic bottles do not present a hazard to babies, you might want to research the different brands to see which are considered safer before purchasing bottles for your baby. A google search turned up lists of brands which are BPA free.
Different babies do better with different types of nipples. You should choose those with a slow flow at first, especially for a very young baby. If the milk flows too fast the baby may choke, or take in too much air. Be sure to replace nipples that become worn so that they do not break during a feeding. At times a baby who is teething may chew on the nipple and cause tiny pieces to come off, so inspect them on a regular basis.
Formula Preparation:
Infant formula comes in three forms: ready to feed, concentrate, and powder. Ready to feed formula is the easiest to use. It can be stored at room temperature until the can is opened, and is fed to the baby directly as it comes from the can. It is, however, expensive compared to the other types. Both other forms of formula must be mixed with water before feeding. It is very important to read the directions on the can to be sure that you add exactly the right amount of water so that the milk the baby receives is neither too dilute (which could lead to malnutrition) nor too concentrated (which could be hard on the baby’s kidneys). Some pediatricians (and the World Health Organization) recommend boiling all water prior to using it for a baby. Other doctors feel that it is OK to use water directly from the tap as long as it has been proven safe for drinking. If you are not sure, ask your pediatrician. Powdered formula is not sterile, and in recent months, reports have warned about the potential contamination of some such formulas with Enterobacter sakazakii, a bacteria that can cause infections in all ages, but newborns (under 1 month of age) and premature babies are at greatest risk. The World Health Organization recommends that formula given to these infants be ready to feed, or concentrate. If powdered formula must be used for a newborn, it should be prepared with boiling water or heated almost to boiling, then cooled before feeding to kill the bacteria if it is present. Once it is prepared, the formula should be refrigerated or kept cold with ice packs until the baby is fed. Discard any unused milk left in the bottle after feeding, since bacteria multiply quickly in warmed milk. Heating baby bottles in the microwave is not recommended because “hot spots” that can scald a baby may occur. If you do use a microwave, be sure to shake the bottle thoroughly to mix the formula completely. (Never microwave expressed breastmilk because that would kill some of the living cells that protect the baby from illness.)
Feeding the Baby:
Feeding time is very important in terms of your baby’s emotional and social well-being. You should always hold your baby in your arms when giving him a bottle, and cuddle him close. This is a good time to talk to your baby, look into his eyes, and watch him smile and interact with you. His head should be slightly elevated because most bottle nipples flow fast enough to choke a baby who is lying flat when he swallows. When feeding a newborn, stop and try to burp the baby every ounce or so. As baby grows, he can take in larger amounts without burping. Ask your pediatrician how much formula to feed your baby. Don’t force him to finish a bottle if he stops drinking and acts full. Most babies know how much they need, and overfeeding can predispose him to obesity later on. Never prop a bottle because of the danger of choking, and don’t put your baby to bed with a bottle. Milk that remains on his teeth during the night will promote tooth decay.
However your baby is fed, feeding time should be very comfortable and enjoyable for both of you.

For the second consecutive time, Greg Biffle managed to advance in the final section of the Camping World RV 400 Sprint Cup race at Dover International Speedway taking the victory and overcoming the leaders and favorites to win this particular competition. Biffle certainly surprised many of us with his brief running to grasp the title. 

 

The Nascar’s driver Biffle was able to closely drive for most of the race next to the race leaders, but at the point when there were only 15 laps remaining he competed against his teammate Matt Kenseth; this was a very exciting part of the competition as Biffle constantly tried to surpass Kenseth in each lap but Kenseth put up a good race but finally Biffle overcame him with an absolute win. 

 

On the other hand, Carl Edwards achieved a third place despite trying very hard to obtain a better place. He was then followed by Mark Martin in the fourth place driving a Chevy, and the two-time champion, Jimmie Johnson, arrived in fifth place. 

 

Among the top ten positions also were: Kevin Harvick, Jeff Gordon, Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton and Michael Waltrip. Eight of these ten drivers had previously competed in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship, except for Martin and Waltrip. One driver that did not have a good performance as expected was Kyle Busch who ended the race in the 43rd position, which was the last place.

 

Despite the fact that it was a very splendid day for Nascar’s racing it was not such a good day for Busch neither David Gilliland as they both collided hardly against the retention wall. Another crash was that of Patrick Carpentier, which lost control of his Dodge in the first curve, striking the defense of the NASCAR Sprint Cup Chase contender, Carl Edwards.

 

Another driver Jeff Gordon showed his skills and speed while taking a privileged position along with Hamlin, Kenseth, Jamie McMurray, Martin, Dale Earnhardt Jr., David Reutimann, Bowyer, Kyle Busch and Martin Truex Jr.

 

During the 64th lap Joe Nemechek caused another yellow flag when his Chevy burst a front wheel and struck the external wall. Some other remarkable drivers who rose to top positions and finished seeded in the top ones were: Reutimann, Johnson, Bowyer, Burton and the race winner Biffle. Toyota’s AJ Allmendinge’s caused another yellow flag some laps later when hitting the retention wall. The sparks continued shortly after the yellow flag when Robby Gordon was put behind McMurray this certainly changed the race which at half point of the competition the Nascar driver Hornish crashed again in the 187th lap.

 

Another highlight of the race was the good performance and rising of the Colombian Juan Pablo Montoya who achieved a 17th place. He has also been improving race after race as he seems to be getting more comfortable with the vehicle he is now driving, he is one of those drivers that will sooner than later surprise us with an unexpected victory in the short run.