Campaign for real averages

[Sittingduck]

Well, I like the moving average... so there!!

As pointed out above, it gives a more balanced picture of a ride that may contain a whole lot of traffic enduced stopping and bad luck at lights.

Anyway - it doesn't matter if you favour moving average or total elapsed time based average, as long as you are consistent and always review the same type.

 

[totallyfixed]

I must admit this post has confused me, for more years than I care to remember I have used a cycling computer that gives me an average speed. If I am not moving, as for instance when I am stuffing cake down then my average speed is zero, why would I want to use this as part of my ride calculation? All speedometers do this as far as I know, when the bike stops moving the speedo stops calculating. If we are out training and have to stop for a puncture / mechanical / rest between intervals etc, and the computer counted these in to get average speed it would give a pointless reading. In other words if we want to know how quick / slow we were riding, a computer that keeps ticking away when stopped would be useless to us, for that I have a wrist watch.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I must admit this post has confused me, for more years than I care to remember I have used a cycling computer that gives me an average speed. If I am not moving, as for instance when I am stuffing cake down then my average speed is zero, why would I want to use this as part of my ride calculation? All speedometers do this as far as I know, when the bike stops moving the speedo stops calculating. If we are out training and have to stop for a puncture / mechanical / rest between intervals etc, and the computer counted these in to get average speed it would give a pointless reading. In other words if we want to know how quick / slow we were riding, a computer that keeps ticking away when stopped would be useless to us, for that I have a wrist watch.

Why would I want stopped time as part of my calculation? Because it was part of my ride, that's why! My speed is how quick I get from start to end.

A fantasy "speed", with a clock that stops when I stop for a breather just gives me a number that doesn't mean anything to me. Like the estimate of calories burnt. If I "correct" for routes with lots of traffic lights by making my average a bit quicker, then why not also "correct" for other kinds of slow routes - like those with hills? The only thing that "moving average" does is flatter my ego by making me think I'm faster than I really am, and it's useless for planning future rides.

At least that's the way I see it.

 

[Crackle]

I suspect they may have considered me an obsessive nutcase

You're amongst friends here, so we don't

 

[slycle]

Average moving speed can be a good indicator of how my fitness is improving (or not). My commute does have lots of traffic lights, which means my 10km commute time can vary by as much as 6-7 minutes if I'm unlucky. Comparing a "long" commute from last week where I had lots of reds with one from last year with a similar elapsed time shows I'm moving 2km/h faster, therefore I must be fitter.

Neither moving or total average speed is going to be accurate for route planning when you have traffic lights. How long do you stop at lights for? Should the strava route planner start including average red light waiting times on its routes?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

My yearly average speed, calculated any way you want, shows that on half my rides ~I'm below average.

I am much faster. Half my rides are above average.

 

[byegad]

I only have a computer on one of my trikes and very occasionally use a GPS on the others which records Average speed etc as a bye-product of navigating. I much prefer to not have the speedo glaring a single figure at me.

 

[mjr]

Neither moving or total average speed is going to be accurate for route planning when you have traffic lights.

Yes, it will, if you average over enough runs through the traffic lights, as these ride-sharing sites could.

I dislike the widespread use of moving average speed because it encourages people who understand it to ride badly, such as rushing up to red lights and stopping as quickly as possible (thereby invoking the autopause with the minimum damage to their moving average) which is a problem if they misjudge it or suffer a mechanical and have no time to recover before entering the junction or crashing into something/someone else. Then they start away from the lights like a short-track sprinter, wobbling all over the place in an unnecessarily big gear. Much better to coast up to red lights like we all used to and then accelerate away smoothly...

 

[NorvernRob]

Why would I want stopped time as part of my calculation? Because it was part of my ride, that's why! My speed is how quick I get from start to end.

A fantasy "speed", with a clock that stops when I stop for a breather just gives me a number that doesn't mean anything to me. Like the estimate of calories burnt. If I "correct" for routes with lots of traffic lights by making my average a bit quicker, then why not also "correct" for other kinds of slow routes - like those with hills? The only thing that "moving average" does is flatter my ego by making me think I'm faster than I really am, and it's useless for planning future rides.

At least that's the way I see it.

So basically, all you need on your bike is something to measure distance. Then you just calculate your speed from the time taken, none of this messing about with ride logging apps.

Don't forget to count the time it takes you to put on your clothes before and wash the bike after though, if eating cake whilst not even on the bike counts as riding then they do too, surely?

Or alternatively, you could just turn off the auto pause on any of the apps you use, leave it running from start to finish then you'd be happy and everyone else can do it the sensible way.

Ps: The only situation I agree is when someone raises the auto pause speed to artificially raise average speeds - someone on a FB forum a few days ago said he set his to stop below 7mph which is ridiculous. But the normal 1 or 2mph (effectively stopped) is fine.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I don't have anything much against moving averages, but I don't use them much. This isn't a negative campaign. I'm campaigning for real averages. Why do Ride With GPS (and Strava) not present this interesting metric while they do present the other. I do like using ride logging apps as its a kind of personal diary, with photos and notes and so so it would be nice to know what my real speed was without faffing around with a calculator.

@NorvernRob you do have a point about pre-and post-ride faffing. I have thought about this. But as it's pretty much fixed and independent of distance I'm not too bothered by it, as I can add a fixed amount when planning. Whereas food stops are distance dependent, and thus contribute to how long it takes me to do a given distance.

I must say this is being received better than my previous campaign - "bring back wheel nuts", that did not go down well at all.

 

[derrick]

Have noticed recently there are people i ride have higher average speeds on Strava. I know i am faster than a lot of them, so i tweaked the wheel circumference in my wife's garmin, we did a ride on Sunday, Her garmin showed 6 miles more than mine and a higher average speed even though i got to the pub 20 mins sooner. So unless you have measured the wheel circumference and put that in your garmin, your average speed could be wrong, i don't really worry about other people's averages, but it's good to keep an eye on my own. At the end of the day you are only cheating yourself if you put the wrong circumference in. It's alright i am just thinking out loud.

 

[User33236]

Only time I will be worrying about averages this year is keeping above 19km/hr to stay ahead of the broom wagon in the Wales Velothon lol.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I don't have anything much against moving averages, but I don't use them much. This isn't a negative campaign. I'm campaigning for real averages. Why do Ride With GPS (and Strava) not present this interesting metric while they do present the other. I do like using ride logging apps as its a kind of personal diary, with photos and notes and so so it would be nice to know what my real speed was without faffing around with a calculator.

@NorvernRob you do have a point about pre-and post-ride faffing. I have thought about this. But as it's pretty much fixed and independent of distance I'm not too bothered by it, as I can add a fixed amount when planning. Whereas food stops are distance dependent, and thus contribute to how long it takes me to do a given distance.

I must say this is being received better than my previous campaign - "bring back wheel nuts", that did not go down well at all.

Essentially, all you want then is a mileometer and watch.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Essentially, all you want then is a mileometer and watch.

No. As I've said several times, I don't want to faff around working it out. Why should I? The technology is there to present it, but it doesn't.

I want ridewithGPS to present this useful metric, just like it does the fluffy, and of questionable meaningfulness, "moving average".

 

[Donger]

I don't get it either. At school I could claim to have always been quite good at cross country ..... if you ignored all the time I spent on all fours panting uncontrollably and struggling for breath or trying not to ralph up my lunch. Relying on "moving averages" is the last resort of a scoundrel IMHO. Just imagine how good Usain Bolt's marathon time would be if the clock stopped ticking every time he stopped for a rest.