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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
I'm not going to say anymore as I sen to be pissing everyone off. All I will re-state is the accuracy even with full-coverage is not accurate enough for me to justify the purchase and use of a unit that is off by the amounts I saw, I want it for mapping and 50-200 ft of inaccuracy is not adequate to make a decent route map, not even close. But thats just me.

Dasvidania and see you cosmonauts later. Good luck !

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:30 am
Posts: 277
gitsome wrote:
How a I trolling? Because my opinion differs from the rest?? Really? Thats called objectivity and my opion is based on observation and experience, I fail to see how I am trolling. Please explain. My points GPS is a poor tool for cycling computers due to its inaccuracy, a fact I can attest to with my ow eyes and one that can be confirmed with search for reviews about accuracy. This is in no way trolling. Just because people see their units working properly does not mean they are accurate.
If my calculator works properly by turning on when I press the power button but always tells me 2+2=5 it is not a good calculator. Thats my point



You are trolling because you keep stating your opinion over and over that GPS sucks this and that. I assume you don't have a GPS unit in your car (built in or portable) nor have a smartphone with GPS because GPS is rubbish and I'll just use a map and compass to find my location. Am I right?

Also it isn't called objectivity. Your opinion is subjective, not objective. Objective isn't influenced by opinions or personal feelings. An example of something objective is that GLONASS has 24 satellites in its system or that GPS has been flying 31 satellites. That is objective information. Subjective would be that GPS is better than GLONASS (or vice versa).

I think you need to read a bit more on GPS and GLONASS gitsome. Here is a good start: http://www.gps.gov/support/faq/


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:50 pm 
  • Garmin Edge 810
  • 579.00 €   from 349.90 € (including 19% VAT)
  • in stock


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
Objective = data was off by factor of 50 - 200 feet over all 4 laps of a racecourse, no emotion or opinion whatsoever. Data not emotion. Objective observation not subjective opinion. I have nothing against GPS other than that I have observed it as a wide margin of error I do not find useful for the purpose of gauging cycling info.

I am defending my point and replying to comments others make. I guess anyone who disagrees with you is a troll Ahillock? You must be great at dinner parties.

And anyone who as ever used gps in their car knows that they often give mistaken info, and the analogy is even less correct as most car gps are using pre-established routes and road maps built into the software, they are not mapping geo as Garmin 500-800 units are ADVERTISED to be able to do accurately, And my point is (once again because you obviously haven't gotten it due to your subjective hatred of my posts) that they FAIL to do this well for cycling purposes given the substantial margins of error observed OBJECTIVELY>. And yes, cell GPS would be equally unreliable.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 2294
Location: On the bike
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:
I want it for mapping and 50-200 ft of inaccuracy is not adequate to make a decent route map, not even close. But thats just me.

Dasvidania and see you cosmonauts later. Good luck !


Rather than use that old and outdated article you posted from 6 years ago, why not actually look at the pictures I provided in this thread to show that your claim of 50-200 feet really isn't that accurate. Guess it depends on what your definition of 'well-covered' is as even in the interior of my basement I had an accuracy of 56 feet and that is nowhere near the type of coverage I would experience on a typical ride. I don't ride in a tunnel deep underground for my rides. At most you will go under overpasses and maybe into a short tunnel a few times on a ride if that. The 510 has darn good accuracy imo as I have shown with pictures of my unit. Also, it seems that you didn't read that article by O'Shea did you?



Here is a picture of my Garmin 510 outside the house, with it locking onto signal in <5 seconds from turning on. Accuracy noted as 14 ft and has lock on 11 satellites.

Image


gitsome wrote:
And this article itself states that you need UNOBSCURED SIGNAL FROM AT LEAST 4 SATELLITES for it tot work


Do you finally realize that getting a lock on 4 or more satellites isn't that big of a deal when I had more than that in my basement and 2.5 times that when I was outside.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
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.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 2294
Location: On the bike
14 feet is nothing in terms of mattering or making a difference.
No the data with regard to mph won't be off.
You don't add up 14ft over a mile to show inaccuracy. You don't bike 100 miles and because of 14ft GPS accuracy it either says you rode 80 miles or 120 miles.

I don't believe you understand what the accuracy means or how to make sense of that in real life. Not sure you really understand what you are talking about? It is starting to get comical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
Really?? How many feet in a mile? How many feet in 100 miles? 14 ft Margin of error (or more) = lots of error over distance. What is comical is that regardless of mathematics we are still arguing this point. If a GPS is inaccurate even with multiple sat coverage in a single point, then it will be unable to accurately chart your location and speed and this will compound over distance, it actually is easy I don't understand what evidence you'd need to see given your own data proves my point. If I am off by 14 ft every time I track my waypoints then eventually I will be that much further off or at least cannot rely on mapping to be accurate to within a decent area that at least I would require (and believe Garmin is advertising) to be useful as a cyclist. Car GPS correlates this rough GPS data with pre-existing software to approximate location on pre made maps. Gamin cycling computers do this too but their geo mapping is off by at least that much and thus its not worth the $300 or more, and the speed readings taken by wheel magnets are way more accurate so why not just use them?
If you need road mapping then just use your cell phone its just as good/bad as Garmin dedicated units so save the money; thats been my point.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 2294
Location: On the bike
Go read some of DCRainmaker's articles on this subject.


Quote:
To me, the key takeaway thus far though is back to the accuracy numbers, which when averaged are higher than 99% accurate. Typically both Garmin and Timex quote a 2.5% accuracy rate – and in this case, we’re nowhere near that inaccurate, are instead, far more accurate.


http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/sport-device-gps-accuracy-in-depth-part.html


Once again you don't add up 14 feet accuracy over the course of your ride to get some crazy large error. You don't. As noted above the old Edge 500/800 were 99% accurate and the new 510/810 are even more so plus the 510 even more with the GPS + GLONASS.

When I first rode with a GPS bike computer I left my old style bike computer on at the same time and the numbers were indistinguishable between the two (speed, average speed, distance...etc.).


Last edited by 53x12 on Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
You do if you are mapping. If you aren;t theres no reason to use Garmin might as well use a cell phone or "regular" computer/power meter etc.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 2294
Location: On the bike
"might as well use a cell phone"

So a cell phone GPS is ok but a Garmin GPS isn't?

Also something like a SRM PC7 is significantly more $$$ than a Garmin and doesn't provide the same extent of data. Plus SRM PC8 is going with GPS as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
No a cell is just ad bad so might as well Garmin isn't worth the extra money. thats what Im trying to say.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 2294
Location: On the bike
Sure a Garmin is worth the extra money. Might not be to you, but for plenty of us it is. No need to justify not using a GPS bike computer.

For those that run a power meter and/or want to track elevation/distance/route over time, what bike computer would you recommend?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 635
Image

gitsome, you have been all over the place with your comments. From NY being one of the most covered places in USA for GPS (which isn't correct as the GPS signal isn't directed towards different urban areas). A clear line of sight to the sky is all that is needed, however as mentioned earlier the GLONASS is better for high latitude areas (north and south) as it is Russian and Russia designed it that way.

Then you went on to talking about the unit being 50-200 feet inaccurate when someone already posted pictures of the unit showing accuracy significantly more accurate than you claimed.

Then you went on to talk about how it is such a big waste of money and bla bla bla yet you are talking to a group of guys who spend thousands of dollars on bikes when the average person thinks we are crazy as they can go to Walmart and get a $150 bike.

We get it that you don't like GPS units.


gitsome wrote:
I'm not going to say anymore as I sen to be pissing everyone off.

Dasvidania and see you cosmonauts later. Good luck !


Ok see you later.

_________________
"Sacred to the god Aesculapius"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
My comments have been consistent all along. My observations have been way more than 14 ft off and even that much would add up to an inaccurate map, you do not need a GPS unit for any other use as there many cheaper computers that will give you more accurate speed, dist, cadence etc than a $300+ Garmin or other GPS dedicated unit. And others implied the inaccuracy was due to lost or dropped signal and I countered that was not the case.

Why am I defending myself against people who don't even read my replies carefully and then accuse me of being all over then place?!

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.

As far as other computers I have no idea I don;t sell them or care too much. I only say all this because I was considering buying a Garmin and when I looked into it more found the accuracy was not good enough to justify it. Thats all I'm trying to say.

I don;t think the consumer tech is there yet and the companies are making claims and promises that are not supported by the evidence.

But as I have said, not my money, if you are willing to pay $3-500 for a sort-of good-enough computer great. For my needs and wants thats not good enough yet.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:30 am
Posts: 277
gitsome, what was the data recording interval set at when you used/looked at the Garmin Edge.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:00 pm 
  • Garmin Edge 810
  • 579.00 €   from 349.90 € (including 19% VAT)
  • in stock


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2old4this, bigpab, Bing [Bot], dedi313, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Jdrsvin, Jere, jooo, mannymerc, r_mutt, SLCBrandon and 39 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

19415

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

485

Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:16 am

Causidicus View the latest post

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

in Road

petal666

4

440

Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:09 am

mrfish 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

3901

Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:34 pm

kgt View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Consensus on alternative Campy cranksets

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

alexaqui

18

1343

Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:32 am

Lewis View the latest post


It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:59 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