Show us your.......newbie progress!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

SpaCyclist

Well-Known Member
Interesting Nigel. I have logged onto rwgps and uploaded todays ride. It shows a total elevation gain of 2679ft about 10% higher than Strava. I wonder where each of the programmes source their height data from? Neither programme appears to have access to the Ordnance survey data set, so I presume they must be working from users gps data and averaging it in some way. Maybe use different algorithms to achieve this?

Anyway, to a large extent this is all academic - enjoying the ride is the objective!
 

moo

Veteran
Location
North London
My flat commute in the wind the other day registered 550ft of climbing. On a normal day the garmin 800 shows 200ft. That's some margin of error.
 

SpaCyclist

Well-Known Member
My flat commute in the wind the other day registered 550ft of climbing. On a normal day the garmin 800 shows 200ft. That's some margin of error.

If you look at the elevation profile you can often see one point where it has gone haywire and created a mountain that isn't there! Modern technology is great when it works as intended, but it doesn't always do that.
 

Torvi

mr poopmechanic
Location
Wellingborough
preparing myself for saturday 52 miler on wiggle circuit breaker, some stretching and only short 12mile ride today tough no idea what weather will be like leater on hope there will be no rain but even if i will go out :thumbsup:
 
OP
OP
Nigelnaturist
Location
Pontefract
@SpaCyclist depending on the unit, correcting on rwgps is pretty good, however when converting fit files from he 500 last year, it did produce peaks and troughs, which lead to an increased elevation of about 5-10ft/mile, the tcx files I use from both the 705 and Rider 20 produce about the same elevation, there is so slight variation for the same ride though. ( I could produce a chart), all I can deduce is that in converting the binary fit file there are some errors introduced, I dont recall about the R35 as that had a barometric reading, but I can't remember what strava did to it.
 

Harv

4 8 15 16 23 42
I have a target of 1000 miles to complete by the end of the year.

Currently on 835.

Wish Strava had a way you could set an annual target and monitor progress against it. Would be nice if it told you how many miles you need to do each week to hit the target. Using my math skills I work out I need to do just over 18 miles a week for the rest of the year. :smile: Game on!
 
OP
OP
Nigelnaturist
Location
Pontefract
@Harv I have two tables in my database that give me targets, one is a yearly one showing how much I need to do to set distance i.e. 1,000, 2,000 ect (current set up to show 3 imperial and one metric), also a monthly one showing how I am progressing on the strava monthly challenge how far in km's and miles and how long at current average speed, these are in for each day, the yearly one also gives a projection miles based on current averages of how far on average each I have ridden, percentage of the days ridden so far, and taking that based on the days left gives me the projection, and how many hours, currently 72hrs riding.
 

Supersuperleeds

Legendary Member
Location
Leicester
I have a target of 1000 miles to complete by the end of the year.

Currently on 835.

Wish Strava had a way you could set an annual target and monitor progress against it. Would be nice if it told you how many miles you need to do each week to hit the target. Using my math skills I work out I need to do just over 18 miles a week for the rest of the year. :smile: Game on!

mycyclinglog will do all that for you, though it is manual entry, though you can put a nice sig under your posts with it.
 
Top Bottom