Bike Computer Accuracy
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
53 Posts
Bike Computer Accuracy
For rides, I use a bike computer (magnet in the spokes) and Ride With GPS on an iPhone. For distance, both provide similar results (20 miles vs. 19.9 miles). But for speed, the difference is bothersome (14 mph vs. 13.5 mps). Is this typical?
I ride along the road (with some trails) in the suburbs..
I ride along the road (with some trails) in the suburbs..
#2
Galveston County Texas
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In The Wind
Posts: 33,224
Bikes: 02 GTO, 2011 Magnum
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1350 Post(s)
Liked 1,245 Times
in
623 Posts
Bike Computer set with Roll OUT Measurements is most accurate..
__________________
Fred "The Real Fred"
Fred "The Real Fred"
Likes For 10 Wheels:
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,683
Bikes: 2000 Litespeed Vortex Chorus 10, 1995 DeBernardi Cromor S/S
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 645 Post(s)
Liked 797 Times
in
446 Posts
For rides, I use a bike computer (magnet in the spokes) and Ride With GPS on an iPhone. For distance, both provide similar results (20 miles vs. 19.9 miles). But for speed, the difference is bothersome (14 mph vs. 13.5 mps). Is this typical?
I ride along the road (with some trails) in the suburbs..
I ride along the road (with some trails) in the suburbs..
Likes For aplcr0331:
#5
Senior Member
The speed and distance on the computer are only as accurate as the value used for the tire circumference. Standard values listed for each tire size are close, but I measure the length of 3 revolutions, several times, then convert my inches measurement to millimeters. Having your weight on the bike will further improve accuracy. The tire will squish and the effective radius will be smaller.
Likes For DaveSSS:
Likes For berner:
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Hacienda Hgts
Posts: 2,109
Bikes: 1999 Schwinn Peloton Ultegra 10, Kestrel RT-1000 Ultegra, Trek Marlin 6 Deore 29'er
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 823 Post(s)
Liked 1,961 Times
in
944 Posts
My simple Cateye with a magnetic sensor matches usually within .10 of a mile with the ridewithgps route planner app on 50+ mile rides.
I stopped using Garmin because it grossly inflated elevation gains. It is more accurate to just use the ridewithgps mapping function to figure out elevation gain.
I stopped using Garmin because it grossly inflated elevation gains. It is more accurate to just use the ridewithgps mapping function to figure out elevation gain.
Likes For CAT7RDR:
#8
Galveston County Texas
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In The Wind
Posts: 33,224
Bikes: 02 GTO, 2011 Magnum
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1350 Post(s)
Liked 1,245 Times
in
623 Posts
The speed and distance on the computer are only as accurate as the value used for the tire circumference. Standard values listed for each tire size are close, but I measure the length of 3 revolutions, several times, then convert my inches measurement to millimeters. Having your weight on the bike will further improve accuracy. The tire will squish and the effective radius will be smaller.
A Roll Out is Necessary as it relates to Tire PSA and Weight of the Rider.
__________________
Fred "The Real Fred"
Fred "The Real Fred"
#9
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
The correction for distance Strava uses if you're on pretty well known roads and routes is pretty accurate. However, you "instantaneous" speed shown on the GPS is most accurate if using a wheel speed sensor with accurate info inserted in for that sensor (rollout, tire size, etc...).
One thing I've seen is that if you're a runner, I have the slowest runs by far on curvy greenway/MUP runs where the curves are so small that the GPS mesh coords are much larger than the curves. Thus, you lose a solid amount of distance that it can't really correct for.
I could assume MTB folks also suffer from this and rollout may work better for distance the curvier your route is.
My most accurate distance/times for running pace are on arrow straight streets and roads with really steady curves to them when they do turn.
Either way, I train on rides to time spent in zones combined with overall TSS. I don't really bother looking at the speed or distance as it is irrelevant sometimes. I only went 18mi yesterday in an hour on a 30/30 vo2 workout but went uphill almost 1900ft. I was chasing X sets of 30/30 and an overall TSS score for the workout. I hit my sets, then free-rode at Z2 and tempo till I hit my TSS score. Then went home.
It doesn't really bother me ever unless doing my super nerd time trial equipment testing. Then I care about the details a bit more.
One thing I've seen is that if you're a runner, I have the slowest runs by far on curvy greenway/MUP runs where the curves are so small that the GPS mesh coords are much larger than the curves. Thus, you lose a solid amount of distance that it can't really correct for.
I could assume MTB folks also suffer from this and rollout may work better for distance the curvier your route is.
My most accurate distance/times for running pace are on arrow straight streets and roads with really steady curves to them when they do turn.
Either way, I train on rides to time spent in zones combined with overall TSS. I don't really bother looking at the speed or distance as it is irrelevant sometimes. I only went 18mi yesterday in an hour on a 30/30 vo2 workout but went uphill almost 1900ft. I was chasing X sets of 30/30 and an overall TSS score for the workout. I hit my sets, then free-rode at Z2 and tempo till I hit my TSS score. Then went home.
It doesn't really bother me ever unless doing my super nerd time trial equipment testing. Then I care about the details a bit more.
Likes For burnthesheep:
#10
Sr Member on Sr bikes
Just wondering if this a look at actual current speed sometime mid-ride. Or, if it’s the average speed you see after the ride has finished? Just asking because I think the two would likely be different while looking at them mid-ride due to the frequency of how often the speed is determined.
Dan
Dan
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,886
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3242 Post(s)
Liked 2,089 Times
in
1,182 Posts
In my experience, GPS devices are inaccurate as to speed at that moment. There’s always a few seconds of lag in the display. Is why I use speed sensors.
#12
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,641
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4739 Post(s)
Liked 1,533 Times
in
1,004 Posts
I think the OP is saying that speed is pretty accurate between both.. So if the problem is the Avg Speed/Hr, then the problem lays in the difference in how the 2 devices are measuring time (moving, stopped, overall, etc etc.. lots of possible differences).
Likes For Sy Reene:
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,887
Bikes: Trek Domane SLR 7 AXS, Trek CheckPoint SL7 AXS, Trek Emonda ALR AXS, Trek FX 5 Sport
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked 1,747 Times
in
1,017 Posts
^^ This... I wrote a database app many moons ago that I stored all my ride info in and I noticed that my avg time and speed were always off slightly. Came down to rounding from the computer and my db. I carried out digits 3 places for some off reason and the computer app only carried it out to 1. I changed my coding to only show a single digit east of the decimal and boom.....match.
#14
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4560 Post(s)
Liked 2,802 Times
in
1,800 Posts
Auto pause/resume with most apps and *some* bike computers will also influence readings for speed, distance and time. Some auto-pause/resume settings are adjustable, some aren't.
I've run a dedicated bike computer and two phones with apps (Wahoo Fitness on one, Strava on the other) and they all differ slightly. Not enough to worry about. I was never close enough to a KOM for a 0.5 mph or 1 minute difference to matter over over my favorite routes. It might affect a top 10 position, but as younger, stronger and faster riders use those same routes I'll never be anywhere near a top 10, let alone a KOM. So my best times/speeds will be jockeying for middle of the pack honors, along with almost every other MAMIL.
If I was serious I'd try a wired bike computer calibrated to my wheel/tire diameter, etc., as described above.
I've run a dedicated bike computer and two phones with apps (Wahoo Fitness on one, Strava on the other) and they all differ slightly. Not enough to worry about. I was never close enough to a KOM for a 0.5 mph or 1 minute difference to matter over over my favorite routes. It might affect a top 10 position, but as younger, stronger and faster riders use those same routes I'll never be anywhere near a top 10, let alone a KOM. So my best times/speeds will be jockeying for middle of the pack honors, along with almost every other MAMIL.
If I was serious I'd try a wired bike computer calibrated to my wheel/tire diameter, etc., as described above.
Likes For canklecat:
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Along the Rivers of Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,255
Bikes: 2011 Novara Forza Hybrid, 2005 Trek 820, 1989 Cannondale SR500 Black Lightning, 1975 Mundo Cycles Caloi Racer
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times
in
157 Posts
My simple Cateye with a magnetic sensor matches usually within .10 of a mile with the ridewithgps route planner app on 50+ mile rides.
I stopped using Garmin because it grossly inflated elevation gains. It is more accurate to just use the ridewithgps mapping function to figure out elevation gain.
I stopped using Garmin because it grossly inflated elevation gains. It is more accurate to just use the ridewithgps mapping function to figure out elevation gain.
On my Novara, I have a Sigma with mag sensor. It's set pretty accurately - it matches every mile marker around the river trails here and on the GAP even over long distances.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,904
Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2604 Post(s)
Liked 1,933 Times
in
1,213 Posts
When I'm feeling obsessive-compulsive over distance and/or speed, the wired (or wireless) cyclocomputer with a wheel sensor is my go-to measurement device. I've got a nice downhill ridge near home I can coast down, and compare the computer's measured distance with the mile markers. If I'm within 1%, it's fine; more than 2%, time to adjust the calibration. I've gotten it within 0.5% some months, and then the tire gets worn and/or replaced, and the next time it's up to 1% match.
A few key features of the above. First, I'm coasting downhill, so there's minimal side-to-side pedal tracking to affect the distance measured. Second, because it's a U.S. highway, I trust the mile markers to be accurate. (Don't try this in Kansas or Missouri -- I think they sell mile markers at Walmart in those states, and farmers pick out a pretty green sign to put up near their farms without regards to location or numbers) Finally, curves are pretty wide, even on the ridge.
GPS devices sometimes match the cyclocomputer pretty closely, as long as the comparison is on a straight, treeless road with no large buildings nearby. On my more typical rides (curvy, trees, hillsides blocking some satellite signals), the GPS distance is off. It's still good if I need help mapping or navigating, but I don't trust the distance the GPS measures. Ergo, I figure the instantaneous speed measurement is in the ballpark, but it's more for entertainment than precise measuring.
A few key features of the above. First, I'm coasting downhill, so there's minimal side-to-side pedal tracking to affect the distance measured. Second, because it's a U.S. highway, I trust the mile markers to be accurate. (Don't try this in Kansas or Missouri -- I think they sell mile markers at Walmart in those states, and farmers pick out a pretty green sign to put up near their farms without regards to location or numbers) Finally, curves are pretty wide, even on the ridge.
GPS devices sometimes match the cyclocomputer pretty closely, as long as the comparison is on a straight, treeless road with no large buildings nearby. On my more typical rides (curvy, trees, hillsides blocking some satellite signals), the GPS distance is off. It's still good if I need help mapping or navigating, but I don't trust the distance the GPS measures. Ergo, I figure the instantaneous speed measurement is in the ballpark, but it's more for entertainment than precise measuring.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 418 Times
in
250 Posts
I use RWGPS post ride to fix the speed and elevation numbers.
Those complaining about a 0.6% difference is kind of insane in my book. That’s 15.00mph vs. 15.09mph, or for most practical purposes ‘the same’ number. The speedometer in your car is often has no better accuracy wise than this.
Those complaining about a 0.6% difference is kind of insane in my book. That’s 15.00mph vs. 15.09mph, or for most practical purposes ‘the same’ number. The speedometer in your car is often has no better accuracy wise than this.
#19
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,852
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked 1,647 Times
in
829 Posts
For rides, I use a bike computer (magnet in the spokes) and Ride With GPS on an iPhone. For distance, both provide similar results (20 miles vs. 19.9 miles). But for speed, the difference is bothersome (14 mph vs. 13.5 mps). Is this typical?
I ride along the road (with some trails) in the suburbs..
I ride along the road (with some trails) in the suburbs..
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: SE Wyoming
Posts: 604
Bikes: 1995 Specialized Rockhopper,1989 Specialized Rock Combo, 2013 Specialized Tarmac Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked 588 Times
in
278 Posts
Meh. My Garmin Edge 25 is close enough for me, although it's a bit off from my riding partner's computer of unknown make. I ain't settin' any speed or distance records.
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,085
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked 264 Times
in
162 Posts
The speed and distance on the computer are only as accurate as the value used for the tire circumference. Standard values listed for each tire size are close, but I measure the length of 3 revolutions, several times, then convert my inches measurement to millimeters. Having your weight on the bike will further improve accuracy. The tire will squish and the effective radius will be smaller.
#22
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 309
Bikes: nothing to brag about
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked 206 Times
in
116 Posts
You can't ride an hour (or a half, or fifteen minutes) and see how far you've come, calculate your average speed, and know which one is right????
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,843
Bikes: Trek Domane SL6 Gen 3, Soma Fog Cutter, Focus Mares AL, Detroit Bikes Sparrow FG, Volae Team, Nimbus MUni
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 896 Post(s)
Liked 2,065 Times
in
1,081 Posts
If the sensor and magnet are correctly installed, the wired computer will be virtually100% accurate at counting wheel revolutions. Converting wheel revolutions to distance, measuring time, calculating speed from time & distance, then displaying speed on the screen, are matters of calibration, software, and hardware. There may be calculation inaccuracies and delays updating the display. Generally I think most cyclocomputers are pretty good, but they are not all equal.
Theoretically, if well calibrated, this should be far more precise than a GPS at both instantaneous speed and speed and distance over a long ride.
Theoretically, if well calibrated, this should be far more precise than a GPS at both instantaneous speed and speed and distance over a long ride.
Likes For downtube42:
#25
Senior Member
The difference in measured distance between my cycle computer and Strava is pretty substantial, around 2%. Since I have a wired computer from a brand I have had only good experience with (Sigma), and I measured the tire circumference carefully when setting it up, I'm inclined to trust the computer instead of GPS. I mean, 2% of the measured 2220mm circumference (which also corresponds to the figures cited online for this tire size within a few mm) is 44mm - it's virtually impossible to be off by that much. The accuracy of speed measurements aren't that important to me, but such a difference in distance would translate to almost a whole century over my yearly mileage.