The Awesome Story Behind How Tiger Woods Marks His Ball
Here's a bit of Tiger Woods trivia you might have never heard: The
14-time major winner always marks his ball with the coin heads up.
The habit dates back 20 years to an admirable act of sportsmanship by a then-19-year-old amateur named Steve Scott.
Woods and Scott went toe-to-toe in an epic duel in the final of the 1996 U.S. Amateur. Woods, the rising star and reigning two-time U.S. Am champ, needed to beat the unknown Scott to win his third straight title.
Scott was 2 up on Woods with three to play, and while putting on the
16th -- the 34th hole of their match -- Scott asked Woods to re-mark his
ball to the side of his original mark so it wouldn't be in Scott's
line. Woods did, but after Scott putted he noticed that Woods had not
moved his ball back to its original location.
If Woods would have putted without moving his ball back, he would
have been penalized with a loss of the hole, thereby losing the match to
Scott. But Scott had no interest in winning on a rules technicality. He
quickly alerted Woods, who moved his marker back to its orginal
position. Woods then made the birdie putt, won the hole and later the
match -- the preface to what would become a historic professional
career.
"I did forget (to move my ball back)," Woods said. "For him to (remind
me) was pretty remarkable. Ever since that one moment I always mark my
marker heads up, and if I ever move my coin or someone asks me to move
it, I always move it to tails, so when I look down at my ball if it's
showing tails, that means I moved it. That's true sportsmanship (what
Scott did). A testament to what the game of golf is all about."
(Golf.com)
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Moar Power!
Dodge Ran A Secret Project To Crank The Hellcat Engine Up To 707 Horsepower
What people forget about the insane 707 horsepower Dodge Hellcat engine is that it was expected to have way less power than that. Now the Detroit Free Press has unearthed the story of the legendary engine’s development, and it turns out, the thing actually was originally supposed to make “only” 600 ponies. Here’s how that number became 707.
The story of the Hellcat engine’s development is filled with all sorts of secretive behavior. The Freep says it all began in 2011, when Chris Cowland, director of advanced and SRT powertrain development, brought the idea for a Hellcat in front of FCA’s product forum, which included CEO Sergio Marchionne and 20 other head executives. Cowland pleaded his case for the engine, and got approval to build a 600 HP engine that would put the then top-dog Shelby GT500 in its place. May the horsepower wars begin.
The Detroit Free Press said Cowland’s powertrain team later
succeeded in designing a 600 horsepower HEMI-based engine, but that the
company caught wind that Ford had a 600+ horsepower GT500 in the
pipeline.
That’s when Cowland asked executives if he could crank up the Hellcat’s target to 675 HP, and company leaders said “sure,” so long as he could develop the engine in the same timeframe and with the same fuel economy goals.
But Cowland didn’t really mean 675 HP, because Cowland admitted that
he was hiding an Ace up his sleeve: “The timing was a real concern...
Internally, the team’s target had always been 700 HP. We like to
over-deliver, but we’d expected more time.”
(Jalopnik.com)
What people forget about the insane 707 horsepower Dodge Hellcat engine is that it was expected to have way less power than that. Now the Detroit Free Press has unearthed the story of the legendary engine’s development, and it turns out, the thing actually was originally supposed to make “only” 600 ponies. Here’s how that number became 707.
The story of the Hellcat engine’s development is filled with all sorts of secretive behavior. The Freep says it all began in 2011, when Chris Cowland, director of advanced and SRT powertrain development, brought the idea for a Hellcat in front of FCA’s product forum, which included CEO Sergio Marchionne and 20 other head executives. Cowland pleaded his case for the engine, and got approval to build a 600 HP engine that would put the then top-dog Shelby GT500 in its place. May the horsepower wars begin.
That’s when Cowland asked executives if he could crank up the Hellcat’s target to 675 HP, and company leaders said “sure,” so long as he could develop the engine in the same timeframe and with the same fuel economy goals.
(Jalopnik.com)
A Damn Good Question
Why Do Trains In America Suck So Badly?
As Wendoverproductions explains, part of it boils down to where American cities are located. Trains are only more convenient than planes when cities are located 200-300 miles apart...which is really only the case if you live in the Northeast, on the west coast, or in Texas. Everywhere else is just too spread out. Strike one for trains.
Unlike in Europe, most cities in the US aren’t particularly walkable either. That means taking one form of transportation like a bus or cab to a train, only to disembark and probably grab another cab or bus. Added cost. Added frustration. Strike two.
But the thing that makes trains absolutely suck has to do with
ownership. Commuter rail services like Amtrak operate on tracks owned by
other companies—companies that prioritize freight cars and have limited
interest in making sure passenger cars can hit their top speeds or get
to their destinations with minimal delays. And because rail
infrastructure is so damn expensive, Amtrak and similar companies can’t
simply build parallel tracks or switch to a different rail system, so
we’re left with trains that aren’t much faster or cheaper than just
driving a car to where we’re going.
On the plus side, trains tend to be a bit faster than most busses and smell somewhat better than subways.
(Gizmodo.com)
As Wendoverproductions explains, part of it boils down to where American cities are located. Trains are only more convenient than planes when cities are located 200-300 miles apart...which is really only the case if you live in the Northeast, on the west coast, or in Texas. Everywhere else is just too spread out. Strike one for trains.
Unlike in Europe, most cities in the US aren’t particularly walkable either. That means taking one form of transportation like a bus or cab to a train, only to disembark and probably grab another cab or bus. Added cost. Added frustration. Strike two.
On the plus side, trains tend to be a bit faster than most busses and smell somewhat better than subways.
(Gizmodo.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)