TiVo Community Forums Archives

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

CSI: Miami 11/10
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: lambertman

Wow, it says something about CART's current sad state of financial affairs that they were willing to tie their name (not to mention title sponsor Bridgestone's name!) to a story of murder and deceit among race teams.

Or is it true that any publicity is good publicity? Any non-open-wheel fans gain interest in the sport after last night's ep?

Posted by: kyote

I prefer NASCAR and Rallye racing myself (SCCA and WRC). however, i have nothing against CART or Formula One. I imagine once I got to know the drivers more I'd probably be more into it.

jas

quote:
Originally posted by lambertman
Wow, it says something about CART's current sad state of financial affairs that they were willing to tie their name (not to mention title sponsor Bridgestone's name!) to a story of murder and deceit among race teams.

Or is it true that any publicity is good publicity? Any non-open-wheel fans gain interest in the sport after last night's ep?

Posted by: mcdougll

Doesn't anybody have problems with this episode?
*SPOILERS*

1)

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Why didn't they arrest the female car owner (the one who got the race car in her divorce settlement) for accessory to murder?

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)

Why did the pit crew chief have to murder the gasguy? He could have just explained what he was doing and why.

Posted by: tanstaafl

Yeah, I had plenty of problems with this one. OTOH, given that we are talking about CSI: Miami here, that goes without saying. :)

To answer at least one of your questions, I don't think they arrested the owner because she really wasn't involved in the murder. In order to be an accessory, she would have had to have known what had happened or otherwise be involved. I don't think she knew that the pit chief had planned to kill the fuelman. (Even if she did, there is certainly no evidence they could use to prove that fact.) She had plotted with him to sabotage her own car but I'm not sure that would be considered a crime. (Unethical maybe, but I don't think there is a law that says when you are in a race you can't try to lose.)

As for your second question, I don't know.

It is possibly related to the supposed "rift" in the team. Horatio mentions this several times, saying things like "this is a team at war with itself" and "which side of this team are you on". However, we never really see any evidence of this. Yeah, the driver didn't like the fuel guy but that was about the only evidence we had that the team didn't get along. I'm really not sure what Horatio was talking about there.

The question I had (and I may have missed something) involved their question about how the fuelman was burned through his burnproof suit. They speculate that there was some kind of accelerant involved and run an analysis on the gloves. They find some substance (forgot what it was; potassium chloride?) on the gloves but seem about to dismiss it as unimportant until Horatio (of course) realizes that if that substance came into contact with sulfuric acid then it would produce enough heat to ignite the methanol.

So, was the substance the accelerant? They were apparently going to dismiss it until Horatio made his realization so it apparently wasn't one. They said the reaction with the acid started the fire but there was no indication that it made it any worse. So, what was the accelerant?

Related question. The fuel guy was burned on his face and hands and the burns did look pretty bad. But, would burned hands and a burned face be neccessarily fatal? I suppose he could have "inhaled" the flames and burned his lungs but the ME makes no mention of that.

OK, so the water hose was sabotaged. It didn't matter since the guy apparently just stood there watching himself burn until he fell over. It didn't look like he ever even tried to do anything. Hasn't he ever heard of "stop, drop and roll"? (You would think that a "MIT Grad" working with fuel all day would at least have some idea as to what to do if he caught on fire.) :eek:

Finally, I may have missed this bit too but what was the other team's driver doing in their pit crew trailer? Sightseeing?

Of course, compared to last weeks episode this one was a paragon of accuracy and clarity. :rolleyes:

Posted by: mcdougll

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)

There's a difference between CONSPIRACY to commit murder and ACCESSORY to murder. She was involved in a scheme which resulted in a premeditated murder. If she didn't know the pit boss was going to kill someone, it doesn't change the fact she was involved.

I agree with your other question. He had pretty bad burns on his hands and face, but that didn't seem like enough to kill him.

My wife loves both CSIs, but I'm starting to cool off on CSI:Miami. All too often there are problems with the plot and/or writing that I can't seem to ignore.

Posted by: Jonathan_S

(Based on the idea that a thread with the episode date in the title automatically contains spoilers for that episode, I'm not going to use spoiler tags)

I guess the acid could have damaged the fire resistant material of the gloves. It wouldn't have been an accelerant because it didn't cause the fire to burn faster or hotter, but if it broke down the insulation that would have the same net effect. I do wish they had explained it.

Also, it looks like if the gas guy hadn't stuck his burning hand to his face he wouldn't have died, or even had his face burned. He should have had plenty of time to run to an adjacent pit to use their fire hose, or to the bathroom to use a sink. Burning hands would be extremely painful, but not immediately life threatening.

And I also don't understand why the crew chief felt he had to kill the gas man. The gas man walked in on the crew chief adjusting the race car; hardly a suspicious activity. Even if the gas guy noticed the wing in the wrong position the crew chief could have just said he was running it all the way to the stops to ensure it was moving freely.

Posted by: dr_mal

(I'm a little behind on my TiVo -- just watched this last night)

I didn't get why the other driver was in the trailer either. I must've missed something.

And no, this episode didn't intrigue me with CART enough to be interested in the sport. A racing sport where they limit your top speed? That just seems silly.

Posted by: LlamaLarry

I missed the episode the first time around but stupidly watched the rerun. I was defintely confused why a MIT grad fuel guy would notice weird stuff was happening with his hands but stand in the pit until they are burning off his gloves then watch him hold his face over them. I guess anyone can graduate from MIT nowadays. ;) Not only did *he* not try to put himself out, no one else on the team noticed their guy 1) standing in the pit all by himself for no reason 2) seemed to be in trouble 3) it appeared no one put him out as his body was wet so I guess they all went back to work out.

Bleh.

Posted by: tanstaafl

quote:
Originally posted by dr_mal
And no, this episode didn't intrigue me with CART enough to be interested in the sport. A racing sport where they limit your top speed? That just seems silly.

Ask any NASCAR fan about restrictor plate racing... (I'm not and even I've heard that controversy.)

Posted by: Llwellyn

The potassium chloride isn't an acellerant in the traditional manner. If you still have the episode on tape listen for when they mention "exothermic reaction". An exothermic reaction gives off heat during the reaction. By dipping his gloves in potassium chloride then treating the hoses with sulfuric acid, he caused a strong exothermic reaction which generated enough heat to ignite the methanol without there actually being a flame. Remember that combustion doesn't necessarily require a flame to start. It only requires heat, fuel (oxygen), and an ignition source. Sufficient heat can serve as the ignition source when highly flammable materials are concerned. Not exactly 100% precise but it's accurate enough.