View Single Post
Old 10-25-21, 05:50 PM
  #11  
MinnMan
Senior Member
 
MinnMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,752

Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4390 Post(s)
Liked 3,016 Times in 1,865 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest
I wouldn't be surprised if the top number came from the data of the file, and the average you see next to the speed chart was the average of the values in the chart. You would expect that to be the same thing, but there may be some smoothing, ignoring of zeros, or summarization that happens before the numbers are converted into a graph.
If the x-axis is distance, rather than time, the graphically "averaged" velocity is nonsense. You know that. It's possible that the algorithm calculates a graphical average with elapsed moving time as the independent variable, And then maybe smoothing could introduce a difference, though I don't see why that difference would be systematic as compared to the mathematically rigorous quotient (total accrued distance/total moving time). "Ignoring zeros" would amount a different extraction of "moving time" as compared to another calculation, and though this is possible, one wonders why they would have two different methods for calculating moving time - which after all, has to be extracted from the same original data, whether they plot it or not.

Clearly *something* is different and smoothing is a good suspect, but again it's odd that it would result in a systematic bias.
MinnMan is offline