there is an ongoing discussion about the bolt on the randonneuring gmail group. I think someone said that the elemnt can be charged while navigating, but it could have been about the bolt. The Bolt seems to meet my relatively limited needs better than my 800.

Mine landed today, and it is sa-weet! Setup was not only fast and easy, it was fun! First ride tomorrow!

So I got an Elemnt, Bolt not in stock at REI (yet). I thought I'd give this a try.

Doesn't look like the bike computer software writes calories into Apple Healthkit even when it's set up to sync.

Also, is there a way to force a sync to strava in the event that it doesn't connect up?

So far, the sync is not looking like all it's cracked up to be.....

J.

Was there an option to sync w/ Apple Health? I didn't see it.

Regarding Strava, did you use the app to authorize it on Elemnt? Did you run the updates? My BOLT had an update right out of the box. I wonder if you got one of the early ELEMNTs; may be worth checking into. I believe there were several updates to ELEMNT to get it to BOLT release condition, so you may have several to do.

Yes, it syncs with apple Health app. Problem though - the active calories are almost 2x Strava and Garmin. That's concerning to me. I'll probably let strava keep writing the calories and updating Garmin Connect. I'll let the elemnt write everything else.

I think you're right about the firmware revisions. I wound up unpairing the unit from my phone (don't do that - lost the ride data) and went through two firmware revisions. On today's ride it was fine and uploaded properly.

Two gripes:
1. Grade is so-o-o slow to update as to be not useful. Takes 500' or so. Garmin seems to less than 100'. Wahoo needs to tone down the data smoothing.

2. I love the zooming feature *except* on the visual/graphical fields. The Di2 gear indicator looks positively awful if it's jammed into a small field space and it shouldn't be scaled vertically. The Di2 display should cover the whole width at a fixed height no matter what.

Display is awesome. Connectivity presuming it's working right is awesome. Love buttons over touch screens.

J.

Haha...Apple Health was right at the top of the list! Dunno how I missed that...

Glad the updates did the trick for you.

I've not looked at grade and don't have Di2, so no input there.

Well that is a showstopper for me. Thanks for pointing this out.

I wrote them about this today on a support ticket. I gave them this feedback and several other nits I've noted.

FWIW, That's the only real thing I've seen and there is a workaround. If you are on a route, you can see a graphical depiction of the route in terms of elevation and where you are on the route.

I ride in Minnesota where it tends to be hilly but not typically large hills where you grind away for a long while (i.e. like in the mountains). In that case, the Garmin also has a significant lag but it's smaller than the Elemnt. The tradeoff is that the grade from the Garmin seems to be less accurate too. I've had many cases where I know I've been on a 6% or higher grade and the Edge 1000 reports it as a 3 or 4% grade. So while there is a delay there, it's not at all unlikely that the Elemnt is taking time to be more accurate and double checking (averaging) that over a longer distance. So neither is accurate in the moment, but one you feel better about. That's almost certainly the case.

Grade, I think, is sort of like power but power is more honest about the display choices. You can have 3s, 5s, etc... averaging on power. On grade, becasue of the way both GPS and the barometric sensor works, you do have to cover some distance to allow the computer to detect the change in elevation and compute the grade (distance change in elevation over a given distance as a percent). With GPS, you are going to have to do that in some multiples of the minimum accuracy radius. With a barometric sensor, you can take that over less distance but you have to double check it against a known staring point in elevation and you're subject to variances in air pressure - either way you still need to cover some distance.

So I'd not read a tremendous amount into the grade delay in terms of it being a "showstopper." In one case you're likely getting accuracy at the expense of time and in the other you're getting a less accurate (maybe even wildly inaccurate) reading but faster.

J.

Good analysis but if it takes 500' for it to return a grade figure then it will miss or report inaccurate results for climbs shorter than that. Where I ride there are many climbs shorter than 500' where I'd like to know the grade. Garmin may be trading off something to get quicker results but I've found my 800 to be reasonably good at grade reporting.

I wonder why bike computers don't have pitch sensors like most cell phones do, which give instantaneous display of pitch. Waiting to gather rise over run data from GPS and/or speed sensors seems non-optimal.

Just for one, pitch sensors need to be zero-ed for a level condition, which means you have to find where the level ground is. Second, if the computer is in your pocket, its pitch is changing as you pedal or change cycling position, so the zero set is changing. If it's on the bar and it gets knocked, the zero set is instantly wrong.

If you have time to sit around you could calibrate it to a GPS reading, but with some of these problems it goes out of cal very quickly.

Exactly right. Good points. This is why it's much more practical to use a rise over run calculation instead of just pure momentary sensor orientation. This is one of the reasons why I'm sure you can either have an accurate number slower or a more inaccurate number faster. I don't see any way around that. For impatient cyclists, I'm betting Garmin has decided that throwing a number up faster is a good idea, and maybe just show big jumps in grade changes slower. Both have their problems but both also are fine on long grades where its more important.

I will also say this - looking at grade while riding on the Edge 1000, it is still lagging the actual terrain significantly.

J.

Those are pretty much non-issues for me. I mount my computer on the handlebar and the mount rarely changes position. If it does, push a button to re-calibrate on a flat surface (like my garage floor) or a reasonable flat surface elsewhere. I'd much prefer that to knowing what the rise/run over the past 500 feet was. Actually both would be interesting to know, depending on the situation.

it's not that easy when you are trying to calculate grade or pitch to a tenth of a degree. Get an accurate level out and lay it on your garage floor, move it around, and you'll see how "flat" it is. Won't work, sorry.

J.

Does it have a barometric altimeter?

I'm assuming you mean 500' distance not 500' of elevation.

I guess I don't know if it does, I presume it does (very cheap sensor). I just think their algorithm needs a little work.

I did mean horizontal distance.

I think the real problem here is in divorcing grade measurement from actual terrain, in that merging the two, for mapping or charting purposes, would be a hot mess. Every little dip and wheelie and power surge would send the pitch sensor swinging. Perhaps it could be stabilized or the data smoothed, and perhaps not reconciled against GPS data, but it would still require a new data field and transmission channel to record. It can be done, for sure, but there's the cost/benefit analysis getting in the way, probably; it's just trivia as opposed to a performance metric or training aid.

Do you use any post-ride data analysis sites, like Strava? You can view elevation and grade profiles there, which may satisfy your curiosity. If you're riding the same routes regularly, once you know the grade from post ride data, you know the grade.

There are number of ways to smooth the data, for sure, but the issue with pitch is going to be cost and calibration. At any rate, doesn't matter because that's not how current computers do it.

The more I think about it, Grade as a field on your computer just can't be real time with current sensors. You have to go some non trivial distance to get the calculation to work. So it's ok for later reference but it's not going to be real time on the bike. I'm pretty certain that the instanteous Garmin grade is pretty inaccurate but there is the comfort in seeing a number change (albeit at the expense of accuracy). If needing to see the number NOW even if not accurate, then Garmin is the choice.

On a long consistent grade, they both should work well. In that case, I'd have to believe the calculation over the longer distance would be more accurate.

J.

This is starting to irritate me enough that I'm going to take my Edge 1000 out with the Elemnt and see what they say side by side. I really like the Elemnt in almost all ways - the connectivity is orders of magnitude better than Garmin, the UI is way better, the display is better, but this grade thing is starting to really irritate my OCD cyclist tendencies.


J.