Accuracy: GPS vs Cycle Computer

[David_Stone]

I rode 2.49 miles just now, both according to my snazzy new GPS watch
(Forerunner 205 by Garmin) and according to my cycle computer.

Here is the odd thing: The cycle puter gave a max speed of 15.9 while
my GPS gave my max at only 14.4 -- quite a discrepancy!

I'm guessing that I may have done something that caused the magnet to
pass the sensor too quickly, but I didn't idle the whole ride, and I
didn't hit too many big bumps, either.

Any guesses? And which would you trust, or neither?


--
David_Stone

Dictator for Life,
NYUC

Check out my blog (or else):
http://newyorkunicycle.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David_Stone's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/3834
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[joemarshall]

GPS speed is often calculated over a longer time interval than the
distance a cycle computer calculated it, so if you only hit a maximum
speed for a very brief period, the GPS won't catch it.

GPSs are good for knowing where you've gone and average speeds, but for
maximum speeds, it'll only count speeds that you keep going at for long
enough to get a few points.

Joe


--
joemarshall

my pics http://gallery.unicyclist.com/albuq44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joemarshall's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1545
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[tholub]

David_Stone wrote:
> I rode 2.49 miles just now, both according to my snazzy new GPS watch
> (Forerunner 205 by Garmin) and according to my cycle computer.
>
> Here is the odd thing: The cycle puter gave a max speed of 15.9 while
> my GPS gave my max at only 14.4 -- quite a discrepancy!
>
> I'm guessing that I may have done something that caused the magnet to
> pass the sensor too quickly, but I didn't idle the whole ride, and I
> didn't hit too many big bumps, either.
>
> Any guesses? And which would you trust, or neither?



"A man who has one watch always knows what time it is; a man who has
two is never sure."


--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[toddw9]

I would trust the cycle computer at lower speeds. Distance should be
accurate with the GPS, but speed isn't. At higher speeds the GPS gets
a little more accurate, but there's still a little bit of discrepancy.


--
toddw9

Todd

Standard Disclaimer - Don't belive everything on the internet.
including what i say. For all you know I could be a 13year old kid from
some trailer park dreaming of driving my dads chevette and getting off
giving you bad advice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
toddw9's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4466
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[zod]

toddw9 wrote:
> I would trust the cycle computer at lower speeds. Distance should be
> accurate with the GPS, but speed isn't.



That depends on the terrain, many GPS's do not correlate climbs and
descents into the total distance accuratley


--
zod

> -Originally posted by maestro8 -
> *...don't roll out on your unicycle, instead, roll out on your head...
> *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
zod's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/3631
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[munidobs]

I really do not understand this obsession with gadgets and digits - why
does anyone really give a monkey's **** whether their max speed is
14.something or 15.something, let alone spend loads of cash to measure
it ?

Max speed, by definition, is only attained for a few revolutions of the
wheel. Average speed is a much better indication of performance - if
you really need one.

My only measures of performance are:
1) did I die ?
2) did I have FUN ?

Chris


--
munidobs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
munidobs's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8790
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[bmemike]

Average speed over a period of time is useful because you can determine
how long it'll take you to get somewhere. If you're using a uni for any
sort of commuting, this can be a fairly important factor to consider.

Max speed is just novell and fun - let people have their fun :)


--
bmemike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bmemike's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11148
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[johnfoss]

munidobs wrote:
> I really do not understand this obsession with gadgets and digits - why
> does anyone really give a monkey's **** whether their max speed is
> 14.something or 15.something, let alone spend loads of cash to measure
> it ?


I thought we unicyclists were supposed to be geeks! :)

Spoken by a guy who has a cycle computer for his Coker.... which has
been sitting in his garage, somewhere, waiting for him to install it.


--
johnfoss

John Foss
"jfoss" at "unicycling.com" -- www.unicycling.com
-----------------------------------------------

"Idiot America—where fact is merely that which enough people believe,
and truth is measured only by how fervently they believe it." --
Charles Pierce, in Esquire Magazine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnfoss's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[David_Stone]

munidobs wrote:
> I really do not understand this obsession with gadgets and digits - why
> does anyone really give a monkey's **** whether their max speed is
> 14.something or 15.something, let alone spend loads of cash to measure
> it ?
>
> Max speed, by definition, is only attained for a few revolutions of the
> wheel. Average speed is a much better indication of performance - if
> you really need one.



I'm not sure I see the point in discussing this, but in the off chance
that you care:

Some people like certain things that are different from what other
people like. They're called 'idiosyncrasies.' I like to know just how
fast I was able to spin the wheel. I also like gadgets. I also like to
know why some gadgets give different readings than others. I guess
those gadgets are 'idiosyncratic.'

Furthermore, if I only needed to get an average speed, I would only
need to know the elapsed time, by your thinking, since I could just
know my distance and calculate from there. But sometimes my route
changes, and sometimes my route is so up and down that an average speed
reading doesn't tell me whether I'm doing well for an uphill from one
ride to the next.

Finally, I have already spent the cash on the geared uni, so a GPS
watch is a relative drop in the bucket...especially since, other than
the cost of unicycles, I spend less than $20 a year getting to work. In
fact, I would bet that you spend more getting to work each year than I
do, even figuring in the cost of the geared uni AND the GPS watch,
which together, over time, will amortize to under $400 a year.


--
David_Stone

Dictator for Life,
NYUC

Check out my blog (or else):
http://newyorkunicycle.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David_Stone's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/3834
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[cathwood]

munidobs wrote:
> I really do not understand this obsession with gadgets and digits - why
> does anyone really give a monkey's **** whether their max speed is
> 14.something or 15.something, let alone spend loads of cash to measure
> it ?
>
> Max speed, by definition, is only attained for a few revolutions of the
> wheel. Average speed is a much better indication of performance - if
> you really need one.
>
> My only measures of performance are:
> 1) did I die ?
> 2) did I have FUN ?
>
> Chris



For me, this kind of thing enhances the enjoyment of unicycling or
anything else I do. I love gadgets.

Cathy


--
cathwood

Say no to unicycle genre discrimination! - MrBoogiejuice

http://www.chuckingandtwirling.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cathwood's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/9425
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[wumpus]

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the
momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

makes sense even for this debate cycle computer(velocity
measurment/momentum) versus GPS(position)

er... and dont go read the fine print.....:)


--
wumpus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wumpus's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11764
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[Klaas Bil]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:20:05 -0500, joemarshall wrote:

>GPS speed is often calculated over a longer time interval than the
>distance a cycle computer calculated it, so if you only hit a maximum
>speed for a very brief period, the GPS won't catch it.
>
>GPSs are good for knowing where you've gone and average speeds, but for
>maximum speeds, it'll only count speeds that you keep going at for long
>enough to get a few points.

My eTrex Vista measures speed in a different way than my measuring
positions, then calculate the distance, then divide by time. That
would be an inaccurate way of determining speed because the accurary
of the position is insufficient.

I forgot the details but I believe the way that the eTrex determines
speed has something to do with Doppler shift in the GPS signal. Max
speed (for my eTrex, again) is just the highest value of the thus
derived speed. But indeed I have found it's not very reliable. I would
trust a cycle computer better, especially if I knew I hadn't idled or
so.

Distance accuracy is another matter. Distance is calculated by the GPS
from point to point. If the points are spaced too far away, you may
have swerved in between so then distance is too low. But if there is a
'spurious' point, maybe due to bad reception, then the distance is too
high. Again, I would trust a cycle computer better.

[unicus]

David_Stone wrote:
> And which would you trust, or neither?


I would ‘trust’ neither. I would use either or both as indicators
only.

The cycle computer relies on the input of the circumference of the
wheel then does its calculations based on its internal clock which will
mean its accuracy on determining the velocity of the wheel will depend
on those factors (and more?).

The GPS will rely on a good signal and then uses averaging algorithms
to determine position and some more algorithms to determine velocity of
the GPS unit and so the accuracy will depend on those factors (and
more?).

With all the wheel snaking, loss of traction, UPD’s etc. the input to
the cycle computer is not going to be accurate. With all the flailing
arms & body, tree cover, UPD’s etc. the input to the GPS is not going
to be accurate.

So neither will be ‘accurate’ but with some common sense judgements on
the readings obtained and an average between them you would probably
get the best indicator.

In the end if you’re consistent with what you use you’ll get a good
idea of how well or otherwise you are doing in relation to previous
rides. I intend to fix my cycle computers mount and fit it to my coker
to use in conjunction with my GPS so I can see how my training is
going, and ‘just for fun’ :D


--
unicus

'Photos' (http://gallery.unicyclist.com/Photos-from-unicus)
'Videos' (http://gallery.unicyclist.com/unicus)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
unicus's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/869
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[munidobs]

David_Stone wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the point in discussing this, but in the off chance
> that you care:
>
> Some people like certain things that are different from what other
> people like. They're called 'idiosyncrasies.' I like to know just how
> fast I was able to spin the wheel. I also like gadgets. I also like to
> know why some gadgets give different readings than others. I guess
> those gadgets are 'idiosyncratic.'
>
> Furthermore, if I only needed to get an average speed, I would only
> need to know the elapsed time, by your thinking, since I could just
> know my distance and calculate from there. But sometimes my route
> changes, and sometimes my route is so up and down that an average speed
> reading doesn't tell me whether I'm doing well for an uphill from one
> ride to the next.
>
> Finally, I have already spent the cash on the geared uni, so a GPS
> watch is a relative drop in the bucket...especially since, other than
> the cost of unicycles, I spend less than $20 a year getting to work. In
> fact, I would bet that you spend more getting to work each year than I
> do, even figuring in the cost of the geared uni AND the GPS watch,
> which together, over time, will amortize to under $400 a year.



There is always the off chance that I might care, but I don't.:D

I probably spend more in a week getting to work than you do in a year -
I must try to get work closer to home.

If measuring your riding parameters on each trip really enhances your
day, well fine and dandy. If I look at a map and estimate a trip at 15
miles, I will allow roughly 1.5hrs to do the ride (plus a bit for a
beer/food/looking at flowers & views/listening to the birds/chatting to
fellow hoomin beans) - if I get there earlier, great, if I get there
later, I still had a great ride.

I enjoy measuring time by the passing of the seasons rather than down
to one decimal point of the m/h, km/h, m/sec, but whatever lights your
wick ...

I'm probably out on a limb here, but you can keep your gadgets and
digits, give me beer and birdsong any day.

However you choose to do it, one-wheeled, two-wheeled, GPS, phases of
the moon, have immense fun.

Chris


--
munidobs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
munidobs's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8790
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[UniBrier]

I have the e-Trex Vista CX. On a recent hilly Coker ride my max speed
was 20+MPH, I know for a fact I never got that fast. I did lose signal
once due to terrain and/or tree cover. I think most of the time the max
speed is pretty accurate but do get the occasional anomaly.

The cycle computer may not be 100% accurate either. On my bikes I
usually measure the wheel circumference, which gets close. There are
mile markers on the local cycling trail, I do 2-3 mile runs and adjust
the cycle computer until it matches the mile markers.

But bikes don't wobble, most of the time anyway.

I am curious on "ground speed" vs. "wheel speed" for the GPS in hilly
conditions. When I ski I regularly hit a max speed of around 55 MPH, of
course this is going downhill. Am I really going faster? If the GPS is
calculating some type of "horizontal" speed, my "diagonal" speed would
be greater. Any known data on this?


--
UniBrier

Steve

Hop Drop & Roll

“If something is to hard to do, then it's not worth doing. You just
stick that guitar in the closet next to your
shortwave radio, your karate outfit and your unicycle and we'll go
inside and watch TV.” – Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UniBrier's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1404
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[bmemike]

I think that depends on the GPS unit.

A decent GPS knows your verticle from sea level within 1m give or take.
As such, if you're going downhill, the GPS should always know that.

Smart software should be able to plot you in 3D, not just 2D... but it
all comes down to the brains inside the things and there's no way to
really know without asking the manufacturer.


--
bmemike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bmemike's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11148
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/48303

[Klaas Bil]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:44:06 -0500, bmemike wrote:

>A decent GPS knows your verticle from sea level within 1m give or take.

That's too much honour for an ordinary decent GPS I think, at least
without WAAS. Usually, horizontal accuracy doesn't get any better than
5 m, and vertical accuracy is worse than horizontal.