Originally Posted by
Seattle Forrest
I wouldn't be surprised if the top number came from the data of the file, and the average you see next to the speed chart was the average of the values in the chart. You would expect that to be the same thing, but there may be some smoothing, ignoring of zeros, or summarization that happens before the numbers are converted into a graph.
Just thinking....if the "Analysis" is a time-based graphical average, and if the smoothing affects negative speed spikes (i.e., stopping) more than it affects accelerations (going down hill), because the former are more sudden, (have a higher Fourier frequency) then that would explain why smoothing has a systematic bias to make the graphical average "faster".
What this comes down to is in fact the same as differences between Strava and "average speeds" reported directly on the devices (Wahoo, Garmin, etc.). These are all affected by the way each algorithm deals with stop/starts.
I just find it odd that Strava has two ways of filtering stop/starts out of the "moving time" data that are internally inconsistent.