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

[Stonechat]

We are currently staying to the North of Hastings in the South Downs
Did a hilly ride today
http://www.strava.com/activities/133452656
28.6 miles at only12.7 mph, a hilly route with 2408 feet of climbing, some tough hills with real gradients in places

Brede hill was the toughest, was a little to agressive and needed to pause (Edit it was 9.0 %)
The terrain takes a bit of getting used to for me

 

[Nigelnaturist]

A little bit of rain

http://app.strava.com/activities/133460393/segments/3023974114

 

[Nigelnaturist]

We are currently staying to the North of Hastings in the South Downs
Did a hilly ride today
http://www.strava.com/activities/133452656
28.6 miles at only12.7 mph, a hilly route with 2408 feet of climbing, some tough hills with real gradients in places

Brede hill was the toughest, was a little to agressive and needed to pause (Edit it was 9.0 %)
The terrain takes a bit of getting used to for me

84.2ft/mile I would be chuffed at 12.7mph.

This peaks about 10% but its not very long but has a long lead in to it, so you lose a lot of momentum
http://app.strava.com/activities/133460393/segments/3023973941

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Not much to say about to nights ride other than it was a little damp and it gives me a fighting chance to do the spring challenge on strava.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

This is a nice new feature coming up on strava.
http://labs.strava.com/flyby/viewer/#133360101
You can see who those people were you past by, or got scalped by

 

[Harv]

Looks good. Do you know when it will go live and if it will be for non premium members.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Looks good. Do you know when it will go live and if it will be for non premium members.

You can access it through veloviewer by clicking on the double arrow icon

So if you dont use veloviewer now is a good time to start, it links with your strava data, but shows a lot more info

Thats just the ride info it goes much deep in information, including segments.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

One of the interesting features on veloviewer is the 3D profile of a ride, some will be more interesting than this.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Just to show you how wrong strava is on elevation if left to its own correction, the following 13 mile segment had an elevation gain of 471 ft, for the whole 15 mile ride strava gives it as 356ft



The whole ride.

and there was about another 40-60ft or so, which would put it much closer to the figure of 520ft I get on RWGPS

 

[Nigelnaturist]

84.2ft/mile I would be chuffed at 12.7mph.

This peaks about 10% but its not very long but has a long lead in to it, so you lose a lot of momentum
http://app.strava.com/activities/133460393/segments/3023973941

Have to amend that, 6.7% it peaks according to rwgps, must have been tired.

 

[Venod]

Just to show you how wrong strava is on elevation if left to its own correction, the following 13 mile segment had an elevation gain of 471 ft, for the whole 15 mile ride strava gives it as 356ft

View attachment 43277

The whole ride.
View attachment 43278
and there was about another 40-60ft or so, which would put it much closer to the figure of 520ft I get on RWGPS

Nigel, I have been following your discussion re elevation gain,of all the different results, which is the most accurate ?

I have Memory Map on the computer which uses ordnance survey mapping, so I drew this route and looked at the elevation gain it is 472ft in memory map which is near enough your 471ft, was 471ft from your GPS ?

My watch does not do elevation so whatever Strava says is all I have.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Nigel, I have been following your discussion re elevation gain,of all the different results, which is the most accurate ?

I have Memory Map on the computer which uses ordnance survey mapping, so I drew this route and looked at the elevation gain it is 472ft in memory map which is near enough your 471ft, was 471ft from your GPS ?

My watch does not do elevation so whatever Strava says is all I have.

The 471ft is what strava reported for the segment, rwgps gives 425 but strava for the whole ride only gave 356ft so something is wrong with strava, in a unit that measures using a barometer and this is left uncorrected on strava, it will show what is in the relevant sections of the file i.e. if the units shows in the summary 460ft that is what strava will show, however in units like the rider 20 and garmin 200 they dont have this feature and have to take the elevation from gps plots, and usually for a whole ride strava can cost you about 30-40% (you should see my elevation plots straight from the unit just one long liner line I can shoe up to 7,000ft on a flat ride of 30 miles or so), so basically I wouldn't put much faith in the overall elevation on strava, rwgps was always closer when I had the 500 so I use that, and for consistency between rides.

 

[Mo1959]

@Nigelnaturist Even the device used seems to make quite a big difference sometimes. I was looking at a ride a father and son over near me did together so exactly the same ride as they stuck together for the whole route. The father used a 705 and it recorded 6,280ft and the son used an Edge 200 which recorded 5,727ft. Quite a big difference really. I use the 200 and sometimes feel I get cheated out of elevation with it. Maybe the ones with the altimeters are more accurate? Not sure.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@Nigelnaturist Even the device used seems to make quite a big difference sometimes. I was looking at a ride a father and son over near me did together so exactly the same ride as they stuck together for the whole route. The father used a 705 and it recorded 6,280ft and the son used an Edge 200 which recorded 5,727ft. Quite a big difference really. I use the 200 and sometimes feel I get cheated out of elevation with it. Maybe the ones with the altimeters are more accurate? Not sure.

The 705 uses a barometer to measure gain/loss however they need to be set (the 500 had 5 or 10 I can't remember, that you could set, and when you started recording if close to one it would set that as the elevation) to recorded the actual elevation height, though relatively gain/loss would be still right, the other problem is the barometer is effected by the heat of the unit, it therefore needs to be allowed to reach the ambient temp, and even then they can show (usually a loss) of upto 60ft or so i.e. my home elevation is about 172ft many a time using the 500 (and the rider 35) the end elevation may be 153ft, nothing is perfect, even two identical units on the same bike could give different results, though they should be minimal.
I also found if I corrected the fit file on rwgps, it would a lot of anomalous peaks/troughs, I will wait till I get a 705, to see if the same happens, as it may be a fault in conversion from the fit format. The 200 and Rider 20 have to take elevation from gps plots the software uses (as do many other units no doubt).

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@Mo1959 try loading one of your rides to rwgps and see I bet you would possible get another 15-30%, though as lot of your riding is climbing it might not be so much.