Started tracking with Google MyTracks on Android, then tried Endomondo, now settled on Strava. Got an Edge 500 a little over a year ago, and only rarely use the Droid now.

Garmin. More accurate than my cheap smartphone, better battery life. I also switch the Garmin over to my track bike and use its ANT+ pairing with the speed & cadence sensors, as well as with the power meter on my road bike in the summer.

I also like the larger number display on the Garmin 500. It's getting harder for me to read the displays on my computer(s) in low light. Although I would imagine one could customize the display on a smart phone.

Luis

If you're not relying on sensors you can just slip the garmin in your pocket and capture the data like that. You can't see your speed and mileage as you ride, but you can't with your phone either.

BTW, Strava lets you generate data like this if you are a premium member:

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps0822685d.jpg

I'm afraid this might give my dreaded adversary T-mobile an advantage over me, but what the heck. I intend to use this type of stuff on my winter training program.

I don't own a real power meter, but I bought a gizmo which derives the power from my KKT. I only generate these numbers during basement workouts.

I ride a lot of hills and the more accurate elevation from the pressure altimeter is a real nice feature.
I like that you can scroll through several display pages, and I have only two fields on each for easiest readability.

GPS v mobile phone accuracy - no contest.

Hi Jerry,

Did you ride the Central Double Century in Litchfield, IL? That was my first double in '83 and my first (and only) triple in '85. Since you are in the St. Louis area, that would be my guess.

Bob Harting, who organized the CDC with the AYH every year now lives In the San Diego area and I see him every year on the Grand Tour Double out here (Malibu to Ojai and back, late June every year).

Rick / OCRR

Strava + Galaxy Note II = Win.

What year was that written?
Never mind, I went and ready a little deeper. That's part of a sales pitch for a company selling GPS software and they install their own GPS receivers.
My phone doesn't use cell towers to pin point my GPS location or else Strava and Google maps would stop working in some of the places I cycle.

None of the above..

so ..[faith based diety, of your choosing, or owner of the fiefdom in which you toil ]
help me! Another poll. :rolleyes:

I rode with Bob a few times a long time ago but I didn't do the Litchfield double. I did mine at the Mississippi Valley 24 Hour Challenge in New Baden plus a one-off double century out of Edwardsville. The MV24 was run by Mike Hahn also of AYH, or HI-GC or whatever they were calling it at that time.

Doubles are challenging. I attempted 6 of them but only completed 4. Knee pain stopped me at 162 miles twice. My daughter did 355 miles at the MV24 when she was 18 YO.

Good point, makes Garmin less unattractive.


1. A lot of talk with no experimental data.
2. Written from perspective of cars, not bikes.
3. Discusses tracking only (my phone usually can tell which side of the street I'm on - can't imagine needing more accuracy than that); doesn't discuss elevation data at all, which was my point of contention concerning relative accuracy. The issue is whether altimeters are better than whatever the phone uses in Strava... I presume some kind of data table for coordinates.

Got anything else?

In regards to elevation: the results from devices with altimeters compared to those that calculate on map data are wildly different. So, they can't both be accurate.

No and I am not interested in spending any more time searching for any.

Doubles are challenging, Jerry. I have finished the Grand Tour (Lowland) 3 times, and Hemet once. I bonked at 170 miles of the spring Solvang Double though.

I guess you'd have to define "wildly" - I haven't seen it. Here's Strava's discussion about it:
https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/2...-Your-Activity


And here we have six people in my following group on the same climb - five different devices... not a bucket of spit worth of difference in the elevation data.

http://i.imgur.com/Xni4cfB.jpg?1




Official elevation at the Summit is 3,850 ft.

I've seen as much as 1,000 feet difference between my ride (garmin 200) and my ride partner (garmin 810) over a 50 mile ride.

That's certainly a lot. What were the actual values that are 1000 feet apart? And is this as reported on your Garmins or what Strava reported based on Garmin data?

If the actual elevation values at any particular point agree, then it's the way your devices are summing up the totals, and not a measurement error. Strava talks about this in their "smoothing" function.

Garmin but not Strava (was this a choice in the poll?). At this point, sharing ride data is not an interest of mine.

The ride was in the 3,000 ft range. As reported on Strava after upload.

I use Strava on my iphone. It has helped me greatly in my riding motivation. I know some of the guys I chase on these courses. I just want to be the best I can at 56yrs of age and have lots of fun doing it.

For ride data I have a small Garmin Geko 100 taped to the stem so I can know my speed, distance and elevation relative to the ride. Someday I'll upgrade to a real Garmin but I still have to take my phone because of obvious and less than obvious reasons.

My only interest here is in education, not in bashing any component or technology or user - I hope that's clear.

1000 feet of difference on a 50 mile ride is big enough that you should notice some distinctions in the profile map.
If the elevations at particular points agree with each other then it's a software difference in summing up the totals.
And if the elevations don't match, then it's a measurement difference. This would be especially notable if you rode over any bridges over deep canyons or something like that... or if there were a severe weather change during the ride.

http://www.strava.com/activities/78989742
http://www.strava.com/activities/78985269

That would be the ride in particular (not sure if they're visible to the public or not). I guess he was using a garmin 705. The elevation maps look pretty close just eyeballing them.

I suspect the GPS chip in Garmins is the same as in cell phones. My Galaxy S4 receives both GPS and Glonas and is better than my Garmins which don't receive Glonas. Some of the newer Garmins do, very likely because the chip was available having been designed for phones which are sold by the many millions.

I can see them.

It looks like there are some significant elevation differences (50 feet or so) for the first 15 miles, and then they match for the rest of the ride. Perhaps the barometer of the altimeter device was correcting itself in that period. You could download the GPX files and verify if you're interested (caution, those files are just lots of text and code)... wouldn't tell you which one is right, but might give some insight into why they're different.

BTW, the difference in air pressure between 1000 ft and 1010 feet is about 6/1000 of a psi - it's amazing how sensitive those altimeters can be, but it doesn't take much of a glitch to get a wonky result.