Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
Reload this Page >

Altimeter cyclecomp/GPS?

Notices
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets HRM, GPS, MP3, HID. Whether it's got an acronym or not, here's where you'll find discussions on all sorts of tools, toys and gadgets.

Altimeter cyclecomp/GPS?

Old 03-16-19, 06:14 PM
  #1  
pakossa
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 225
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Altimeter cyclecomp/GPS?

A while back I had a few watches that had an altimeter in them. Not 100% accurate, of course, but gave me a good idea of the climbing I did. One of them lasted less than 2 months, so I'm not bothering with those anymore. The cyclecomputers on a couple of my bikes just went, so I'm thinking about getting something with an altimeter. Not sure I want a pure GPS device, as I'm no techie. (Do those things have the usual ave. speed/ride time/distance functions?) I'm not interested in paring it with a smartphone, as I know I'll have all sorts of problems getting it to work. Are there any simple to use cyclecomps with an altimeter?
pakossa is offline  
Old 03-17-19, 06:33 AM
  #2  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,240
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4221 Post(s)
Liked 1,321 Times in 916 Posts
I have a Bontrager Node 2 that has a barometric altimeter.

It's expensive for a cycle computer but I like it.

I don't know if the current Bontrager computers have barometers.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-17-19, 05:02 PM
  #3  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,809

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,731 Times in 3,261 Posts
Most of the Garmin Edges from the 520 up have barometric altimeters. I'd think most other manufacturers of cycling computers/gps intended for cyclist wanting metrics data will have models with barometric sensors too.

They aren't 100% either. But they give some useful data when it's all taken relative to a bunch of rides.
Iride01 is online now  
Old 03-17-19, 05:14 PM
  #4  
Steve B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,825

Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3185 Post(s)
Liked 2,020 Times in 1,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01
Most of the Garmin Edges from the 520 up have barometric altimeters. I'd think most other manufacturers of cycling computers/gps intended for cyclist wanting metrics data will have models with barometric sensors too.

They aren't 100% either. But they give some useful data when it's all taken relative to a bunch of rides.
GPS in general is notoriously bad at determining altitude. The geometry of the satellite locations just doesn’t lend itself to good altitude positioning. Having a barometric sensor helps, but they too are sensitive to the weather, moisture near the sensor port, etc..., than you deal with the cloud based program - Ride-With-GPS, Strava, etc... that all seem to use different methods to calculate how much altitude gained/lost on a ride. Lots of posts all around as to wild numbers recorded on rides.

My Garmin Connect app says 295 ft. for yesterday’s short mt. bike ride. RWGPS said 271 ft. on flat Long Island on an 8 mile ride. The ride distance is only off by .04 miles. I can only imagine the altitude difference if it were 20-30 miles in Colorado.

Irode01 has it correct to use it in comparison to other rides. I’d also use and stick with one cloud tracker.





Steve B. is offline  
Old 03-17-19, 07:29 PM
  #5  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,240
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4221 Post(s)
Liked 1,321 Times in 916 Posts
300 feet is close to noise. I suspect steeper/longer climbs make the number more accurate.

Hopefully, cyclists aren't too concerned about logging 300 foot rides.

RWGPS and others use the same elevation database. The resolution of that database is fairly low, which means it can miss climbs that cyclists care about. That is, the database numbers will tend to be lower than the real number.

It seems many people think it's as accurate as horizontal distance. It isn't.

The gain has a large error (I suspect it's around +/- 20%).

People should treat it as an estimate.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 09:54 AM
  #6  
pdlamb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,844

Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2575 Post(s)
Liked 1,900 Times in 1,192 Posts
IME, accuracy of the three altitude/climb measurement techniques:

1. GPS satellite-only. Climb up a narrow gorge with trees, satellites dropping out because of rock walls or trees, or bogus satellite multi-path signals (bouncing off the other side of the gorge). "What? accuracy?"

2. GPS plus topographic maps. Sometimes fairly decent, sometimes laughable. My favorite was a climb where the mapping software tried to interpolate between contour lines, with the result that a 1,200' climb registered as 2,700'. The road followed an old logging railroad line, so it was a consistent 2-3% grade most of the way. The elevation plot that thing put out looked more like the logging saw than the railroad elevation.

3. Good barometric altimeter, as long as there's no weather front moving through. I've consistently gotten within 5-10' of the surveyed elevation difference between a gap and a crest on the Blue Ridge Parkway, for instance, with 1,000-3,000' climbs. (I don't know any other route that so consistently has elevation signs for every gap and overlook!)
pdlamb is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 01:57 PM
  #7  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,240
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4221 Post(s)
Liked 1,321 Times in 916 Posts
Originally Posted by pdlamb

2. GPS plus topographic maps. Sometimes fairly decent, sometimes laughable. My favorite was a climb where the mapping software tried to interpolate between contour lines, with the result that a 1,200' climb registered as 2,700'. The road followed an old logging railroad line, so it was a consistent 2-3% grade most of the way. The elevation plot that thing put out looked more like the logging saw than the railroad elevation.
​​​Whatever was being done in this case, it doesn't sound like interpolation.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 09:22 AM
  #8  
pdlamb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,844

Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2575 Post(s)
Liked 1,900 Times in 1,192 Posts
Originally Posted by pdlamb
2. GPS plus topographic maps. Sometimes fairly decent, sometimes laughable. My favorite was a climb where the mapping software tried to interpolate between contour lines, with the result that a 1,200' climb registered as 2,700'. The road followed an old logging railroad line, so it was a consistent 2-3% grade most of the way. The elevation plot that thing put out looked more like the logging saw than the railroad elevation.
Originally Posted by njkayaker
​​​Whatever was being done in this case, it doesn't sound like interpolation.
It's interpolation of elevation from interpolation of two-dimensional (i.e., xy) location. This may be way off topic, but it's at least tangentially related as it explains why mapping solutions are sometimes erratic.

The program figures out where the road is going, and follows the road path. For every interval (for example, every 50 feet of road distance), you figure out the lat/lon or x/y location of the road. Then you figure out, for that point, what's the elevation. Say the road is climbing the side of a mountain, and goes over a gully. The topo lines are the parentheses in this ASCII art, and the vertical bar is the line, and downhill is to the left:
)|)
At the bottom of that segment, the road is halfway between two topo lines (call them 1150' and 1200'). The mapping program will calculate the elevation to be 1175'. Halfway up that segment, the program calculates that the road is 20% of the way from the 1150' elevation to the 1200' elevation, so it says the road dropped to 1160'. Up at the top of the segment, you're back up to 1175', halfway between the two contour lines. You may have actually climbed 5' in 100' of road travel, but the simplistic mapping program will calculate you've descended 15' and ascended 15' -- three times your actual climb!

You can see that you'll get a similar over-calculation if you through a cut around the edge of a ridge. ASCII art for this is: (|(

Better programming will filter these results - most of the time. I suspect some of the programs and web sites have inserted highway department data to correct many widely traveled roads. Still, I treat mapping programs' calculations with suspicion.
pdlamb is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 09:39 AM
  #9  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,240
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4221 Post(s)
Liked 1,321 Times in 916 Posts
Originally Posted by pdlamb
It's interpolation of elevation from interpolation of two-dimensional (i.e., xy) location. This may be way off topic, but it's at least tangentially related as it explains why mapping solutions are sometimes erratic.
Seems like an odd approach.

It would seem easier and faster (and less erratic; maybe, more accurate, on average) to just use the topo lines where the topo lines cross the road.

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-19-19 at 09:54 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 09:42 AM
  #10  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times in 6,054 Posts
Originally Posted by pdlamb
3. Good barometric altimeter, as long as there's no weather front moving through. I've consistently gotten within 5-10' of the surveyed elevation difference between a gap and a crest on the Blue Ridge Parkway, for instance, with 1,000-3,000' climbs. (I don't know any other route that so consistently has elevation signs for every gap and overlook!)
I've been using a Garmin watch with a barometer for years. Did a ride up Washington Pass with 3,500 feet of vert according to the topographic maps. My altimeter had a total error of 13 feet. I'm with you, this stuff can work amazingly well.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 09:44 AM
  #11  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times in 6,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Steve B.
GPS in general is notoriously bad at determining altitude.
​​​​​​It's actually improved quite a bit. I'm not able to calculate total cumulative gain using GPS numbers because that's not how things are programmed. But I have a page set up with the GPS altitude and the barometric altitude, they're always very close (as long as I've calibrated the barometer).
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 10:29 AM
  #12  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,809

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,731 Times in 3,261 Posts
Topo lines are going to miss a lot of elevation changes that your device with barometric sensor will record and accumulate. Topo lines at best are going to have a 10 foot vertical spacing. So it's possible to go up and down many times between them.

Most of the Garmin Edges with barometric altimeter are supposed to be able to resolve two feet of difference. So in the right terrain, I could have a gain loss of hundreds of feet and never cross a topo line.

The interval of contour maps as well as the resolution of elevation information in map database will always make comparing device information to map derived gain/loss the same as comparing apples to oranges.
Iride01 is online now  
Old 03-19-19, 11:50 AM
  #13  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times in 6,054 Posts
... unless you do a ride that's entirely up or down, even for a portion.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ejewels
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
17
03-14-17 10:30 PM
Jixr
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
13
11-13-16 10:06 AM
Fudgeurpizzy
Hybrid Bicycles
19
11-06-14 01:36 PM
cycling58
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
23
04-24-14 04:00 PM
DaveLeeNC
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
14
04-24-14 09:28 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.