On 7/10/2026 6:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:Garmin used GPS information based on the grid of the earth. It generally
On 7/10/2026 3:29 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Apparently, speedometers measure average speed in a different mannerGarbage, Garmin is deadly accurate with speed and even when I used one
than a Garmin. Probably length of timat maximum speed vs total ride
time,rather than averaging speed per second. This would increase my
average speed by 3 mph or more. It would also put a better light on why >>>> my Garmin average speed is so low while I pass so many people. My second >>>> half return speed can be 17 mph or higher and my Garmin speed may change >>>> from 10.5 to 11 mph.
with an old wireless Sigma not GPS they were very close. You take Garmin >>> and the average and put it in the bank. That is what it is and cyclist
passing you or you passing them has zero to do with speed. Speed is
distance covered over time.
Deacon Mark
Indeed considered that the Garmin has records a point of time/place as long >> as segments etc, arenAt too short it will absolutely be on the money for
the time and thus speed from point to point, can get some errant max speed >> and max gradients but the averages are correct.
YouAd think being healthy enough to be riding in your 80As would be enough, >> than trying to convince himself and others heAs still the faster rider.
Roger Merriman
is accurate to with 10-15 feet of where you are. I have routes that go
out 50 miles and Garmin will record them and they are all basically the >same. GPS is all about position and time and then it measure speed. The >error is basically no existent for cycling purposes. It might be for a
world record long jump in measure a 30 foot distance. On a straight 1
mile road it will not be off more and a few feet less than 50 for sure.
I live in the middle of an agriculture corn and beans bonanza. All the >farmers plant there rows of crops and fields using GPS position same
stuff as Garmin. They get down to 18 inch rows perfect and straight with >built in best coverage.
This is fact and anyone who thinks there data is faulty is fooling >themselves or they have something completely out of wack going on.
Deacon Mark
Maybe I'm just old school, but I don't really feel any need for GPS or >something that integrates with my phone or computer.
I'm generally happy with with wired connections that get data directly
off my wheel.
For a long time, I've found that I really like having a cadence meter,
and that has helped me to discover that I ride better at a rate that's a >little higher than what I would do normally. Without the meter, on a
flat road, I'm most comfortable with a cadence somewhere in the
low-to-mid 80's RPM, but with the meter, I typically find a better ride
(and higher average speed) by going down a gear and riding a higher tempo.
Several years ago, the Bontrager Trip-3 I was using needed to be
replaced, and I couldn't find anything that I really liked (again,
without phone/computer integration) and a cadence meter. That one is
long abandoned by Trek, and so I ended up getting an identical
replacement off of Amazon.
As for average speeds, I find that I better trust raw data that is taken >directly from my wheel rather than trying to calculate from a GPS signal.
Of course, the one disadvantage of the wired approach is that
occasionally, my sensor gets mis-aligned, and it's frustrating to see my >speed and distance data not incrementing.
Smith
Maybe I'm just old school, but I don't really feel any need
for GPS or something that integrates with my phone or computer.
I'm generally happy with with wired connections that get
data directly off my wheel.
For a long time, I've found that I really like having a
cadence meter, and that has helped me to discover that I
ride better at a rate that's a little higher than what I
would do normally. Without the meter, on a flat road, I'm
most comfortable with a cadence somewhere in the low-to-mid
80's RPM, but with the meter, I typically find a better ride
(and higher average speed) by going down a gear and riding a
higher tempo.
Several years ago, the Bontrager Trip-3 I was using needed
to be replaced, and I couldn't find anything that I really
liked (again, without phone/computer integration) and a
cadence meter.-a That one is long abandoned by Trek, and so I
ended up getting an identical replacement off of Amazon.
As for average speeds, I find that I better trust raw data
that is taken directly from my wheel rather than trying to
calculate from a GPS signal.
Of course, the one disadvantage of the wired approach is
that occasionally, my sensor gets mis-aligned, and it's
frustrating to see my speed and distance data not incrementing.
Smith
On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:36:13 -0700, NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com>i would think on Catrike it would be better if on the big rear wheel at
wrote:
Maybe I'm just old school, but I don't really feel any need for GPS or
something that integrates with my phone or computer.
I'm generally happy with with wired connections that get data directly
off my wheel.
For a long time, I've found that I really like having a cadence meter,
and that has helped me to discover that I ride better at a rate that's a
little higher than what I would do normally. Without the meter, on a
flat road, I'm most comfortable with a cadence somewhere in the
low-to-mid 80's RPM, but with the meter, I typically find a better ride
(and higher average speed) by going down a gear and riding a higher tempo. >>
Several years ago, the Bontrager Trip-3 I was using needed to be
replaced, and I couldn't find anything that I really liked (again,
without phone/computer integration) and a cadence meter. That one is
long abandoned by Trek, and so I ended up getting an identical
replacement off of Amazon.
As for average speeds, I find that I better trust raw data that is taken
directly from my wheel rather than trying to calculate from a GPS signal.
Of course, the one disadvantage of the wired approach is that
occasionally, my sensor gets mis-aligned, and it's frustrating to see my
speed and distance data not incrementing.
Smith
FWIW, my Garmin computer gets it's speed and distance data via a
sensor wrapped around the front wheel axle. It does use the GPS to
calculate the wheel circumference.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:36:13 -0700, NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com>
wrote:
Maybe I'm just old school, but I don't really feel any need for GPS or
something that integrates with my phone or computer.
I'm generally happy with with wired connections that get data directly
off my wheel.
For a long time, I've found that I really like having a cadence meter,
and that has helped me to discover that I ride better at a rate that's a
little higher than what I would do normally. Without the meter, on a
flat road, I'm most comfortable with a cadence somewhere in the
low-to-mid 80's RPM, but with the meter, I typically find a better ride
(and higher average speed) by going down a gear and riding a higher tempo. >>
Several years ago, the Bontrager Trip-3 I was using needed to be
replaced, and I couldn't find anything that I really liked (again,
without phone/computer integration) and a cadence meter. That one is
long abandoned by Trek, and so I ended up getting an identical
replacement off of Amazon.
As for average speeds, I find that I better trust raw data that is taken
directly from my wheel rather than trying to calculate from a GPS signal.
Of course, the one disadvantage of the wired approach is that
occasionally, my sensor gets mis-aligned, and it's frustrating to see my
speed and distance data not incrementing.
Smith
FWIW, my Garmin computer gets it's speed and distance data via a
sensor wrapped around the front wheel axle. It does use the GPS to
calculate the wheel circumference.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Maybe I'm just old school, but I don't really feel any need for GPS or something that integrates with my phone or computer.
I'm generally happy with with wired connections that get data directly
off my wheel.
For a long time, I've found that I really like having a cadence meter,
and that has helped me to discover that I ride better at a rate that's a little higher than what I would do normally. Without the meter, on a
flat road, I'm most comfortable with a cadence somewhere in the
low-to-mid 80's RPM, but with the meter, I typically find a better ride
(and higher average speed) by going down a gear and riding a higher tempo.
Several years ago, the Bontrager Trip-3 I was using needed to be
replaced, and I couldn't find anything that I really liked (again,
without phone/computer integration) and a cadence meter. That one is
long abandoned by Trek, and so I ended up getting an identical
replacement off of Amazon.
As for average speeds, I find that I better trust raw data that is taken directly from my wheel rather than trying to calculate from a GPS signal.
Of course, the one disadvantage of the wired approach is that
occasionally, my sensor gets mis-aligned, and it's frustrating to see my speed and distance data not incrementing.
Smith
On 7/11/2026 10:58 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:36:13 -0700, NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com>i would think on Catrike it would be better if on the big rear wheel at >least more accurate.
wrote:
Maybe I'm just old school, but I don't really feel any need for GPS or
something that integrates with my phone or computer.
I'm generally happy with with wired connections that get data directly
off my wheel.
For a long time, I've found that I really like having a cadence meter,
and that has helped me to discover that I ride better at a rate that's a >>> little higher than what I would do normally. Without the meter, on a
flat road, I'm most comfortable with a cadence somewhere in the
low-to-mid 80's RPM, but with the meter, I typically find a better ride
(and higher average speed) by going down a gear and riding a higher tempo. >>>
Several years ago, the Bontrager Trip-3 I was using needed to be
replaced, and I couldn't find anything that I really liked (again,
without phone/computer integration) and a cadence meter. That one is
long abandoned by Trek, and so I ended up getting an identical
replacement off of Amazon.
As for average speeds, I find that I better trust raw data that is taken >>> directly from my wheel rather than trying to calculate from a GPS signal. >>>
Of course, the one disadvantage of the wired approach is that
occasionally, my sensor gets mis-aligned, and it's frustrating to see my >>> speed and distance data not incrementing.
Smith
FWIW, my Garmin computer gets it's speed and distance data via a
sensor wrapped around the front wheel axle. It does use the GPS to
calculate the wheel circumference.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/10/2026 3:29 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Apparently, speedometers measure average speed in a different manner
than a Garmin. Probably length of timat maximum speed vs total ride
time,rather than averaging speed per second. This would increase my
average speed by 3 mph or more.
It would also put a better light on
why my Garmin average speed is so low while I pass so many people. My
second half return speed can be 17 mph or higher and my Garmin speed
may change from 10.5 to 11 mph.
The better units accept an actual distance per wheel revolution and are
very accurate so long as you measured correctly.
With your usual tire pressure, ride through a paint splat on a sidewalk, measure dot-to dot. Typical road tire is 2.098 meters;-aYMMV.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:34:52 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,501 |