Most people think of NASCAR as one thing: “Just a bunch of left turns.” But NASCAR is so much more than that — it’s a 200-mph test of skill, speed, endurance, and rule-bending.

To put that effort into words, ESPN went to Texas Motor Speedway with one question for competitors: “What do you say when people reduce your job to ‘left turns’?”

“Oval racing is managing tiny, minute differences that have huge effects,” Parker Kligerman, who drives the Big Machine Racing No. 48 car in the NASCAR Xfinity Series, told ESPN. “You’re always changing. You’re always thinking about doing something different. Sometimes it doesn’t work, and you’ve got to readjust and make up for that.”

Texas Motor Speedway is a 1.5-mile asphalt oval outside of Fort Worth, with 20-degree banking in the first two turns, 24-degree banking in the last two, and 5-degree banking on the straightaways. All three NASCAR national series were in Texas when we went: the third-tier Trucks, second-tier Xfinity Series, and top-level Cup Series.

Kligerman qualified 16th for Xfinity at Texas, and he wasn’t impressed. One mistake sealed his fate, because the competition is too tight for mistakes.

“I’d say [NASCAR] is one of the most dynamic forms of motorsport in the world,” Kligarman said. “If you look at the Cup Series, the difference from first to 30th might be three-tenths of a second. It’s nothing.

“I screwed up by under-driving it into turn one. From the entry to the center of turn one, I lost three-tenths. I carried that all the way back around, and it killed me. The amount of distance I lost that in was probably 100 feet or less.”

In shape alone, road courses — the style of circuit Formula One is known for, with left and right turns — look more complicated than ovals. But road courses often have a clear path to run, known as the “racing line.” In perfect weather conditions, that often involves a wide entry to each corner, hitting the apex near the inside curbing, then running out wide to carry the most speed through the turn.

On some ovals, drivers can run all over: the low line, the middle, or even ripping the wall. Often, that changes as the race goes on.

“Road-course racing is very formulaic,” Kligerman said. “You hit point by point by point, and you adjust those points as tires fall off, brakes, et cetera. Oval racing is constantly changing. You’re constantly evaluating what your car is doing: how to move around, how to find more grip. The difference in grip might be five feet higher in the center of the corner in turn one, so at 195 miles per hour with a bunch of cars around you, you’re going to say: ‘OK, I need to be five feet higher. That’s going to allow me to rotate just a tick more, get back to the throttle about a foot earlier, and that’s going to be a faster lap time.’

“Every time you enter a corner, if you do the same thing twice in a row, you’re going backwards.”

Kligerman has three victories in NASCAR’s top-three national divisions, all in the Truck Series. He had speed at Texas but finished 25th due to a loose wheel — showing how even if a driver has a good day, things out of their control can ruin it.

“The races I’ve won, the car is important,” Kligerman said. “Execution. Being super aggressive on restarts. The ability to be super dynamic with where you run, how you adjust, how you make the car better, and what you decide to do. Lap after lap. Corner after corner.

“Restarts are the largest opportunity, aside from the pits, to make the easiest passes. Once we all start going and we’re running in a line, the cars equalize across the board. Making up time gets harder and harder, so on a restart, when you get us all bunched up and you can shoot to the inside and make three positions — that is like gold.”

But oval racing is about more than just you; it’s also about the drivers around you. Tommy Joe Martins, former Xfinity regular and current team owner at Alpha Prime Racing, said NASCAR races have “a lot of different strategies going on at any different time.”

“You’re racing really fast, you’re racing really close to a whole lot of cars, and you’re put in a lot of situations where everyone around you is going to be really aggressive,” Martins told ESPN. “I think [the strategy] gets lost, at times, for some of the people who are new to NASCAR racing.

“We’re running different tires, different track positions — people who are faster, slower. That’s all kind of mixed together, so there’s a lot of danger around every corner. You’re driving a car that’s trying to wreck every lap, especially at a place like Texas. You’re never comfortable.”

NASCAR doesn’t have “different tires” in the way some other series do. There’s usually only one dry-weather compound, but teams can run “stickers” (new tires) or “scuffs” (ones that are lightly used). Martins’ team has yet another kind of tire: ones they buy at a discount.

While Kligerman and Big Machine Racing run a mid-tier budget in Xfinity, Martins and Alpha Prime are a lower-budget operation. A new set of four tires costs Martins about $2,500, and for the Texas race, NASCAR allowed Xfinity teams a maximum of six sets (totaling $15,000 per car). Tire sets often don’t transfer to other events, so teams use them or lose them.

Alpha Prime will often buy a few sets, then wait. If other cars wreck, Martins can buy their extras and save about $1,200 per set.

“There are disadvantages to this,” Martins said. “For teams that just want to show up and buy an entire allotment, they know exactly the size, runout, and spring rate on each of the tires. The more you buy, the more that you can kind of group those up and say: ‘These are going to be my best set of left-side tires. These are going to be my best set of right-side tires.’

“We’re buying them off of a Truck team or a team that fell out of the race, so we’re kind of just taking four tires and throwing them on the car. But financially, it’s a big advantage.”

Martins’ drivers also have to watch those around them. A good day for Alpha Prime is a top-15 or top-20, but they’re racing cars with higher budgets — and drivers who are less afraid to wreck for a good finish.

“The consequences are different for different teams,” Martins said. “For us, we’re in a position where our backup car really isn’t much of a car. It’s going to involve a lot of work to get it ready, and our drivers have to be hyper-aware of that. There are risks in practice or qualifying that they probably can’t take, whereas some other drivers can be more aggressive. You just have to count on your drivers being smart enough to understand the situation they’re in.”

Discomfort is a theme in NASCAR, whether it comes from the car itself or the risks around it. But in Kligerman’s notes for Texas Motor Speedway, he wrote: “You have to be comfortable in the uncomfortable.”

“That’s oval racing to a T,” Klilgerman said. “You have to just be OK that at 195 miles per hour, that the car is going to wiggle around. It’s going to move, and it’s going to feel really unsettling. And you’ve just got to tell yourself that’s OK.

“If you do that better than anyone else, you should be able to win.”

STATESVILLE, N.C. — Erik Jones suffered a compression fracture in a lower vertebra in a wreck at Talladega and will not drive this weekend in the NASCAR Cup series race at Dover Motor Speedway.

Corey Heim will substitute for Jones in the No. 43 Toyota for Legacy Motor Club.

There is no timeline for Jones’ return. He will still attend Sunday’s Cup race at the Monster Mile.

The 27-year-old Jones has one top-10 finish in 10 races this season and is 20th in the points standings. Legacy will request a medical waiver for Jones to remain eligible for NASCAR’s playoffs.

“Erik’s long-term health is our number one priority,” said Jimmie Johnson, co-owner of Legacy. “It will be great to see him at the track Sunday and we intend to give him the time it takes to recover properly. I know Corey will do a great job behind the wheel for the Club. In the meantime, our thoughts are with Erik and his wife Holly — they have our total support.”

Late in the race at Talladega, John Hunter Nemechek appeared to get into the bumper of Bubba Wallace. Wallace then clipped Jones, which sent him smashing hard into the outside wall.

Jones took the brunt of the blow, a crash that would’ve been much worse without the sturdy cars and foamy barriers.

He was initially examined and released from the infield care center, saying, “I’m a little sore, but I’m all right.” But Jones’ team announced after the race that he was transported to a hospital for further observation.

Jones returned home to North Carolina on Sunday night and met with specialists in the Charlotte area where the full extent of his injury was found.

A former top Post Office executive has told the Horizon scandal inquiry she never “knowingly” did anything wrong and did not remember a 2010 email saying that cash balances in sub-postmasters’ branch accounts could be remotely accessed.

Angela van den Bogerd, who held various roles over 35 years at the organisation, made the comments after opening her evidence on Thursday by saying she was “truly, truly sorry” for the “devastation” caused to wrongly convicted sub-postmasters.

Her roles at the Post Office included handling complaints about its Horizon software, which was provided by Japanese firm Fujitsu.

More than 700 Post Office managers were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015, after the system made it seem like money was missing from branches. At the time, the company insisted Horizon was robust.

Ms van der Bogerd, who was played by Coronation Street actress Katherine Kelly in the ITV drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, had previously not spoken publicly since a 2019 High Court case.

At the time, Judge Peter Fraser criticised her testimony and said she “did not give me frank evidence, and sought to obfuscate matters, and mislead me”.

Jason Beer KC, lead counsel to the inquiry, challenged Ms van den Bogerd’s opening statement, as he accused her of not saying sorry for her own role in the scandal.

Ms van den Bogerd, who resigned as the Post Office’s business improvement director in 2020, said she regretted missing significant documents and apologised for “not getting to the answer more quickly”.

She said: “But with the evidence I had and the parameters of my role at the time, I did the best I could to the best of my ability.”

Ms van den Bogerd added: “I didn’t knowingly do anything wrong and I would never knowingly do anything wrong.”

Read more on this story:
Review ordered into another Post Office IT system
Scandal victim demands jail for those who denied her justice
Leaked Post Office recordings revealed

The inquiry heard that Ms van den Bogerd was sent an email in December 2010 informing her Fujitsu could remotely amend cash balances in branch accounts via Horizon.

She told the inquiry she had no memory of it and only became aware of the issue in a January 2011 email.

The inquiry was shown a transcript of a meeting that same month between her and sub-postmistress Rachpal Athwal, who was sacked after being wrongly accused of stealing £710 before being reinstated.

In the meeting, Ms van den Bogerd said Horizon could not be accessed remotely by anyone from the Post Office, without mentioning that Fujitsu could, the inquiry heard.

Mr Beer asked: “Are you saying that what you said overall there is accurate?”

Ms van den Bogerd replied: “So that is accurate. I go on to talk later about Fujitsu, I believe”. Mr Beer said it was inaccurate because she had not given the full picture.

The inquiry also heard that, prior to a High Court case in 2019, Ms van den Bogerd made a witness statement in 2018 in which she said the first she knew of the possibility of inserting transactions into the system remotely was in the year or so before.

Mr Beer told the inquiry: “That was false.”

She replied: “Well, at the time I didn’t think it was.”

Pressed further on the issue, she said the messaging on remote access was “constantly changing” and that colleagues had been “very strong” that such access was “impossible”.

Ms van den Bogerd was also asked about an October 2014 email she and other senior staff were sent by Post Office media officer Melanie Corfield, which discussed what the response should be if anyone asked about remote access to Horizon.

The email said: “Our current line if we are asked about remote access potentially being used to change branch data/transactions is simply: ‘This is not and never has been possible’.”

Mr Beer said: “You knew that was false from multiple sources by then, by now, didn’t you?”

Ms van den Bogerd appeared flustered, before replying: “Clearly I was aware of that and just didn’t pick this up… it didn’t register with me at the time, but obviously from what we’ve discussed then this was incorrect terms of reference of a flow of information, yes.”

She added she was “certainly not trying to cover up… it wasn’t just me, there were other people party to the same information”.

Meanwhile, earlier in the hearing, the former executive said she agreed with Mr Beer that using words such as “exception” or “anomaly” to describe computer bugs had been an “attempt to control the narrative”.

The inquiry continues.