my younger brother is a member of that cult.29er
Where are you coming from/going to? I've been trying to ride in here and there, but 20+ miles with nothing that even vaguely resembles a road bike kind of sucks. It is pretty damn flat though, particularly for being in Seattle.The commute is just as challenging as anticipated. Steep hills are steep, yo: ~9% grade.
This is why the e-bike is all borked. Blame rainy Long Island and, now, Seattle commuting + crappy design and construction.
I'm attempting to resurrect this hub motor by attacking the rust with CLR and, now, phosphoric acid. Initial appearances after this caustic treatment are much improved. We shall see whether I can actually put the thing back together properly, though… Time to learn how to press bearings in place!
Today's update:Toshi said:Things already were looking better after attacking these parts with a wire brush and some CLR this evening, and now they're percolating with a thin coat of phosphoric acid overnight.
Are you talking about the outer plates on the rotor on this pic?
(click to embiggen)
I'm pretty sure that I spy little sticks of wood, a la matchsticks, separating each metal plate… At least now those gaps aren't bridged by rust and general crap that had accumulated in there.
The e-bike took me to and from work* today without issues.E-bike is revived. Sort of. Feels weaker than before… I shall try it out this upcoming week and see how it and I fare.
My wife took this idea and ran with it. Now the apparent plan, assuming I end up with a job outside of Seattle, is to pick up a 2008-2010 Toyota Sienna AWD for her sometime before June 2014, with the LEAF turning into my commute car come July or whenever I start. The LEAF is better suited for that role, anyway, especially as I have no intentions whatsoever of having a commute longer than its 84 mile EPA range - 20% buffer.Even if I end up somewhere semi rural with little traffic buying a $30k 8 year old vehicle seems a bit daft.
The new hotness: Now works in all 3 dimensions (we model a 512 x 512 x 100 voxel volume), the x axis is labeled with wavelength as measured in pixels/voxels, and the 512 px artifact is solved--I did bother to work around it, after all. Getting ready to write up and submit!For Westy, some fruits of my MTF-project labor in ye olde Matlab:
Swept sine and square waves x 4 simulated runs through a contrast enhanced MR scan, with each run varying in how quickly the contrast was administered
Subset of those four sine wave runs near where the MTF drops down, with [0,1] image data plotted as just that instead of mapping to [0,255] pixel intensities. 0 on this x axis corresponds to 0 on the above, and it extends to just over halfway over.
This one is like the above but with only the peaks minus troughs, as it were, so as to bring everything down, flat against the y-axis. 0 on this x-axis corresponds to about 1400 on the second chart, 1:1 after that. This is the more standard MTF curve as from the camera/lens literature. All I need to do now is to translate these x-axis dimensions back to the original sine waves, figure out the wavelength at that distance over (by measuring the handy square waves), and then translate that through our model into a physical spatial frequency.
The eagle eyed will note that the blips in the data happen every 512 pixels. This is because our simulated MR matrix size is 512 x etc. so I had to run things in 512 px chunks. When you have a half-sine-wave up against the edge of the matrix it gets modeled differently than an otherwise equivalent frequency full-sine-wave one wavelength over. I don't think these figures will ultimately be needed for publication, only the final 10% and 50% MTF spatial frequencies, so I'm not bothering to work around this at the moment.
It's somewhat amusing to note the strict negative correlation between the number of cars-and-other-crap posts I make and the amount of real work I have to do on my ongoing projects.Rationale, in part:
We're planning on getting a used Sienna AWD for my wife, so I wouldn't be constrained to an AWD or 4WD vehicle (see various and sundry prior posts by me about Land Cruisers), and this factory-sold and -supported bi-fuel CNG/gas option somehow tickles my fancy.
- logged a surprisingly good 19.5 mpg overall over several mountain passes, and almost 24 mpg in cylinder-deactivation friendly 60 mph-land
- turning radius isn't half bad given length
- backup camera is mandatory, IMO, and decent resolution albeit small (in mirror)
- switchgear feels flimsy and blue-green LED stereo interface hardens back to mid-90s
- not swayed a bit by wind gusts from passing semis
- road noise well damped and well suppressed
- moderate wind noise, and poor suppression of outside noise from other vehicles--thin glass?
- driving position felt good, and I became quickly used to the bulk
- needlessly high cowl and huge center console
- off-center steering wheel didn't bug me at all
- stereo interface has great graphics, is responsive, but not entirely intuitive in that hard buttons are still necessary despite the touchscreen
- switchgear felt better, and glove friendly large controls are well executed
- backup camera resolution is sub-par, the effect exaggerated by juxtaposition with nice sharp touchscreen graphics
- double cab (think "extended cab" or Ram's Quad Cab and you're on the right track) has near-useless rear seats. Crew Cab or bust if you need rear seats
- wind, road, engine, and other-vehicle noise very well suppressed, making this a legitimately quiet vehicle, noticeably quieter than its predecessor
- driving position ok (fantastic headroom! I raised the seat a bit, even) but shorter/more raked windshield and domed hood limit forward visibility. Not a deal-killer but nonetheless a step back in this aspect
Pros:
- great salesman--a car guy, unlike the Chevy salesmen from last week, one who was too aggro, one who was clueless
- great seat height adjustability up front combined with tilt/telescope wheel and decent glass area made for a very comfortable driving position
- lots of rear legroom
- nice engine note given that it's merely a V6, and it did feel 310 HP strong
- 30 mpg highway rating
- quiet
- lots of techy safety features: autobrake, lane keep assist, dynamic cruise, blind spot warning
My price calibrator might be out of whack in today's market, but the RLX did not feel like a car worth $75k out the door. It felt nicer than the Genesis sedan, on par with Infiniti's used-to-be-called-M37, but subpar compared to the Lexus LS and even Hyundai Equus, both of which are in the same pricing ballpark.Cons:
- way overpriced: $60-70k pre-TTL for the higher packages. A Krell package one on the floor was $60 plus another $7k in market adjustment/markup plus accessory crap. No freakin' way.
- no V8, especially at this price
- oddly missing features, namely no heated steering wheel, and no right-mirror camera as found on the new Accord
- center console and dashboard are still the usual cluttered Acura mess, with the two screen layout not really helping
- lane keep assist only worked for me maybe 20% of the times I tried it. Not reliable enough to be anything but a gimmick, IMO, at this point. Dynamic cruise worked reliably, at least
- usual complaint about my head being up against the headliner when in the rear seat
Another few weeks, another set of plans to no one's surprise (including my own). Heeding Shared Skittles' advice, perhaps we don't need AWD on Jessica's future minivan. This would save us from replacing the Sienna AWD's horrid run-flats, not to mention that model's rougher and noisier ride. We could then look at the whole minivan field including the Nissan Quest that we test drove in NJ a year or three back.In other news, I swear I wrote up a long-ass post about the latest car-thought for me (post-LEAF-lease, which I would inherit if Jessica gets a Sienna AWD): the 2015 Chevrolet Impala CNG. I either never hit submit or it was moderated... for causing extreme boredom, no doubt.