Garmin 200 and Strava

[Johnym]

Hi,

Was wondering if anyone can help me with an issue with my garmin and strava not recording my climbing correctly.

When on a club ride with others and the rides are uploaded to strava my ascent is always recorded differently to the others. For example the last ride was over 6000 feet but my ride was recorded as 4100.

Any help with this is appreciated.

Hope this is in the right thread.

 

[Mo1959]

Hi,

Was wondering if anyone can help me with an issue with my garmin and strava not recording my climbing correctly.

When on a club ride with others and the rides are uploaded to strava my ascent is always recorded differently to the others. For example the last ride was over 6000 feet but my ride was recorded as 4100.

Any help with this is appreciated.

Hope this is in the right thread.

@Nigelnaturist is the person to explain how you can correct this. If it's any consolation I have the 200 and notice it does the same. I think the fact it doesn't have the built in altimeter it kind of smooths out some of the smaller ups and downs that the 500/800 etc record.

 

[Easytigers]

I agree with Mo ^...which model do you have?

 

[Mo1959]

I agree with Mo ^...which model do you have?

Clues in the title Russell
Not being a computer whizz or particularly interested in stats I just accept it and leave it as it is. I know even by feel on some rides that there should be more elevation than it shows, but I don't care enough to bother trying to adjust it.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@Mo1959 is pretty spot on here. If I had uploaded the ride data from the Bryton R20 today, I suspect it would have been around 1000-1100 ft the raw data from the 705 is 1,510ft which is actually more than is showing as raw data from Garmin Connect.

@Johnym,
I have always used the corrected data from RWGPS for consistency in my database, which is still slightly more than strava but no where near as out as the data from the Bryton R20 would have been, which works in the same way as the Edge 200 for elevation (well sort of, its a little more complex)

 

[Johnym]

Thanks for the replys, I know stats aren't the be all but would just like to record them accurately. I'm guessing I would need to invest in a better model if I want more accurate data?

 

[fossyant]

Don't get too bothered about it. The higher models are more accurate, but I quite like my 200. I also have a 705.

 

[Easytigers]

Clues in the title Russell
Not being a computer whizz or particularly interested in stats I just accept it and leave it as it is. I know even by feel on some rides that there should be more elevation than it shows, but I don't care enough to bother trying to adjust it.

That'll teach me to have more than a 'man' look!

 

[MrGrumpy]

Have a 200 myself and elevation is way out, in fact I cross the Forth Road Bridge daily and it registers as 0ft on Strava for the whole length! I suppose you pays your money it is a cheap and cheerful unit and does a decent enough job. Dunno if the 500 is any better sounds like the higher end is more accurate.

 

[ianrauk]

I do the same commute every day and the elevation always varies. Sometimes by as much as 100 feet.

 

[Irishrich]

It never really bothered me until the weekend where I did my longest ride of 100 miles and a load of my club members uploaded their data showing 4200 ft of climbing whereas mine showed 1900ft!! I hate putting in the same effort and now it looks like a flat route to outsiders. Guess if it really bothers me in future I'll have to upgrade to one of the better models.

 

[andrew_rc46]

If the elevation is out, would you guys say that the 500 or 510 is the way to go? looking at purchasing a proper cycle computer myself, id like it to connect with strava too.

 

[bpsmith]

The 510 has a barometer within and links to the GLONASS satellites too. I would suggest the 510 as the better upgrade for accuracy. Don't expect it to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time mind you. There are no perfect devices out there. You will get variations at times, but I am generally very pleased with the overall accuracy of my 510.

 

[HLaB]

I wouldn't get hung up about Strava tends to often IME to lower climbing, RWGPS tends to increase it an GC often does something in the middle.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

It never really bothered me until the weekend where I did my longest ride of 100 miles and a load of my club members uploaded their data showing 4200 ft of climbing whereas mine showed 1900ft!! I hate putting in the same effort and now it looks like a flat route to outsiders. Guess if it really bothers me in future I'll have to upgrade to one of the better models.

Good effort and well done with the ride but 42' a mile is not hilly either - so quit fretting.