HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 2296
Location: On the bike
gitsome wrote:
And I don't see any more relevant data offered by you than --in my opinion its good- you seem incredibly hypocritical.


What data do you want to see?


gitsome wrote:
And this article itself states that you need UNOBSCURED SIGNAL FROM AT LEAST 4 SATELLITES for it tot work and they had to go to some remote location to achieve this, otherwise the signals are al too poor to be considered for the test. So lets see. Under remote, perfect conditions they work mostly, great test.


I already proved you wrong on this when I was able to get a GPS lock in my basement of all places with 6 satellites. So getting the 4 that you talk about isn't some big or impossible number. Also my basement isn't that remote of a location.

Then you went on to talk about how the Garmin 510 is only accurate to 50-200 feet. I also proved this wrong by showing how I was able to get <15 feet accuracy outside with my 510. What else would you like to know from my experience.

I don't have an issue with you not liking Garmin. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. What I have issue with is complete BS and 'fabrication' of nonsense that holds no merit to real world use of the 510. I have no agenda. I am happy with my Garmin and accept some might not like it. But when you post wrong and erroneous info on here, I will call you out on it. As should be the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
Nothing I posted was wrong, the data I observed was all off by 50-200 ft, it is just as valid as data you observed but somehow I do not have the right to post it and I am accused of "fabricating" it or being "full of sh*t" right?? Somehow its ok that this obscenity is directed at me but I am not allowed to use it, right??

Somehow you're experience is the only one that should be allowed to count in this thread?

Nothing I posted was "wrong" or "erroneous", it was as valid as what you posted only different in scale of error. You are a total hypocrite. Somehow your data counts but mine doesn't right?

And has been conformed by another poster with lots of scientific experience, data with a margin of error even as narrow as yours would lead to very imprecise (and thus useless) maps unless re-worked with hundreds or thousands of additional waypoints to generate an averaged sum total.

It seems your only point is that you have an issue with my not tinting Garmin is worth the money over a standard bike computer and/or cell phone. Or else that your data counts and nobody else unless it coincides with yours, why don't you just run your own forum and make yourself the only poster?

Thats called a blog I guess, you should start one

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:24 pm 
  • Garmin Edge 810
  • 579.00 €   from 349.90 € (including 19% VAT)
  • in stock


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:30 am
Posts: 277
+1 53x12. This thread went from something actually interesting into a complete show with trolling. A thread for the ages I suppose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:53 am
Posts: 59
gitsome wrote:
And has been conformed by another poster with lots of scientific experience, data with a margin of error even as narrow as yours would lead to very imprecise (and thus useless) maps unless re-worked with hundreds or thousands of additional waypoints to generate an averaged sum total.


You should reread what that post said, he didn't exactly confirm what you were saying. Actually, his follow up post points out that generalizing using a sample size of one is a bad idea...

visscher wrote:
My long post was in response to people who say, "it's off and is rubbish", when you can't compare a small number of samples to some unknown truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 2296
Location: On the bike
gitsome wrote:
Garmin GPS sucks

I must say I was in the market for a GPS computer recently, checked out Garmin 800 series (too big) and 500 series. When I looked at the 510 gps readings from a friends mountainbike route I was AMAZED at the INACCURACY of it!!! He did 4 loops of the exact same trail (single-track no less) for a race. When we looked at the plotted lines of the "mapping" function --- Hoolly COW! They were ALL OFF by no LESS than 50-200 feet per line!!!! It was 4 distinct lines that varied completely fro each other despite the trail being less than a foot wide!!! What a piece of shittte!

I would never buy a GPS computer now given what I saw. Save the money, buy a nice Assos jacket or a new set pedals or a few bottle of great wine. SCREW Garmin



gitsome wrote:
These units are inaccurate even when they have a full signal (and thus will not blip like strava when it losses signal) and so you cannot really trust the data you get even when they seem to be working properly. They will look like they had full signal (and they did) and put forth data but it is not accurate and the margin by which I found it to be off (and others have observed) do not make me confident it is worth the $200-500 they cost, wish they did.

I thinnk GPS and cell are great technologies when you can afford to be off by 200 ft for general purposes but for cycling they are not precise enough. I wonder if its a national security offset. Civilian GPS used to have a programmed bug where it would "blip"and be purposely off-set so that foreign (navies mostly) forces could not intercept it and utilize it when the US was the leading power in this respect. Sometime Around late 90s the GPS "wobble" was removed but I wonder if this fuzzy accuracy was instituted in its place for the same reason. Sat this time Russian GPS (Glasnat or whatever I guess) came online, but I don;t think Russian space technology has been worth a bottle of vodka since 1957.


You never even read the articles I linked to:

Quote:
The tests were stark in their results: GPS/GLONASS dual-system antennas definitively offer a noticeable improvement in accuracy and performance. Urban environments are the true test of performance, and dual-system antennas are clearly superior... Nonetheless, the accuracy is extraordinary, considering how weak the signals are and the length they have traveled, picking up huge amounts of noise on their way to the small GPS antenna inside a vehicle, while moving with an obstructed view of the sky!

http://electronicdesign.com/test-amp-measurement/real-world-drive-tests-declare-verdict-gpsglonass


gitsome wrote:
And when do you think the Glonass satellites were launched??? Genius, thats the whole point. Its a shitty system that hasn't worked since it was launched 6 years ago. The last 5 rockets have all exploded on the launchpad. What do you think?


Do you still believe GLONASS was launched 6 years ago? I bet you won't answer this.

gitsome wrote:
Its amazing how stubborn people are once they've spent money they can't be objective and rather bury heads deeper in the sand.


Stubborn about what? That we realize the abilities and limitations of GPS?


gitsome wrote:
And this article itself states that you need UNOBSCURED SIGNAL FROM AT LEAST 4 SATELLITES for it tot work and they had to go to some remote location to achieve this, otherwise the signals are al too poor to be considered for the test. So lets see. Under remote, perfect conditions they work mostly, great test.


Can you finally admit that getting a lock on 4 satellites isn't that big of a deal?

gitsome wrote:
And yet they were all off by 50-200 ft in a well-covered area, so if you like your data to be that far off go for it. But that can easily be the difference between 1-5 mph or more, 1-10 miles distance, etc etc.






gitsome wrote:
Yes, and even with a those sats it was still off by 14 at least. Thats my point, with that much deviation your data as far as mph will be off considerably too don't you get that?! Not to mention mapping etc. even with 14 ft of inaccuracy over a mile that will ad up to a considerable margin of error and then multiply that by 100 or whatever milage you do and that leaves you with a basically useless compilation of data.



Have you finally realize that you don't compound the GPS accuracy over the course of a bike ride, right? Just because it states a 14 ft accuracy doesn't mean over the course of a 3 hour bike ride that your computer is wrong by 10-15 miles and 3-4 mph. Math doesn't work that way.

If you read DCRainmaker you will see that the Garmin's are close to 99% accurate for distance/speed while road biking. That number drops to 97-98% when being used in a heavily wooded area with dense tree cover. Remember this was done with the older Edge 500/800 and not the newer versions.


gitsome wrote:

As far as Glonass, it does't work well even with clear sky considering there is still at least 14 ft of error or more, and how often is sky perfectly clear? Would you just use it on perfect days then? Given your answer I guess you would. For my money I'd rather something better before I spent that much.



What do you mean GLONASS doesn't work well?

gitsome wrote:
I don't remember, it was a few weeks ago and not my unit, I can ask next time I see the person who used it. I all get any pertinent info when I see him.


Have you gotten the rest of the info? I know you said you thought it was on 1 second recording. Have you asked what firmware version it was running. Was it on GPS+GLONASS or just GPS? What kind of readings did he get before you headed into the heavily wooded area?


gitsome wrote:
None of those would be good to rely on a 510 or 810 if you care about mph etc in the minute detail a cyclist demands. If youre speed is off by more than 2 or 3 mph what is the poiunt of spending all that money>? If youre routes are off by 200 ft, then you cant really chart a good map of trails, etc etc


Minute detail? What do you mean by that. So instead of knowing I average 24.6 mph for my ride, knowing that I did 24.6178912 mph is the exact minute detail I demand as a cyclist? Since when have we been training by mph? Watts is all that matters. If not watts, then HR. Not mph.

I bet a GPS is more accurate in terms of speed that a speed sensor on the rear wheel that doesn't take into affect tire size, tire wear and possible irregular calibration. GPS is as accurate as they come.

gitsome wrote:
Since nobody actually reads what I wrote I'm done wasting my time. Go ahead and twist my words around, have fun pat yourselves on the back. You're Garmins still suck and you can't stand to hear it.
haha


Sounds more like trolling than anything else.

gitsome wrote:
All I've done is make a point and clarify it over and over because it gets twisted around constantly and thrown in my face, what a lame thread.



It isn't get twisty. I am using exactly what you wrote. I am pointing out issues with what you wrote and refuting some of your claims. If you consider that being thrown in your face, so be it. If what you wrote was legit and actually constructive, I think this conversation would have gone a lot smoother instead of "Your Garmin sucks."


In terms of this whole MTB/dense tree cover/GPS thingy, if you read the article from the link provided earlier in the thread by another poster you will see other people (outside of WW and not connected to this debate) that have had very successful use with the Garmin 510 in densely covered areas.

Quote:
My 510 displays accuracy of 10’ or less a high percentage of the time when road riding. I can’t say how much less, since the value is set with 10’ as a minimum, but it’s pegged on 10’ a lot of the time. I can’t recall a single disappointing road GPS track since I have been using the 510. While I still will do my manual splits for my most important climbs, I am finding that I am getting Strava data accurate enough for me to make valid comparisons. It is on the mountain bike, however, where the difference in accuracy between the 500 and 510 is quite dramatic. Typical 510 accuracy values are 15-20’, no matter what kind of cloud or tree cover I am under. I don’t believe I have ever seen a higher number than 30’, and I have been obtaining outstanding GPS data as a result.

What this boils down to is that if you use your Garmin on a mountain bike and want consistently reliable data, the 510 is the only way to go. If you only ride on the road, the increased accuracy is nice, but individual results can vary, and I know plenty of people who are happy with their 500. If it were me, knowing I was getting much more reliable and a higher level of GPS accuracy alone would justify a 510 for road only use. But what if we forget about GPS accuracy and mountain biking, how strongly would I recommend the 510 over the 500? Very, very strongly is my answer.


http://tomsbicycleblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/faceoff-garmin-edge-510-vs-garmin-edge.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 635
:popcorn: Someone is going to blow a gasket. :mrgreen:

_________________
"Sacred to the god Aesculapius"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
Im going for a bike ride. My $50 cat eye and cell phone are just as accurate and inaccurate as their 500 Garmins.

haha.

ciao

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:43 am
Posts: 237
I vote this as the ridicu-thread of the year.

_________________
Cervélo S2 2012 Red
Great minds think alike... sadly, so do the mediocre ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], kauphy and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. New Garmin Edge 1000

[ Go to page: 1 ... 12, 13, 14 ]

in Road

Tillquist

208

20838

Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:06 pm

coppercook62 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. alternative SRM mounts

in Road

brearley

4

570

Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:16 am

Causidicus View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. S Works Shoes Alternative

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

in Road

Devon

36

4239

Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:34 pm

kgt View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. di2 sprint shifter alternative

in Road

grouk

13

658

Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:56 pm

grouk View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Alternative to Parlee Z4 RD hanger

in Road

petal666

4

504

Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:09 am

mrfish View the latest post


It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:33 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB