Categories: all aviation bicycle gadgets misc motorcycle theater

Thu, 30 Aug 2007

1413 miles, and I finally get a real flat

Yep, my rear tire blew on the way ome this evening. For the first time, it was a "real" flat, and not one of that foul string of "Whoops, where'd the rim liner go?" flats that plagued me early on.

It was just a pinch flat -- I jumped up a curb a little bit too fast, and a mile later the rear tire was flat. Ah well. By the time I had to get off, I was close enough to just walk, so walk I did.

I was pleased to note that the bearings in the rear wheel still feel excellent and smooth, so a quick repack with grease soon should keep them running for a long time. I'm also pleased to report that in ~1400 miles of urban riding through all sorts of crap, nothing has gotten through the Vittoria Randonneur Pro tires. There are a couple of external nicks, but the inside surface is unmarred and perfect. Thumbs up on the Vittorias.

Posted at 22:08 permanent link category: /bicycle

Taildragger lessons, this time for sure!

It's going to be a very aviatory few weeks.

I've got my Biennial Flight Review coming up tomorrow, and then I'll be going up in a Cub I just discovered at Northwest Aviation Center, located next door to the place I've been renting all these years. Of course.

I'm looking forward to the Cub flight. I tried last year to get lessons in a Cub, but the guy I was corresponding with mysteriously failed to return an email, and I got busy with other things, so it was quietly forgotten. Since this Cub belongs to an organization rather than a person (and they appear to be well organized from what I can tell), I'm much more confident it'll actually happen.

A taildragger endorsement is something I'll definitely need if I pursue the biplane thing. It also sounds interesting, as taildraggers (vs. the now standard tricycle gear, where the plane sits level on the ground) are normal for older planes.

Taildraggers are harder to deal with on the ground, since the center of gravity sits behind the wheels. The center of gravity in a tricycle plane is forward of the main wheels. This means that in a tricycle plane, its natural inclination is to go straight when you land -- the CG pulls the wheels forward.

In a taildragger, just the opposite is true: with the CG behind the wheels, it really wants to swap so that the CG leads the main wheels. This necessitates much more conscious handling on the ground to prevent that end-for-end swap from happening (called a "ground loop" when it happens).

A good analogy is using a hand truck -- if you pull it behind you, there's very little thought involved, it just follows where you pull it (this is equivalent of a tricycle plane). If you push it in front of you (with the wheels in front of the center of gravity), you must pay attention or it'll suddenly divert off to the side.

This is all compounded by the fact that the taildragger airplane uses a little tiny wheel, with very little weight on it, to do the steering. Some taildraggers don't even have a steering tailwheel, you're expected to steer by applying brakes to one side or the other, or using the rudder.

So, for all that I can explain what the problems are, that sort of knowledge hasn't ever translated into physical skill, in my experience. It'll be interesting to see how it all applies once I get my feet on the rudder pedals.

Posted at 10:45 permanent link category: /aviation

Wed, 29 Aug 2007

The Housely shuffle

So, my house has been on the market since August 3rd. Only, for all the people who've been through to look at it, none of them apparently liked it enough to stoop to making an offer. Hmm.

My real-estate agent and I decided that, what with the awful news in the housing market right now (perhaps you've noticed that the news is chock full of stories about the sub-prime mortgage market? yeah, turns out that impacts normal mortgages too), perhaps a lower price was in order.

So, the house will be repriced to $385k just in time for Labor Day. Hopefully someone finds that a more appealing price.

It's a bummer, of course, because that means that my next house must necessarily drop $15k... Sigh.

Posted at 15:12 permanent link category: /misc

Tue, 28 Aug 2007

Biplane-ride postscript

A necessary post-script to the last entry is: Thank you John! I really appreciate his willingness to take me up and introduce me to both the world of biplanes and the world of aerobatics. I hope he isn't discouraged by my negative-sounding entry.

As I explained to him after the flight, it's very important that I get some experience with these planes before I go devoting a huge chunk of my time and money towards one. If it ends up I don't like them very much, well, thank god I found out now rather than 2 years, $3000 and 300 hours into the project.

For what it's worth, my thoughts now are more positive as I separate the aerobatic experience from the biplane experience in my head. I still know for sure that aerobatics aren't for me, but the biplane question deserves more research.

As I had somewhat expected, I dreamed about the experience, but not in the way I'd expected. Instead of dreams about falling out of planes, or anything obvious like that, I had a dream that I'd helped John refuel the plane, but in my ham-handedness ended up overfilling the fuel tank. He instructed me to just add a little bit, perhaps a quart or two, and I ended up spraying two and a half gallons in. I'm sure it's closely related to my inability to control the plane well in the air.

The nice thing about my lack of ability to control the plane in the air is, well, I've never flown that plane before. How should I possibly know how to control it well? I'm being too hard on myself to expect perfect, smooth abilities in a plane which everyone acknowledges is many times more nimble (and therefore sensitive) than anything else I've ever flown. That's a problem that can be easily fixed with practice. I did it to get where I am now with theater, writing, motorcycles and Cessnas, I can do it with a sensitive biplane, too.

Posted at 11:32 permanent link category: /aviation

Mon, 27 Aug 2007

My First Biplane (Ride)

I got a message on the Biplane Forum today, and it was John (a local pilot I've been chatting with about going up in his Christen Eagle II). He was confirming that we were still on for our flight today.

Doubletake

Hmm, I thought to myself. I thought that was in a month... Indeed, we'd crossed our dates up, and I'd scheduled for September 27th; he, for August 27th. No matter, I didn't have any firm plans for the evening, so I headed down through nasty commute-time traffic and met him at the Renton airport.

John is a genial guy, and I enjoyed talking with him. We discussed his plane, its history, the 10-way partnership which owns it, and its recent work -- they re-covered the wings. The plane was built in 1981 by a group of 10 people, and many of their changes were integrated into later kits. Apparently a lot of them were Boeing engineers.

He asked whether I wanted to just go up and cruise around, or do acrobatics. I thought for a second and said, "Acrobatics." I pretty much figured acrobatics weren't my cup of tea, but I wanted to find out for sure. We talked about what we'd do in the air: a 2-point roll, a loop, and a reverse cuban eight. He explained how the parachute worked, and how to fasten the straps.

Pre-flight discussion and check done, he rolled the plane out of the hangar. We climbed in, and he got me strapped into the plane: a belt over each shoulder, one to each side, lap-belt style, and one between the legs. Then, there was the redundant lap-belt, an extra safety measure instituted after one aerobatic competitor died from an unfastened strap.

He fired up the engine, and we taxied out. He positioned the plane on the runway. I saw the throttle lever move itself forward (the cockpits are positioned tandem, or front-and-back, rather than side-to-side), and I was pressed back into the seat, the engine throbbing loudly in my head. The 200 HP motor pulled the plane aggressively forward. It should, that's 2x the power and 90% of the weight of the 152 I've flown most recently.

The plane fairly bounded into the air, sprung up from a dip in the runway. We climbed quickly. I have no idea how quickly, as there was no vertical speed indicator, but it was fast. Clear of the airport, he gave me control of the airplane. The ride immediately went from smooth to bobbling and wonky. I overcontrolled, and basically ignored the rudder pedals. I felt like I was falling sideways out of the plane on alternating sides. I commented over the intercom that I wasn't yet a stick and rudder pilot, and John laughed drily.

He took the plane back, and cleared the area by doing a few turns. The nose of the plane is prominent, and blocks a good portion of the view. After the turns, and a few calls on the radio, he set us up for our first maneuver: a 2-point roll. This is a roll where you roll over to inverted, hold it, and then roll back to upright. He asked if I was ready, and I gave the thumbs up.

Suddenly, the plane twitched to the left, the world went upside-down, and I was hanging from the harness, the earth trying to yank me out of the plane. It twitched again, and the world was right side up again. John asked how I was doing, and I said I was fine. I was fine, but I can't say I was having a fun time.

Next was a loop. He reminded me of the magic word: "hook!" The idea is you say this word, which tightens up the diaphragm, and at the same time, tense up your legs and everything else. This keeps your blood from dropping precipitously out of your head during positive-G maneuvers. It's kind of a cheap version of the fancy high-G suits worn by fighter pilots.

He dove to pick up some speed, and pulled up. I said "hook!" and tensed up. My cheeks sagged and my head felt precariously heavy. The sky filled my view, and then we were at the top, and I sagged onto the straps once more, feeling like I was one thread away from falling out of the plane. We continued back out to level.

I asked how much altitude the loop had taken, and John said we'd entered at 3500 feet, peaked at 4100, and come out at 3600. That's pretty cool, and doubtless one of the joys of a powerful, light plane.

Our final maneuver was a reverse cuban eight, which is (as I understood it), a climb, with a roll to inverted, and then a loop back out to upright. Which is to say, roll over so gravity tugged hard at my harness, then remember to "hook!" and tense up as gravity pulled my face down into a parody of an 80 year old man.

We were done with the aerobatics, and my stomach caught up with me. I started sweating in a delayed stress reaction from the wildly variable forces which had been acting on me. John asked what I thought, and I gave him my assessment as far as I could make it at that point: "I don't think I like aerobatics much."

We headed back to the airport, flying under the Seattle Class B airspace. The landing was quite smooth, and I was interested to note that John touched the tailwheel down just before the mains. We rolled out and taxied back to the hangar.

We talked for perhaps half an hour after the flight, sipping water from a tiny refrigerator which seemed to be stocked for the purpose of cooling anti-nausea water. It did help. I wasn't exactly nauseated, but I wasn't really steady either. That was easily the most thrown-around I've been in a very long time. In fact, even now, hours after the flight, my stomach still feels a bit odd. John explained that for his first few aerobatic lessons he had to sit in the car for 20 minutes after the lesson before he felt up to driving home.

We parted company, and I rode home, thinking distressed thoughts about the folly of building a biplane. The time we spent in the air was essentially unlike what I'd been expecting, which bugged me. The problem is, I'd imagined aerobatics as basically feeling like sitting in a straight-and-level plane but with the horizon doing crazy things around me. I'd been intellectually aware that it must involve high G-forces, but the reality of it never really sank in until I was feeling my face sag as I tensed my body to keep the blood up in my head.

Similarly, despite all the pictures I'd seen, and the planes I saw at Arlington, the actual experience of sitting in a biplane was very claustrophobic and cramped. It wasn't uncomfortable for the time we were up, but it was obvious that flying to Portland would be pretty much out of the question from a comfort standpoint. The sound and vibration would team up with the one-and-only position you could sit in, and really make a long flight miserable. An open cockpit (the Eagle is fully enclosed) would make it even worse, from the standpoint of comfort.

The actual feeling of flying the plane, for the 4 minutes I did it, was depressing, more than anything else. I had no sense of how to get the plane to do what I wanted, with the result that we bobbled around the sky more like someone playing a video game than an experienced pilot guiding an airplane. I couldn't feel the rudder pedals, so the only way I knew I'd pressed on one was when I felt like I was being tipped sideways out of the cockpit. Flying with coordination was out of the question, I was just trying to keep it aimed in the right general direction.

From talking with John afterwards, this is pretty much how all first-time pilots treat the plane. I'm not alone. Even so, I prefer to think I fly pretty smoothly (which I do, in the big, dull Cessnas -- they don't give you the control response to make mistakes); it was a blow to my sensitive little ego to fly John's plane so poorly.

To be fair, the Christen Eagle is a very sensitive, sporty plane. It's not quite up to the level of a hot competitive aerobatic showstopper, but it's close, perhaps 80% up the scale from what I understand. The Acro Sport II, which is my theoretical choice, is not so far up, perhaps 60% or 70% (with the Cessnas coming in around 30-40%).

This is part of the problem: the Eagle is so vastly outside my experience that I don't really have a place to put it. It's just somewhere out there, well beyond what I'm comfortable with. Of course, if I only do what's comfortable in life, it's not going to be very interesting. I do need to push myself beyond my comfort zone once in a while.

As I told John after our flight, I now need to separate the "biplane" from the "aerobatics." More importantly, I need to see if I can get up in an Acro Sport II. I guessed, and confirmed, that aerobatics weren't for me. Now I need to see if biplanes are for me, without aerobatics getting in the way.

Posted at 23:45 permanent link category: /aviation

Every Passing Day Brings a New Waffle

Waffling. I'm definitely doing it. Yep.

Today's (well, this week's) waffle is this: building a plane. Pro: neat project, fun to work on, at the end of it I have a plane to fly. Con: expensive, hugely time consuming, at the end of it I have a plane which consumes money and petrochemicals.

I've mentioned this many times before, and it always comes down to this fundamental choice: is the task of building a plane worth the monetary, social and environmental cost of contributing another gas-guzzler to the world?

The math is pretty depressing. The very fastest I'd finish a plane is about 5 years. So, that'd be 2013 if I started reasonably soon. More likely, it would take me 7-10 years, which puts us as far out as 2017. What do you think gas prices are going to be like in 2013-2017? I'm guessing they're not going to be pretty, probably $5-7 per gallon of 87 octane auto gas. Aviation gas (which is what my flying money-pit will need) typically costs 150% auto gas, so I could expect to pay as much as $10-11 per gallon to fly.

So, that's one factor: an hour in my shiny new biplane could cost around $100 (10 gallons per hour, typically), just for gasoline. Oil will be another $10, give or take.

However, that ignores the consistent rumors that 100LL aviation gasoline will no longer be produced in the near future. I'm not talking idle rumors from cranks on message boards, either: AOPA is worried, too.

So, there's every chance that I could be spending most of my free time and a lot of money towards a thing that, when done, can't be used. Oh, there'll surely be some kind of compromise fuel discovered that will work, but I'd guess that 150% comparison to auto gas won't hold true any more. What will it be replaced with? Who knows! I'm guessing it'll exceed my recreation budget, though.

Does this all mean I'm giving up on building a plane? Not really, but it's not very encouraging, either. I keep hoping someone will come up with a breakthrough fuel cell or something, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted at 14:37 permanent link category: /aviation

Wed, 22 Aug 2007

The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

My first-ever airplane part arrived today:

In case it's unclear, that's an airspeed indicator, registering 40 to 200 MPH (and 40 to 180 knots in the subscale). It's definitely used, but it was also cheap, at $50 plus shipping. I'm not absolutely convinced it works, but it'll be simple enough to check.

If it works, I saved $250. If it doesn't, I have a pricey conversation piece. Either way, I'm pretty pleased.

I might have to get a pitot tube set up on my motorcycle and do some "testing."

Posted at 15:45 permanent link category: /aviation

Tue, 21 Aug 2007

Teriyaki Burger Shakes

A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words.

The signs, which leap out at me every time I pass this place, say,

Manna Teriyaki

Burger Shakes

Come in for a surprise!

Um. Yeah. (Is it any surprise the parking lot is empty?)

Posted at 13:48 permanent link category: /misc

Wed, 15 Aug 2007

Streaks in the sky

I was looking at the Astronomy picture of the day for today, and the ensuing discussion of what the streaks could be.

This reminded me of a period of about 20 seconds in the summer of 2004, when I saw what could only be satellites, but satellites as I've never seen them before: grouped into a diamond pattern, like planes flying in formation.

They moved very smoothly across the sky, approximately from south to north. I forget the exact count, but it was between 4 and 7. I could see them through binoculars, but they were essentially invisible to the naked eye. There was no vapor trail, and they were moving much faster than a commercial jet at that distance, so I'm sure they were in orbit.

The weird thing was, why the group? Who would set up a group of satellites to move in a delta pattern? The only probable answer is that they were spy satellites, or something like that, perhaps using their separation for parallax measurement. Iridium and other low earth orbit satellites travel singly in their orbits.

It was a very odd experience, and I avoided freaking out about it, since the only reasonable explanation was probably a government secret, and that left only unreasonable explanations as alternatives (aliens! super-high-speed jets!). Still, I wonder what they were.

Posted at 10:46 permanent link category: /astronomy

Mon, 13 Aug 2007

Look, there, on the horizon! It's SketchFest!

The time is fast approaching -- time for SketchFest Seattle!

I just sent out my intro email to the groups. I won't reveal who they are here, since it's not up on the website yet, but I can tell you that this year's lineup kicks ass. I'm really looking forward to the festival. Plus, at least one of them has already acknowledged that I am their Tech God, which is gratifying. I'm actually the Tech Director, but, you know, I'll take what I can get.

This year, we're soliciting video intros for groups. There's still time if you want to try your hand at the funny, without all that pressure of an audience staring at you. Plus, free tickets!

But, I'm not just here to shill for SketchFest, I'm also here to shill for me! Come watch shows at SketchFest so you can see my masterful tech work -- in fact, you'll barely notice it, which is how it's supposed to be!

The festival is happening on September 6th, 7th and 8th, and on the 13th, 14th, and 15th. Shows are at 8:00 on Thursdays, and 8:00 and 10:00 on Fridays and Saturday, with at least two groups per show. Every night is a different set of groups, so every night you miss is 2-5 acts you miss.

I'm sure the website will be updated soon, and you can see who all's coming, and what the schedule will be like. It's always fun to tech direct these things, and it's even better to be in the audience, where you don't have to worry about anything but laughing.

Posted at 16:03 permanent link category: /theater

Maybe I was Wrong

Seattle coping with I-5 traffic congestion through work site

Maybe, hopefully, I was wrong. Maybe Seattle drivers really can get out of their cars and take mass transit when they have a reason to.

Or, you know, maybe everyone will read that story (or others like it) and decide it wouldn't hurt if they got back in the car, just to see if they could sneak through while everyone is is on the train....

Posted at 15:46 permanent link category: /misc

Fri, 10 Aug 2007

A Jaunty Scenario

This is a local post, so if you're not from the Seattle area, it may not make too much sense. Sorry about that.

If you do live in Seattle, hoo boy. Be ready for some nasty traffic.

I-5 northbound is closing down to one lane, just south of the I-90 interchange. It's closing for 20 days, more or less. You can read more about it on this WSDOT page.

Now comes the fun part. 405 is also undergoing construction during this time, so it's gonna be packed. Most people will either take 405 if they need to go all the way north, or they'll take 99 if their destination is closer to Seattle.

Only, the northbound deck of the Alaskan Way Viaduct rates 9% on the same scale used to give the collapsed I-35W bridge in Minnesota a 50, according to this nationalbridges.com entry. So, the huge mass of traffic that normally takes I-5 has to go somewhere, and probably 50% of it is going to try cramming onto 99.

According to this page, there are 1663 vehicles per general purpose lane per hour, and 1230 vehicles per HOV lane per hour during the morning peak on I-5 at Corson Avenue, which is about where they're doing the construction. There are 4 normal lanes at Corson (roughly -- there's actually an onramp and an exit lane as well, but let's ignore those to keep the math realistic), and an HOV lane. So that's 7882 vehicles per hour across that section of I-5 north.

Then, according to this story, the Alaskan Way Viaduct (the excitingly dangerous 9%-rated part of Highway 99 that traverses downtown Seattle) carries 9000 vehicles per hour at peak. It doesn't specify whether that's one direction or both, so for the sake of argument let's say it's both directions. That means that northbound traffic on the viaduct is at least half that number, probably more like 2/3. Let's call it 6000 vehicles in the morning going north, for the sake of moderately realistic numbers.

So, we have 6000 vehicles per hour going north on 99, normally. We have 7882 vehicles per hour going north on I-5. Roughly half the traffic from I-5 should be spilling over onto 99; call it 3900 vehicles per hour during the peak. That's roughly another 2/3 more traffic than the viaduct sees now, for a total of 9900 vehicles per hour during the morning peak.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like an unwise burden on a bridge that's ranked in the 9th percentile. Because, of course, all those cars will be getting on the viaduct and parking, since it can't possibly carry that kind of capacity. Oh, but they'll move occasionally, just to make sure that they continue being a "live load" instead of a static load (dynamic loads are much harder on bridges than static loads).

Sounds like a pretty grim scenario to me. I'm not looking forward to the death toll when that bridge takes a dive mid next week. Thanks for the indecision, Seattle voters and politicians!

Posted at 11:03 permanent link category: /misc

Wed, 08 Aug 2007

Jerk or not?

Allow me to describe a situation.

Kristin and I are walking in downtown Fremont, the time is about 10:45 at night. Traffic is light, maybe a couple cars a minute. Streets are well-lit.

We walk down the west side of Fremont Ave, towards the water. Ahead of us is the bridge, and a weird intersection where no left turn is allowed from our direction, although the opposing direction can turn right. The cross street on which no left turn is allowed is 34th. You can see the intersection on this satellite photo.

We decide to cross Fremont Ave at 34th, taking advantage of a "green" light (white person-walking light). I see two bicyclists approaching down Fremont, perpendicular to our new path, parallel to our old path. They're riding in the inner southbound lane. There's one car stopped in the outer lane, and no one coming the other direction. There's no cross traffic, although cross-traffic has the green light.

Biker #1 rides casually through the red light, and turns left against the no-left-turn sign. I call out, "I guess the red light doesn't mean much, huh?" and get no response. Louder, I jovially call out, "Thanks for obeying the law!" and see that bikers #2-4 have now traversed the intersection against the light and against the sign. Biker #3 calls back, "You're welcome!" without any positive or negative inflection in his voice.

I'm sure that their interpretation was that I harbored ill will towards bicyclists, and was one of the grumpy people who thinks they suck (this city is rife with them, if you believe some of the comments that come out on local articles). Of course, on the contrary, I'm glad they're riding, but I wish they'd stop breaking the law, particularly in front of other people -- it dilutes any sense that bikers deserve equal treatment on the road.

So, the question is, am I a jerk for calling them on their illegal and questionably responsible behavior? I've started doing this more and more, and actually ended up yelling at the top of my lungs at a group of cyclists I was coincidentally riding with, when all but me blew through a stop sign in front of a car which would have otherwise had right-of-way.

I'm yelling at them because I want them (and me) to get more respect on the road, not less. However, there's no simple way to say that, so I have to resort to calling out "Stop sign!" or "Red light!" I feel like a jerk, but at the same time, I feel that if no one says anything, it's going to keep going until fed up drivers pay us no mind at all. Once that threshold is reached, injuries and fatalities will climb precipitously, and we'll likely lose any political headway made on things like increased bike access from the city. The image of the selfish, smug, insensitive biker is already present in most car drivers' minds, so it seems foolish to feed it.

I guess that, even stronger than my sense I'm being a jerk is my sense that if I don't start calling bikers on their bullshit, no one else will.

Posted at 23:56 permanent link category: /bicycle

Bikey product reviews

I've been buying stuff for a while, some of which may not be properly appreciated. So, I present my thoughts on a few of them.

Planet Bike Beamer 5 - Bicycle headlight. This is one of those lights which is intended to increase your visibility to other riders. It was hyped to me by a salesman at REI as being better than the CatEye HL-EL410 for two main reasons: it takes AA batteries instead of AAA, and it's got a better mounting system.

These differences are both true, plus his third point that the PB light doesn't blind you with its blinkiness (the CatEye has a ring all the way around to increase side visibility, but it also shines light into the rider's eyes). However, what he failed to mention is that the beam on the PB light sucks. Its main beam is very narrow, with these weird splotches of light created by the lens system. The resulting light is difficult to see unless straight-on. By contrast, the CatEye's lens-and-reflector system makes it more visible off-axis. The CatEye's beam is no larger than the PB's (at least, that of the HL-EL400, which is the previous model isn't), but it somehow manages to be a much more visible light.

I also find that, while riding along, I can't tell if the PB light is on or not. I have to move my hand in front of it to make sure, whereas with the CatEye, that's never a concern.

The Planet Bike light costs less, at $25 vs. $40, but if I had it to do over again, I'd get the newer CatEye. The PB light is a newer product, and it shows. Some features are better thought out, but the primary attribute -- how well it makes my presence known to other traffic -- is lacking.

R.E.Load Bags Civilian. I got this bag about 6 months ago, and have been loving it. R.E.Load will make a bag pretty much to order, including custom graphics and all. I opted for a simple burgundy and black bag, with grey edging, and I think it looks very classy. I also got the twin front pockets, and am very glad I did.

It's holding up well, and I feel that this bag compares very favorably with my older (and smaller) Timbuk2 bag. I highly recommend the R.E.Load bags, but be prepared for a few weeks' wait before your order is filled.

I'm not sure what else to say -- it's a shoulder bag. It seems to repel water. It holds stuff. I think it's very well designed, and is well-suited to use as a bicycle bag. The factories (well, rooms full of industrial sewing machines and tattoo'd hipsters, anyway) are located in Seattle and Philadelphia, and it's very much worth a trip in to see what they can do, if you're close enough.

Topeak Mini Morph small tire pump. I got this pump very soon after getting my new Gary Fisher bike. Very soon. It seems that the incompetent mechanic who installed my new tires (ie, me) screwed up the delicate, one-use-only rim tape supplied on the bike's rims, and started an epidemic of flat tires.

The first such flat, fortunately, happened near the REI flagship store, so I stopped in and bought tire-fixin' supplies -- of course, I had all this stuff at home, but I wasn't about to walk 5+ miles to get it. This pump was recommended to me over the others for one simple reason: it braces against the ground. Rather than mounting the end of the pump on the valve stem, you unfold a tiny foot, and brace the end of the pump on the ground. A short hose folds out, and attaches to the valve stem. The joy of this is that you can now use your weight, instead of your underdeveloped chest and arm muscles, to pump up the tire.

It works very well. I've been entirely pleased with this pump, and recommend it to anyone who needs a lightweight, carry-along pump. It takes a few minutes to re-inflate a tire due to the small pumped volume, but it works, and has no problem hitting the ~85 PSI I tend to keep my tires at. And, it's much easier to use than if I'd had to press against myself instead of the ground.

Posted at 19:33 permanent link category: /bicycle

Fri, 03 Aug 2007

The house, it is listed

I'm pleased to see that my house is now listed on the Windermere site, and will presumably be picked up by MLS any moment now:

My house listing

Looks pretty good. Anyone want to buy a house?

(See also my gallery of house pictures.)

Posted at 12:11 permanent link category: /misc

Thu, 02 Aug 2007

Protesting on Stone Way

The Cascade Bicycle Alliance and seattlelikesbikes.org set up a protest ride yesterday, around Fremont. Since it was so close to home, and is actually an issue I care about, I decided that, for the first time in my life, I would join in on a protest. It was helped along by the insistence that people behave legally, and by the fact that we'd be doing exactly what the city was asking us to do in order to demonstrate why it wasn't safe.

The experience itself was basically pleasant, riding around with a bunch of other bicyclists. What I found interesting was the number of people who were waving and cheering from the sidelines. Normally, I think of protests as being this big obnoxious crowd of people that nobody likes (thanks to going to Evergreen). I also think of them as being fractured and ridiculous, where you get people with "Free Mumia" signs at an abortion rally. Huh?

Anyway, it was pretty cool, and I was pleased with how it went. I don't think it changed anyone's mind, but it was fun to do, and it probably opened the eyes of at least one or two car drivers. Opened them to what, I'm not sure, but hopefully to the existence of bicycles on the roads.

I only made a few laps, as I was meeting up with some friends who'd stopped half-way through to prevent a minor medical problem from turning into a big problem. Even so, I got to ride with some interesting people, and chat with them. Notably I rode the whole thing with someone who works next door, at the new Google office in Fremont. I also ended up riding with a pair of women, with whom I discussed cycling clothes and our decision to ride in whatever we were wearing rather than donning the spandex costume -- it really made a difference for me, and allowed me to ride daily. One of them was wearing mid-calf high, strapped motorcycle boots! Definitely not what you normally see on bicyclists.

So, yay for seattlelikesbikes.org for organizing a legal and safe protest, which effectively demonstrated why they were protesting. It was better than most, and I'm glad I participated. I hope it made a difference, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted at 12:19 permanent link category: /bicycle

Categories: all aviation gadgets misc motorcycle theater

Written by Ian Johnston. Software is Blosxom. Questions? Please mail me at reaper at obairlann dot net.