Smack: Serpentine tracks stealing series spotlights

1. NASCAR's first event with rain tires produced mixed results -- entertainment for viewers, but problems for some drivers who crashed even under caution. Did the sanctioning body do the right thing?

David Caraviello: Absolutely. Given that what, half the field had to be in Pocono on Sunday, and they didn't want to make people come back to Montreal for a Monday race, it was the best option. And though it had a few kinks, they proved racing in the rain can be done.

Duane Cross: Under the circumstances, yes, I believe NASCAR did the right thing. If nothing else, the sport now has a "test" under race conditions.

Mark Aumann: Yes all the way around. They knew the time constraints. They needed to put on a show for the fans. The rain tires worked well ... until it poured. And they stopped the race when conditions got too terrible. Now, should teams be better prepared for adverse conditions? Yes. There's no reason why Carl Edwards should be trying to use a Swiffer during cautions. But that's part of the learning process.

David Caraviello: That was strange, Mark. Why did some teams have windshield wipers and some not? Is there not a full, mandatory rain package?

Duane Cross: The learning process -- that's the key to this situation. It was a work in progress, and remains such. Same thing with wiper packages. In the end we'll have a mandatory rain package that has been fully vetted.

Mark Aumann: Should Sprint Cup do it? I have mixed feelings. I'd be against it, unless there are assurances that the race couldn't be run in any other fashion. I know most of the drivers enjoyed the uniqueness, until condensation made it almost impossible to see. And that might be the biggest hurdle -- what to do about all the water that gets in the cars.

David Caraviello: I received some e-mails from fans lamenting the fact that NASCAR and Goodyear had two "tire fiascos" in consecutive weeks. Please. Indy and Montreal are nowhere close. The first was a debacle (read more). The second gave people a race when there might not have been one (read more).

Duane Cross: C'mon, those two races are 180 degrees apart. Montreal was NASCAR making a good decision on the fly, so to speak.

Mark Aumann: And huge props to the fans in Montreal, who never left their seats in the middle of all that. Those are some serious race fans. They're used to weird weather at that track. I've seen fans at college football games turn tail at the first sight of inclement weather.

David Caraviello: Not at the University of South Carolina! Tennessee, maybe.

Duane Cross: Well, Mark, you are a Florida grad -- and those fair-weather folks are famous for their front-running, even in inclement weather. Hey Caraviello, beat UT and then you can talk smack. Until then, sing Rocky Top until your ears bleed!

David Caraviello: Gators are the wine and cheese crowd of the SEC. But really, I think there were some hurdles here no one really expected, like the fact that the cars aren't sealed. I don't think anyone thought of fog and squeegieing. Of course, there's no excuse next time.

Mark Aumann: Well, I must admit I was surprised at how well the electronics held up, how those cars didn't short out with all that water on the dash.

David Caraviello: Which also bodes well for making the decision to run races in the rain on the Cup side. I think we'll see a Cup race in wet weather before 2010. Montreal proved it can be done. All that remains is more testing, and we know NASCAR R&D is all about that.

Mark Aumann: If that's the case, place your money on Marcos Ambrose. He was unbelievable in the wet. As long as he can see the exit to pit road. Who knew it rains that much Down Under.

David Caraviello: What happened in Montreal was dictated, it seemed, by circumstances more than anything else. And if similar circumstances ever unfold on the Cup side -- break 'em out. (Continued)