Okay, well..Now the week is ending today. Whatever.
Couple of things to note this week.
I finally finished the Kicker Studio’s Six Questions. They’ll put it up coming up here. I really didn’t make a big thing about it, just finished it, but it was a good set of questions to think about why I’m doing this design thing. I’ll be sharing some thoughts and stuff at their upcoming Device Design Day up in San Francisco in August.
There were some fascinating all-day review sessions in the studio for some in-development stuff. It’s quite fascinating to see things as they’re being made and refined and perfected. The conversations themselves and the sort-of meta discussions about what makes compelling, usable, engaging UI/UX/ID are for me great learning experiences. There were some related discussions in the studio more generally about the impossibility of distinguishing the “industrial design” (which generically and perhaps wrongly only means the physical material of something) and the “interface design.” Sort of a design philosophy thing. It bakes my brain when people stare blankly and don’t get this idea.
The Media Design Program at Art Center started its Ideas In The Making 2010, so I went to the rooftop opening event, where Ben Hooker and Sascha Pohflepp and other residents presented their work. It sounds like an enviable residency for all these folks and I hope to spend a bit of time over there checking out the work as it develops, for sure.
We had a toolpathing tool-torial this Tuesday’s Tangible Tuesday (err..alliteration alert..uhh..). That’s the bit for going from a 3D digital model to the program (really a large list of numbers and tool changes) that tells the Fanuc CNC machine how to cut stock. Or, how to make stuff with a CNC machine. Nikolaj has done some amazing stuff to make that process much, much easier so basically learning how that all works. I predict running through this process in the near future.
Rhys took most everything off of my bike turning it into a single speed. Pedaling faster, going a little slower, but basically covering the same ground in the same amount of time. These are both almost identical routes, done at about the same ungodly hour in the morning in Venice which is flat as a pancake. I won’t even note elevation change.
27 Speed
Time: 00:36:44
Distance: 9.14 mi
Moving Time: 00:35:54
Elapsed Time: 00:38:50
Avg Speed: 14.9 mph
Avg Moving Speed: 15.3 mph
Max Speed: 18.6 mph
Heart Rate
Avg HR: 159 bpm
Max HR: 170 bpm
Cadence
Avg Bike Cadence: 85 rpm
Max Bike Cadence: 102 rpm
Single Speed
Time: 00:39:20
Distance: 9.62 mi
Moving Time: 00:39:08
Elapsed Time: 00:39:48
Avg Speed: 14.7 mph
Avg Moving Speed: 14.7 mph
Max Speed: 17.3 mph
Heart Rate
Avg HR: 144 bpm
Max HR: 162 bpm
Cadence
Avg Bike Cadence: 90 rpm
Max Bike Cadence: 160 rpm
I’m definitely surprise that your heart beat 15 BPM faster on the 27 speed. I would have thought that the single speed would be more work – which would translate to a faster heartbeat. Where does my theory run aground? I suppose it depends somewhat on your style of biking- and maybe a sample of two just isn’t enough to draw any conclusions from.
I might work harder to get up a sprint on the 27 speed whereas on the single speed — there really isn’t much hard accelerating to get up to a sprint. You pretty much go the same speed the whole time.