Here's an odd ball (bike computers, tire circumference and distances)...
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's an odd ball (bike computers, tire circumference and distances)...
Recently took a trip around town, the bike computer registered 100.7 miles. Looked it up on google maps and the same trip was 98.8 miles. Right now I have the tire circumference set at 2173mm. To correct the error, the new tire circumference would have to be set at 2132mm. (100.7/98.8=1.019230, in order to get the same ratio with the tire circumference it would have to be 2132) However 41mm difference is huge, I could understand a 4 or 10 mm error but 41mm per revolution? I remember, to get the original tire circumference of 2173mm I actually measured the tire. I doubt I was off by that much (1.6"!)
So clearly my math must be wrong somewhere.
Or there's a 2% error between real world and google...
Interested to hear some ideas
Cheers
D
So clearly my math must be wrong somewhere.
Or there's a 2% error between real world and google...
Interested to hear some ideas
Cheers
D
#2
Really Old Senior Member
Back when I used to care about such things, when my apparent mileage increased by .5% it meant it was time to air up the tires.
#3
aka Phil Jungels
The chance of you, and Google, using the exact same geometrics is hard to fathom!
#4
Galveston County Texas
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In The Wind
Posts: 33,221
Bikes: 02 GTO, 2011 Magnum
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1349 Post(s)
Liked 1,243 Times
in
621 Posts
Recently took a trip around town, the bike computer registered 100.7 miles. Looked it up on google maps and the same trip was 98.8 miles. Right now I have the tire circumference set at 2173mm. To correct the error, the new tire circumference would have to be set at 2132mm. (100.7/98.8=1.019230, in order to get the same ratio with the tire circumference it would have to be 2132) However 41mm difference is huge, I could understand a 4 or 10 mm error but 41mm per revolution? I remember, to get the original tire circumference of 2173mm I actually measured the tire. I doubt I was off by that much (1.6"!)
So clearly my math must be wrong somewhere.
Or there's a 2% error between real world and google...
Interested to hear some ideas
Cheers
D
So clearly my math must be wrong somewhere.
Or there's a 2% error between real world and google...
Interested to hear some ideas
Cheers
D
Google miles are NOT accurate.
__________________
Fred "The Real Fred"
Fred "The Real Fred"
#5
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,627
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 2,563 Times
in
1,577 Posts
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,663
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5766 Post(s)
Liked 2,538 Times
in
1,404 Posts
There's a difference between theoretical (map) distance and distance actually traveled. Part of the reason is that you don't ride a straight line.
To take an extreme example, imagine you climbed a steep hill by slaloming. The actual distance as measured by your front wheel would be much greater, possibly double the straight line op that hill.
Also, I'm not sure whether google's algorithm uses flat distance based on GPS coordinates, or accounts for the longer distances that going up and down hills involves.
Lastly, steering always has the front wheel taking a longer path than the rear which rolls in a straighter line as the front wheel wiggles, and takes a smaller radius on all turns. You can see this by buying two computers, calibrating them precisely, mounting one each of the front and rear wheels. The front wheel unit will always read higher.
When I used to bother with that nonsense, (no computers on any bikes any more) I used to set the computer by theory, then adjust it based on a 10 mile stretch with NY's mile markers along the road. I've found that the adjusted computer is accurate where the state has measured (3) miles.
To take an extreme example, imagine you climbed a steep hill by slaloming. The actual distance as measured by your front wheel would be much greater, possibly double the straight line op that hill.
Also, I'm not sure whether google's algorithm uses flat distance based on GPS coordinates, or accounts for the longer distances that going up and down hills involves.
Lastly, steering always has the front wheel taking a longer path than the rear which rolls in a straighter line as the front wheel wiggles, and takes a smaller radius on all turns. You can see this by buying two computers, calibrating them precisely, mounting one each of the front and rear wheels. The front wheel unit will always read higher.
When I used to bother with that nonsense, (no computers on any bikes any more) I used to set the computer by theory, then adjust it based on a 10 mile stretch with NY's mile markers along the road. I've found that the adjusted computer is accurate where the state has measured (3) miles.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,258
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4244 Post(s)
Liked 1,348 Times
in
935 Posts
Where did you get this number from?
That number gives R = 345.84 mm.
C = 2132 mm gives R = 339.32 mm
A difference of 6.52 mm.
The google path is going to be smoother. That is, your measured path is almost always going to be larger.
That number gives R = 345.84 mm.
C = 2132 mm gives R = 339.32 mm
A difference of 6.52 mm.
The google path is going to be smoother. That is, your measured path is almost always going to be larger.
Last edited by njkayaker; 10-22-13 at 03:44 PM.
#8
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wow, thanks for all the replies. Lots of things to chew over...
The tire is a Kenda Kwick Trax K1053-003 700x32C
The 2173mm I think I got it by rolling a piece of masking tape around the tire and then measuring it. I guess a roll out measurement would be more accurate or even measuring 10 miles distance or so...
Also, all the things mentioned make sense. Front tire goes a longer distance, subtle differences in route, etc.
"Back when I used to care about such things".... maybe that's the best way to go. I'm not that obsessed with it to be honest, just did my first 100 miles the other day I was extremely pleased with myself. Traced my route on Google and that's how all this came about. I guess more curious than anything.
D
The tire is a Kenda Kwick Trax K1053-003 700x32C
The 2173mm I think I got it by rolling a piece of masking tape around the tire and then measuring it. I guess a roll out measurement would be more accurate or even measuring 10 miles distance or so...
Also, all the things mentioned make sense. Front tire goes a longer distance, subtle differences in route, etc.
"Back when I used to care about such things".... maybe that's the best way to go. I'm not that obsessed with it to be honest, just did my first 100 miles the other day I was extremely pleased with myself. Traced my route on Google and that's how all this came about. I guess more curious than anything.
D
#9
Really Old Senior Member
So, which bike computers use tire radius?
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,644
Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1604 Post(s)
Liked 2,569 Times
in
1,217 Posts
I've used this https://sheldonbrown.com/cyclecomputer-calibration.html and keep pretty close to my GPS buddies, a couple of hundredths per 20 miles.
#12
Senior Member
Wow, thanks for all the replies. Lots of things to chew over...
The tire is a Kenda Kwick Trax K1053-003 700x32C
The 2173mm I think I got it by rolling a piece of masking tape around the tire and then measuring it. I guess a roll out measurement would be more accurate or even measuring 10 miles distance or so...
Also, all the things mentioned make sense. Front tire goes a longer distance, subtle differences in route, etc.
The tire is a Kenda Kwick Trax K1053-003 700x32C
The 2173mm I think I got it by rolling a piece of masking tape around the tire and then measuring it. I guess a roll out measurement would be more accurate or even measuring 10 miles distance or so...
Also, all the things mentioned make sense. Front tire goes a longer distance, subtle differences in route, etc.
Basically, you have a couple of options:
1) Use a generic value from a table somewhere (usually gets within 2% for average riders)
OR
2) Dedicated calibration using a roll-out or straight road segment
Remember that this is a function of tire pressure and wear. The more accurate you want to measure, the more often you need to re-calibrate.
Also, don't assume that GPS will be more accurate. GPS is usually less accurate than a sensor, because the GPS clips corners. The faster you ride, the worse GPS tends to be.
#13
Keepin it Wheel
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,244
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Krampus
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked 3,417 Times
in
2,526 Posts
Recently took a trip around town, the bike computer registered 100.7 miles. Looked it up on google maps and the same trip was 98.8 miles. Right now I have the tire circumference set at 2173mm. To correct the error, the new tire circumference would have to be set at 2132mm. (100.7/98.8=1.019230, in order to get the same ratio with the tire circumference it would have to be 2132) However 41mm difference is huge, I could understand a 4 or 10 mm error but 41mm per revolution? I remember, to get the original tire circumference of 2173mm I actually measured the tire. I doubt I was off by that much (1.6"!)
So clearly my math must be wrong somewhere.
Or there's a 2% error between real world and google...
Interested to hear some ideas
Cheers
D
So clearly my math must be wrong somewhere.
Or there's a 2% error between real world and google...
Interested to hear some ideas
Cheers
D
I would recommend searching out a road with tenth-of-mile markings, coast "exactly" 0.1mile (choose the downhill direction) as arrow-straight as possible, and you will have accounted for tire deformation and wandering route as much as possible. Then recalibrate your computer's circumference using the adjusted calibration technique you describe, and you can sleep well at night.
#14
Engineer
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bucharest, Romania, Europe
Posts: 591
Bikes: 1989 Krapf (with Dura-ace) road bike, 1973 Sputnik (made by XB3) road bike , 1961 Peugeot fixed gear, 2010 Trek 4400
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There are better methods for roll-out circumference settings.
I've marked accurately 200m of straight road and planted two nails into the asphalt. (by measuring with a 50m tape measure four times)
Set the valve stem down on the 1st nail. Ride straight and stop right on top of the 2nd nail 200m away. Complete the roll up where the valve stem is down again and mark it. Do this several times and average the marks where the valve stem is down after the 200m mark, and drive another nail in the asphalt.
Now for the math: between the 1st and 3rd nail there are a complete number of revolutions, and those revolutions happened into 200m+whatever distance is between 3rd nail and 2nd nail (a few centimeters easily measured by a normal tape measure)
Now we need to find how many complete rolls are there: measure the approximate circumference of one roll and divide those 200m+something meters to the approximate value and round the value to integer (it should be fairly close)
study case: I measured loosely 2250m as the circumference of tire. The mark was set at 200.365m (200m + 365mm). Now 200.365/2.250=89.051111 => we can clearly state there were exact 89 complete revolutions, and there are pretty much exact 200.365m of rollout for 89 revolution => 200.365/89=2.2512921 meters of circumference of the tire in normal riding mode.
Now there are concerns about precision: how accurate are those 200m? (I'd guesstimate 10mm tolerance), how accurate did I set the 3rd nail? (out of 20+ rollouts both ways with consistent speed**.. i'd say it's pretty accurate with 5mm).
**Disclaimer: it was rolled out very straight as the wheel was mounted to a car (see below) that was driving straight following a set line, so the valve is ending up consistently ant the same mark every time.. on a bike, the shakiness of that line ridden on a bike is a major error inducer and most likely there will be a wide spread of data.
So based on estimated errors if I fail with 5+10mm in one direction means i'd measure about 200.365 plus or minus 15mm that is between 200.380m and 200.350mm=> the lowes value for circumeference i could get is 200.350/89=2.25112m and highes is 200.380m/89=2.25146m
That is well under half a mm tolerance for that circumference.
The study i made was involved finding the rolling circumference for a 5th wheel measuring device for speed and distance needed for braking tests and other drive performance tests of cars. The transducer (the encoder that counts revolution of the wheel) has 1000 impulses per turns with a gear ration inside of 3 to 1, that gives 3000impulses per turn of the wheel, so it give a fine accuracy provided that the circumference of the wheel is well known to properly calibrate the measuring equipment.
So given the circumstances, i did bother measuring the circumference of that bicycle wheel in lots of ways as that was needed for proper calibration.
Now, for a normal bike such accuracy is overkill, but those nails are planted in the parking lot and did the same for my bike (and planting another fixed marker for my rollout, this time a cross head screw )
So for recalibrating from time to time (due to wear, and air pressure) it's needed only a few steps: strat stem down on 1st marker, roll out to the 3rd marker and see where the valve stem is.. it should be down again, if not complete the revolution either way closest to the set marker and eyeball the distance from the previously set marker. If it's less than 80mm off there is no need for change, as at about 80mm intervals you can add another millimeter to the cyclocomputer (smallest division i have on my crappy cyclocomputer, and in contrast, for the real deal: the 5th wheel speed and distance transducer, we can set whatever value as it's a calibration value inside a labview program that is live and hooked via data acquisition system - another story).
Yet the strive for perfection is not needed for biking, i mostly ride fixed gear and do not have a cyclocomputer for most of my bikes (except for my road bike).
But for those keen on numbers this might be useful info
Have fun crunching numbers, or just go ride
I've marked accurately 200m of straight road and planted two nails into the asphalt. (by measuring with a 50m tape measure four times)
Set the valve stem down on the 1st nail. Ride straight and stop right on top of the 2nd nail 200m away. Complete the roll up where the valve stem is down again and mark it. Do this several times and average the marks where the valve stem is down after the 200m mark, and drive another nail in the asphalt.
Now for the math: between the 1st and 3rd nail there are a complete number of revolutions, and those revolutions happened into 200m+whatever distance is between 3rd nail and 2nd nail (a few centimeters easily measured by a normal tape measure)
Now we need to find how many complete rolls are there: measure the approximate circumference of one roll and divide those 200m+something meters to the approximate value and round the value to integer (it should be fairly close)
study case: I measured loosely 2250m as the circumference of tire. The mark was set at 200.365m (200m + 365mm). Now 200.365/2.250=89.051111 => we can clearly state there were exact 89 complete revolutions, and there are pretty much exact 200.365m of rollout for 89 revolution => 200.365/89=2.2512921 meters of circumference of the tire in normal riding mode.
Now there are concerns about precision: how accurate are those 200m? (I'd guesstimate 10mm tolerance), how accurate did I set the 3rd nail? (out of 20+ rollouts both ways with consistent speed**.. i'd say it's pretty accurate with 5mm).
**Disclaimer: it was rolled out very straight as the wheel was mounted to a car (see below) that was driving straight following a set line, so the valve is ending up consistently ant the same mark every time.. on a bike, the shakiness of that line ridden on a bike is a major error inducer and most likely there will be a wide spread of data.
So based on estimated errors if I fail with 5+10mm in one direction means i'd measure about 200.365 plus or minus 15mm that is between 200.380m and 200.350mm=> the lowes value for circumeference i could get is 200.350/89=2.25112m and highes is 200.380m/89=2.25146m
That is well under half a mm tolerance for that circumference.
The study i made was involved finding the rolling circumference for a 5th wheel measuring device for speed and distance needed for braking tests and other drive performance tests of cars. The transducer (the encoder that counts revolution of the wheel) has 1000 impulses per turns with a gear ration inside of 3 to 1, that gives 3000impulses per turn of the wheel, so it give a fine accuracy provided that the circumference of the wheel is well known to properly calibrate the measuring equipment.
So given the circumstances, i did bother measuring the circumference of that bicycle wheel in lots of ways as that was needed for proper calibration.
Now, for a normal bike such accuracy is overkill, but those nails are planted in the parking lot and did the same for my bike (and planting another fixed marker for my rollout, this time a cross head screw )
So for recalibrating from time to time (due to wear, and air pressure) it's needed only a few steps: strat stem down on 1st marker, roll out to the 3rd marker and see where the valve stem is.. it should be down again, if not complete the revolution either way closest to the set marker and eyeball the distance from the previously set marker. If it's less than 80mm off there is no need for change, as at about 80mm intervals you can add another millimeter to the cyclocomputer (smallest division i have on my crappy cyclocomputer, and in contrast, for the real deal: the 5th wheel speed and distance transducer, we can set whatever value as it's a calibration value inside a labview program that is live and hooked via data acquisition system - another story).
Yet the strive for perfection is not needed for biking, i mostly ride fixed gear and do not have a cyclocomputer for most of my bikes (except for my road bike).
But for those keen on numbers this might be useful info
Have fun crunching numbers, or just go ride
Last edited by Asi; 10-22-13 at 05:16 PM.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,258
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4244 Post(s)
Liked 1,348 Times
in
935 Posts
All of them do, indirectly, (the ones that count wheel rotations). The radius (the height of the hub center from the ground) is the thing directly affected by load and air pressure. It would seem that his difference is close to the difference you'd see between a loaded and unloaded tire.
Last edited by njkayaker; 10-22-13 at 06:24 PM.
#17
Really Old Senior Member
I don't know why you want to go off on a tangent? Did you just learn about PI?
2% is 2% no matter what method you use!
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,258
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4244 Post(s)
Liked 1,348 Times
in
935 Posts
It's the radius (the height of the hub center from the ground) that is affected by the load on the tire (and the air pressure).
More-weight/less-pressure means a smaller radius (the hub center is closer to the ground).
It's the radius, at that one place, that causes the difference in the apparent circumference.
The radius is key to understanding why measuring the circumference of the tire isn't really a good approach and why the roll-out measurement is.
Last edited by njkayaker; 10-22-13 at 06:16 PM.
#19
Really Old Senior Member
Apparent circumference?
My coffee almost went up my nose on that one.
My coffee almost went up my nose on that one.
#21
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,627
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 2,563 Times
in
1,577 Posts
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,258
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4244 Post(s)
Liked 1,348 Times
in
935 Posts
A circumference is a property of a circle. There isn't any real circle in a loaded tire.
The tire (in use) is a circle with a flat area under the hub touching the ground. The circular tire is deformed in use (so it isn't a circle any more).
What you are measuring is the radius of an imaginary circle.
Last edited by njkayaker; 10-22-13 at 06:31 PM.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,663
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5766 Post(s)
Liked 2,538 Times
in
1,404 Posts
Someone mention something about tangents? Like is the road on a tangent to the wheel, or is it more like a secant?
If you get within 1-2% on a bike computer, or any odometer, be happy and move on with your life.
If you get within 1-2% on a bike computer, or any odometer, be happy and move on with your life.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656
Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times
in
741 Posts
A fairly good approximation to the rolling circumference of a bike tire is to assume the tire has a circular cross section. If the named width is correct the circumference can be calculated by (rim diameter+(2* tire width))* Pi
For a 700-32 the estimate is (622+(2*32)* 3.14159... = 2155 mm or about 99.2% of your current value. Realistically a lot of "32" tires are a bit smaller so a true roll-out measurement is still the most accurate method.
For a 700-32 the estimate is (622+(2*32)* 3.14159... = 2155 mm or about 99.2% of your current value. Realistically a lot of "32" tires are a bit smaller so a true roll-out measurement is still the most accurate method.