Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts

Sunday, September 5, 2010

English?

Ah, two nations separated by a common language.

I see every indication that the following part of a story is written in English, but I have only the vaguest idea[*] what they are talking about. See for yourself:

Spinner Graeme Swann found massive turn to take 2-14 as Pakistan struggled.

England also had batting problems, but Eoin Morgan and Michael Yardy put on 67 from 43 balls in a five-wicket win.

They came together after Luke Wright had been bowled on the sweep for a duck, leaving England in a precarious position at 62-5 after 10 overs in Cardiff.

Many players on both sides had made batting look difficult on a slow wicket, with the ball stopping in the pitch.

I wonder if the British feel the same way when they read the description of someone "throwing a pitch" in baseball!

But one thing I like about British sportswriters is that they don't mind being rude when describing someone who "produced a series of desperate swishes at fresh air". We could use a bit of that when a millionaire strikes out.

[*]
I know a bit more than I let on. I've actually played a bizarre version of street cricket (using trash cans for wickets) with some Aussie-Americans, but it would take a lot of gin for me to sit and watch a match on TV. But I am only guessing at what "2-14" means, and I have no clue at all what a "duck" might be.


Read Entire Article......

Friday, March 27, 2009

Defense?

A CBS "commentator" said something about U Conn having to face the "frenetic defense" of Missouri. Sorry, but "holding" Memphis to "only" 91 points (2 more than they scored in a win over Maryland and 10 more than they scored in a win over Cal State Northridge) is not my idea of defense.

Holding Duke to 54 (10 less than the scored in a win over Texas) is my idea of defense.

But it was frenetic: especially if you take the meaning of "deranged" or "insane".

Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy watching the tiny bit of the game we saw in our region even if it hurts to see big basketball players cry. I wonder if it was just sinking in that their conference had not prepared them for the challenge of a tournament game.


Read Entire Article......

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Yankee Stadium

Today is the last game at Yankee Stadium. Only time will tell if abandoning that hallowed ground will mean hard times for the NY Yankees. Many of us can but hope that it will! (Has Notre Dame struggled in football because they remodeled their stadium? Only Touchdown Jesus knows that for sure.) Where I grew up, there were two kinds of people: fans of the Detroit Tigers or one of the teams in Chicago, or jerks who were fans of the Yankees just because they won a lot of games.

But this is a time for nostalgia, so here is my contribution. I've never been in the place, but back in the early summer of 1967, on a circuitous return home from Expo 67 in Montreal, my Dad made a point to navigate past various landmarks in NYC. That included driving around Yankee Stadium.

From the outside it was more impressive than Tiger Stadium (originally knows as Briggs Stadium), which looked more like a run-down factory. Yankee Stadium at least looked like an out-of-date office building, if your office building had a giant black sign around the top. Since plenty of NYC buildings did have an ostentatious sign on them (as did the GM building in Detroit), it fit right in.

My other Yankees memory is of going to Detroit for a ball game sometime in the early 60s to see the Tigers play the hated Yankees. To a kid, that shutout loss (1-0? 2-0?) was a boring nightmare. I think I would have appreciated watching masterful pitching (I think it was Whitey Ford on the mound) a bit more if my present-self could have talked to my then-self.

The key bit of trivia during the broadcast of tonight's game (not to mention the all-day pre-game show on ESPN) has been the price of tickets back in 1923 when the stadium opened. I used the info on Robert Sahr's inflation info site to do the conversion: It is a factor of about 12.5.

So that $1.10 paid for a grandstand seat in 1923 should be about $14 today, which is just enough to get into the bleachers at today's prices. You have to more than double that to get into the nosebleed section of the upper grandstand, and fork over about ten times that to get into the "mid priced" grandstand seats.

And that 15 cent program would be $2 in today's money. What a joke! But then I'll bet it wasn't a glossy color production either.


Read Entire Article......

Saturday, August 16, 2008

He Hate NBC Sports

10:30 AM EDT - while NBC was covering the Olympics "live"

Usain "Lightning" Bolt wins the 100 m gold medal in a World Record time of 9.69 s despite celebrating his victory over the last 15 m of the race! (Or is it actually faster to turn your body sideways to the wind?) What would have happened if he had run through the finish? It might have been as legendary as the 1968 long jump by Bob Beamon in Mexico City, where he broke the old record by 55 cm (almost 2 feet). That jump was so long that they couldn't use the official measuring device. Its scale was too short.

5:55 PM EDT - Advertisement for the 8 pm broadcast

Tune in for the 100 m, which might be the fastest ever.

Yeah, I think they could be right about that, since they have the result on their own website with a photo gallery showing his celebration nearing the line.

UPDATE: 11:30 PM EDT - Race shown on NBC

What is particularly annoying is the way NBC deliberately keeps the schedule a mystery, even when we know (from the official Chinese site) the exact time an event will run live and can get the official results within seconds of the end of an event. NBC has a fancy web site that will tell you what might be on each channel sometime in a three or four hour window. You would never guess that they might actually have a plan for the night's coverage or that the WWW can be updated in real time if a schedule has to change.

UPDATE: Commenting on the race.
I have to agree with the commentator that Bolt might have run a 9.59 if he had not cruised through the last 6 strides (which is what, 60 feet?). That would have put it in the "all time greatest" territory with Beamon. Beamon took the long jump record from 27 feet to 29 feet, skipping 28. Taking the 100 m record from 9.7 to 9.5, skipping 9.6, would be in the same territory. Michael Phelps, as impressive as his effort has been, is not in that territory. After all, he did not set a world record in every one of his events, as Mark Spitz did, and the one he missed was an individual event. Worse, he had to wear a swim cap and a $600 swim suit to do it. [Note: Follow that link for the photo. Mark Spitz is now an OLD MAN! Guess that fits my theory that most great athletes mature earlier and age earlier. Certainly was obvious at my 25th HS reunion.]

And I see that Dix got rid of those silly blue Nike arm covers that were supposed to reduce wind resistance. Memo to Dix: Your hair is a bigger source of aerodynamic drag at around 30 mph. You needed a Nike swim cap more than you needed those arm covers.


Read Entire Article......

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Identical Times by Phelps

When looking at the start info for tonight's (actually tomorrow morning's) 200 m Men's Butterfly competition, I noticed that Michael Phelps had equaled his own Olympic Record (set in his preliminary heat) when swimming in the semifinal round. Both were done in 1:53.70, which is 113.70 seconds. Identical to better than one part in ten thousand!

I thought it might be amusing to look at the splits to see just how evenly paced those two swims actually were.

The line labeled "Pace" gives the time needed to swim each 50 m segment.

50 m100 m150 m200 m
8/1126.1255.4485.01113.70
Pace26.1229.3229.5728.69
8/1225.8955.3284.95113.70
Pace25.8929.4329.6328.75

The consistency is amazing. He must have a clock running in his head that is accurate to the tenth of a second.

I find it interesting that the last length is faster than the previous two. They really do save energy for that final leg of the race, at least in these preliminary races where the only goal is to finish high enough to move on to the next race and when you might have other races coming up within 12 hours, or a championship race within the past hour. In this case, his second competition in the 200 m butterfly was at 11:10 am, while his world record in the 200 m freestyle had been at 10:16 am.

For that matter, let's make a note of the info from his 28 March 2007 world record set in Melbourne, Australia. After all, the odds are high that the winner of the Gold medal will set a new world record. [Updated: Yep, but just barely. I have added his 13 August 2008 world record to the table.]

50 m100 m150 m200 m
200725.2653.6282.87112.09
Pace25.2628.3629.2529.22
200825.3653.5382.75112.03
Pace25.3628.1729.2229.28


Interesting. His pacing is quite different when everything is on the line. In this case his last leg is only slightly faster, and slower than the second leg. He puts a lot more energy into the first half of the race, then hangs on to the finish. [Updated: Look at how similar these times are! When they showed the line for the WR pace during the race, he was right on it. And you can see why he was disappointed at his finishing time. As the commentators noted, he started to tie up and slowed down in the last 50 m rather than being slightly faster as in his race at last year's World Championship. A split of 29.21 would have put him solidly into the 1:51.xx territory.]

Note 1:
The first 50 m is always fast because of the huge advantage that comes from launching yourself off of the starting blocks.

Note 2:
This issue of pacing is not so different as it is for a race horse, where my analysis of the 2007 Kentucky Derby (here and here) showed that the horse pulling away at the end of the race was not speeding ... the others were slowing down. I didn't bother looking up the splits for the come-from-behind victory of the US over the French in the Olympic 4x100 m relay, but that might be what happened on the final leg of that race.

Note 3:
I decided I should link to his Wikipedia entry as well as the Beijing Olympics entry up at the top, and discovered that he also has his own website complete with a personal logo (he has a P.R. firm?), studly professional photos, and a version in Chinese!


Read Entire Article......

Friday, August 8, 2008

Opening Ceremonies (Free Tibet)

I guessed right: CNBC had a live shot of the stadium behind their Beijing staff at the auspicious hour of 8 - and the sky simply lit up with fireworks. (It looked like this picture from later in the show.) Only live shot in the US, I think! The NY Times is liveblogging from the Olympics, a sure sign that they aren't own by GE. You can also follow what is going on with the feeds, schedule, and photo gallery at the official Olympics web site.

Obligatory science comment and spoiler: one of the performances about the history of China will demonstrate movable type printing. Oh how I love artsy sciency performance art!

If "drum solo" doesn't strike fear into your heart, the ceremonies got rolling with 2008 drummers each with a chinese drum (fou) made of a clay pot. (picture and picture and picture) We'll have to see if the TV broadcast can reproduce that audio experience.

The fireworks I saw on CNBC were part of this show. (picture) The BBC story today on the start of the ceremonies shows the pollution level has fallen so it is merely at "almost OK for a developing country" levels - but that was before all of the fireworks!

(They have a great page that follows the pollution status of the city with a picture taken of the skyline each day from the same location. If you scroll through the pictures and correlate visibility with the pollution level given in the caption, you will see that describing it as "fog" is totally bogus. On "foggy" days it is high, on clear days it is low. Maybe someday the Chinese will learn what they learned in London when they got rid of coal-fired stoves in every kitchen, that the famous "London fog" was just good old smog.)

That said, I can't wait to see the 29 fireworks "footprints" cross the city to the stadium, apparently (from the description on the official site) as the lead-in to the start of the performance. I think I heard CNBC say that 35,000 fireworks costing almost 1% of the ceremony cost (hence almost a half million dollars) will be used for the show. That is a lot of air pollution!

Hopefully, all of that spectacle will not overshadow the Chinese support for the tragedy in Darfur and the oppression of Tibet. Your fear level has to be really high to have to arrest people who are praying.


Read Entire Article......

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Ouch

I found this in Chad's list-o-links today.



I'd seen something about this on TV (Oddball?), but none of the details. The ball was only going 50 mph? Sheesh.

To make up for that, some real science: Chladni patterns.



If you click to go to YouTube, you will see the Rubens' Tube demo done by the Mythbusters guys listed in the side bar. (Or just wait for it to come up on the "related" links after the video finishes.)


Read Entire Article......

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Great Moments in Sports Commentary

NCAA Men's Championship.

Overtime approaches. Someone (Billy Packer?) says that Kansas has experience with overtime in a championship game. [??wtf??] Then elaborates by saying the experience was in 1957. Oh, yeah, now I remember why I forgot about that. We didn't get a TV until later that year, CBS did not broadcast the game, and that happened five years before the Kansas coach was born!

If it is really true that ncaa.com will have the entire CBS broadcast available for the watching with the commentary intact, you might still get to revel in that one along with the clang and clunk of bricks hitting the rim from the foul line.

The real keeper showed up in the post-game discussion between ESPN's little stable of expert coaches. There was a back-and-forth battle between Bobby Knight (who thought Calipari definitely needed to use a timeout with 10.8 to go and a three point lead) and some guy from Notre Dame (who insisted there was no need to call time out because this is a situation you would cover in practice every day). Leaving aside the exhaustion factor (Memphis might have been able to catch up with Kansas and commit a foul with another minute of rest) and the brain fade factor (you forget things when there is no oxygen getting to your head), there is the prep school factor. Being a preppie at an Ivy League college is a good thing, but being a preppie (and there are at least two at Memphis) in college BB means you didn't leave high school with an education. Digger might have had rocket scientists at ND, but I think Knight was a bit more realistic about reminding the team of "down and distance".

Will add more later, elaborating on the comment below, which was posted on Chad's blog:

I was equally mystified by the box and one, but I think I understood better late in the game and in overtime. They were whipped. They also cut down on screens and motion on offense for a time. Memphis was also worn out, slowing the game to a walking pace at times when they were on offense. At the end, and in OT, Kansas was back to running pick after pick after pick until Memphis left them open for a shot.



Read Entire Article......

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Links and News

Topics: carbon in another solar system, students, academic basketball, Arthur C Clarke, strategic victory in Iraq.

Cool news that methane (meaning carbon) has been detected on an extra-solar planet. There are quite a few reports (BBC, Discovery News, National Geographic) based on the same news release. Astroprof blogged about Arthur C. Clarke (see below the fold) today, so maybe s/he will get on it tomorrow. [Update: Nope, but Chad did.]

I was entertained by Chad's comments about what student habits irritate him the most. It is great to see that students at an expensive liberal arts college are not that different from those at a very cheap community college. In fact, I think ours are better. I did have a student miss an advising appointment today, but I regularly get e-mail replies to confirm a time or to warn about an absence (and I don't take attendance or penalize for absences, so I could actually care less, but they care, which is nice). I can see that I really do need to assemble my blog about lab teaching, after his remarks about bogus reports. [I tell them that I will mark off for lame explanations like "the experiment failed because the water was too wet" or "I can't find my mistake in a calculation I was supposed to do before I left the lab".]

Basketball is here, so it is time for the folks who think college sports should be played by college students to point out the obvious disconnect

Thanks to Sherman Dorn for having a link to the second one. Full disclosure: my favorite college player graduated directly to the NBA, did not wear gown, did not get degree. My second favorite is a physician running an entire building at Stanford med. Both were on the same team, one backing up the other.

Arthur C. Clarke died. Chad Orzel has a nice comment with a link to the NYTimes Obit. There is also a good obit over at the BBC, which also has a page devoted to some of his predictions. I was never a Sci Fi fan, so I only really admired him for the idea of geostationary communications satellites (but learned for the first time from the NYTimes that his failure to patent the idea was not out of altruism, having heard incorrect versions of the story for years) and for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I'll never forget the trip with my dad to Detroit's Fox theater to see 2001 on a huge Cinerama screen during its original release. I loved the intellectual challenge of "film" that told a story without any explanation of what was going on, but my dad was baffled by the imagery of the rapid aging and rebirth of a new man during the last half hour or so. Of course, that film was as much Kubrick as Clarke. (And the most impressive thing about Kubrick was that he could work with such different subjects and styles and coauthors, never doing anything like the same thing twice.)

I like the way the BBC picked up on the news that President Bush declared a strategic victory in Iraq today. That would be two victories in the same war, something no other president has managed. And since the war continues with a quiet strategic withdrawal (we are de-surging as I write, no one would dare call it a pull out), he might even have a chance to win it a third time when the fighting stops.


Read Entire Article......

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Watching History Not Being Made

I've seen a lot of football games, and every Super Bowl (IIRC), and I can't remember a Super Bowl that was nearly as good as this one: closely played right down to the end with every yard fought for as if the game depended on it.

Thank God, because the ads during the first half of the game were awful.

I imagine that lots of commentators will not like it because it was a defensive masterpiece on the part of the Giants, and defense just does not get appreciated by the folks who want NFL scores to look like NBA scores. At least the TV coverage showed some replays of the blitz packages that NY used to neutralize the totally superior offensive line of NE.

The one game it reminded me of, early on, was the 10-10 tie between Michigan State and Notre Dame that I saw in person in 1966. Every inch was contested, even on a 2 yard run. Exceptional plays were needed to evade the defense, like Manning's move that might have won the game. Every hit was solid with no cheap shots. The only difference is that holding is totally legal now, so the only way to beat your man around the end was what Strahan did: get far enough away that he could not grab on.

And hearty congrats to Chad over at Uncertain Principles whose New York Football Giants won the game. He even got it almost right, saying it would be decided by a field goal in his anti-woofing pick of the Patriots. But one of my co-workers, from Rhode Island, is going to be very unhappy tomorrow morning.

Note added: She was very unhappy this morning. She even wore black.

For the record, my prediction was that it would be won by the last team to score, although I made that at halftime when it was clear this was going to be a defensive struggle with every score a challenge.


Read Entire Article......

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Bicycle Power

Enough ranting; back to physics. Today I feel a Cocktail Party Physics-style inspiration from watching the Tour de France. (I love that it is on live every morning with the sprint finish just before lunch. Can get some reading done while it is on in the background, then work on my fall classes in the afternoon.) Towards the bottom of this article, I will give a simple example showing the power required to race up a mountain.

Bicycle racing is about the physics concepts of power and torque. Because these same concepts are important to the design of hybrid cars and in motor racing, I will mention those also.

The quick version is that torque translates into force and is responsible for acceleration (short sprints at the finish) while power is responsible for sustained top speed (whether on the level in a time trial or when climbing).

Physics

This is a bit of an oversimplification because torque and power are not independent of each other: both involve force in their definition. Power is the rate of doing work (work in units of Joules divided by time in units of seconds gives power in units of Watts), and is defined as Work / time, or Force * velocity, or Torque * angular velocity. [Because force is more intuitive than torque to most people, I will use the force version in my examples.] You have to have power in reserve if you want to accelerate while already at high speed (sprints in bicycle racing), but power and force (or torque) can be considered separately in many situations.

(Factoid useful for automobile engines: Power in horsepower = Torque in foot-pounds at an angular velocity of 5252 rpm. Torque and power curves always cross there.)

Two engines (or people) producing the same power can produce a large force, doing a lot of work, in a long time (at a slow speed) ... or a small force, doing a small amount of work, in a short time (at a high speed). Power is about quickness, not brute strength, which is why many sports emphasize "power lifting" training (lifting a given weight 10 or more reps at a time) rather than working on a single lift of a heavier weight. The person who can lift a larger weight than another person in the same time (such as the time needed to sustain a block in football) is more powerful.

Since sport is all about getting there first, power is what usually wins a competition. However, what often matters more is the power to weight ratio, since a heavier person (or car) needs more power to (say) climb a hill at a particular speed.

Tradeoffs

The reason we treat power and force separately (and report both when talking about automobile engines) is that there are physiological and mechanical reasons that the upper limits on power and torque (or force) can vary independently of one another.

Automobiles with a push-rod V-8 have huge amounts of low-end (low rpm) torque. Diesel engines even more so. When you want to pull a trailer or accelerate from a stop light, you need that "grunt" of a large force at a low speed. Hybrid cars get this from the electric motor, which also produces a high torque at low speed. The key design concept of a hybrid is to use the electric motor for torquey things like getting moving, and design the gasoline engine to keep it moving at constant highway speed (where power matters more than torque) as efficiently as possible. Dividing the two functions between two physically separate devices makes the engineering design problem much simpler.

A DOHC (double overhead cam) engine, common on imports and smaller cars as well as high-end race cars, produces the maximum torque at quite high rpm. [My Miata has a torque peak at 5500 rpm.] If you want to get a large starting force from this kind of motor, you need to wind it up (and eat up the clutch) in a way that most people won't do. In my not-so-humble opinion, manufacturers have put bigger motors in "small" cars so that people who don't know how that motor works can get the torque needed to pull into traffic. This comes at the expense of highway mileage because the more powerful motor is less efficient. [My ancient Miata, with its 1.6L engine, got 34 mpg at sustained highway speeds of 77 mph on my last trip. Its top speed of 115 mph is plenty, so it does not need more power.] Again, a hybrid can have a DOHC engine designed only to cruise at 80 mph (100 mph if you are Al Gore) on the highway, letting the electric part deal with acceleration.

Human physiology has similar variability.

Two bike racers with the same mass will exert exactly the same force and do exactly the same work to ride up and over a mountain pass. Same m means same m*g*sin(theta) [force to move against gravity on a slope of angle theta] and same m*g*h [work done to lift you over the pass]. The winner does it faster, which requires more power ... not more force and certainly not more work (or more calories burned). You just have to be able to burn those calories faster, to do the required work faster.

Sprinting, like during the finish of the last few races, is about acceleration. Getting a jump on someone, to increase your speed to a level you can't sustain very long, just long enough to win the race. Competitive riders can get to over 60 mph on a level road, but only for several hundred meters. There is power involved here also, but not sustained power. It is about producing a large force for a short time, and only for a short time. These riders usually cannot climb mountains because they produce extreme amounts of power only in short bursts.

Power still plays a role in sprints, because your top speed occurs when the power you can produce is equal to the power being drained away by friction and air drag. More power translates into a higher top speed, the critical factor in winning an individual event like a time trial. It is also why the finish of a bike race looks a lot like NASCAR, with riders drafting someone until the last moment and then using a "slingshot" move to pass. The most powerful sprinter can only sustain top speed for a few hundred meters, so they time that move to get to the finish line just when they can't do it any more.

Example from today's finish:

I used a stopwatch to time the racers over the last kilometer of Stage 4. They took about 49.5 s, which translates into 20.2 m/s or 45.2 mph. That is the average speed. Since data shown during the previous kilometer indicated the leaders riding at about 34 mph when they started that stretch, the winner (Thor Hushovd of Norway) and the man who almost caught him at the line were probably going in excess of 50 mph as they approached the finish.

I'd really like to know what the computer on his bike said his speed was over the last few hundred meters.

The power demands are huge. The force of air drag increases roughly as the square of the velocity, so the power required increases as the cube of the velocity. You need eight times the power to go twice as fast.

(Side note: This dependence on the cube of the velocity explains why "restrictor plate" NASCAR cars cannot catch up with the draft when coming out of the pits. You asymptotically approach terminal velocity, so it takes more than a lap to pick up those last few mph. You also see this in qualifying, where the second lap on a superspeedway is always faster than the first.)

Example relevant to mountain climbing in the Tour:

The steepness of a road is given in %, which is the slope (rise over run). Thus an 8% grade corresponds to a rise of 8 m in 100 m (horizontal distance), or 100.3 m along the road (the hypotenuse of the triangle). If a bicyclist wants to climb that hill at a constant speed of 15.0 mph (24.1 kph), he has to do the work required to raise his mass (and his bike) 8 m in the time it takes to go 100.3 m at 6.7056 m/s. That work is m*g*h, and it must be done in 14.96 s. The work depends on the mass of the rider, of course.

It is too early to know who will be "King of the Mountain", but some past contenders have masses that range from 61 kg (134 lb) to 73 kg (161 lb). I will use 65 kg as my example, and assume the only other mass involved is the bike (6.8 kg minimum mass). They will also carry some water on longer climbs, because the rules forbid getting any water from a team car during a climb, but nothing extra on short climbs. That value gives us work = (71.8 kg)*(9.807 m/s^2)*(8 m) = 5.63 kJ in 15 s. That is a power output of 376.5 Watts = 0.505 horsepower. Additional power is required to overcome the drag due to the air, the work you need to do when riding that speed on level ground. Thus this is a lower limit on the power needed to climb at that speed.

Note: 1 hp = 746 W, which many top riders can develop for a period of time.

Also note that 1 food Calorie is 4.19 kJ, so they are burning over 5 Calories per minute just overcoming gravity on one of those climbs.

Some bike racing details for wannabe fans:

First, no mention of bike racing would be complete without mentioning the Oscar(R) nominated film, The Triplets of Belleville. Nominated for best animated feature and best original song, it tells a wonderfully strange story of the wildly improbably rescue of a young man who is kidnapped while in a bike race. That said ...

Mountain climbing starts this weekend with Stage 7 on Saturday. The page I linked to defaults to the route, but you can also view the "profile" of the route (showing the elevation changes) and the "passes", which gives the length and grade of each major climb.

Climbs were classified from easiest (4) to hardest (1) before anyone thought someone would be crazy enough to race over ones that are harder than the hardest. (Classification of whitewater rapids uses an open-ended scale with 1 as easiest to avoid this problem.) The H category (haute or high) has since been added to indicate climbs that are basically impossible for normal human beings. Difficulty is a combination of steepness and length, so it is possible for a very long 6% climb (such as the ones out of Val d'Isere on Tuesday's Stage 9) to be rated H while a short climb at 8% (like near the start of Stage 17) would be only a 3.

The really interesting climbs are on days with an H category (or two) in the route. Those include Stage 9 (linked above) on Tuesday, July 17, with two big climbs, Stage 14 on Sunday, 22 July, with two (one is at the finish so a climber will win that stage), Stage 15, with one on 23 July, and Stage 16, on 25 July, with two (again, one at the finish). Stages 14 and 16 may determine who wins the overall title.


Read Entire Article......

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Formula One

I became a Formula 1 fan way back when Michael Schumacher was at Benetton, in the sad year when Senna was killed due to a mechanical failure of a Williams car. I was seriously wondering if I would find it as interesting this year with Michael gone, even with the obvious talent of Alonzo.

Now the question is: Why is Lewis Hamilton better on tracks he has never seen?


I think the answer is two-fold. Despite his great talent, there has to be a learning curve involved in running that kind of car in competition rather than just on test tracks, so it could just be a coincidence that his first two poles and first two victories have come on tracks he did not see until he arrived in North America. However, I think the answer is that his talent shows when he gets on a new track. He might be held back a bit on a track he previously raced with a less capable car, remembering a racing line that is less suited for an F-1 car.

The remaining questions are:

Did McLaren realize just what a talent they had coming up, while they were grooming him for Formula 1?

Can he carry this new knowledge with him to France and on to a championship?


Read Entire Article......