I need to look into how to cancel, I hate the ones where you have to ring up to cancel.Fair enough. I’m enjoying the 2 months free at the mo
W
- Thread starter Roger Longbottom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- strava
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
vickster
Legendary Member
You just downgrade back to free on the website
Thanks. I might give it a go.
Twilkes
Guru
Does anyone know why the gradient of the same climb might look different when it's viewed in different pages?
This is the segment page, if you hover over the gradient chart it shows a shallow start for the first quarter of the climb with a peak halfway through of 10-12%, which is what it feels like when I ride it: https://www.strava.com/segments/2695985
But when viewed within someone's ride, if you hover over the gradient chart it gets close to 9% about a third of the way through, and just after halfway through it again gets around 9% but nowhere near the 12% of the other chart: https://www.strava.com/activities/2390236663#60327936925
Seems odd that it wouldn't be the same data used in both charts, but also it doesn't look like a difference explained by displaying the data over a slightly different scale, I'd still expect to see a gradient of 10% plus somewhere on the second chart.
This is the segment page, if you hover over the gradient chart it shows a shallow start for the first quarter of the climb with a peak halfway through of 10-12%, which is what it feels like when I ride it: https://www.strava.com/segments/2695985
But when viewed within someone's ride, if you hover over the gradient chart it gets close to 9% about a third of the way through, and just after halfway through it again gets around 9% but nowhere near the 12% of the other chart: https://www.strava.com/activities/2390236663#60327936925
Seems odd that it wouldn't be the same data used in both charts, but also it doesn't look like a difference explained by displaying the data over a slightly different scale, I'd still expect to see a gradient of 10% plus somewhere on the second chart.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
I ride a recumbent, what is this headwind you speak of? 😂
HLaB
Marie Attoinette Fan
The first could be based on neutral mapping going fixed lines up a hill, whereas the 2nd is based on a riders barometric altimeter and gps and not fixed (the rider may take a shallower but longer route across the road at points rather than directly up). If the segment is based on one rider's history, when a 2nd rider comes along differences would only be expected also (+/- accuracies and slightly different ascending paths). I often see differences like that; IIRC my steepest climb said 29-31% in neutral mapping and my altimeter/gps said it never got above 24.5%. I'm going with the latter cause I got up it
Twilkes
Guru
The first could be based on neutral mapping going fixed lines up a hill, whereas the 2nd is based on a riders barometric altimeter and gps and not fixed (the rider may take a shallower but longer route across the road at points rather than directly up). If the segment is based on one rider's history, when a 2nd rider comes along differences would only be expected also (+/- accuracies and slightly different ascending paths). I often see differences like that; IIRC my steepest climb said 29-31% in neutral mapping and my altimeter/gps said it never got above 24.5%. I'm going with the latter cause I got up it
It's possible, although I don't have a barometer and my ride shows the same different profile as his ride does. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, only I'm training to beast that hill and knowing exactly where the steep bits are will help me pace it better!
nickyboy
Norven Mankey
- Location
- You want hills? We got hills
Nearly always do this. The only exceptions would be if there are some particularly tough and exposed climbs. I'll make sure they're tailwind
Last weekend headwind out over the Snake Pass. So strong I needed bottom gear on a 7% climb. But last 20 miles were all tailwind when I really needed it
lane
Veteran
Yes on thing in Thier favour it is dead easy to stop paying if you choose to.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
I almost never take wind direction into account before riding. When I have tried to do so it generally ends up completely different to what I expected, so I just accept whatever happens.
The exception was one time there were really strong westerly winds forecast and I did a ride from Gatwick to Whitstable in unbelievably quick time. Sitting up and making myself as big a sail as possible.
The exception was one time there were really strong westerly winds forecast and I did a ride from Gatwick to Whitstable in unbelievably quick time. Sitting up and making myself as big a sail as possible.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
Might be something like this going on... ?
That is lifted from the tracklog of one of my Humber Bridge forum rides. The upper plot is the (slightly glitchy) altitude reading from my GPS clearly showing the climb up the south side of the bridge, the passage over it, and then the descent off it on the north side of the Humber. The lower plot is what the mapping software's dataset shows. That seems blissfully unaware of the bridge and just shows the elevation of the underlying terrain.
If one page uses the GPS data and one uses mapping data then I would not be surprised to see differences between the two.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
That is what I would like my GPS to do, but it is 15 years old now and obviously ancient tech!
When I ride up a steady gradient the GPS indicates nnn metres for a while and then suddenly indicates (say) nnn+4 metres, having not shown nnn=1, nnn+2 or nnn+3. That fits in with what that plot of mine showed.
I think the GPS is doing crude dejittering by ignoring altitude variations of (say) +/- 2 metres unless it gets repeated similar readings. That way if the raw GPS data wanders up and down by a metre or two no change is indicated. The problem with that approach is that steadily rising/falling routes look like they have steps on them, and also gently undulating roads are made to look flat.
