about Gene Wilder

I saw a Facebook post from a friend of mine earlier today regarding the death of Gene Wilder that stirred something in me. I've seen it before—not from this particular person, but any time a lauded actor/comedian/singer/sportsperson dies—and it goes something like this:

Why should we mourn this person? Don't you people know there are all sorts of other sad, depressing, shitty, soul-crushing things going on in this world? Aren't those more important?

To which I say, yes, there are all sorts of other sad, depressing, shitty, soul-crushing things going on in the world. The Universe is a sad, depressing, shitty, soul-crushing place. Pretty much all of the time.

And it's because The Universe is a sad, depressing, shitty, soul-crushing place we need people like Gene Wilder. And Prince, David Bowie, Robin Williams, Ayrton Senna, Dale Earnhardt, Justin Wilson, Jim Henson, Leonard Nimoy, Muhammad Ali, and many, many other people that have left us and whom we mourn. (Apologies if I've forgotten your favorite celebrity/sportsperson/politician/whatever. I can't please everyone.)

For a few hours of our lives, they give us some relief from what a horrible place The Universe is and what it's doing to us. No, I didn't know Gene Wilder personally; very few people on this planet did. But I do know what he did, how he made me feel, how he made me forget about the sad, depressing, shitty, soul-crushing planet on which I live, even if only for a time.

It's not that I don't care about the horrible things that The Universe throws at us; I do. Personally, I think that you'd have to be a pretty terrible person if you don't. There are plenty of people out there that don't, and we call those people assholes.

We can either focus on what a sad, depressing, shitty, soul-crushing place this world is, or we can remember that there are people in our lives—it doesn't matter if we actually know them or not—that make the world a better place. Even if it's only briefly.

Go out and protest injustice. Contribute to charities that bring food, water, and medicine to people who don't have easy access to them. Vote for whatever politician you think will make things better. Make stuff. Do stuff. Or just focus on making your life and your family members' lives better. Whatever you want, that's fine.

We mourn Gene Wilder (and others) because he brought a ray of light into this big, dark Universe, and now that light is gone.

Thank you for the ray of light, Mr. Wilder. I'm glad I was able to witness it. Rest well.

...about safety in motorsports

(image courtesy Andy Blackmore @andyblackmore on Twitter)

22 years ago today, the motorsports world lost one of its greatest stars. In his 10 years in Formula One, Ayrton Senna da Silva chalked up 41 wins, 80 podiums, 65 pole positions, and three World Championships.

He was an incredibly skilled, focused, and aggressive driver, saying in an interview at the 1990 Australian Grand Prix, "...if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver because we are competing, we are competing to win. [source]"

That same weekend, another up-and-coming driver, Roland Ratzenberger, was killed in a qualifying accident. He had just achieved his lifelong dream of competing in Formula One, having just been signed to run five races for the brand new Simtek-Ford team. Ratzenberger's death was unfortunately overshadowed by Senna's, but his death ultimately led to the reformation of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association on the morning of the race with Senna, Gerhard Berger and Michael Schumacher as its first directors [source]. The GPDA was responsible for several safety improvements throughout the 1994 season, and led to the mandated use of the HANS head and neck restraint system in 2003 (which was later mandated for use in NASCAR to try to prevent the injuries that led to the death of Dale Earnhardt in 2001).

It's difficult to talk about safety in racing—an inherently dangerous endeavor. In a sport where human and machine are simultaneously being pushed to their limits, serious injury and death are seemingly always around the corner. And not just for drivers; spectators, track workers, and team members are often in harm's way as well.

Safety in racing (or really in anything) is inherently reactive. How many times have you been at a dangerous intersection and wondered "how many people have to get killed here before a traffic light is put up?" Or a railing at a workplace? Or the seat belts, anti-lock brakes, and airbags in your minivan? I could go on, but you see what I'm saying.

Racing today is safer than it has ever been. From the construction of the car itself to the clothing and helmet worn by the driver, everything is massively better than it was, say, even ten years ago. Is it perfect? No. Can racing safety be improved? Always. Cockpit intrusion systems are currently being tested by both the Ferrari and Red Bull Formula One teams to try to prevent, or at least minimize, the types of accidents that recently took the lives of Dan Wheldon (IndyCar), Jules Bianchi (F1), and Justin Wilson (IndyCar). Although, both systems (Ferrari's and Red Bull's) are not full canopies, and likely wouldn't have prevented Wilson's injuries. But it's a start.

This weekend, during the NASCAR races at Talladega, there were multiple incidents involving multiple cars, with some getting airborne and flipping, and others slamming into the wall at high speed. Due to several recent safety innovations (the SAFER barrier in particular), all of the drivers walked away with a few bumps and bruises. But the conversation is opening up again. How can we (at least try to) prevent these types of incidents? How can we make the sport safer for the participants, officials, team members, and spectators?

There are no easy answers. The conversation must continue, with no immediate dismissal of any ideas. With professional racing teams spending millions and millions of dollars to make their cars faster (within the rules, of course), they must be prepared to spend the money to make the sport safer, for everyone involved.

...about Lewis Hamilton's rough start to the F1 season.

Well ... one could argue that second in the championship after two races isn't exactly a rough start, but if you're three-time (and defending) World Drivers' Champion Lewis Hamilton, that's not enough.

Two races, two absolutely horrible starts, two Sundays having to crawl back to the podium.

To add insult to injury, apparently the Mercedes AMG team had to replace the gearbox in his car after damage sustained in Bahrain (more on that later), and now he has to start the Shanghai race with a 5-place grid penalty. So Lewis has to make a killer start—something he hasn't been able to do lately—as well as put together the perfect lap during qualifying. Oh yeah—and beat his seemingly unstoppable teammate Nico Rosberg. Not a simple task, even in the best of situations.

Okay, so, to back up a bit. New rules (shocking!) were put in place this year, making the drivers use only one clutch paddle on the wheel to control the clutch engagement on the start. Last year, the drivers could use two, releasing one paddle and using the other to find the optimum "bite point" of the clutch. It's an evolution of rules introduced late last season which restricted communication between the pit-side engineers and the driver about where the bite point of the clutch is. Some drivers have adapted to this new setup brilliantly—the start at the Australian GP from both Ferrari drivers was epic—while other drivers, like Hamilton, have struggled. To put it mildly.

After a second lackluster (again, putting it mildly) start from Hamilton in Bahrain, he collided with Williams' Valtteri Bottas in the first corner, putting him even farther back in the field. Which led to the Mercedes team having to pull the gearbox and inspect it before Shanghai, and they decided to just replace the unit entirely.

So ... the fact that Hamilton was able to fight back and get on the podium in both races is pretty incredible. However, keep in mind that he started from the pole in both races and screwed both starts up pretty badly. The best he can start in Shanghai is 6th, so it will be massively important for him to get a good start.

It'll certainly make the race exciting! We'll just have to see if I can stay up to watch it all .... it starts at 2 AM Eastern on NBC Sports.

...about space exploration

Yesterday, NASA posted this image taken by the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity of a Martian dust devil:



(Image courtesy NASA/JPL. Original photo.)

While dust devils on Mars have been photographed before, this has to be one of the best I've seen.

However, the quality of the photo isn't the point. The point is the fact that it exists in the first place. We (meaning humans) have placed vehicles on Mars. That's an amazing accomplishment. Just think—100 years ago, Robert H. Goddard (wiki) set the wheels in motion for spaceflight as we know it today. On top of that, it hadn't been that long since the first powered airplane flights.

It's exciting. We put a probe on Titan, there's currently one on a comet (ESA's Rosetta mission), and we now have the most detailed photos of Pluto ever.

But here's the thing. If, like me, you've watched the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, you know the direction in which our space program was supposed to go. Or at least a very optimistic version of the future at the time. When the film was released in 1968, NASA's funding was at (if you'll forgive the pun) astronomical levels. So, if NASA funding had stayed at those levels, we'd probably have a colony on Mars by now. Well, maybe not, but you get my point.

I've always been interested in space/astronomy. I'm excited by the work that Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic), Jeff Bezos (Amazon/Blue Origin), and Elon Musk (PayPal/Tesla/SpaceX) to make spaceflight less expensive and perhaps open space to tourism. I'm excited by NASA's next-generation launch system, the SLS/Orion platform, which will carry payloads and astronauts to deep space beyond the Moon. But that doesn't really start until at least 2020, with a mission to Mars happening somewhere in the 2030s.

There's a long way to go, but I'm astounded by how far we've already come.

...about the return of the Verizon IndyCar Series to Phoenix

The Verizon IndyCar series returned to Phoenix International Raceway after an 11 year absence. It also marked the first time in several seasons that IndyCar has raced on an oval before the Indy 500.

While the IndyCar community (teams, drivers, and fans, including me) were excited to see Phoenix return to the calendar, the event had its share of problems.

Both Takuma Sato and James Hinchcliffe both destroyed their cars in the sole practice session leading up to qualifying. Neither would be able to qualify, and started at the back of the grid for Saturday night's race. Carlos Muñoz crashed hard in qualifying and would also start from the back. All three were cleared to race on Saturday night

Interestingly, all three wrecks were in Honda-powered cars, which lead me (and some others that I follow on Twitter) to speculate that maybe Honda was trying just a bit too hard to catch up with the dominant Chevy teams. Were they trimming out too much? All of the top 10 positions in qualifying were taken by Chevy teams.

However, Honda proved again that whatever they lack in qualifying, they make up for it in the race. Graham Rahal finished 5th after starting way back in 20th. Ryan Hunter-Reay made a monster start, going around the outside in turns 1 and 2, gaining several positions. He would eventually finish 10th.

Only two drivers, Ed Carpenter and Carlos Muñoz failed to finish. Both Helio Castroneves and Juan Pablo Montoya had tire problems during the race, perhaps due to some overly-aggressive setups.

But I think the biggest problem with the return of IndyCar to Phoenix was a severe lack of people in the seats around the track. We (IndyCar fans) have been clamoring for this series to come back to Phoenix for years (well, 11 to be exact), and it's frankly shocking that so few people showed up at the track. Was it a lack of promotion?

There were also some issues with the on-track "product." The high downforce configuration that all of the teams were running meant that it was difficult for one car to follow closely behind another, making it difficult to pass. NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson (@JimmieJohnson) remarked on Twitter, "I'm so thankful @nascar is taking the downforce off our cars. These @IndyCar guys haven't made a competitive pass yet."

This led to some, shall we say, heated debate on Twitter, but he's not wrong. Former driver Dario Franchitti (@dariofranchitti) agreed, saying "skill + bravery of @IndyCar drivers off the scale, series needs to look at downforce levels + how the car produces it though."

They both make excellent points. High levels of downforce created by multi-element wings creates a huge amount of turbulence, leaving the following car in "dirty" air, so they can't get close enough to pass. Formula One has had that problem for years, prompting the sanctioning body to create the Drag Reduction System (DRS), which opens up the rear wing of the car that's behind, adding several miles per hour and making it easier to set up a pass. However, if there were lower levels of downforce overall, and simpler wings (front and rear), a lot of these problems would simply not exist. (I'll talk about other issues I have with F1 in another post.)

Anyway, enough of me blabbing on for now. That's my two cents about the Phoenix IndyCar race over the weekend. What do you think? Let me know in the comments section below!

...about introductions

Hi, I'm Jim. Have a seat!

Comfy? Good.

Welcome to my blog, where I will talk about all sorts of stuff. Racing (and other sports), technology, TV shows, movies, music, pop culture, anything that piques my interest. But not religion, politics, or sex. Okay, maybe sex, but it'll be tasteful.

Just a warning, this blog might contain some salty language. So if that's not your cup of tea, then these aren't the droids your looking for. Move along.

Stay tuned, I might just have something interesting to say....