Mike H's site

Random Thoughts on Disneyland

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:09:11 +0000

I recently went to Disneyland for the first time in about 10 years. As far as I can tell, not much has changed about the park (well, other than a little thing called California Adventure, which was new to me). But I did notice some things that I didn't remember from back then, so odds are that it is I that has changed. Maybe it's just the realization that I'm now the same age that my parents were the first time I went there.

All of the rides have very HARD, uncomfortable seats. Doubly so if you don't have a lot of natural cushion down there.

Tip: bring your own padding if you have a bony butt like I do.
Rides generally fall into two categories: slow parades past various animatronics (Pirates), or jerky slamfests featuring your butt colliding with those horribly uncomfortable seats (Matterhorn). For the latter, expect to spend all your energy bracing yourself to avoid major impacts. And if you have long legs, watch out for the knees hitting the front of the ride car, too.
Disneyland, for all its family-friendly reputation, doesn't seem to have any qualms about permanently damaging the sensitive ears of young children. When a ride's sound effects are painful for someone like me, who listened to way too much loud music on headphones as a teen and young adult, it's too loud.

Note to imagineers: we can still hear it just fine if the volume is turned down below 11. And really, piping in extra train sounds over the speakers in Thunder Mountain is a bit excessive, don't you think? We already get those sounds from the coaster itself!

Tip: bring earplugs.
Along similar lines, whose bright idea was it (ha, ha) to put a camera with a blinding flash at the end of Space Mountain? If I ever go on that ride again, I'm keeping my sunglasses on.
Note to Disney executives: Pixar saved you, and while there are signs throughout the park that you recognize this, there is one glaring omission in Tomorrowland. Somebody needs to be fired for vetoing renaming Redd Rocket's Pizza Port as Pizza Planet. It's the biggest no-brainer in the history of mankind!

Oh, and the food at Pizza ~~Planet~~ Port was pretty bad, on the same level as the cafeteria at my work. Stick to New Orleans Square for good food inside the park, or try the Jazz Kitchen in Downtown Disney, just outside the park.
Both Toy Story rides/games are rigged. I was within 1% of my wife in hits, but my score was many times lower. Also, not worth a 40-minute wait in the heat.
The Fastpass system works pretty well, but it depends on most people not bothering to use it. What happens when they catch on?
Soaring Over California is nothing but a very short IMAX film where you can see the dangling feet of the people in the row in front of you. Is that what they meant when they said this ride has smells?
California Screamin' was the best ride that we I went on - relatively smooth without a lot of unexpected jerks, and nice and fast. The line was short (I went 4 times) and there was even a token amount of padding on the overhead restraint, too. And any ride with music by Gary Hoey has to be pretty good.

(for a better front-car view, see this video)
Don't go on the hottest day of the summer. Just don't. But if you do anyway, spending it with your wife makes it all worthwhile.

Chickenfoot: May 19, 2009

Thu, 20 May 2010 06:56:47 +0000

I originally meant to post this a year ago, but never got around to it. So here it is, on the one-year anniversary (better late than never, eh?). Best concert I ever attended: Chickenfoot at The Roxy, a small club in Hollywood with capacity of just a few hundred people.

Joe Satriani
Sammy Hagar (Van Halen)
Michael Anthony (Van Halen)
Chad Smith (Red Hot Chili Peppers)

I got there early and got a spot at the front of the line. When they let us in, I headed straight for the left side of the stage, ending up standing literally about a foot or two from Joe Satriani all night. Amazing. I'll probably never again in my life have an opportunity to see a band of this caliber so close and personal.

Got video of most of the show, and a few pictures, too.

How High Did I Go?

Thu, 13 May 2010 16:33:29 +0000

(click any image to enlarge)

With the recent resurgence in BIKE GODS (20 rides, 3 hikes, 2 road runs, and 1 mud run in just over 6 months), I've been using my old Palm Vx with a Magellan GPS attachment to acquire elevation and ground track data for these activities. After each ride, I transfer the data to the computer and use a series of custom scripts and programs I've written to create elevation profiles and compute total elevation gain based on this data. Each ride page then displays this information.

This GPS receiver (GPSr) does a reasonable job considering that it's 10 years old, but it has its limitations. Not only is its precision not as good as that of a modern GPSr, but its battery life is pretty poor. I've lost some data on more than one occasion because the Palm Pilot fizzled out before the end of a long ride, and its battery isn't replaceable in the field (I actually replaced the original battery a couple of months ago, using a hairdryer to melt the glue holding the outer shell in place; still didn't give me enough juice to last for those longest rides).

Search Party

So last month, I began my search for a replacement GPSr. Among other criteria, elevation precision was a primary concern. Because of the way GPS works, all GPS receivers have poorer precision for elevation than for horizontal position. To get better vertical precision, you really need to be able to see the GPS satellites that are on the other side of the earth; unfortunately there's a big planet in the way!

I ultimately settled on the Garmin eTrex Legend HCx as the sweet spot. It offers a lot of nice features that my old unit doesn't have, but I'll focus on elevation here. As long as the elevation data was as good as or better than my old unit, that would be perfectly suitable. If not, I might have to move up to the more expensive eTrex Vista HCx which includes a barometric altimeter that uses air pressure to measure elevation more precisely than the GPS.

Side Note: Garmin's cycling-oriented products were never in serious consideration because they suffer from the fatal iPod flaw: the rechargeable battery is sealed inside. This means that when the battery eventually loses its ability to hold a charge after a few years, you are expected to simply toss the unit aside and buy a new one. No, thank you! The eTrex models all use AA batteries, which means I can use my own rechargeables and swap them as needed.

Testing 1, 2, 3...

My first test of the eTrex Legend HCx, taking it along for my commute to work, showed that it would be perfectly fine: the elevation profile looked smooth enough and followed the known hills and valleys quite well. That's all I really want or could hope for - a reasonable approximation of my total elevation profile, with very few imaginary hills and valleys to throw off the total elevation gain calculation. As a sanity check, I compared the GPS data to elevation data from the USGS. The USGS data wouldn't be terribly precise, but it would give a reasonable ballpark.

But my next test was a disaster: I took the dogs on a walk and brought both the old and the new GPS receivers. While both followed the major hills and valleys on an extremely coarse level, the eTrex added a significant amount of noise, resulting in phantom climbs and descents that weren't really there. While I might believe the total elevation gain I computed from the old Palm Pilot (about 279 feet), the number derived from the eTrex (762 feet) was nearly three times as large! Once again, USGS data provided a crude sanity check.

Further tests, including a second walk along the same route confirmed this: elevation data from the eTrex Legend HCx is much more volatile than that from the old Palm/Magellan GPSr. I'm not entirely sure why this is, because the eTrex has far better horizontal accuracy and precision than the Palm+Magellan. One would think that vertical precision, while not as good as horizontal, would also improve. I can only surmise that the eTrex's increased sensitivity may be a liability when acquiring elevation data - extra sensitivity may mean extra noise, which is exactly what I see. Either that, or the Magellan software on the Palm Pilot has a better algorithm for smoothing out the noise without losing too much accuracy.

Regardless, it was clear that the eTrex Legend HCx would not be suitable for my purposes. It was time to move up to the eTrex Vista HCx and see what its barometric altimeter could do. I was skeptical of this option because I know that air pressure changes over time as the weather changes. How could it be more accurate if the air pressure at a given location shifts over the course of a day? I was about to find out.

eTrex Vista HCx, eTrex Legend HCx, Palm Vx + Magellan GPS Companion

The Pressure's On

It turns out the the eTrex Vista HCx has an algorithm to use both sources of elevation data at its disposal: GPS and the barometer (this is called "Auto Calibration" in the settings). Air pressure at a given location will change slowly over time, so the barometric altimeter should be stable over the short term but not over the long term. Conversely, GPS elevation data is unstable over the short term as satellites constantly move in and out of view, but it gives a stable average over the long term. A good algorithm can leverage these two data sources to get the best of both worlds: a stable elevation provided primarily by the altimeter over the short term, but adjusted over the long term using the the GPS trend to correct for changes in air pressure.

Success! The first test of the Vista, another dog walk, showed exactly what I was looking for: a relatively stable elevation profile that roughly matches the known hills and valleys. The difference is striking: both the Legend and the old Palm Pilot are all over the map (so to speak) in their elevation data. The Vista's data has small bumps, but these are easy to smooth out. More importantly, track points measured at the same location and different times were within about 10 feet in elevation, which is about as good as we can expect it to get. We appear to have a winner.

A mountain bike ride the next day provided further confirmation of the Vista's abilities. It also provided a plausible explanation for why the Legend was reasonable on the commute but really bad on the dog walks.

The mountain bike data shows moderate to good agreement between the Legend and the Vista on most of the initial climb and corresponding descent of that same hill. This section of trail is a tough ride on sunny days, as the terrain is wide open with little shade. Farther down, under heavy tree cover, both the Legend and the Palm Pilot go a little nuts. The GPS signal is degraded under the trees, and it really shows. The Vista relies primarily on its altimeter here, showing a fairly smooth descent all the way down.

So the Legend gives reasonable elevation only when fully out in the open, with unobstructed views of the GPS satellites in the sky. This explains the good data on my commute, which is primarily wide open freeway. The dog walks were in the neighborhood with trees and houses nearby, partially blocking GPS signals and preventing a good determination of elevation.

I still find this a bit odd because horizontal position didn't suffer nearly as much under these conditions. The receivers in both eTrex models are quite sensitive, and can lock onto GPS satellites even inside my house, with an estimated horizontal accuracy of 10 feet. They far surpass the Palm/Magellan GPSr in all facets except GPS elevation.

Side Note: Here's a good comparison of the three units' horizontal accuracy and precision. Click on the image to open up an interactive Google Map where you can zoom in on any section of the trail. In particular, you'll note that the difference in that area of heavy tree cover is quite significant: the Palm+Magellan thought we took a dunk in the reservoir about 1000 feet away!

Calibrate Before You Elevate

The Vista has a function that allows you to manually calibrate its altimeter if you know the exact elevation where you are. After initial calibration, the Vista will only use GPS to correct for fluctuations in air pressure if the Auto Calibration setting is turned on. This is recommended to provide the best possible elevation data; otherwise it will use the current GPS elevation as its starting point, and that may or may not be very close to reality at any given moment.

This is clearly illustrated in the next ride's data: we started from a point where I didn't know the true elevation, so I had to let the Vista trust the GPS data to start. The GPS reading must have been too high at this particular moment, because the same location at the end of the ride showed an elevation over 40 feet lower. If I'd known the exact elevation to start, I suspect both readings would have been much closer.

Side Note: This plot also illustrates the other major drawback of the Palm+Magellan combo: when it detects a lack of movement for a period of time, it shuts off to conserve battery power. If you forget to check and turn it back on, it obviously won't collect any data during that time. This happened twice on this particular ride, which explains why the Palm's elevation profile suddenly jumps forward a couple of times. The eTrex models have battery power to spare, so they keep running even when you don't.

I haven't decided how I want to handle calibration when I don't know the exact elevation. Maybe the USGS data can give a good enough approximation; or perhaps even the topo maps I have loaded in the GPS unit will be close enough. But whenever I start a trip from home, I can calibrate precisely because I know that the end table in my living room is at 732 feet above sea level. I determined this by leaving both eTrex units on the table for a period of time, set to save a tracklog point every 6 to 10 seconds. I did this over several days and nights and then averaged the elevation readings. Should be pretty close.

This plot of stationary GPS receivers over time shows that, indeed, the GPS-derived elevation (from the Legend) can be off by up to about 90 feet in either direction. Thus if the Vista happens to self-calibrate using GPS data at the far end of being too high or too low, you'll get a situation exactly like we saw on the ride.

We also see that the Vista's elevation readings are tighter, oscillating between about ±20 feet of the true elevation, with about 70% of data falling within ±10 feet. This is, of course, caused by fluctuations in air pressure as well as in the correction supplied by the GPS data. Additionally, the stability within a few hours (~600 readings per hour in the above chart) is excellent: over a 4-hour sample period, all readings fell within ±10 feet, with over 90% inside ±5 feet.

Finally, I decided to test what happens when the Vista self-calibrates to a bad elevation based on GPS. How long would it take to return to the proper elevation? For this test, I deliberately calibrated the elevation to 800 feet — 68 feet too high — and let the unit sit on my end table overnight.

It looks like the Vista returned to the proper elevation after about 4 hours. This sounds about right, considering that the Hulda Crooks ride above took about the same amount of time. I would expect the elevation for the end of that ride to be much closer to truth.

Additionally, I suspect that the elevation might converge faster if the unit were left outside with a clear view of the whole sky. For that matter, the Stationary Elevation plot above may be even tighter without a roof and walls to degrade the GPS signal. But that's another test for another time.

Conclusion

If you don't care much about elevation precision or accuracy, you can't go wrong with any of the GPS receivers shown here. Likewise if you just want an approximate elevation reading when you're out and about. Any of these units will get you within about 50 feet the vast majority of the time, and within 100 feet pretty much all of the time. But if you want good elevation profiles with the least amount of noise in the data, a unit like the eTrex Vista HCx with a built-in barometric altimeter is your best bet.

I'll be returning the Legend now and retiring the Palm Vx + Magellan GPS combo.

Run Through Redlands

Sat, 01 May 2010 07:18:40 +0000

About two weeks ago I did the Run Through Redlands 5K — my second 5K (non-mud) race this year, and second overall since something like 1993. While all half marathon runners got a finisher's medal, 5K runners only got a medal if they finished in the top 5 for their age group. I wanted a medal to go along with my Surf City USA finisher's medal from February. Would I be able to do it?

Checking the results from last year's race revealed that a medal might be within reach. But just barely. Last year's 5th place runner in M 30-34 finished with a time of 22:56. My Surf City time was 25:42, but I've been improving since then. I'd recently ran a 22:30 5K on a treadmill - but that's not quite the same as running out on the road. It would be close.

A check of last year's M 35-39 group deflated my hopes a bit, however. I'd have barely cracked the top 10 in the older group. There were quite a few more runners in that group, so it appears that a little luck is needed in regards to how many people run in your division and how many of them are good. I figured my odds weren't great, all things considered.

There were quite a few kids in the 5K race. They all crowded the front, which made dodging the slower ones a bit tricky over the first quarter mile or so. Then again, some of them kicked my butt in the race - I was beaten by a number of kids as young as 8!

Race:	5K
Overall:	119 out of 2178
Men:	93 out of 883
M 30-34:	5 out of 72
Age/Grade:	57.03% Place: 320
Finish:	23:01 Pace: 7:25
Tag Time:	23:01
Gun Time:	23:06

Results

Got the medal! Looking over the results, it seems that the 25-34 age group is the place to be if you want a top-5 medal. Age groups from 8 to 24 and 35 to 49 did significantly better - I wouldn't have had a chance at cracking the top 5 in any of those. Too bad next year I'll be in the more competitive 35-39 group!

Check out the real story over at BIKE GODS.

Irvine Lake Mud Run

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:16:46 +0000

Event:	Irvine Lake Mud Run
Distance:	3.8 miles
Team:	There Will Be Mudd
Time:	35:23
Place:	61 out of 300 teams

(click any image to enlarge)

In order to protect our good cameras, I bought a cheap refurbished digital camera to take with me on the course. I did my best to protect it from the mud (it was kept inside a second sealed bag when crawling through the muck), but if it died from sludge overdose, that would be ok. It did end up getting a good coating of mud in the last crawl, but seems to have survived.

Lonnie helps us nerd it up, using his artistic talents to make these blackboard boldface symbols out of duct tape.

Now we're all ready to go, including our two spectators.

Waiting in line for the waves ahead of us to go. We're in wave 26, so it'll be a while!

Finally, our wave reaches the starting line. We make sure to get to the front of the wave so nobody could impede our planned sprint start. Mike Tyson swings the #26 sign around to get the crowd pumped up.

Lonnie turns around to show everyone his impressive angular velocity.

Rich grabs the microphone to let everyone know which team will be winning this wave: There Will Be Mudd.

And they're off. There Will Be Mudd sprints out in front, leading all other teams for the first quarter mile or more!

The first part of the course is not really muddy, but there are still obstacles. Rich & Dmitry easily clear this one.

The first "whoop-dee-doo" gets the mud flying. That's what I'm talking about!

James surges ahead as usual.

Tom unexpectedly hits a deep spot in the mud and goes down. Rich is next to fall in. Then it's a slippery slide down this slick slope. Meanwhile, James is still ahead of the rest of the team (after he already waited several times for us to catch up). We should have just given him the timing chip and let him take off at full speed. We could have won this thing!

James and I are first to emerge from the car wash.

Then it's on to Orange County's Biggest Mud Pit. One of us is using proper technique, the other isn't!

Five out of six team members have reached the finish now. But where's Lonnie?

Ah, there he is. He stayed back to get some extra mud and do his best Braveheart impression.

Pretty good job, team! Though next time, James needs to get more muddy.

The professional photos didn't turn out too well this time. Most were severely overexposed, requiring significant adjustment just to get them to this level. Would have made some nice shots if the photographers knew how to work their equipment!

If that version of events was too tame for you, check out the real story at BIKE GODS.

Next up: Run Through Redlands 5K tomorrow (no mud). Next mud run on July 17.

And There Was Mudd

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:11:30 +0000

Event:	Irvine Lake Mud Run
Distance:	3.8 miles
Team:	There Will Be Mudd
Time:	35:23
Place:	61 out of 300 teams

(click to enlarge)

Stay tuned... many more photos on the way.

Training Montage

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:14:00 +0000

Includes extensive pre-race training footage in addition to scenes from the race itself.

Surf City USA, Part Deux

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:51:09 +0000

Pro photos came in last night.

See more, and get the real story over at BIKE GODS.

Surf City USA

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:54:42 +0000

Surf City USA

Race:	5K
Overall:	224 out of 2494
Men:	163 out of 858
M 30-34:	18 out of 92
Age/Grade:	51.07% Place: 556
Finish:	25:42 Pace: 8:17
Tag Time:	25:42
Gun Time:	31:24

Results

First race in almost 17 years. Not too shabby.

The Importance of Specifying Requirements

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:04:38 +0000

In systems engineering, a new project always starts off with a requirements specification. The design is then derived from the requirements, and the implementation is based on the design. Everything, including test cases, traces back to the requirements. A product with poorly specified requirements is almost always destined to fail, no matter how wonderful and majestic it was supposed to be when first imagined.

Such was the case today, when I went to meet with fellow cancer survivor and honorary BIKE GOD Lance Armstrong.

(click to enlarge)

In my mind, I had already designed the perfect blog post about the event. It would be entitled Survivors, and would contain only a photo of me with Lance, together at the moment that we met. Simple, elegant, yet powerful. No problem, right?

Wrong. My plan utterly fell apart because I failed to specify the requirements to my photographer. Here is the requirements specification that I should have written ahead of time:

1. The photo shall be in focus.
2. The photo shall have little to no motion blur.
3. The photo shall be reasonably well lit.
4. The photo shall contain as its principal subjects both Lance Armstrong and Mike Heasley.

4.1. The photo containing Lance Armstrong and Mike Heasley shall be taken at the earliest opportunity and before any other photos.

Requirement #4 was not properly communicated to the photographer. As a result, I got a nice photo of Lance signing my book, but nothing to prove I was actually there to meet him.

(click to enlarge)

Ok, afterwards I walked around to the other side while more people got their books signed, so you see, I really was there (and looking like a dork, I might add). But it's just not quite the same.

(click to enlarge)

Lesson learned.

(click to enlarge)

Edit

Someone posted a time-lapse video of today's signing:

Found myself at 0:47 in the video:

(click to enlarge)