Buckeyes, UMD women split series of role reversal
Proof of parity in the Women’s WCHA race — to say nothing of a classic role-reversal — this one was a classic.
Ohio State travels to Duluth to face the University of Minnesota-Duluth’s perennial women’s hockey power – a familiar scene during the eight-year history of the two programs. That’s where things became unfamiliar.
A quiz is in order: 1. Which of the two teams extends its nation’s-best unbeaten streak to 10 games (9-0-1) by cruising to a 3-0 shutout victory in the first game? 2. Which team wins the second game to snap out of a nine-game (1-7-1) slump, in which it scored only one goal in the four most recent games – all losses?
Observers of the first eight years of the Women’s WCHA would probably say UMD is the answer to question 1, because the Bulldogs have routinely gone on hot streaks, and had lost only two of 34 previous games against Ohio State. Ohio State might figure to be the logical answer to question 2, because the Buckeyes have never had a winning streak of the proportions needed to qualify for question 1, while UMD had never experienced such a prolonged slump.
The logical answers would be: wrong, and wrong, Zamboni-breath!
It is the Ohio State Buckeyes who go into the holiday break as the hottest team in the country, having stretched their nation’s longest unbeaten streak on Erika VanderveerÂ’s 3-0 shutout in the first game. Even though their program-record unbeaten run came to an end in the second game at Duluth, the Buckeyes are well beyond the five-game losing streak that started the season 2-5, and have now risen to 7-6-1 in the WCHA and 10-7-1 overall.
Strong goaltending and defensive play, and balanced scoring all came together for coach Jackie Barto, whose Buckeyes started the 9-0-1 streak with a 2-1 victory over Minnesota, and kept stretching it through the 3-0 victory at Duluth. Defenseman Tessa Bonhomme scored in the opening minute of both the first and second periods, and team scoring leader Erin Keys, who assisted on the first two goals, made it 3-0 with her 11th goal, only five minutes into the second for the 3-0 triumph.
And it is the UMD Bulldogs who stumbled through a school record slump that reached its lowest point when they were shut out by Vanderveer. Not only were the Dogs blanked, it happened despite 11 power plays that were a tribute to the Buckeye penalty killers, and a study in ineptitude for a Bulldog team that opened the season 8-0 in the WCHA, but are now 10-5-1 in the league and 10-7-1 overall.
Four straight losses compare to UMD losing as many as three in a row twice in its history – last year, and in their first season of 1999-2000. Only one other winless streak went as long as four games, and it also came in that first season, with a tie and three losses while playing the nation’s 1-2 teams, New Hampshire and Minnesota, back to back.
Perhaps it was predictable that when OSU’s unbeaten streak ended, and UMD’s slump was snapped, it would be of seismic proportions – and it was, as Noemie Marin scored three goals and Tawni Mattila two as UMD went 6-12 on power plays and romped 9-1 by hurling 50 shots at Vanderveer. But even that couldn’t dampen the spirit of the Buckeyes and coach Barto.
“They came out hard, and played with purpose, on a mission,†said Barto. “Give Duluth credit.Ââ€
It was considerably easier to be gracious in defeat than in past years, when losses to UMD were pretty consistent, now that the Buckeyes have cracked the nation’s top 10, and have moved up impressively enough to stretch the WCHA’s “top three†to a “top four†with Wisconsin, Minnesota and UMD.
This time, Barto set some small objectives for little victories in the third period, and after being outshot 45-17 through two periods and eventually trailing 8-0, Katie MahoneyÂ’s goal broke Kim MartinÂ’s shutout bid and Ohio State outshot the Bulldogs 17-5 in the third period.
Barto had to be upset at referee Shawn Thiele, who sent a constant stream of Buckeyes to the penalty box in both games, with 17 infractions for 45 minutes in the first game – 2:47 of it spent facing 5-on-3 power plays — and 15 for 38 minutes in the second – outrageous numbers for a team that entered the weekend in the nationÂ’s lowest percentile of being penalized. That resulted in 23 power plays for UMD in the two games, to 10 for Ohio State. But Barto held her cool.
“The refs do the best they can, and we try to do the best we can,†said Barto, in a wonderfully subtle evaluation.
Always organized, Barto sets goals for her teams, but to suggest that is the reason for OSUÂ’s record surge is because of those goals is oversimplifying things.
“Within games, I’ll set some goals, and I set some pretty high goals for the season before we started,†said Barto. “One was to challenge the top teams in the WCHA, and another was to make the NCAAs.
“I think the strength of our team is that weÂ’ve had outstanding goaltending, and good team defense, and everyone has been contributing,†said Barto. “Keys has been a big contributor on offense, and leads us in goals and assists, but during our streak, I think we found that the girls play hard for each other, and everybody works to do the little things that lead to success.Ââ€
Keys, who played at Cretin-Derham Hall high school in St. Paul, has emerged as a strong scorer this season and leads the team with 11-13—24. She plays right wing with Peckles at center, and Jody Heywood at left wing on an all-junior line. But other than second line sophomores Morgan Marziali, who has 7 goals, and Hayley Klassen, who has 5, no other forward has more than four goals.
{IMG2}
The scoring of the defense has been a real strength. Senior Amber Bowman (5-17—22) and Bonhomme (9-11—20), a junior, form a formidable first tandem on defense that no other team in the country can match, and junior Lisa Chesson (5-11—16) is close behind.
“Tessa Bonhomme, Amber Bowman, and Lisa Chesson are three of the top defensemen in the league, and they’re all among our top scorers,†said Barto.
Vanderveer, a senior from Bradford, Ontario, is the pillar of strength in goal who has been the beneficiary of the teamÂ’s uplifted play this season. She had given up just nine goals in the 9-0-1 streak, and for the whole season she stood 10-2-1 with a 1.31 goals-against and a .954 save percentage, and she made 41 saves in the second game, and the nine goals only raised her goals-against average to 1.86, and lowered her save percentage to .938.
“I donÂ’t think we helped her much in that one,†said Barto. “Erika is a competitor, and this wonÂ’t bother her.Ââ€
As for the slowly evolving parity within the WCHA, Wisconsin, Minnesota and UMD are still there, but Ohio State is leading the way for the rest of the WCHA, where Minnesota State-Mankato, St. Cloud State, and Bemidji State have improved considerably, and North Dakota is rebuilding.
“I donÂ’t think anyone can take a night off any more in our league,†said Barto. “We played very well and it was an exciting stretch during our streak, but now weÂ’ll have to see what happens as we get closer to the league playoffs and the NCAAs.Ââ€
Those objectives are still out there, and another streak can wait until after the holidays.
Acadia gives GMC, Lutz reason for renewed pride
PALO ALTO, CA. — General Motors is rescuing itself from nose-diving market share by changing its entire manufacturing scope and switching over to high-tech engines, and is now even building trucks that arenÂ’t really trucks, in the traditional sense. General Motors vice president Bob Lutz arrived at the media launch of the GMC Acadia in Palo Alto just in time to capture the essence of what such a new vehicle can mean for the corporation.
The Acadia is a breakthrough on several fronts. It is the first crossover SUV built by GM, joining siblings-to-come such as the Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook, and a Chevrolet to be named later. With lighter, safer, unibody construction, attached to car-like, rather than truck, platform, the Acadia handles with impressive agility, particularly when compared to midsize GM trucks like the Envoy or Yukon.
By not being true, full-size trucks, apparently they must be called crossovers. Or can we call them trucklets? Whatever, they are zooming past mid and full sized SUVs in sales for the first time ever, so the emergence of the Acadia shows GMÂ’s departure from its dedicated reliance on larger, once-profitable trucks and their revised but aging, pushrod engines.
“This is about as good as we know how to do it right now,†Lutz told the assembled auto writers. “We may know better five years from now, but right now, this is it. This is something new, a crossover SUV. The Acadia has a four-cam, aluminum V6 with a six-speed transmissionÂ… ItÂ’s a traditional design, with great proportions – muscular, stable, athletic, yet with beautiful lines, a unitized body, ultramodern design, car-like suspension systemÂ…itÂ’s aerodynamic, itÂ’s lighter, and it has similar or greater interior volume than an Envoy or Yukon. This is a ‘no excuseÂ’ vehicle, and itÂ’s a perfect fit for the GMC brand.Ââ€
LutzÂ’s candor is always refreshing, and he sliced past GM loyalists in their traditional posture of defending low-tech-on-a-budget approach that GM rode to supremacy 30 and 40 years ago. Lutz simply acknowledges the importance of high-tech engines.
“The 3.6 multi-valve?†Lutz said, referring to the Acadia engine. “ThereÂ’s no limit to the power we can get out of it. Many of us felt that in this day of customers having increased technical knowledge, it helps our marketability to have an engine like this to compete against the great German and Japanese engines.Ââ€
The “high feature†3.6-liter V6, first designed for Cadillac, has dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, with variable valve-timing, and makes 275 horsepower in the Acadia. A six-speed automatic with either front-wheel or all-wheel drive. Traction control, and StabiliTrak further aid stability. It swept through a series of hairpin turns in the mountains, even with four on board, and there is room for a couple more in the third row seats. Three rows of seats, seating for eight, is a major selling point for the Acadia, and there is still storage room behind the fold-down third-row seats, which are surprisingly large and quite easy to access. Folding down rows two and three creates 117 cubic feet of storage.
The automatic transmission has a neat little “tap shift†button on the side of the shift knob for manual up and down shifts. That proved useful in hustling around the tightly twisting mountain roads, because you can drop down into third and be at the right spot in the power band for the curvy, hilly stuff. The little button is concave at the bottom, where you downshift, so you can do it without taking your eye off the road. I would prefer steering wheel mounted paddles, because then you could shift manually without taking one hand off the wheel.
If I had a major criticism it is that Acadia still feels big – big enough to have less of a truck feel than the larger GM SUVs, but more of a truck feel than performance oriented crossovers such as the new Acura MDX, or the Lexus RX350. Those are second-generation crossovers, with a large headstart on GM.
Lutz discussed the importance of coordinating North American, European, Asian, and Brazilian production as a preferable way to cut costs.
“If you get yourself healthy by sacrificing future products, you could be out of business,†Lutz said. “You have to forge ahead and pour money into new products. You can’t save your way to prosperity. Revenue is the answer, which means making cars and trucks that people will be willing to part with their money for.
“The quality difference is so close now. Every new vehicle has the same quality, the same safety, and all have multi-cam aluminum engines. The difference is – does your vehicle make an emotional connection with the viewer? If not, people go to ‘default,Â’ which is like buying an appliance. The default brand is, obviously, Toyota.Ââ€
When Lutz speaks, crowds gather, and every phrase divulges something special, whether it is within GMÂ’s public-relations parameters, or not. For example, he was asked if the rumored-to-be Chevrolet version of the Acadia might replace the midsize TrailBlazer.
“The TrailBlazer is somewhat similar in size, but IÂ’m not sure weÂ’re announcing any plans to have a Chevrolet version of the Acadia yet,†said Lutz. “Undeniably, midsize SUVs are rapidly declining, going extinct. Right now, we have the Outlook for Saturn, the Enclave for Buick, along with the Acadia for GMC, and theyÂ’re all different. The trick will be to make the Chevrolet version different againÂ…And from what IÂ’ve seen, it will be radically different.Ââ€
So much for not making the announcement.
John Larson, the youthful-looking GMC-Pontiac-Buick general manager, sat back and smiled at the Lutz presentation. It was suggested that being responsible for three brands with impressive new Pontiac Solstice and G6, Buick LaCrosse, Lucerne and now Enclave, and the new Sierra, Envoy and now Acadia for GMC, Larson must have enjoyed the last five years more than his first dozen at GM.
“I donÂ’t know about that,†said Larson, turning pensive. “ItÂ’s been satisfying to see some recent things come together, but for all the successes weÂ’ve had, I canÂ’t help but think about the plants weÂ’ve closed and the people weÂ’ve had to lay off.Ââ€
TheyÂ’d better be careful, or else guys like Lutz and Larson could ruin GMÂ’s image, which has faded from 1970s-era Corvettes and Camaros to a bean-counter-dominated conglomerate that had lost its soul while dwelling on tradition rather than modernization. After driving the Acadia hard through the California mountains, and talking to Lutz and Thomas afterward, it appears that maybe the lost soul has been located, and new and modernized products indicate GM can refocus on its faltering market share.
{IMG2}
The feature-filled Acadia, starting in the low-$30,000 range, will help that.
“We see GMC as a complement, not competition, for Chevrolet,†said Larson, who added that he interacts with his counterparts at Chevrolet on a daily basis.
Still, it always has seemed to me that GMC’s motto as “Professional Grade†is a clever way to imply it’s bigger, stronger and more exclusive than competitors, but it more subtly might include Chevy shoppers, even though the GMC and Chevy pickups and SUVs are identical under differing sheet metal.
Performance is impressive, as are the interior features. Three rows of seats and seating for eight is a major selling point for the Acadia, and there is still storage room behind the fold-down third-row seats, which are surprisingly large and quite easy to access. It takes a large vehicle to have so much territory inside those walls, and folding down rows two and three creates 117 cubic feet of storage.
The automatic transmission has a neat little “tap shift†button on the side of the shift knob for manual up and down shifts. That proved useful in hustling around the tightly twisting mountain roads, because you can manually drop it down into third and be at the right spot in the power band for the curvy, hilly stuff. The little button is concave at the bottom, where you downshift, so you can do it without taking your eye off the road. I would prefer steering wheel-mounted paddles, because then you could shift manually without taking one hand off the wheel.
If I had a major criticism it is that Acadia still feels big for a crossover – big enough to have less of a truck feel than the larger GM SUVs, but more of a truck feel than performance oriented crossover SUVs such as the new Acura MDX, or the Lexus RX350.
But still, the Acadia is a breakthrough for GM, and it may become the halo vehicle for the corporationÂ’s second largest division.
Pretty heady stuff, for a trucklet.
Just when game seems over, BMW X5 rewrites rules
SPARTANBURG, S.C. — Selecting the 2007 North American Car of the Year will be the most difficult itÂ’s been in over a dozen years that IÂ’ve been on the jury. As competitive as the vote on the best of the all-new vehicles is, the companion Truck of the Year choice is even tougher, with virtually all 16 entries eminently qualified.
The new BMW X5 is a perfect example. Seven years is a long run for any vehicle without revision, but the current X5 still seems new, after having rewritten the standard for performance-oriented SUVs when introduced in 1999. Its 2006 version, in fact, was the benchmark used by Honda in designing the new Acura MDX. Regular readers might recall my recent review of the MDX – you could look it up – in which I claimed that after pushing it hard through a heavy rainstorm on a road-racing track, against competitors that included the X5, I came away convinced that the MDX could be the best SUV available.
Following the MDX introduction, I had the opportunity to attend the introduction of the all-new 2007 BMW X5. Sure enough, just about the time you get the game figured out, somebody changes the rules of the game. The new X5 looks similar to the existing one, but it drives with much more feel and precision, with more power and the availability of the almost-magical active steering system that makes it feel more agile despite being more than 7 inches longer, with weight up over 5,000 pounds. That added space contains a foldaway third row of occasional seats.
We toured the BMW factory in Spartanburg, S.C., where both the X5 and the Z4 sports car roll off the assembly line at random, almost in alternating order. We got to drive the new X5 on some great twisting two-lanes, and after the tour, we went to BMWÂ’s adjacent test track, to put the X5 through some specific drills that were much more severe than you could ever encounter in normal civilian driving.
The tests, on a skidpad, and amid some emergency handling cones on the larger track, proved that BMW had improved on every asset of the current model. Naturally, the vehicle Acura used as the MDX performance benchmark was the 2006 X5, and not the new one, which is significantly upgraded. A new 4.8-liter V8 with 350 horsepower and 350 foot-pounds of torque, and a revised 3.0-liter inline 6 with 260 horses and 225 foot-pounds are both upgrades. The X5 is upgraded enough that I might demand a recount with the MDX, because both vehicles are both at the upper echelon of the high-performance SUV segment.
Of great relevance to the debate is that both the BMW X5 and the MDX are candidates for 2007 Truck of the Year. But they are far from alone, or from any assurance they will even be favored by enough of us among the 50 jury members to make the final three.
For anyone who thinks it’s an easy choice, consider that along with the X5 and MDX, Truck of the Year also includes among other SUVs: the just-being-introduced GMC Acadia, the Audi Q7, Dodge Nitro, Hyundai Santa Fe, Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban, Saturn Vue Greenline hybrid, and Suzuki X7. That is a very intense group, but there are more. The proliferating crossover SUV category includes the Ford Edge, the Honda CR-V, the Acura RDX, and the Mazda CX-7 – all very strong candidates. On top of that, there is the new Jeep Wrangler, and the Toyota FJ Cruiser, two of the most impressive off-road-fun machines, and, last but certainly far from least, the Chevrolet Silverado pickup.
Go back over those 16 vehicles and pick one. Or three. Or, better yet, rank them 1-16. Degree of difficulty is high, with gusts up to impossible.
BMW chooses to call the X5 an “SAV†instead of “SUV,†meaning sports-activity vehicle, rather than sports-utility vehicle. Introduced in 1999, a test-run 1,400 X5s were sold from fall to the end of the calendar year, with nearly 32,000 X5s sold in its first full year, and later, sales increased to top the 100,000 mark.
X5 project director Albert Biermann, explained that BMWÂ’s objectives for the new X5 were to raise the level of the driving experience, increase the interior feeling of luxury, and upgrade the versatility of a fun, flexible vehicle with 7-occupant capacity. “The first X5 was a true icon,†said Biermann, “and we wanted to maintain the look of a sporty SUV. The new one should never be recognized as a ‘people mover.Â’ Ââ€
Biermann pointed out the raised command seat view for the front bucket seat occupants, and that the seats in the second row have 40 mm more room. “IÂ’m 6-foot-4,†he said, meaning he must slide the driverÂ’s seat well back, “and I can sit behind myself.Ââ€
Technically, the chassis has 15 percent higher torsional stiffness, and such tricks as an aluminum hood, cast aluminum front strut towers, and even a magnesium instrument holder, contributed to a sleeker stance with a 0.34 coefficient of drag, and 50-50 weight distribution on the front and rear axles. Instrumentation resembles the 7-Series luxury car, with improved cupholders, a navigation/information screen raised up higher, closer to eye level, and a large, clamshell-opening two-tier glove compartment.
As with any BMW, the secret is in the driving dynamics, and the X5 is, in a word, spectacular. Start with DSC (dynamic stability control), which regulates brakes and power to straighten you out, and add DTC (dynamic traction control), which adjusts power for maximum traction. Those two systems combine into Adaptive Drive, which unites the anti-roll system and adaptive shock absorbers. BMW was careful to make sure the complexities merged with the revised xDrive all-wheel drive system.
As recently as three years ago, xDrive almost-grudingly adjusted from rear-drive to allow 40 percent of its torque to go to the front wheels. The new system runs at a standard blend of 40-percent front/60-percent rear, and when necessary can redistribute anything up to 100 percent of that torque to the front. The system uses a battalion of stability-control sensors with to read steering angle, the level of grip, the yaw rate, and other inputs to instruct a clutch system how to react.
BMW officials insist that xDrive shifts power quicker than AudiÂ’s legendary quattro, or VolvoÂ’s slick Haldex system. Systems such as quattro or the Mercedes concept are passive, BMW says, in that they need to sense a problem, then react to it when it gets to a critical point. The xDrive sensors can actually predict symptoms of dangerous conditions and react to prevent the X5 from getting into the critical situation.
We canÂ’t say we understand such complexities, and it may take a few turns on ice-covered streets on the hillside of Duluth to fully appreciate them. But wait, thereÂ’s more.
Active Steering is a system that seems to intimidate many of the lead-footed test-drivers of the major auto magazines, who rip it mercilessly. None of them could possibly have conducted the same tests as I did, or they would only have praise for it. What it does is add a quickening-response to the steering feel as speed increases, which feels like a heaviness. Because it takes a bit more effort to turn at higher speed, but reacts much more quickly, a good driver would tend to not oversteer the car in an emergency – which means a good driver also wouldn’t reach the point of needing to correct, or over-correct, after a severe swerve.
On the test track, I drove an X5 through various phases on the skid pad, and through the slalom cones. In normal setting, traction and stability are governed by DTC; push the DTC button and the system adjusts to later activation, so you can let the rear end hang out a little – less precise, but maybe more fun if you like that sort of tail-wagging; and hold the DTC button down for 3 seconds, and DTC is shut off so there is no brake assistance, and the yaw angle can go to the physical limit of loss of control, although the antilock brakes still work.
I drove at all settings in reverse order, starting with the least control, which was still very good and made you drive well to avoid spinning out on the skid pad; then mid-range, for significantly better traction and less chance to spin out; and then the full-on DTC, which made the X5 work so well you simply couldnÂ’t lose traction on the tight circles and figure-8s of the skidpad.
On the slalom course, I darted and dived around the cones with increasing levels of control, too, then drove alongside the row of cones on the return road to do it again.
{IMG2}
After trying every setting, I switched to an X5 with the optional Active Steering. The difference was incredible. Slaloming through the cones was fun without it, as the X5 required very little steering correction at each cone. But with Active Steering, it needed NO corrections when going through the cones. I did it again, faster. Then one last time, dangerously fast. No problem.
It was so impressive that on my last round, I got a good laugh from some of the instructors because instead of simply returning along the row of cones down the return road, I actually slalomed through those close-set cones without ever knocking one over.
The X5 will cost something for all that technical expertise. Base price is $46,595 with the 6, and $55,195 for the 4.8 V8, which is shared with the 7-Series and top 5-Series sedans.
Amid all the superlatives about BMW technology, there are a couple things that I think proves BMW isn’t always right. First, the “iDrive†system, with one console knob distributing control for everything from climate to audio to navigation, has become less obtrusive to me with continued usage on test cars, but it is still needlessly complex and forces you to look away from the road several times in order to operate it. And second, BMW and Mazda are among the very few who offer a manual shift-gate for their automatic transmission stalks but make you push the spring-loaded lever forward to downshift and pull it back to upshift. That seems counter-intuitive to me, probably to most other prospective drivers, and obviously to nearly all other manufacturers.
YouÂ’ll never read car-mag guys complain about that, because it might tarnish their self-appointed macho status. After all, race cars with sequential manual shifters shift the same direction, but with good reason, because a sudden jolt of torque can cause a driver to be pushed back, and he might involuntarily downshift when already near the redline. That would be a bad thing, I hear you say, amid the sound of grenading gearbox parts. But on the road, in the real world, that wouldn’t happen.
Normal instincts tell normal drivers to push forward to upshift, and pull back – or down, as you look at the pattern – to downshift. I enjoy driving every car imaginable, and I find that BMWs and Mazdas are the only ones in which I don’t use the manual gate. The situation can be bypassed if there are remote paddles on the steering wheel or column. Maybe it’s a little thing, but as one who truly enjoys such manual control, it could be a deal-breaker.
So which is better — the MDX or the X5? Tough question. I’ll just have to test-drive both of them more on normal roads (wink-wink).
About the Author
John Gilbert is a lifetime Minnesotan and career journalist, specializing in cars and sports during and since spending 30 years at the Minneapolis Tribune, now the Star Tribune. More recently, he has continued translating the high-tech world of autos and sharing his passionate insights as a freelance writer/photographer/broadcaster. A member of the prestigious North American Car and Truck of the Year jury since 1993. John can be heard Monday-Friday from 9-11am on 610 KDAL(www.kdal610.com) on the "John Gilbert Show," and writes a column in the Duluth Reader.
For those who want to keep up with John Gilbert's view of sports, mainly hockey with a Minnesota slant, click on the following:
Click here for sports