PH wrote:Use them both: Claim the highest and round it up.
Well don on your 26 mile ride
This one I like .....
PH wrote:Use them both: Claim the highest and round it up.
Well don on your 26 mile ride
Mick F wrote:The speed part of it had a wheel magnet, and providing you had the settings programmed for Auto, the GPS and the wheel magnet conspired to make the speed and distance bang on. The 705 took speed and distance off the magnet primarily, but it was belt and braces to check on it using GPS. Tyre pressure variations, or tyre circumference as it wore, all were catered for. You did nothing. You left it to do it.
Mick F wrote:Best thing perhaps, it to use two magnet systems monitored by a GPS unit that computes the true distance?
Mick F wrote:Yes, there's all sorts of issues with rear wheel magnet systems. The tyre squirms, it deforms under power, bumps depress the tyre, and as you say, the corners effect the distance travelled.
On a front wheel, the bike weaves, so the front wheel does more distance than the rear.
Best thing perhaps, it to use two magnet systems monitored by a GPS unit that computes the true distance?
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:I think you will find that that's about right in comparison between the two.
Mick F wrote:............. and maps have a flat earth too.
Go a mile up a straight 25% hill (if one actually exists) and then come back back down again, and you will have done less total distance than the map would have said.
Some Triganometry required here!
Yes, of course. Sorry, my mistake. I was typing faster than my brain was thinking.andrew_s wrote:Mick F wrote:............. and maps have a flat earth too.
Go a mile up a straight 25% hill (if one actually exists) and then come back back down again, and you will have done less total distance than the map would have said.
Some Triganometry required here!
The wheel distance is more than the map distance, not less.
Mick F wrote:............. and maps have a flat earth too.
Go a mile up a straight 25% hill (if one actually exists) and then come back back down again, and you will have done less total distance than the map would have said.
Some Triganometry required here!
simonhill wrote:There have been plenty of explanations to explain the difference even if the devices are perfectly matched. Good stuff.
However, have you thought about doing a simple straight comparison? When setting up my speedo some years ago, I chose a long straight road, about 1km long. Then set GPS and speedo to 0 and rode it. Did this a few times until I got the speedo to match the GPS (which I trusted more).
One other thing, I saw a couple of public road measured kilometre in New Zealand. I was never quite sure what or who they were for, just a bit of straight road marked with a start and finish. Has anyone seen one of these (presumably measured mile) in the UK?