Month: June 2010

  • Reflections on the meaning and effect of World Cup on the U.K.

    Hysterical, deluded and thoroughly English
    By Tom de Castella
    England has exited the football World Cup and once again failed to live up to expectations. But why do the English fool themselves, again and again, into believing they can win, and might they actually enjoy it?

    According to Wikipedia, hysteria is “a state of mind of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often caused by multiple events in one’s past that involved some sort of severe conflict.”

    Sound familiar?

    After a humiliating 4-1 defeat to Germany, England has once again entered an unofficial period of national mourning. It’s something the country goes through after every World Cup or European Championship exit – from euphoric anticipation to shock and despair in the space of 90 minutes.

    “ It’s a communal moment, people sharing the pain with each other at the bus stop. It’s that thing about big World Cup games that end in tragedy ”
    Simon Kuper
    So have the English become hysterical in their dealings with the national side?

    Harry Eyres, writer of the Financial Times’s Slow Lane column, believes the passion has taken on a desperate, obsessive quality: “Too much seems to hang on it. We appear needy as a nation. There’s an extraordinarily neurotic fear and excessive expectation about watching England. I don’t think we’re in touch with reality.”

    The world is entranced by the beautiful game every four years. But not everyone seems to invest as much importance in their national side.

    On holiday in Spain during the 2002 World Cup, Eyres remembers pulling into a bar in Andalucia to catch the end of the Spanish team’s quarter final with South Korea.

    The talented Spanish side went on to lose but there was no vitriol, Eyres recalls: “It was amazing how lightly they took it. This was a working class, blue collar bar. Can you imagine a pub full of builders in England when the team get knocked out – it would be a tragedy. My impression is that in Spain it just doesn’t matter so much.”

    BLAME A COLONIAL PAST?
    Some believe the English feel entitled to win the World Cup – which derives from the entitlement of Empire.
    But historian Linda Colley , who specialises on empire and nationalism, says too much is attributed to loss of the colonies.

    “Surely the more crucial issues are that we invented soccer, so feel a proprietorial interest in it,” says Colley, speaking to the BBC News website. “And secondly soccer is hyped and commercialised more here than in many other countries. The broader issue may well be uncertainty about collective identity.”

    Writer Simon Kuper sees a similar imbalance of expectation when England is compared with France, where he lives. If the English did badly in this competition, the French – finalists in the last World Cup – did even worse, getting knocked out in the first round.

    But in France, says Kuper, author of Why England Lose, no-one thought the home side would actually win.

    What enraged the French public was not poor displays on the pitch but the mutinous behaviour of the team’s arrogant stars.

    “Unlike the English the French are able to switch off the team when they’re angry with it. People are disgusted. But they don’t go into the anguish of looking at the country as a whole. They just say the team are horrible people.”

    Not only do the English never learn. They appear to thrive on the masochism of outlandish hope followed by tragic defeat, he argues.

    “I think people enjoy the ritual. Every four years it happens and takes you back to previous tournaments. It’s a communal moment, people sharing the pain with each other at the bus stop. It’s that thing about big World Cup games that end in tragedy – usually on penalties, ideally to Germany.”

    But that ritual comes at a price, says Kuper, who sees a crucial difference between the attitude of the English side and that of his native Holland.

    Anger-land

    “When a Dutch player scores he’s happy but when an England player does it’s all clenched jaw, relief and anger. It’s very stressful for the England players. It’s like with children at school, when they know the expectations are too high and they can’t meet them.”

    But if England is deceiving itself about its ability, who or what is guilty of inflating expectations unrealistically high?

    Britain’s tabloid press frequently seem to overplay the side’s ability. But that’s no surprise, says Roy Greenslade, a professor of journalism and a former editor of the Daily Mirror. Playing on the hopes of fans, and reinforcing their disappointment, is all part of the never ending circulation battle.

    “The biggest football fans are tabloid readers. And the popular papers both respond to and ramp up the public mood. And it is our national sport. You don’t get this level of interest for cricket.”

    But there is something unique about Britain’s newspaper industry, he says: “We are different in having a competitive national press. So the papers can galvanise a population across the whole country. They can’t do that in France or Germany where much of the press is regional.”

    Back in 1966 when England won the World Cup and Greenslade was a young reporter for the now defunct Barking Advertiser there were only two national tabloids. Today the newspaper scene is almost unrecognisable by comparison.

    Diagnosing defeat

    “Make no mistake the papers set the agenda. And today we have feeding frenzies. Savage as it sounds the Madeleine McCann story sold papers and previously there was Princess Diana. The World Cup is another first class example of a feeding frenzy that electrifies the newspapers.”

    What this frenzy is really about is fear of national decline, says the writer and broadcaster Toby Young: “In a sense it’s people’s anxiety about Britain’s waning influence on the international stage. It expresses itself in their anxiety about how England will fare in the World Cup.”

    And that’s why beating Germany has become so important.

    “The chant ‘two world wars and one world cup!’ rings increasingly hollow each time we’re beaten by a German team. It’s the ability of the German team to punch above its weight in football terms. And that seems to us to reflect their ability to punch above their weight economically.”

    There is a political angle to all this with theorists on opposite sides of the ideological debate diagnosing defeat in different ways. “If you’re on the left it’s the players who are overpaid and selfish exhibiting the spirit of materialism introduced by Thatcher,” he says. “If you’re on the right it’s because of a lack of confidence and self belief.”

    The loss to Germany has prompted much soul searching. So would the English be better off hiding the their flags next time around?

    Young thinks not – believing that win or (mostly likely) lose, it’s all for the good.

    “In this age, here’s something that for once genuinely brings us together as a country. And the anxiety about national decline would be there whether it’s expressed in this way or not. You can describe it as hysterical if you like but I’d say it’s cathartic.”

    The healthy side

    Psychologist Dr Sandy Wolfson agrees. She has studied the behaviour and emotional lives of football fans and argues the World Cup is good for the mind.

    “The vast majority of fans get many psychological benefits. There’s always going to be moments of depression and despondency when you lose. The key thing is its ability to get social interaction between people from all walks of life. You’ll get a highly paid lawyer in the pub talking to a street cleaner. And football’s a good way of getting people to think intellectually. You can also scream and shout in a socially acceptable way.”

    But aren’t we all living in denial? “The optimism is healthy. And it’s cyclical, you get the renewal of hope after defeat. I’m not denying your team lets you down and you’re going to have a hard time. There will be a lot of people angry, upset and negative. But research shows that within a week you’re thinking about the next event.”

    Surely there is one simple lesson we can learn from this predictable debacle. Whoever gets the poisoned chalice of being England manager in four years’ time, could for once learn to manage expectations. When the inevitable question from the press pack arrives – “So can we win the World Cup this time?” the coach would reply: “Probably not. Let’s see if we can get to the second round first shall we?”

    Most of the expectations are media generated, journalists asking constantly if England can win. The expectations played out on the radio (5 Live is particularly bad for this), TV and paper is ridiculous. Most England supporters I know are pretty realistic knowing that we’ll crash out. We would just like our team to play the way we occasionally see them play. The media do not always reflect the expectations but more create it for it to be burst. Following on from this, this is why in Scotland the Anyone But England get’s support: the main criticism is the over-hype by all forms of news media (BBC included, sorry!) Duncan Smallman, Edinburgh

    Sadly sport is the only area where the English are allowed any recognition by the British government. That’s why it’s important – because if it wasn’t for sport the English would have no recognition whatsoever. It’s all we’ve got. We have no parliament – and unlike Scotland, Wales and NI we’ve not been asked if we want one. The latest survey suggests 68% of the English do want their own parliament. We have been balkanised into regions without consultation or consent. We also get by far the least per person funding in the “UK” due to the Barnett Formula. Leading to the worst services in the “UK”. Yes we’re deluded that our football team might do well but increasingly we’re angry that the only thing we get out of the “UK” is the bill. But the English are finally waking up to all this. Keep your flags flying folks. We are the English and we are about to speak. Julian Asher, Birmingham, England

    Dr Sandy Wolfson’s comment “football’s a good way of getting people to think intellectually” doesn’t really stand up to examination. I haven’t been following the world cup and couldn’t care who wins in the end but from a non-fan’s point of view the one thing England fans don’t seem to do is think intellectually! Gordon Johns, Bristol, UK

    in mourning? Who can be in mourning? It was clear from match one what would happen. And, frankly, it’s only football. If people hate the fact we always crash out of football championships, if all they really care about is the win, perhaps they should support sports we are more successful in… cricket, rugby (both), motor sport, athletics, swimming, cycling and so on… Mark Burton, Aylesbury UK

    The last paragraph of this article is just so unrealistic- do you really think that the fans or the media would accept anything other than absolute confidence. After all why should the coach open himself up to the barrage of recrimination that would come with seeming unambitious, unconfident and possessing of a negative mental attitude. Everyone know’s that the chances of any team winning the world cup can be covered by “Probably not”, but I for one do not want to hear that. Mark, Stroud

    I stopped being very interested in football back in the early eighties and the national teams performances since 1970 had a lot to do with that. I watched the game against Germany and thought “we’ve learnt nothing in all that time”. We seemed to be playing a 0-8-2 formation for much of the game. The way in which German players were allowed to roam at will was a disgrace. I feel particularly sad for the supporters; they’ve made an effort (not least of all financially) to support their side, but have been sadly let down. Not because of the loss, but the manner of the loss. John Connolly, Northampton

    I’m sure most of the hysteria comes from the media, particularly the press. Prior to Sunday, I didn’t hear anyone who thought we had an earthly chance of beating Germany never mind winning the tournament. I switched on BBC just prior to kick off and Lineker, Dixon, Hansen & Shearer all said they thought we were going to win. Based on what?! Mark Swindell, Bolton, UK

    I think that during these World cups each country hopes for the best results but sadly England goes overboard with naked nationalism. Obviously these tabloids thrive on that. They will invariably bring in 1966, the two world wars and questions like “who beat Germany in WWII? To enjoy football as a sport and not think of it like winning a war may help. But that could be wishful thinking ! Frank Marlow, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    I’d hazard that the majority of people really do not care that much. The media like to stir up this particular brand of hysteria every two years (World Cups and the Euros) and claim that we’re all heart-broken when we lose. In reality people watch, turn off and get back to their lives. The allegory with the Spanish bar could be repeated in many bars across England – I’m sure if the journalist had been in a “fan zone” in Spain he would have seen the same reaction as he would in England, but the people who choose to go to such places are inherently those who care too much. Owen, Leeds, UK

    Why do the media assume that we (the English football supporting public) expect to win. I did not have high expectations and nor did any of my friends and relatives. I believe you and others in the media have created a story about assumed expectation that does not exist. It seems to be the hyped up media that has all the expectation. We ordinary folk live in hope rather than expectation. Rob S, Richmond, Surrey

    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8768122.stm

    Published: 2010/06/28 10:37:54 GMT

    © BBC MMX

  • Fernando Alonso heavily critical of the race stewards of the European G.P.

    GO TO EARLIER STORYGO TO THE NEWS INDEX  
    Angry Alonso says race ‘manipulated’


    Fernando AlonsoFernando Alonso was heavily critical of the race stewards of the European Grand Prix, saying the race had been manipulated.

    The Spanish driver finished in a distant ninth position after losing out during the safety car period following Mark Webber’s crash.

    Alonso was running in third at the time, right behind McLaren’s Lewis Hamilton, but the Briton overtook the safety car and went on to finish in second.

    Hamilton earned a drive-through penalty for his action, but the Briton kept second place while Alonso dropped out of the point-scoring positions for having respected the rules.

    The Ferrari driver was angry at the stewards’ decision, saying the race had been manipulated by it.

    “It’s a shame, not for us because this is racing, but for all the fans who came here to watch a manipulated race,” he told Spanish television after the race.

    “We were running well, in third after a good start. Then the safety car came out, which wasn’t too good for us, but Hamilton overtook the safety car, something that I had never seen, overtaking the medical car with yellow flags. We were a meter off each other, and he finished second and I finished ninth.

    “This race was to finish second. Then with the safety car I would have finished where I finished in ninth, and Hamilton in eighth. But here, when you do the normal thing, which is respecting the rules, you finish ninth, and the one who doesn’t respect them finishes second.”

    The Spaniard said everything seemed to be going against him and his team.

    “It must have been very hard to know,” said Alonso of the times it took the stewards to penalise Hamilton. “They must have taken a lot of laps to see the replay of how he overtook the medical car.

    “But that’s how it is. Unfortunately everything goes against us and it seems they are allowing everything.”

    A further nine drivers are facing penalties for possible infringements.

    Copyright Autosport. 2010. All Rights Reserved

     

  • European Grand Prix Post Qualifying Press Conference

    Following a truly exciting Qualifying Session for the European Grand Prix at the Valencia Street Circuit the top three qualifying finishers face the press, plenty of good insight.

     

    The European Grand Prix is shaping up to be a great race tomorrow. Don’t forget that in the US the race will be broadcast on the FOX Network channels, click here for the broadcast schedule.

    DRIVERS:
    1. Sebastian Vettel (SV) [Red Bull], 1m37.587s
    2. Mark Webber (MW) [Red Bull], 1m37.662s
    3. Lewis Hamilton (LH) [McLaren], 1m37.969s

    TV UNILATERALS

    Q: Sebastian, congratulations. Fastest man in final practice, quickest man in Q1, Q2 and when it counts, in Q3. And as the team said on the radio ‘Welcome Back’.
    Sebastian Vettel (SV): Yeah, it is good. The last couple of races we didn’t have a very smooth run. Saturdays usually we were quite okay but then Sundays sometimes was a bit rough but it is good. Those types of circuits, Canada the last time and then here again Valencia in Spain, usually shouldn’t be our strongest but it is good that we are able to put the car on pole and I think our pace is looking good. It was a tight qualifying session in the end. Not much between us all. I had two runs. In the first run I had a huge moment in the first sector and I knew I had to put everything in the second run and it worked and yeah, I am on pole and very happy for today. I think it was a very tough one here especially as we re-introduced the F-duct and a lot of other things to the car and I think some of the mechanics had maybe one hour or two hours this night to sleep, so it is good to say thank you that way and put the cars on one and two.

    Q: On the subject of the F-duct, just how much difference did it make? Was that the difference between third or fourth and pole?
    SV: I think it isn’t that big probably but we feel the difference. We can see how much you can gain with these guys. I think they are using it pretty much to the optimum but we are just learning every single lap, every run, and yesterday we were not quite happy but I think we did another step overnight, so everyone here at the track and people at the factory were basically all the time in front of the monitors trying to see how we can fine tune it and make it better and I think today it worked better, so also due to that we are in a very good position to start tomorrow’s race.

    Q: Mark, I think it is the fourth time this season that Red Bull have had a one-two and locked out the front row. So little in it between you and Sebastian. Are you happy to be alongside him or not?
    Mark Webber (MW): Well, I would like it to be the other way around, but you can’t do it all the time, so very happy to be on the front row with Seb. It is a credit to the team. Everyone came here and said Red Bull are this, Red Bull are that, but today we have had a good day. It is not one of our strongest circuits. If you think where you would have a race against your opposition we probably wouldn’t choose this one but let’s see how tomorrow goes. I am very optimistic that we are going to have a good race. Could have gone one place better but I wasn’t quick enough today. I am not going to roll-out a shopping list of excuses. I just wasn’t good enough, so second is all I could do.

    Q: Does it take some of the pressure off when you come to a race maybe not as the favourites but people saying McLaren and Ferrari are going to be stronger? Do you feel less pressure when you go out?
    MW: No, but there is actually more pressure on those guys as they expect to be winning World Championships. For us guys it is new territory but it is normal for those teams, Ferrari and McLaren, to be pushing very hard and saying they are going to do this and do that which is what they have done. McLaren have been sensational the last two races. Two dominant one-twos, so the fight is healthy. There is no more pressure on our team than anyone else, so just focussing on getting the job done.

    Q: Lewis, third on the grid. Talk us through that final lap. You were in contention but not for all of it.
    Lewis Hamilton (LH): I tell you that I am really happy to be here. I feel so fortunate. This weekend we knew that everyone else, a few people, were going to be bringing updates and we saw from practice that we were quite a way behind, so a little bit cautious going into…., obviously pushing on the limit, but we didn’t realise we were so far up. My first lap was good. The second lap I was doing at the end I was up about a tenth-and-a-half I think through the first sector and then I lost it all into turn 12, locked up the rears and locked up the rears again later in the lap. Initially I thought ‘jees, for sure I am going to drop back quite far here’ but I was really surprised when I came out and I was third, so really, really happy.

    Q: With the race pace which tends to be quite good for McLaren is a top two possible? Can you go on and win from here?
    LH: I think definitely it is going to be an interesting race tomorrow. It is going to be interesting how we manage the tyres and how they behave. I think they will behave a little bit better than the last race. But I think anything is possible from there. We are all in hopefully a good position to start. I cannot complain where we are starting from. Pit stops will be crucial. Hopefully we will get some good pit stops and the first corner and the first few laps will be crucial for position. Anything is possible tomorrow and we will be pushing as hard as we can to win it.

    Q: Sebastian, a lot of people will be watching the start with interest. Not just turn one but the tight right hander at turn two. Your team-mate could be right alongside you. It could be absolutely imperative to get through that unscathed.
    SV: Yeah, there is a good escape road at turn two but obviously you are not very keen on using that. Pole is the best place to start from. It is also on the clean side, so I think that was quite important but still I think all of the cars have been recently quite consistent with good starts, so it is probably easier to get it wrong rather than get it right. But so far our starts have been very good. I am looking forward and hopefully defend the first position, the first corner, the first lap, and many more, so we will see.

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Q: Sebastian, I get the feeling from all three of you that you were really expecting to be here. It wasn’t really meant to be your circuit. It was damage limitation to some extend for McLaren. Was that the case? Were you expecting others to perhaps be more competitive here?
    SV: Well, I think the most important is that we are here. People were talking a lot about the last race that this would probably be a difficult venue for us. I think we proved them wrong in Canada and here. I think our pace looks very good. Canada on Sunday was quite an entertaining race from the inside and outside, so it is good to be here. As I said I think we have proven yesterday and all day today that the car has got the pace. We were really a bit surprised that the McLarens were struggling yesterday but as we have seen things can change last minute and in the end they are not too far away and it will be a tough battle tomorrow. But I think we can win the race and score a lot of points for the team.

    Q: Although you have been in the top three for every single race was it a little frustrating that you weren’t on pole position since China?
    SV: No, I wouldn’t say frustrating. I would say it is more if you know you have got it in you and you know that you have got it in the car, then if you don’t get it right maybe last minute, maybe for this or that reason, then there is nothing you can do or I can do, but I think that’s life. It goes up and down as this championship. I think from the outside it is very entertaining. We have got a lot of cars on more or less the same points. Obviously it looks a bit more spread with the new points’ system but it is looking very interesting and very tight between the cars and the teams, so there is not a lot of room for errors, so you always need to be there. In the end also a fourth or fifth position can be very valuable on a Sunday. We have to keep pushing as we do and as I said, this is probably not the best circuit for us but nevertheless we are here in the front, so in the end we are, so it could not be much better.

    Q: Is there a clean and a dirty side here? What’s the condition of the grid?
    SV: Not really. There is a clean and a dirty side. Usually the pole on the right hand side is on the clean side but on the other some cars go wider before turn one and some enter a tighter line. I think it is not really a big difference. Also the way down to turn one is not that long, so we will see. But surely if you have got a McLaren behind you they are very quick on the straight as we know. Ferrari as well, so we need a good start and a good couple of corners where we ideally can pull away.

    Q: Mark, you haven’t qualified lower than second since Bahrain. You’re always there, so especially on this circuit, as you say, perhaps you were not expecting to be there.
    MW: Yeah, it’s not one of my best circuits. I’ve had a shit run here in the past, so in the end, I’m happy to be second, to be honest. Seb was strong in the previous years here and also so far this weekend but I was surprised that I could be on a similar pace, so it was good for me, happy to be here and it’s very good for me to be starting from here tomorrow, sensational day for the team, really good for those guys. People might say we keep going on about it but if you look at their eyes, and how hard they have worked, it’s a credit to them. Yes, they’re not the only team to be working hard, I realise that, but both Seb and I wouldn’t be here without their toil and their hard work. We are the guys who do a little bit of driving but they’re the guys who obviously put the cars together for us, so we’re very thankful for them. It was a pretty good uneventful qualifying session. Obviously the first lap went OK, second one not too bad, so here we are.

    Q: How important is qualifying here?
    MW: I think we’ve had some races here in the past when people have struggled to stay awake, so I think we will see how it is tomorrow. I think we’re going to have… not like Canada in terms of a Grand Prix like we saw there, but let’s see how it goes. I think the first few guys are pretty quick on pace and it’s going to be a good fight but we have some very good ammunition in the Grand Prix tomorrow where we’re quicker.

    Q: Both Red Bull drivers using the F-duct?
    MW: Yup.

    Q: Track conditions: they varied yesterday, did they change today?
    MW: Yes, the track has improved to a point where I don’t think there’s a huge amount left in it. Obviously there’s a bigger ramping effect on Friday and maybe a little bit early Saturday but there’s obviously been no rain and the track is a street circuit and so it improves a lot up to this point. We also saw that the difference between the tyres is not as big as previous events, so that’s also an interesting one for all the teams. We had to get a feel for that and then the track was pretty consistent.

    Q: Lewis, you seem to be very happy to be there, but it does seem to have been a bit of a damage limitation weekend?
    LH: Well, that was what we thought but I guess it’s not really, considering we’re third. That’s definitely not a damage limitation weekend. I think for us, just going into practice yesterday, we were quite quick in the first session and then in the second and third the car felt good, we just weren’t fast enough, simple as that, but the others were so far ahead, we knew that they had had some upgrades, so initially going into qualifying the thought was OK, we have to get absolutely every ounce out of the car, every little bit we can possibly get and a little bit more if possible, just to gain that one more spot even if it means going from seventh to sixth. I really didn’t feel we would be this high up, but through the session the car was feeling great, we made some good set-up changes in P3. Into qualifying the car was very, very strong, we got good gaps, put together good laps. The last lap I did I locked up the rears, obviously pushing as hard as we could. We definitely didn’t have half a second in our pocket. I think we may have had a tenth but then unfortunately I lost it. Initially I thought everyone would go faster but they didn’t and I was really very, very surprised and shocked when I came in and found I was third. I was very happy.

    Q: And of course you have been second here in the two races we’ve had so far.
    LH: Yeah, this track has generally been good to me in the past. I’m hoping that it will continue that way. Like I said, we really feel that we haven’t made a step forward since the last race for a good couple of races; we’re still waiting on our update and we know that Ferrari have brought their update package this weekend. All of a sudden they’re blistering quick as were the Red Bulls. They still have an advantage as I’ve always told you, straight up, that they still have a bit of an advantage on us but we’re still there and we’re still pushing and optimising the package that we have.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Livio Oricchio – O Estado de Sao Paulo) Sebastian and Mark, I don’t want to go into politics but you are maybe going to fight for victory into the first corner after the start. What’s your comment on it, considering what happened at the last races?
    SV: Well, I think fighting for position is what racing drivers do. If you look at the job description that’s what we are. Obviously we’ve been through this many times but I’m not afraid that something similar will happen. You can never say never, but surely I think we’ve learned our bit and we’re looking forward. Yeah, not a lot of interest in the history.
    MW: Obviously if there’s a chance to overtake we will go for it. If not, then I don’t. Nothing’s really changed in the last… my whole career. Obviously if something’s there we go, if not, we wait a bit longer.

    Q: (Asen Stoyanov – Monitor Daily) Sebastian, can you tell us exactly how much you gain from the F-duct system per lap?
    SV: It’s difficult to say. As I said earlier, we were not 100 percent happy yesterday. I think we made a step forward today but I don’t want to go into too much detail. We have it on the car, so we believe it gives us an advantage. Obviously we see from other teams how much it can be worth, probably around 0.4s – 0.5s per lap if you really manage to work well with it and you get the wing settings right and so on. For us, at this stage, I think it is less than this, but it’s an advantage.

    Q: (Oleg Karpov – Klaxon) For all of you, are you surprised by Mercedes’s qualifying performance, 12th and 15th?
    SV: Bit surprised, as you said, 12th and 15th. In first qualifying, it was Michael, I think, who right at the end managed to get into Q2. They looked very competitive yesterday. I don’t know what went wrong or what happened but they definitely looked stronger yesterday and this morning than they were this afternoon, so it looked a bit odd but obviously it’s the same for all of us, you’ve got a lot of things to do in qualifying and focus on your own, so apart from the result you don’t know much more.

    Q: (Ivan Martin – La Gaceta) To Mark and Sebastian, with the introduction of the F-duct, have you found your car less competitive in the corners, have you lost some of the downforce because of the F-duct?
    MW: Good question. It’s a very complicated system. McLaren, we know, have had quite a long period of time with it and teams are trying to close the gap to a point where it’s sensible but we are realistic; we’re never going to have the system probably as nicely integrated into the car and everything as McLaren have, because they designed the car with it. So we’ve had to adapt something a little bit different and try to make the system work. We are not losing in the corners with the F-duct. We’re confident the car is behaving well. We’re confident it’s a bit quicker, so that’s why we elected to race it. In Turkey that was not the case and we had some small problems with it there, which, to be honest – we had our eyes wide open – we expected to probably have some problems because it’s not easy. We’re learning. Even this morning in P3 we were trying different specs between the cars to try and get it even better. Let’s hope for Silverstone and future events we can get it even better.
    SV: As Mark said, it’s not a very easy system. If you get it right, then you can really get an advantage, but it’s not that easy to set it up and it very easily gets distracted. I think we’ve found a very good compromise for here. I think we still have to improve it for the future.

    Q: (Ivan Martin – La Gaceta) Lewis, these guys are always ahead of the rest or normally, but you are still ahead of Ferrari, without any special innovations. You’re waiting for the next step at Silverstone, so what do you expect from the next race, to be closer to the Red Bulls? Are you confident about the gap to Ferrari?
    LH: I think it’s really, really hard to say because, for example, as I said, in P3 myself and Jenson were ninth and tenth and they were good laps, but everyone else – the fast guys – were eight tenths ahead of us. So taking from that, we thought, OK, our update needs to be very special, but I think we’re still working on it. I don’t think it’s going to be a huge step. Hopefully it’s going to be something we can work on and develop over the next few races but definitely the more downforce you get, the better it goes, so I’m hoping that we’ll close the gap to the Red Bulls and we’ll have more of a fighting chance to qualify ahead of them because generally we qualify behind them, normally, and that always makes the race a lot harder. So we’ll see.

  • European Grand Prix 2010 Vettel Takes Pole

    Vettel leads all-Red Bull front row in Valencia

    26 June 2010

    Sebastian Vettel has claimed his first pole position since Malaysia and will start ahead of Red Bull Racing team-mate Mark Webber in Sunday’s European Grand Prix. Lewis Hamilton managed third for McLaren, despite a last-lap mistake, and local favourite Fernando Alonso starts fourth after both Williams also made the top ten.


    It was a lovely day for Formula 1 alongside Valencia’s port on Saturday as the fraternity makes its third visit to the Spanish venue. With one national driver having competed in 2008, the figure went up to two last year and has now reached three as Fernando Alonso is joined on-track by both Pedro de la Rosa and Jaime Alguersuari.

    With air temperatures reading a highly pleasant 25°C (77°F), Jarno Trulli was first out on-track in Q1 as the famed Lotus name celebrates its 500th Grand Prix this weekend. Robert Kubica was last to make an appearance although, once doing so, the Renault driver shot from one end of the timesheets to the other on a day when both he and team-mate Vitaly Petrov made the top ten shootout.


    Schumacher narrowly avoided Q1 elimination before then being knocked out in Q2
    Schumacher narrowly avoided Q1 elimination before then being knocked out in Q2
    There were worrying times for Michael Schumacher and Mercedes GP; hindered by a suspected power steering problem, forcing his car to pull to one side, the German looked set to be eliminated at the earliest possible point but managed to submit a sufficient lap time, leaving Kamui Kobayashi’s Sauber as a Q1 knockout for the second successive race.

    At the back, Trulli goes 5-4 up on Lotus team-mate Heikki Kovalainen for 2010 qualifying and Virgin’s Lucas di Grassi out-qualifies team-mate Timo Glock – whose last lap was compromised by a trip over the final corner exit kerbs – for the first time. Hispania pilots Karun Chandhok and Bruno Senna line up on the back row for the Murcia-based outfit’s second home Grand Prix of the season.


    Vitaly Petrov starts in the top ten for the second time this year
    Vitaly Petrov starts in the top ten for the second time this year
    Like in practice yesterday and this morning, there were few incidents but more lap time-related surprises in Q2 as both Mercedes works cars were eliminated as well as the two Mercedes-powered Force Indias; Michael Schumacher’s 15th place result marks his worst qualifying position of the season so far as team-mate Rosberg sets off from 12th.

    However, Sébastien Buemi posted another highly credible performance; after scoring four points in Canada a fortnight ago, the Swiss driver is the leading Q2 eliminate in 11th and starts six positions ahead of Spanish team-mate Jaime Alguersuari, who in-turn is just one position behind compatriot de la Rosa’s Sauber.

    That left Red Bull – first and second in Q2 – to contest pole along with McLaren, Ferrari, Renault and Williams, as the two Grove cars enjoyed a sensational performance rise.


    Williams’ gain is Force India and Mercedes' loss in Spain
    Williams’ gain is Force India and Mercedes’ loss in Spain
    Perhaps surprisingly, GP2 Champion Nico Hülkenberg – who was just four thousandths slower than Rubens Barrichello in Montreal – is the leading Williams although the German’s best effort was identical to the Brazilian’s, down to the thousandth – Nico will start eighth, as he set his lap first, whilst Barrichello shares the fifth row with Vitaly Petrov.

    Further up, both McLarens blew their last laps as World Champion Jenson Button’s final corner error resulted in what could have been a possible fourth place becoming sixth, then finally seventh as Robert Kubica downgraded the Englishman from the final Row 3 slot.

    That left Alonso and Massa fourth and fifth in highly upgraded Ferraris – carrying Red Bull-like low exhaust outlets – as Lewis Hamilton admittedly was fortunate to stay third after abandoning his last lap due to running over the slippery white line which defines the edge of the track on the entry to Turn 12.


    Just 75 thousandths of a second separate the pack-leading Red Bull cars which, as pointed out by former team driver turned BBC television pundit David Coulthard in the paddock, translates to a margin of just 56 centimetres in distance.

    Vettel’s pole is his fourth of 2010 but first since Malaysia which, incidentally, was the scene of his last race victory.


    More: Reaction from pole-sitter Sebastian Vettel

  • European Grand Prix Preview


    F1 – 2010 – Telefónica Grand Prix of Europe – Valencia

    McLaren F1 – European GP Preview

    www.McLaren.com — June 18th – 11:59am

    “After two consecutive one-twos, it certainly felt like Bruce McLaren himself was looking down on us and smiling, particularly after we recently commemorated the 40th anniversary of his death.” – Martin Whitmarsh

    Jenson Button 
    “As a team, we’ve taken maximum points in the last two races and it feels like we’ve really gathered considerable momentum. The team really is functioning as a single unit, so I think we head into Valencia next weekend hopeful of being able to once again capitalise on that determination and ambition. 

    “Even though it’s a street circuit, it’s got quite a different feel to other street tracks like Monte-Carlo or Singapore. For a start, it’s quite a bit faster – there are some low-speed corners with some fairly unforgiving walls at the apex, but there are also some high-speed changes of direction and some long straights, so it’s quite an interesting place set-up-wise. It’s not as if you completely rely on downforce, there’s a trade-off, and that should suit our package. 

    “Valencia is also the final race before two important stop-offs in the UK: our home race at Silverstone and, before that, the Goodwood Festival of Speed. Both are events where the British fans will be out in force. And, as world champion, I’m looking forward to both events. Silverstone will be an incredible experience, and I get to achieve a childhood dream of driving one of Alain Prost’s classic McLarens, the MP4/2C, at Goodwood. Sometimes, I can’t believe how lucky I am.”
     

    Lewis Hamilton 
    “I’m really looking forward to racing in Valencia. I had a great, attacking race there last year – but I’ve finished second for the past two seasons, so I feel like I have some unfinished business!



 

    “I also think it’s good for the championship to have a variety of circuits – we’ve just come from a fast, flowing road course in Canada, to a tight street track in Valencia. And, next month, we’ll be at Silverstone – one of the fastest tracks of the year, and a circuit with incredible history. As a driver, that sort of variety makes the racing exciting and unpredictable, which is all you can really ask for.”

 

    “The last few grands prix have had some fantastic racing – it would be great for all the Spanish fans if we can have a great race here too. It’s not a circuit where we’ve seen too much passing in the past, but I think this year could be different – the grid is so tight, there were battles all through the field in Montreal last week, so I think we could have a close and exciting race this year.”
     

    Martin Whitmarsh 
    Team principal, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
     
    “After two consecutive one-twos, it certainly felt like Bruce McLaren himself was looking down on us and smiling, particularly after we recently commemorated the 40th anniversary of his death. 

    “I’m sure Bruce would also have appreciated the relentless and dedicated approach we have taken to the engineering and development of MP4-25 – I think we’ve shown in the past two races that we lack nothing in terms of hunger and motivation. And with our car being constantly developed, I believe we can continue to be a threat at the majority of remaining races on the calendar. 

    “Of course, we’re no strangers to relentless development – it’s one of the team’s greatest strengths – and we’re absolutely committed to maximising every last component in the search for performance. Nothing is too small to be overlooked, and it’s that holistic approach that really brings rewards, allowing us to eke out performance in every single area of the car. 

    “It’s also an approach we’re increasingly focusing on with the team, too: we’re looking at pitstops, engineering, strategy – and we’re seeing practical and material benefits in those areas, too.”

    GMMf1NET
    18/06/10
    Jun.18 (GMM) There could be more Renault-powered cars on next year’s formula one grid than any other engine supplier.
    GMMf1NET
    18/06/10
    Jun.18 (GMM) If the F1 teams and Bernie Ecclestone want to do a deal with Pirelli, the FIA will have to go along with it.
    GMMf1NET
    18/06/10
    Jun.18 (GMM) Niki Lauda is on the lookout for a new sponsor for his famous red cap.
    GMMf1NET
    18/06/10
    Jun.18 (GMM) Before departing F1, Bridgestone is considering equipping teams with its ‘super soft’ compound at more races in 2010.
    GMMf1NET
    18/06/10
    Jun.18 (GMM) Another team reportedly in the running to become F1′s 13th team in 2011 is Carlin.
    GMMf1NET
    18/06/10
    Jun.18 (GMM) Red Bull’s Mark Webber has led more laps this season than any of his competitors.
    GMMf1NET
    18/06/10
    Jun.18 (GMM) Luca di Montezemolo has continued his sustained attack on formula one’s new teams.
    GMMf1NET
    17/06/10
    Jun.17 (GMM) Gerhard Berger has dismissed claims that Pirelli is a questionable choice as formula one’s new tyre supplier.
    GMMf1NET
    17/06/10
    Jun.17 (GMM) Nick Heidfeld is tipped to combine an ongoing role as Mercedes’ reserve driver next year with a race cockpit in the German touring car series DTM.
    GMMf1NET
    17/06/10
    Jun.17 (GMM) Hopeful teams are facing a delay in the FIA’s decision about the final place on the 2011 formula one grid.
    GMMf1NET
    17/06/10
    Jun.17 (GMM) Pirelli may be looking to acquire a Toyota formula one car with which to do some specific tyre testing later this year.
    GMMf1NET
    17/06/10
    Jun.17 (GMM) Formula one team bosses have backed the apparent stability in the 2011 driver market.
    Advanced Search:
    Author
    Location
    Search Other 
     GO

  • What The Internet is Doing to Our Brains

    The Uses of Half-True Alarms

    The Shallows: What The Internet is Doing to Our Brains

    by Nicholas Carr

    W.W. Norton & Company, 276 pp., $26.95

    Nicholas Carr’s lucid if tendentious book improves on his essay in the Atlantic a couple years ago, which was more memorably—and misleadingly—titled with the self-answering question, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr’s article was all the more interesting because he was not a grumpy and decadent humanist but an engaging tech writer and a former executive editor of the Harvard Business Review. He was asking out loud a question that was deservedly on a lot of contemporary minds. The Shallows is a less catchy and more accurate title for his alarm, which turns out to have little to do with Google. It is much bigger than that.

    Carr grabs our lapels to insist that the so-called information society might be more accurately described as the interruption society. It pulverizes attention, the scarcest of all resources, and stuffs the mind with trivia. Our texting, IM-ing, iPhoning, Twittering, computer-assisted selves—or self-assisted computing networks—are so easily diverted that our very mode of everyday thought has changed, changed utterly, degraded from “calm, focused, undistracted” linearity into “a new kind of mind that wants and needs to take in and dole out information in short, disjointed, often overlapping bursts.” Google searches, too, break our concentration, which only makes matters worse: “Google is, quite literally, in the business of distraction,” Carr writes. Because we are always skimming one surface after another, memories do not consolidate and endure. So we live in a knife-edge present. We turn into what the playwright Richard Foreman called “pancake people—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” We collect bits and the bits collect us.

    Worse still, no one has dragooned us into the shallows. Nobody is forcing us from pixel to post. We are our own victimizers, because we crave interruption. When we grow up texting every few minutes, legato—which now feels like an eternity—yields to staccato. Taking a break during the writing of this review, while watching a recent Lakers-Suns playoff game, I observed a couple of women in four-figure courtside seats behind the Suns’ bench working their thumbs on BlackBerries as the camera panned over them. Maybe they were live-blogging, or day-trading on Asian markets.

    With so many interruptions so easy to arrange, Carr argues, it is no wonder that we cannot concentrate, or think straight, or even think in continuous arabesques. Where deep reading encourages intricacies of thought, the electronic torrent in which we live—or which lives in us—turns us into Twittering nerve nodes. The more links in our reading, the less we retain. We are what we click on.  We no longer read, we skim. With Wikipedia a click away, are we more knowledgeable? Or even more efficient? Multi-tasking, Carr quotes the neuroscientist David Meyer as saying, “is learning to be skillful at a superficial level.”

    After all, the brain that has been re-wired online governs us offline, too. The more we multi-task, the more distractible we are. But aren’t we more sophisticated at “visual-spatial skills”? Sure, but at the price of “a weakening of our capacities for the kind of ‘deep processing’ that underpins ‘mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection,” writes Carr, quoting a Science article that reviewed more than fifty relevant studies.

    And so we devolve inexorably into “lab rats constantly pressing levers to get tiny pellets of social or intellectual nourishment.” These sweet tidbits are rotting our mental teeth. This is so, Carr maintains, because “the Net delivers precisely the kind of sensory and cognitive stimuli—repetitive, intensive, interactive, addictive—that have been shown to result in strong and rapid alterations in brain circuits and functions,” and that consequently, “with the exception of alphabets and number systems, the Net may well be the single most powerful mind-altering technology that has ever come into general use.”

    It is undeniable that some of the analyses that I have quoted suffer from exaggeration and overkill. Carr is not shy about plunging headlong into extravagant claims. “The computer screen bulldozes our doubts with its bounties and conveniences.” “We become mindless consumers of data.” “The strip-mining of ‘relevant content’ replaces the slow excavation of meaning.” Perhaps aware of this propensity, at other times Carr pulls back from the brink with weasel-word conditionals such as “may well be,” as in: “The consequences [of multitasking online] for our intellectual lives may prove ‘deadly.’” Well, yes—but whatever may prove deadly may also not prove deadly.

    So Carr, alert as well as alarmed, confronts himself as well as his reader with the classic smoke-fire problem. His alarms come clanging on almost every page. What to make of them? They cannot be dismissed as the mutterings of an obsolescent graybeard—Carr is in his early forties. To his credit, moreover, he pauses to address some objections to his line of argument—for example, the striking, well-established finding that IQ scores almost everywhere have been rising for a century while the means of distraction have been multiplying exponentially. “If we’re so dumb,” he italicizes, “why do we keep getting smarter?”

    But we don’t, Carr argues—at least not in any simple way. The notion that smartness comes in a single variety is too crude. The testing signals are actually mixed. Some skills have increased as computers spread, but “tests of memorization, vocabulary, general knowledge, and even basic arithmetic have shown little or no improvement.” Worse, there are some recent signs of loss. While math scores have held steady over the past decade, verbal scores have declined. Between 1992 and 2005, something called “literary reading aptitude” dropped 12 percent. A testing skeptic might doubt the worth of any such findings, but it does seem to be the case that something real is being measured, and that whatever it is, it is slipping. Clumsy statistics are not foolproof evidence, and neither are the dumbing-down anecdotes any reader can supply. But they are not nothing.  

    Unfortunately Carr does not entertain the possibility of unexpected gifts from the internet. He does not ask whether associational thinking—thinking that leaps horizontally, connecting dots that previously were segregated or “siloed”— might actually benefit from the non-stop multitasking in which one’s center of consciousness is constantly intruded upon by fragments of periphery. Could it be that the great electronic torrent of bits, bytes, and buzz does not only turn all minds into short-term data dumps, but also might promote the creative discerning of patterns where none were evident before? This strikes me as an unanswerable question but not a worthless one, even though it can only be properly asked if one reverts to weasel-word qualifiers.

    One might be more prone to ask such questions if one were more attentive to the fact that they are not altogether new. Carr himself quotes T. S. Eliot, who anticipated the courtside BlackBerriers (“strained time-ridden faces/Distracted from distraction by distraction/Filled with fancies and empty of meaning”) in 1935. An English writer once clucked at the unpleasant development that “reading has to be done in snatches”—and that was in 1890. “Prolonged reflection almost gives people a bad conscience”—thus Nietzsche in 1882. Perhaps the difference between 1882 and 2010 is that the conscience about taking the mind’s time is gone. Modernity is nothing if not a long-running speed-up, with the world unceasingly going to the speedier dogs. Much of what Carr notices, or fears, was already in play, and accelerating, long before the internet. It was an alarmed and anti-modern Henry Adams who first pondered the idea of “the acceleration of history” way back in 1907—though arguably the history of today is spinning its wheels.

    Carr would no doubt respond that a repeated alarm is not necessarily a false alarm, and he would be right. There is good reason, after all, why we are living through something of a backlash against the frenzy of attention dispersion, a backlash for which Carr’s book will become canonical. The tech engineer-promoter Jaron Lanier, who coined the term “virtual reality,” has a book out called You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, denouncing “the hive mind” of the internet and declaring that the “widespread practice of fragmentary, impersonal communication has demeaned interpersonal interaction.” Even old-school capitalists object to the new dispensation, although not always for Carr’s reasons. In another recent book, Googled: The End of the World As We Know It, the business journalist Ken Auletta catches media mogul Barry Diller recalling that at a meeting with Google co-founder Larry Page, Page “did not lift his head from his PDA device.” “It’s one thing if you’re in a room with twenty people and someone is using their PDA,” Diller told Auletta. “I said to Larry, ‘Is this boring?’”  “No. I’m interested. I always do this,” said Page. “Well, you can’t do this,” said Diller. “Choose.” “’I’ll do this,’ said Page matter-of-factly, not lifting his eyes from his handheld device.” That’s new-media power for you—the power to offend Barry Diller.

    So Carr, however loud his tocsins, is worth attending to. I am not the only professor these days who has a pretty good idea what the fidgety fingers of students are doing as they ostensibly take notes, and, having watched a graduate student clicking the keys for inordinate periods of a seminar during a whole semester, I am on the verge of banning laptops from my classrooms. The arts of contemplation have been hard to practice for centuries, but that is no reason to make them any harder.

    Todd Gitlin is the author of, among other books, Media Unlimited. His new book (co-authored with Liel Leibovitz), The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel, and the Ordeals of Divine Election, will be published by Simon & Schuster in September.

  • Can The One Drop the Buzzer-Beating No. 23 Act?

    Fred R. Conrad/The New York

     


    June 15, 2010

    Can The One Drop the Buzzer-Beating No. 23 Act?

    Of the many exciting things about Barack Obama’s election, one was the anticipation of a bracing dose of normality in the White House.

    America had been trapped for eight years with the Clintons’ marital dysfunction disastrously shaping national events and then trapped for another eight with the Bushes’ Oedipal dysfunction disastrously shaping international events. And before that, L.B.J. and Nixon had acted pretty nutty at times.

    President Obama was supposed to be a soothing change. He had a rough childhood. Michelle once told a friend that “Barack spent so much time by himself that it was like he was raised by wolves.” But he seemed to have come through exceptionally well adjusted. “His aides from the Senate, the presidential campaign, and the White House routinely described him with the same words: ‘psychologically healthy,’ ” writes Jonathan Alter in “The Promise,” a chronicle of Obama’s first year in office.

    So it’s unnerving now to have yet another president elevating personal quirks into a management style.

    How can a man who was a dazzling enough politician to become the first black president at age 47 suddenly become so obdurately self-destructive about politics?

    President Obama’s bloodless quality about people and events, the emotional detachment that his aides said allowed him to see things more clearly, has instead obscured his vision. It has made him unable to understand things quickly on a visceral level and put him on the defensive in this spring of our discontent, failing to understand that Americans are upset that a series of greedy corporations have screwed over the little guy without enough fierce and immediate pushback from the president.

    “Even though I’m president of the United States, my power is not limitless,” Obama, who has forced himself to ingest a load of gulf crab cakes, shrimp and crawfish tails, whinged to Grand Isle, La., residents on Friday. “So I can’t dive down there and plug the hole. I can’t suck it up with a straw.”

    Once more on Tuesday night, we were back to back-against-the-wall time. The president went for his fourth-quarter, Michael Jordan, down-to-the-wire, thrill shot in the Oval Office, his first such dramatic address to a nation sick about the slick.

    You know the president is drowning — in oil this time — when he uses the Oval Office. And do words really matter when the picture of oil gushing out of the well continues to fill the screen?

    As Obama prepared to go on air, a government panel of scientists again boosted its estimate of how much oil is belching into the besmirched gulf, raising it from 2.1 million gallons a day to roughly 2.5 million.

    The president acknowledged that the problems at the Minerals Management Service were deeper than he had known and “the pace of reform was just too slow.” He admitted that “there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done.”

    He appointed a “son of the gulf” spill czar and a new guard dog at M.M.S. and tried to restore a sense of confident leadership — “The one approach I will not accept is inaction” — and compassion, reporting on the shrimpers and fishermen and their “wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.” He acted as if he was the boss of BP on the issue of compensation. And he called on us to pray.

    Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Rex Tillerson, the chief of Exxon Mobil, conceded that the emphasis is on prevention because when “these things” happen, “we’re not very well equipped to deal with them.”

    Robert Gibbs on Tuesday continued the White House effort to emote, saying on TV: “It makes your blood boil.” But he misses the point. Nobody needs to see the president yelling or pounding the table. Ronald Reagan could convey command with a smile; Clint Eastwood, with a whisper. Americans need to know the president cares so they can be sure he’s taking fast, muscular and proficient action.

    W. and Dick Cheney were too headlong, jumping off crazy cliffs and dragging the country — and the world — with them. President Obama is the opposite, often too hesitant to take the obvious action. He seems unable to muster the adrenalin necessary to go full bore until the crowd has waited and wailed and almost given up on him, but it’s a nerve-racking way to campaign and govern.

    “On the one hand, you have BP, which sees a risky hole in the ground a couple miles under the sea surface and thinks if we take more risk, and cut some corners, we make millions more. In taking on more risk, they’re gambling with more than money,” said Richard Wolffe, an Obama biographer. “On the other hand, you have Obama, who is ambivalent about risk. What he does late is to embrace risk, like running for president, trebling troops in Afghanistan and health care. But in deferring the risk, he’s gambling with his authority and political capital.”

    By trying too hard to keep control, he ends up losing control.

    Copyright . New York Times Company. 2010 All Rights Reserved

  • Subway Study Finds Rats Remain Wily

    Marcus Yam/The New York Times

    Rats emerge from cracks in station wall tiles to find food, a study found.


    June 15, 2010

    Subway Study Finds Rats Remain Wily

    The Bloomberg administration prides itself on finding high-tech solutions to New York’s oldest, thorniest issues: gridlock, unemployment, homelessness.

    So it may be no surprise that City Hall is now aiming its technocratic lance at a problem so ancient as to predate the city itself: rats.

    In the first study of its kind, officials scoured the city’s subway system to discover what accounts for the perennial presence of rodents, a scourge since the system opened more than a century ago.

    The findings, disclosed at a Board of Health meeting on Tuesday, appear to belie many of the truisms familiar to any New Yorker who has screamed at the sight of a hairy critter slinking along the tracks.

    Rodents, it turns out, reside inside station walls, emerging occasionally from cracks in the tile to rummage for food. The legend of teeming rat cities tucked deep into subway tunnels is, in fact, a myth. The electrified tracks, scientists said, are far too dangerous.

    Not every station has rats, although plenty do. Of 18 stations examined in Lower Manhattan, about half of the subway lines got a fair or poor rating for infestation, meaning they exhibited the telltale culprits — overflowing trash cans, too much track litter — that can lead to a rodent jamboree.

    But befitting a creature that has evaded annihilation for centuries, officials found no obvious solutions: poison packets and traps have proved no match for an agile mammal known to be diabolically clever.

    “They jump two feet from a running start; they can fall 40 feet onto a concrete slab and keep running,” said Solomon Peeples, 86, a former director of the city’s Bureau of Pest Control Services. “We’re no match for them, as far as I’m concerned. Man does not stand no chance.”

    The two-year subway study was a collaboration between the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which has fought rats for decades, futilely. Poison on the track is often scattered by a passing train. Subway riders persist in eating, drinking and littering while in stations, leaving behind the crumbs and detritus that, in a rat’s eyes, are an invitation to make oneself at home.

    “Sometimes, it’s only a matter of a particular track cleaner not doing their job,” said Robert M. Corrigan, a rodentologist who led the study.

    Still, the city did offer some practical advice. Nothing quite excites a rat like a station’s “refuse room,” a storage space for bags of garbage waiting to be hauled away. For rodents, the room is “a restaurant,” as Dr. Corrigan called it, and he recommended that the transportation authority install poison bait in the rooms for a more surgical strike. (Currently, the authority places poison only on the tracks.)

    Entrances to the rooms should be guarded, Dr. Corrigan said, so rats cannot reach the food. He also suggested that transit officials invest in more high-tech trapping systems, although he said budget concerns would probably stymie such plans.

    Indeed, a spokesman for the transportation authority said Tuesday that the agency would “need to evaluate the costs associated with implementation moving forward.”

    Dr. Corrigan said he remained optimistic that a better system of prevention could be in place within the next two years.

    It seems that rats like to hang out in stations, but not on trains. Perhaps for good reason: In 1976, an academic study concluded that “rats with high blood pressure should not ride the subways too often or too long: the stress of noise, vibration, and crowding may kill some of them before their time.”

    Officials would not proffer an estimate for the city’s rat population. “Eight for one human, 20 for one, none of that stuff is true,” said Rick Simeone, the health department’s director of pest control. “It’s all sensationalism.”

    On Tuesday, Dr. Corrigan told health officials that while rats were a problem in the subways, the rodents inhabited many other public spaces, particularly parks. “Virtually all of New York,” he said, “is vulnerable to this uncanny mammal.”

    Mr. Peeples, the former pest control chief, concurred. “There’s not enough traps around,” he said, “to trap all the rats in New York City.”

    Copyright. New York Times. Co. 2010 All Rights Reserved

  • Long Road to Adulthood Is Growing Even Longer

    Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

    Dr. Dora Hughes, 39, finished her education at 30. She married last year and is now pregnant.

     

    June 11, 2010

    Long Road to Adulthood Is Growing Even Longer

    Baby boomers have long been considered the generation that did not want to grow up, perpetual adolescents even as they become eligible for Social Security. Now, a growing body of research shows that the real Peter Pans are not the boomers, but the generations that have followed. For many, by choice or circumstance, independence no longer begins at 21.

    From the Obama administration’s new rule that allows children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ health insurance to the large increase in the number of women older than 35 who have become first-time mothers, social scientists say young adulthood has undergone a profound shift.

    People between 20 and 34 are taking longer to finish their educations, establish themselves in careers, marry, have children and become financially independent, said Frank F. Furstenberg, who leads the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood, a team of scholars who have been studying this transformation.

    “A new period of life is emerging in which young people are no longer adolescents but not yet adults,” Mr. Furstenberg said.

    National surveys reveal that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including younger adults, agree that between 20 and 22, people should be finished with school, working and living on their own. But in practice many people in their 20s and early 30s have not yet reached these traditional milestones.

    Marriage and parenthood — once seen as prerequisites for adulthood — are now viewed more as lifestyle choices, according to a new report released by Princeton University and the Brookings Institution.

    The stretched-out walk to independence is rooted in social and economic shifts that started in the 1970s, including a change from a manufacturing to a service-based economy that sent many more people to college, and the women’s movement, which opened up educational and professional opportunities.

    Women account for more than half of college students and nearly half of the work force, which in turn has delayed motherhood and marriage.

    Dr. Dora Hughes, 39, married last year and is pregnant with her first child. Dr. Hughes, who works for the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, said she did not finish her education until she was 30, and so had always expected to marry later on in life. Most of her friends from college waited until their late 20s or 30s to marry as well, she said.

    Dr. Hughes, who grew up in Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “My parents got married when they were 24, and my mother always said she thought marriage was hard work and thought it was better for women to wait till their 30s.”

    “That probably did have an influence,” she added, since her mother always encouraged her to get an education and have a career.

    For the first time, a majority of mothers, 54 percent, have a college education, up from 41 percent in 1990. “That is a huge change,” said Andrew J. Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University.

    The median age for a first marriage was 23 in 1980; now it is 27 for men and 26 for women, the highest on record. A recent report by thePew Research Center found that in the past two decades, a broad trend toward delaying motherhood that stretches across all races and ethnic and income groups has also taken hold.

    “I was struck by the fact it increased in all ethnic groups,” said D’Vera Cohn, a co-author of the report, adding that it was evidence of the strength and breadth of this transformation in the life cycles of Americans.

    For many, marriage has disappeared as a definition of traditional adulthood, as more and more younger people live together. Today 40 percent of births are to unmarried mothers, an increase from 28 percent in 1990.

    At the same time, more women are remaining childless, either by choice or circumstance. Twenty percent of women in their 40s do not have children, Mr. Furstenberg said, pointing out that “not having children would have been considered bizarre or tragic in the ’50s; now it’s a lifestyle choice.”

    Laura Tisdel, 28, who grew up in Detroit, said, “I figured I’d either get married in college or right after and basically be a smart mother.”

    Instead Ms. Tisdel ended up getting a job offer in publishing in New York City. She said she came close to marrying when she was 23, but then realized, “I wasn’t only not ready to get married to this guy, but I wasn’t ready to get married at all.”

    She recently got engaged. Her grandparents thought she was a “lesbian spinster” for waiting so long, she said, while her New York friends think she is too young to be marrying. Her parents, 53-year-old baby boomers who met at 14 and married at 21, told her not to be in a rush.

    “The longer I waited to get married, the more reticent I became,” she said. She and her fiancé want children, but feel they are not yet ready. “We’re both nervous about what would be lost,” she said.

    More schooling has meant that children have to rely on financial support from their parents. Adults between 18 and 34 received an average of $38,000 in cash and two years’ worth of full-time labor from their parents, or about 10 percent of their income, according to the MacArthur network.

    Figures on how much parents spent 20 or 30 years ago are scarce, but Mr. Furstenberg said new research that he and a colleague, Sabino Kornrich, are working on shows that “prior to the 1990s, parents appeared to invest most in children in their teen years.

    In the late 1990s, however, parents’ spending patterns began to shift so that the flow of money was greatest when their children were either very young or in their mid-20s.”

    More people in their 20s are also living with their parents. About one-fourth of 25-year-old white men lived at home in 2007 — before the latest recession — compared with one-fifth in 2000 and less than one-eighth in 1970.

    The sizable contribution from parents not only strains already stressed middle-class and poor families, researchers argue, but could also affect institutions that have traditionally supported young adults in this period, like nonresidential and community colleges and national service programs.

    “We have not developed and strengthened institutions to serve young adults,” Mr. Furstenberg said, “because we’re still living with the archaic idea that people enter adulthood in their late teens or early 20s.”

    This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

    Correction: June 13, 2010

    Due to an editing error, the last name of Sabino Kornrich was misspelled in an earlier version of this article.

    Copyright. New York Times Company. 2010. All Rights Reserved