Show us your.......newbie progress! [4 Sep 2012 - 4 Oct 2014]

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

@SatNavSaysStraightOn
A gps unit uses the gps plots for speed if no speed sensor is used, all the sp/cad sensor do is count each revolution, its the unit that does the work, you could run two units each with a different tyre size and it will give the corresponding distance as if you had been on said tyres.
.

I know - which is why I am utterly confused by the difference! The only thing we did notice was that yesterday Strava corrected the distance (the day I rode with no speed/cadence sensor on the mtb) whereas today (when I rode the road bike with it) it has not corrected the difference!

 

[Stonechat]

First 100 mile plus ride after adding 25 miles or so on top of the club run I went on to Box Hill (we did 3 loops of said hill). Well pleased with this plus my climbing progress. These are my efforts on Box Hill (I'm also sure for a couple of reasons that I can easily shave a good 30 seconds to a minute off my best time today):

Seriously fast , best I have done is 11.43

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I dont use bikehike, so I wonder way they did, I have sportstracks which is a very good standalone programme a bit beyond me to be honest, which is why i asked about the fit file.

 

[Stonechat]

Did not ride today, as I keep 1weekend day cycling free.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@Stonechat I think you would beat me closest I have is this http://www.strava.com/activities/141010108/segments/3206860063 and thats without zigzag's
this was a tough one for me http://www.strava.com/activities/76702791/segments/2150010224
and this had me on a 30x28 though I did have panniers and some extra kit http://www.strava.com/segments/1138013 in only myself and one other of those I follow locally have done it (not sure why), someone either in this thread or another mentioned about a hill starting and it seeming tough, well this was similar.
Then these two.

http://www.strava.com/activities/76702791/segments/1535145171
http://www.strava.com/activities/51551604/segments/2055452594

theres a few more but much the same performance poor, @Mo1959 would eat them for breakfast.

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

I dont use bikehike, so I wonder way they did, I have sportstracks which is a very good standalone programme a bit beyond me to be honest, which is why i asked about the fit file.

even taking bikehike out of the equation both my OH's garmin 200 and his trip meter both came back with 102.6km (+/- 100 metres), so bikehike is probably correct given it comes back at roughly the same as well - it used OS maps and is quite useful for realistic elevation data. The file is a gpx file

So this ride on strava http://www.strava.com/activities/142654134,
this ride on garmin http://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/501940355
and this one being my OH's ride http://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/502182319 (we were never apart and certainly not for 2km of riding!)

The plotted course that we followed was expected to be 102.0km and we missed a few turns so that added a little... plotted in garmin...
seems a touch bizarre really!

His fit file is the later of the 2 txt files renamed.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@SatNavSaysStraightOn
so the two txt files are fit files from each unit, if you both covered the same distance they would be about the same file size, likewise the gpx of the top of my head it looks like one is set to record every second the other every 3's, though this in its self doesn't explain it either.

 

[Reece]

Such lovely weather here today. Looks like a lot of you have been out enjoying it too.

Today was probably the last chance to get out before the 3 day Tour of Wessex Sportive next weekend. We're driving down on Friday ready for the 8am Saturday start. Starting to think I wished I'd got more training in where I can ready for the 3 days of 112 miles each day and (a listed 26k ft) of climbing, although looking at route elevation on the different route websites they alll differ quote a lot.

However I can't wait to give it a go!

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

@SatNavSaysStraightOn
so the two txt files are fit files from each unit, if you both covered the same distance they would be about the same file size, likewise the gpx of the top of my head it looks like one is set to record every second the other every 3's, though this in its self doesn't explain it either.

I had also assumed that some of the extra data was cadence/temperature/elevation.. but yes. the first file time wise is mine from the edge 500, the 2nd is his from my old edge 200.

 

[welsh dragon]

I didn't go out today, as all the motorbike enthusiasts that arrived on friday all decided to go home. There was a steady stream of them most of the day.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@SatNavSaysStraightOn
The smaller of the two files shows 62.37miles and the larger 63.6miles 1.9% error. There is also a difference 9'48" the corrected track is 63.63miles, its likely that the 200 may have recorded some extra distance in those 9'48" though I couldn't see any obvious wondering, corrected time is the same too bar one second at 5:12:57, I think that's where the error lays, distance recorded whilst the 500 on auto pause and possible anomalous readings on the 200 during that time.

I keep saying nothing is true.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I had also assumed that some of the extra data was cadence/temperature/elevation.. but yes. the first file time wise is mine from the edge 500, the 2nd is his from my old edge 200.

I think the fields are still recorded though not sure with the 200, i will have a look at the gpx but that might just be in the conversion

 

[Harv]

Need some help re the new bike for my son. A lot of reviews say get some new inner tubes and tyres for the bike as the ones they come with are no good.

The reviews suggest gator skins. However non mention the size. I've checked online and there seem to be a myriad of sizes. The wheels are 70c.

Any help on tube and replacement wheel sizes appreciated.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

both gpx files are the same but oddly different sizes

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

@SatNavSaysStraightOn
The smaller of the two files shows 62.37miles and the larger 63.6miles 1.9% error. There is also a difference 9'48" the corrected track is 63.63miles, its likely that the 200 may have recorded some extra distance in those 9'48" though I couldn't see any obvious wondering, corrected time is the same too bar one second at 5:12:57, I think that's where the error lays, distance recorded whilst the 500 on auto pause and possible anomalous readings on the 200 during that time.

I keep saying nothing is true.

ahh I forgot the auto pause is off on the edge 200... but not on the 500 though it is set to 2kph (to take into account my uphill speed when mtbing - yes I can get that slow and not come off... well around the 3-4kph anyway...

and the larger file is my file which has under recorded isn't it... ?