The doors and back hatch of my 1998 Ford Explorer had started to rattle and were gradually getting worse. When I checked, the plastic/nylon bushings on the door lock posts had cracked and fallen off - just one of those things with a 15 year old vehicle, I suppose. The back hatch was the worst, but all four doors needed work.
A quick web search (http://www.pepboys.com/product/details/9113758/00786) turned up replacement bushings for the rear hatch from Pep Boys, along with a T-50 3/8" square drive bit to remove the lock posts (http://www.pepboys.com/product/details/556958/00786). Total cost was about $10 - no problem. However, the rear door bushings are too big to fit the passenger door lock posts. Searching further, I found that the only way to replace the passenger bushings was to replace the entire door lock post - the bushings aren't sold separately! Way to tag the customer with unnecessary costs, Ford!
At between $60 and $80 for four new lock posts, I said no way. I took a closer look at the passenger door lock posts - they are about 7/16" o.d., and the bushings (from what I could tell from the remains) are about 9/16" o.d. Checking the local Ace Hardware (Court Hardware in Stafford, TX - great place with great service) I found a couple of options. The closest was some flexible PVC tubing that was 3/8 i.d. and 1/2" o.d. I figured it would stretch to fit, and at $0.39/foot, the price was right even if it didn't work!
The door lock posts have a 3/8" section with a lip where it expands to the full 7/16" diameter for the lock to grab. I used a pair of needle nose pliers to stretch the tubing, and some warm soapy water to lubricate it. With a little bit of effort and some vise grip pliers, I was able to stretch the tubing over the post. Within about 20 minutes, I had all four doors done.
Even if the tubing isn't as durable as the original bushings, for $0.39 I got enough to do all four doors *three* times. Replacing the lock posts would have been close to $80 - not a bad savings.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Woodworking, Project Planning, and GTD
One of my favorite hobbies is woodworking. After a long week working with mostly intangible "stuff" at work, it's a great feeling to get in the shop and make something (even if it's only sawdust).
Recently, my wife asked me to make a case from walnut for an antique flute that belonged to her grandmother. I worked on it for an hour or so and had the top and bottom roughed out. The bottom needed a groove for the flute to rest in, so I set up the router table with a core box bit. As I was moving the wood across the table, I could feel something wasn't right, but I kept on. When the bit exited the wood, it was off by nearly 1/2". Instead of a nice, centered groove I had this:
Looking back, I realized I had made two mistakes, and then compounded them with a third. First, my setup was wrong. I tried to take the entire depth of the groove (about 3/4") in one pass, leading to the bit bogging down and chattering. Second, I didn't use a featherboard to keep the wood pressed tightly against the fence. It didn't help that I was looking at the wrong edge of the workpiece - the one against the table instead of the one against the fence. Finally, I when I felt "something" was wrong, I should have listened to my intuition and stopped to reevaluate.
The same mistakes (and their solutions) happen every day in the office as well as in the workshop. Use the five steps to planning projects of GTD (Purpose/Principles, Outcomes, Brainstorming, Organizing, and Next Actions) to come up with a plan of concrete, granular, physical next actions that are doable. As David Allen points out, you can't "do" a project. Take enough of these small steps, however, and you are done.
This process also leads to measurable outcomes - keep your eyes on these as you work so that your actions remain aligned with your outcomes. The project plan acts as a featherboard, keeping you on track.
Finally, if you think something is wrong, it probably is. STOP. Take 30 minutes or an hour to review and refocus. A few minutes now to make sure you are heading in the right direction will pay off ten-fold down the road.
Now, where did I put the rest of that walnut?
Recently, my wife asked me to make a case from walnut for an antique flute that belonged to her grandmother. I worked on it for an hour or so and had the top and bottom roughed out. The bottom needed a groove for the flute to rest in, so I set up the router table with a core box bit. As I was moving the wood across the table, I could feel something wasn't right, but I kept on. When the bit exited the wood, it was off by nearly 1/2". Instead of a nice, centered groove I had this:
Looking back, I realized I had made two mistakes, and then compounded them with a third. First, my setup was wrong. I tried to take the entire depth of the groove (about 3/4") in one pass, leading to the bit bogging down and chattering. Second, I didn't use a featherboard to keep the wood pressed tightly against the fence. It didn't help that I was looking at the wrong edge of the workpiece - the one against the table instead of the one against the fence. Finally, I when I felt "something" was wrong, I should have listened to my intuition and stopped to reevaluate.
The same mistakes (and their solutions) happen every day in the office as well as in the workshop. Use the five steps to planning projects of GTD (Purpose/Principles, Outcomes, Brainstorming, Organizing, and Next Actions) to come up with a plan of concrete, granular, physical next actions that are doable. As David Allen points out, you can't "do" a project. Take enough of these small steps, however, and you are done.
This process also leads to measurable outcomes - keep your eyes on these as you work so that your actions remain aligned with your outcomes. The project plan acts as a featherboard, keeping you on track.
Finally, if you think something is wrong, it probably is. STOP. Take 30 minutes or an hour to review and refocus. A few minutes now to make sure you are heading in the right direction will pay off ten-fold down the road.
Now, where did I put the rest of that walnut?
Friday, December 14, 2012
Review of The Hobbit
I've been thinking about starting a blog for a while, and I needed someplace to post a review of The Hobbit. Facebook and Twitter just won't do. So, here we go.
Disclaimer: I am a Tolkien/Lord of the Rings geek. I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings at least once each year for the last thirty years. I know (and love) the books. Also, there are spoilers included below - watch out.
I was at the midnight showing of The Hobbit last night, along with about 50 college kids, a few older adults, four dwarves, two elves, and one Gandalf semi-lookalike. Fewer people than I expected, but maybe that's because AMC was showing it on four screens in four different formats - regular 3D, 48fps HFR 3D, Imax 3D, and regular 2D. I saw the 48fps HFR (high frame rate) 3D version.
Let's get that out of the way first. The 48fps high definition was absolutely gorgeous. The detail was amazing, even better than Avatar - probably because it was real footage for the most part, not CG. Some have complained that the 48fps looks too much like a video game. I understand what they are saying, but I think they are confusing the 3D effects with the frame rate. All of the artifacts I noticed were due to the 3D effects, not the frame rate. It was very obvious that there were multiple discrete planes in the picture, especially for most of the in-your-face effects. The 3D reminded me of the old Max Fleischer Popeye cartoons done with Rotoscope. This criticism of 48fps is misplaced, in my opinion. One vast improvement over the original trilogy is the wide-angle shots of the characters moving, such as the race through Goblin-town. I couldn't tell if it was 100% CG or if it was live action combined with CG - it just looked real. It was relatively easy to spot this in LotR, such as the running scene after they leave Moria.
Story-wise, Peter Jackson was fairly true to the original story (similar to Fellowship of the Ring). The movie is framed as Bilbo writing his memoirs for Frodo (Ian Holm and Elijah Wood reprise their roles from LotR). Gandalf organizes a dwarvish party at Bag End, Bilbo decides to go on an adventure. Bilbo, the dwarves, and Gandalf meet the trolls, go to Rivendell, are captured by the goblins of the Misty Mountains, escape, and are rescued by eagles. That's where the first movie ends.
There were some changes, the most jarring to Tolkien-lovers will probably be the idea that the elves of Mirkwood were vassals of the dwarves of the Lonely Mountain, and 'betrayed' them by refusing to help fight the dragon. I suspect Peter put this in to give the dwarves more of an immediate reason to dislike the elves. Also, the original Hobbit is very episodic - a series of loosely-connected episodes on a journey. The movie adds more of a direct link: many portents point to the return of the dwarves to Erebor, and the bad guys can read them, too. As a result, Azog of Moria is chasing Thorin & Co. We get a nice flashback to the Battle of Nanduhirion to establish Thorin's heroism and Oakenshield moniker, and learn that Thorin severed Azog's arm after Azog beheaded Thror (during the battle). At this point, Azog is thirsting for revenge, and Tolkien purists are having heart attacks.
Other changes include a role for Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown. As a resident of Greenwood/Mirkwood, Radagast would be a logical one to notice the change in the forest first. This is one of the more memorable roles in the film. There is also a meeting of the White Council at Rivendell; while not part of the book, this also works well in showing Saruman's slide into evil. Cate Blanchett is beautiful again as Galadriel.
I think the casting is even better than LotR. Martin Freeman is much better suited to his role as Bilbo than Elijah Wood was for Frodo; 19 year old Elijah was a horrible choice to play the 50 year old Frodo. I'm sure the Hollywood execs had kittens when they learned Peter Jackson was going to include all 13 dwarves, but it works. Just as in the books, some are memorable and some are not in terms of names, but they each have a distinct look. (If you have trouble telling them apart, try this flowchart.) Dwalin has the look of a classic dwarf from RPGs, Bofur gets more personality than in the book, Fili and Kili are this trilogy's version of Merry and Pippin, and Richard Armitage plays the brooding Thorin very well. Andy Serkis returns as Gollum, and has one of the best lines in the movie - "I wasn't talking to you!"
Overall, I'd give the film a B+, the same as I gave Fellowship of the Ring when it came out. Considering I've rarely seen any other book to movie translations that deserved more than a D (c.f. Starship Troopers, Dune), that's pretty high praise. I'll definitely see it at least one more time in the theater, maybe twice. I'd like to see the HFR version again, and try the IMAX version.
Disclaimer: I am a Tolkien/Lord of the Rings geek. I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings at least once each year for the last thirty years. I know (and love) the books. Also, there are spoilers included below - watch out.
I was at the midnight showing of The Hobbit last night, along with about 50 college kids, a few older adults, four dwarves, two elves, and one Gandalf semi-lookalike. Fewer people than I expected, but maybe that's because AMC was showing it on four screens in four different formats - regular 3D, 48fps HFR 3D, Imax 3D, and regular 2D. I saw the 48fps HFR (high frame rate) 3D version.
Let's get that out of the way first. The 48fps high definition was absolutely gorgeous. The detail was amazing, even better than Avatar - probably because it was real footage for the most part, not CG. Some have complained that the 48fps looks too much like a video game. I understand what they are saying, but I think they are confusing the 3D effects with the frame rate. All of the artifacts I noticed were due to the 3D effects, not the frame rate. It was very obvious that there were multiple discrete planes in the picture, especially for most of the in-your-face effects. The 3D reminded me of the old Max Fleischer Popeye cartoons done with Rotoscope. This criticism of 48fps is misplaced, in my opinion. One vast improvement over the original trilogy is the wide-angle shots of the characters moving, such as the race through Goblin-town. I couldn't tell if it was 100% CG or if it was live action combined with CG - it just looked real. It was relatively easy to spot this in LotR, such as the running scene after they leave Moria.
Story-wise, Peter Jackson was fairly true to the original story (similar to Fellowship of the Ring). The movie is framed as Bilbo writing his memoirs for Frodo (Ian Holm and Elijah Wood reprise their roles from LotR). Gandalf organizes a dwarvish party at Bag End, Bilbo decides to go on an adventure. Bilbo, the dwarves, and Gandalf meet the trolls, go to Rivendell, are captured by the goblins of the Misty Mountains, escape, and are rescued by eagles. That's where the first movie ends.
There were some changes, the most jarring to Tolkien-lovers will probably be the idea that the elves of Mirkwood were vassals of the dwarves of the Lonely Mountain, and 'betrayed' them by refusing to help fight the dragon. I suspect Peter put this in to give the dwarves more of an immediate reason to dislike the elves. Also, the original Hobbit is very episodic - a series of loosely-connected episodes on a journey. The movie adds more of a direct link: many portents point to the return of the dwarves to Erebor, and the bad guys can read them, too. As a result, Azog of Moria is chasing Thorin & Co. We get a nice flashback to the Battle of Nanduhirion to establish Thorin's heroism and Oakenshield moniker, and learn that Thorin severed Azog's arm after Azog beheaded Thror (during the battle). At this point, Azog is thirsting for revenge, and Tolkien purists are having heart attacks.
Other changes include a role for Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown. As a resident of Greenwood/Mirkwood, Radagast would be a logical one to notice the change in the forest first. This is one of the more memorable roles in the film. There is also a meeting of the White Council at Rivendell; while not part of the book, this also works well in showing Saruman's slide into evil. Cate Blanchett is beautiful again as Galadriel.
I think the casting is even better than LotR. Martin Freeman is much better suited to his role as Bilbo than Elijah Wood was for Frodo; 19 year old Elijah was a horrible choice to play the 50 year old Frodo. I'm sure the Hollywood execs had kittens when they learned Peter Jackson was going to include all 13 dwarves, but it works. Just as in the books, some are memorable and some are not in terms of names, but they each have a distinct look. (If you have trouble telling them apart, try this flowchart.) Dwalin has the look of a classic dwarf from RPGs, Bofur gets more personality than in the book, Fili and Kili are this trilogy's version of Merry and Pippin, and Richard Armitage plays the brooding Thorin very well. Andy Serkis returns as Gollum, and has one of the best lines in the movie - "I wasn't talking to you!"
Overall, I'd give the film a B+, the same as I gave Fellowship of the Ring when it came out. Considering I've rarely seen any other book to movie translations that deserved more than a D (c.f. Starship Troopers, Dune), that's pretty high praise. I'll definitely see it at least one more time in the theater, maybe twice. I'd like to see the HFR version again, and try the IMAX version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)