I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:

40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.

A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.

I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.

My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.

Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019

Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
>
> 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%.. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
>
> A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
>
> I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
>
> My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
>
> Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
>
> Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.

All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to include that in their next issue.

Lou

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
>
> 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%.. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
>
> A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
>
> I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
>
> My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
>
> Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
>
> Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.

OK, Last Tuesday I rode over to Moraga. The ride over is long mild climbs followed by longer milder descents. There is one spot where you can go pretty fast since it is the end of a 12% drops followed by a 180 degree turn that is sharp enough you have to coast it. On the way back there is a hard climb leaving Moraga and the rest has some very mild and very twisty turns so that most of the way you cannot go fast from the top of the last downhill the descent is only 6% with a series of hard turns with potholes in them so that you have to more or less ride the brakes except for the last 1/4 mile descent. This is a straight road so that you can spot the potholes ahead of time and avoid them. Somewhere in there I went 37 mph.

I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed. That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:37:02 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> >
> > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> >
> > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> >
> > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> >
> > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> >
> > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> >
> > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> OK, Last Tuesday I rode over to Moraga. The ride over is long mild climbs followed by longer milder descents. There is one spot where you can go pretty fast since it is the end of a 12% drops followed by a 180 degree turn that is sharp enough you have to coast it. On the way back there is a hard climb leaving Moraga and the rest has some very mild and very twisty turns so that most of the way you cannot go fast from the top of the last downhill the descent is only 6% with a series of hard turns with potholes in them so that you have to more or less ride the brakes except for the last 1/4 mile descent. This is a straight road so that you can spot the potholes ahead of time and avoid them. Somewhere in there I went 37 mph.
>
> I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed. That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25

The Garmin records speed even if you are not pedaling. You getting more confused every time you mention Garmin.

Lou

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> >
> > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> >
> > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> >
> > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> >
> > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> >
> > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> >
> > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent is probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to include that in their next issue.

298 Watts isn't Watts? I already told you that I do not post to Strava.

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:45 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:37:02 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> > >
> > > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> > >
> > > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> > >
> > > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> > >
> > > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> > >
> > > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> > >
> > > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> > OK, Last Tuesday I rode over to Moraga. The ride over is long mild climbs followed by longer milder descents. There is one spot where you can go pretty fast since it is the end of a 12% drops followed by a 180 degree turn that is sharp enough you have to coast it. On the way back there is a hard climb leaving Moraga and the rest has some very mild and very twisty turns so that most of the way you cannot go fast from the top of the last downhill the descent is only 6% with a series of hard turns with potholes in them so that you have to more or less ride the brakes except for the last 1/4 mile descent. This is a straight road so that you can spot the potholes ahead of time and avoid them. Somewhere in there I went 37 mph.
> >
> > I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed. That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25
> The Garmin records speed even if you are not pedaling. You getting more confused every time you mention Garmin.

Lou, I believe that you said that you're a programmer. So you should know the capacity of a microprocessor. How would the 56 mph show up as a personal record and not record the 87? I don't remember the 56 mph but I know that on the one that I agree might not be 87 mph I was not pedaling. And in another place with a strong tailwind I was pedaling like a Froome and got 42 mph.

Lou Holtman <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other
>> records it shows:
>>
>> 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have
>> been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While
>> the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more
>> than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I
>> guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
>>
>> A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally
>> climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
>> July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
>>
>> I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area
>> of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season
>> as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes
>> was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be
>> pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
>>
>> My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century
>> but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before
>> turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
>>
>> Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using
>> the Garmin in 2019
>>
>> Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate
>> but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will
>> say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless
>> they are sports cars trying to pass me.
>
> All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures
> power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not
> distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give
> me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half
> an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with
> that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to
> include that in their next issue.
>
>
>
> Lou
>
Likewise doesn’t sound believable, I’m fairly quick downhill but even so
average speed tends to be low 30’s on a longer hill, clearly will get
faster sections and so on might get into the 40’s

Averaging over 50mph with peak at 87mph at some point says the data is
wrong it’s simply not probable.

Roger Merriman

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:01:32 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:45 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:37:02 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> > > >
> > > > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> > > >
> > > > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > > > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> > > >
> > > > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> > > >
> > > > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> > > >
> > > > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> > > OK, Last Tuesday I rode over to Moraga. The ride over is long mild climbs followed by longer milder descents. There is one spot where you can go pretty fast since it is the end of a 12% drops followed by a 180 degree turn that is sharp enough you have to coast it. On the way back there is a hard climb leaving Moraga and the rest has some very mild and very twisty turns so that most of the way you cannot go fast from the top of the last downhill the descent is only 6% with a series of hard turns with potholes in them so that you have to more or less ride the brakes except for the last 1/4 mile descent. This is a straight road so that you can spot the potholes ahead of time and avoid them. Somewhere in there I went 37 mph.
> > >
> > > I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed. That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25
> > The Garmin records speed even if you are not pedaling. You getting more confused every time you mention Garmin.
> Lou, I believe that you said that you're a programmer. So you should know the capacity of a microprocessor. How would the 56 mph show up as a personal record and not record the 87? I don't remember the 56 mph but I know that on the one that I agree might not be 87 mph I was not pedaling. And in another place with a strong tailwind I was pedaling like a Froome and got 42 mph.

All nonsense. World Champion time trial today (Foss) averaged 51 km/hr over 40 minutes. That should give you a reference. Like I said before doing 100 km/hr in a descent is extremely difficult. Pro riders can hit 120 km/hr in a rare occassion on roads with no traffic. You doing 87 mph?? Your Garmin fooled you and you are too stubborn to admit that. I’m done.

Lou

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:55:15 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> > >
> > > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> > >
> > > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> > >
> > > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> > >
> > > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> > >
> > > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> > >
> > > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent is probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> > All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to include that in their next issue.
> 298 Watts isn't Watts? I already told you that I do not post to Strava.

Look at you initial post. You mention power meter and then 40 km in 26 minutes. Why are you afraid to post on Strava? You can make a private account and Email me the link. You can find me on Strava. I have no secrets. I don’t claim going 87 mph or doing 298 W for 20 minutes and I’m only 65 yo. I did a meager 45 km today because it was raining and 14 C with a fierce wind and was still tired of yesterdays ride. Everyone of my riding group stayed in, was sick or on holiday so I called it a day after 45 km..

Lou

On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>I already told you that I do not post to Strava.

Why do you not post to Strava? What's your excuse?

I do not believe your amazing numbers or spectacular rides until I see
them on Strava. Proof that you actually went on a ride on a specific
day and your performance is a part of what Strava is all about. You
have the necessary equipment (Garmin Edge 830). You have already
created two Strava accounts:
<https://www.strava.com/athletes/27432450>
All you need to do now is make the connection. The most difficult part
was remembering to start and stop recording.

"Automatically Sync with Garmin Connect"
<https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216918057>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Lou Holtman <lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other
> >> records it shows:
> >>
> >> 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have
> >> been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While
> >> the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more
> >> than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I
> >> guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> >>
> >> A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally
> >> climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> >> July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> >>
> >> I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area
> >> of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season
> >> as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes
> >> was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be
> >> pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> >>
> >> My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century
> >> but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before
> >> turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> >>
> >> Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using
> >> the Garmin in 2019
> >>
> >> Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate
> >> but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will
> >> say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless
> >> they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> >
> > All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures
> > power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not
> > distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give
> > me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half
> > an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with
> > that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to
> > include that in their next issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou
> >
> Likewise doesn’t sound believable, I’m fairly quick downhill but even so
> average speed tends to be low 30’s on a longer hill, clearly will get
> faster sections and so on might get into the 40’s
>
> Averaging over 50mph with peak at 87mph at some point says the data is
> wrong it’s simply not probable.

Well, I'm not misinterpreting actual numbers from the Garmin records. I am willing to believe that the sensor has some sort of flaw that allows it to mis-record speed and that is why I will report the top speed again next time I descend that drop-off. I doubt that it would be a repeated error. As for Lou's comparing what I no doubt expect was a long downhill with Foss's 32 mph ride around 24 corners per lap is probably comparing apples and oranges. Here I am averaging usually around 12 mph and having no trouble admitting that. And I know the hills around here can take a half hour to descend. There is one route that if you took it all the way it ascends all the way up the 4000 foot Mt. Hamilton. There used to be a coffee shop half way there that we would use as a metric century training. On the way back you had to climb hill but then you had 40 km of pure downhill with a slight kickup at the end followed by a steep downhill into the parking area. Once in awhile you'd get a tailwind and almost coast all the way from the top of the hill back.

Measuring that much power now would be difficult but I have good days. Especially after 4 or 5 weeks of strong headwinds. Saturday I could not believe how easy I was riding. I have to blame that on the large idler wheels and not me.

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Lou Holtman <lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >> I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other
> > >> records it shows:
> > >>
> > >> 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have
> > >> been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While
> > >> the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more
> > >> than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I
> > >> guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> > >>
> > >> A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally
> > >> climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > >> July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area
> > >> of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season
> > >> as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes
> > >> was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be
> > >> pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> > >>
> > >> My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century
> > >> but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before
> > >> turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> > >>
> > >> Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using
> > >> the Garmin in 2019
> > >>
> > >> Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate
> > >> but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will
> > >> say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless
> > >> they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> > >
> > > All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures
> > > power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not
> > > distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give
> > > me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half
> > > an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with
> > > that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to
> > > include that in their next issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Lou
> > >
> > Likewise doesn’t sound believable, I’m fairly quick downhill but even so
> > average speed tends to be low 30’s on a longer hill, clearly will get
> > faster sections and so on might get into the 40’s
> >
> > Averaging over 50mph with peak at 87mph at some point says the data is
> > wrong it’s simply not probable.
> Well, I'm not misinterpreting actual numbers from the Garmin records. I am willing to believe that the sensor has some sort of flaw that allows it to mis-record speed and that is why I will report the top speed again next time I descend that drop-off. I doubt that it would be a repeated error. As for Lou's comparing what I no doubt expect was a long downhill with Foss's 32 mph ride around 24 corners per lap is probably comparing apples and oranges. Here I am averaging usually around 12 mph and having no trouble admitting that. And I know the hills around here can take a half hour to descend. There is one route that if you took it all the way it ascends all the way up the 4000 foot Mt. Hamilton. There used to be a coffee shop half way there that we would use as a metric century training. On the way back you had to climb hill but then you had 40 km of pure downhill with a slight kickup at the end followed by a steep downhill into the parking area. Once in awhile you'd get a tailwind and almost coast all the way from the top of the hill back.
>
> Measuring that much power now would be difficult but I have good days. Especially after 4 or 5 weeks of strong headwinds. Saturday I could not believe how easy I was riding. I have to blame that on the large idler wheels and not me.

Blame it to the large idler rollers? Yeah right. These are in the non-tension part of the chain, but you know that, yes?

Lou

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 1:34:13 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:55:15 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> > > >
> > > > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> > > >
> > > > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > > > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> > > >
> > > > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> > > >
> > > > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> > > >
> > > > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent is probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> > > All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to include that in their next issue.
> > 298 Watts isn't Watts? I already told you that I do not post to Strava.
> Look at you initial post. You mention power meter and then 40 km in 26 minutes. Why are you afraid to post on Strava? You can make a private account and Email me the link. You can find me on Strava. I have no secrets. I don’t claim going 87 mph or doing 298 W for 20 minutes and I’m only 65 yo. I did a meager 45 km today because it was raining and 14 C with a fierce wind and was still tired of yesterdays ride. Everyone of my riding group stayed in, was sick or on holiday so I called it a day after 45 km..

In general I ride alone. The Moraga Ride is usually the exception. You ride on flat ground. Why are you comparing that to what I do? I told you a fast day on flat ground usually averages 12.5 mph best. Of course that includes a dozen traffic lights. But I normally have a strong headwind on the way out and a strong tailwind on the way back.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 20:16:45 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:

>Lou Holtman <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other
>>> records it shows:
>>>
>>> 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have
>>> been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While
>>> the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more
>>> than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I
>>> guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
>>>
>>> A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally
>>> climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
>>> July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
>>>
>>> I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area
>>> of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season
>>> as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes
>>> was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be
>>> pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
>>>
>>> My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century
>>> but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before
>>> turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
>>>
>>> Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using
>>> the Garmin in 2019
>>>
>>> Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate
>>> but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will
>>> say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless
>>> they are sports cars trying to pass me.
>>
>> All the numbers mentioned here I can’t believe. A power meter measures
>> power (Watt or J/s or Nm/s or the equivelent in MickeyMouse units) not
>> distance or time. Post your ride on Strava with all the metrics and give
>> me the link of that Strava entry and if you done 40 km well within half
>> an hour and or hit 87 mph I will be the first to congratulate you with
>> that and I will inform the editors of the Guinness Book of Records to
>> include that in their next issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lou
>>
>Likewise doesn’t sound believable, I’m fairly quick downhill but even so
>average speed tends to be low 30’s on a longer hill, clearly will get
>faster sections and so on might get into the 40’s
>
>Averaging over 50mph with peak at 87mph at some point says the data is
>wrong it’s simply not probable.
>
>Roger Merriman

" it’s simply not probable."...

You just described Tommy.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 5:09:13 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 1:34:13 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> >
> > Look at you initial post. You mention power meter and then 40 km in 26 minutes. Why are you afraid to post on Strava? You can make a private account and Email me the link. You can find me on Strava. I have no secrets. I don’t claim going 87 mph or doing 298 W for 20 minutes and I’m only 65 yo. I did a meager 45 km today because it was raining and 14 C with a fierce wind and was still tired of yesterdays ride. Everyone of my riding group stayed in, was sick or on holiday so I called it a day after 45 km.
> In general I ride alone. The Moraga Ride is usually the exception. You ride on flat ground. Why are you comparing that to what I do? I told you a fast day on flat ground usually averages 12.5 mph best. Of course that includes a dozen traffic lights. But I normally have a strong headwind on the way out and a strong tailwind on the way back.

I have no problem with most people not posting on Strava, since I have no interest in it. But I do think
that if a person has paid for the necessary hardware; has _finally_ managed to get it installed and
working; has opened a Strava account; AND if that person brags about his (literally) unbelievable
power and speeds, he really should demonstrate proof on Strava. Not doing so makes him look
either deluded, or like a liar.

But I think Tom has finally been shamed into posting something closer to the truth. "I told you a fast day
on flat ground usually averages 12.5 mph best." [sic]

Our club describes a 12.5 mph average as a "low-moderate" pace for a social ride. I think that's pretty
reasonable for a 77 year old, even without a super-duper large idler pulley - which would, of course,
provide negligible speed gain at best.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 3:37:02 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling

Point one - that's complete bullshit. Garmin computers record max speed regardless of cadence input (or even the lack thereof).

> or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed.

It's called an anomaly - Regardless of what you may think, GPS speed calculation is not flawless. Sometime it makes mistakes. Recording 87 MPH is definitely a mistake. Here's an example:

https://www.strava.com/segments/9729637?show_waiver=1 (for some reason some idiot marked the trail as dangerous so you have to click waivers in order to be able to see it. It's only dangerous if you're drunk or stupid)

This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.

> That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25

You've never gone 87 on a bicycle, tommy. Ever.

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:01:32 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:45 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:37:02 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > I forgot that I had a power meter on the bike for awhile. So among other records it shows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 40 km in 26.24 minutes. Now I have no memory of that but it must have been on a century and a very long downhill. -that's over 56 mph. While the climbs in that area tend to be VERY steep, the descents are not more than 6-7%. So that's pretty damn fast. This was just 5 months ago so I guess I normally descent fast so that it doesn't stick in my memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > A Marine County ride with an ascent of 4826 feet. I wouldn't normally climb that much in one ride so that must have been a century as well but that was in
> > > > > July of 2019 before the fake claims of a pandemic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know if it was the power meter of the time vs. the frontal area of me and the bike which is 7 square feet. This was late in the season as you'd expect - September 2019 and the power for 20 constant minutes was 298 watts. That was not on a downhill of course since I had to be pedaling since the Garmin had to have a cadence input.
> > > > >
> > > > > My longest ride was the Tour de Fuzz in 2021. It was a metric century but I missed an arrow and =rode quite a bit out of the way before turning back so that was 72.43 miles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I have done lots of longer and faster rides but I only started using the Garmin in 2019
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou, these numbers suggest that my 87 mph descent 3as probably accurate but next time I go up that climb I will record the descent again. I will say that on that route and in that place I drop cars all the time unless they are sports cars trying to pass me.
> > > > OK, Last Tuesday I rode over to Moraga. The ride over is long mild climbs followed by longer milder descents. There is one spot where you can go pretty fast since it is the end of a 12% drops followed by a 180 degree turn that is sharp enough you have to coast it. On the way back there is a hard climb leaving Moraga and the rest has some very mild and very twisty turns so that most of the way you cannot go fast from the top of the last downhill the descent is only 6% with a series of hard turns with potholes in them so that you have to more or less ride the brakes except for the last 1/4 mile descent. This is a straight road so that you can spot the potholes ahead of time and avoid them. Somewhere in there I went 37 mph.
> > > >
> > > > I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed. That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25
> > > The Garmin records speed even if you are not pedaling. You getting more confused every time you mention Garmin.
> > Lou, I believe that you said that you're a programmer. So you should know the capacity of a microprocessor. How would the 56 mph show up as a personal record and not record the 87? I don't remember the 56 mph but I know that on the one that I agree might not be 87 mph I was not pedaling. And in another place with a strong tailwind I was pedaling like a Froome and got 42 mph.
> All nonsense. World Champion time trial today (Foss) averaged 51 km/hr over 40 minutes. That should give you a reference. Like I said before doing 100 km/hr in a descent is extremely difficult. Pro riders can hit 120 km/hr in a rare occassion on roads with no traffic. You doing 87 mph?? Your Garmin fooled you and you are too stubborn to admit that. I’m done.
>
> Lou

Here's a handy tool to see what it would take for tommy to hit 87 coasting:

http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

I don't have tommy's actual metrics but ballparking it for 6'6 200lbs and hands in the drops - he would need a ~35% grade to hit 87. As far as his 40K in 26 minutes, all he tells us is that a record and he can't recall where he might have set it, I think it's more likely he forgot to shut it off when he put the bike in his car.

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 4:53:38 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, I'm not misinterpreting actual numbers from the Garmin records.

Yes, you are.

> I am willing to believe that the sensor has some sort of flaw that allows it to mis-record speed and that is why I will report the top speed again next time I descend that drop-off. I doubt that it would be a repeated error.. As for Lou's comparing what I no doubt expect was a long downhill with Foss's 32 mph ride around 24 corners per lap is probably comparing apples and oranges. Here I am averaging usually around 12 mph and having no trouble admitting that. And I know the hills around here can take a half hour to descend. There is one route that if you took it all the way it ascends all the way up the 4000 foot Mt. Hamilton. There used to be a coffee shop half way there that we would use as a metric century training. On the way back you had to climb hill but then you had 40 km of pure downhill with a slight kickup at the end followed by a steep downhill into the parking area. Once in awhile you'd get a tailwind and almost coast all the way from the top of the hill back.

You mean this one?

https://www.strava.com/segments/599859

Professional rider Tyler Wren set the fastest total time downhill averaging 29.2 with a max of 44.6 in stage 4 of the 2011 Tour of California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tour_of_California#Stage_4

That's about 1/2 as fast as you claim to have gone. Here's an article about the 2017 tour de Suisse:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/pros-hit-astonishing-speeds-130kmh-tour-de-suisse-descent-335610

That the riders hit 80 mph is considered "astonishing", and yet our tommy wants our believe he hit 87. Imagine that, a guy in his mid 70's claiming to be faster downhill than the worlds top professionals. Here's one other little tidbit:

"According to Strava, Mike Teunissen and Ben King were two of a number of riders to go north of 130kmh, although we can write off Jelle Wallays' 214.6kmh and Steve Morabito's 318.2kmh as problems with the data."

Write it off as a problem with the data, tommy, you didn't hit 87.

>
> Measuring that much power now would be difficult but I have good days. Especially after 4 or 5 weeks of strong headwinds. Saturday I could not believe how easy I was riding. I have to blame that on the large idler wheels and not me.

oy vey.....

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:51:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 3:37:02 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have been thinking about it and the Garmin only measures max speed when you are pedaling
>
>Point one - that's complete bullshit. Garmin computers record max speed regardless of cadence input (or even the lack thereof).
>
>> or else that supposed 87 mph would have been recorded as top speed.
>
>It's called an anomaly - Regardless of what you may think, GPS speed calculation is not flawless. Sometime it makes mistakes. Recording 87 MPH is definitely a mistake. Here's an example:
>
>https://www.strava.com/segments/9729637?show_waiver=1 (for some reason some idiot marked the trail as dangerous so you have to click waivers in order to be able to see it. It's only dangerous if you're drunk or stupid)
>
>This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.
>
>> That day I had climbed as rapidly as I could despite being tired So I had coasted all the way down and didn't start pedaling again until I hit a rise in the road having slowed to about 25
>
>You've never gone 87 on a bicycle, tommy. Ever.

I walk in the mornings and the street in front of my house goes up
hill a ways and then a 90 degree corner and then straight for about a
kilometer. The distance recorded by a GPS "Walking Meter", up the hill
to the corner is, every day the same, 71 meters up the hill and 61
meters going down the hill on my return.

A good friend who sails told me that one of his favorite anchorages in
the Philippines is about 100 meters on dry land, according to the GPS.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:51:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.

Erratic GPS reception is going to be a non-problem if we could ever
get a GPS with UDR (Untethered Dead Reckoning).
<https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/udr-untethered-dead-reckoning-0>
Basically, these use inertial navigation (accelerometer and compass)
to fill in the gaps between GPS fixes. With UDR, you could get
accurate speeds and positions while riding inside a tunnel. UDR
products are available, but not (yet) in a phone suitable for running
the Strava app:
<https://www.u-blox.com/en/press-release/navilock%E2%80%99s-new-gnss-receiver-series-features-u-blox%E2%80%99s-untethered-3d-dead-reckoning-udr>
NMEA-0183 to RS-232 via USB converters are available that will talk to
a smartphone, but the dongle and wiring mess and the added external
GPS receiver combination are probably not suitable for cycling.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:07:25 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>A good friend who sails told me that one of his favorite anchorages in
>the Philippines is about 100 meters on dry land, according to the GPS.

Have your friend check what datum his maps and GPS are using. They
should be the same. The default for all GPS receivers is WGS 84. He
might be using PRS92 or one of the older datums for the area, such as
Luzon 1911. Presumably, he's in one of these 5 zones:
<https://epsg.io/3121>
<https://epsg.io/3122>
<https://epsg.io/3123>
<https://epsg.io/3124>
<https://epsg.io/3125>
"Modernization of the PHILIPPINE GEODETIC REFERENCE SYSTEM"
<https://www.namria.gov.ph/jdownloads/Others/StratPlan_Modernization.pdf>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:53:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:51:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
><funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.
>
>Erratic GPS reception is going to be a non-problem if we could ever
>get a GPS with UDR (Untethered Dead Reckoning).
><https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/udr-untethered-dead-reckoning-0>
>Basically, these use inertial navigation (accelerometer and compass)
>to fill in the gaps between GPS fixes. With UDR, you could get
>accurate speeds and positions while riding inside a tunnel. UDR
>products are available, but not (yet) in a phone suitable for running
>the Strava app:
><https://www.u-blox.com/en/press-release/navilock%E2%80%99s-new-gnss-receiver-series-features-u-blox%E2%80%99s-untethered-3d-dead-reckoning-udr>
>NMEA-0183 to RS-232 via USB converters are available that will talk to
>a smartphone, but the dongle and wiring mess and the added external
>GPS receiver combination are probably not suitable for cycling.

I've been using GPS for many years, for sailing, driving, hiking,
kayaking, and now bicycling. When I was sailing, I depended on it to
avoid reefs and sandbars and to safely put me through to anchorages
and docks. I've never noticed any inaccuracies beyond a few feet, and
even then, only rarely. I know many modern crop farmers use it to
guide their planting, spraying, and harvesting endeavors. The military
uses it for, among other things, to guide missile attacks. When I
ride, I have three GPS devices, my watch, my cellphone, and my Garmin
bike computer. I don't need any of them, but it's nice to be able to
see my speed on a map at any point in my ride.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:53:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:51:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> ><funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.
> >
> >Erratic GPS reception is going to be a non-problem if we could ever
> >get a GPS with UDR (Untethered Dead Reckoning).
> ><https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/udr-untethered-dead-reckoning-0>
> >Basically, these use inertial navigation (accelerometer and compass)
> >to fill in the gaps between GPS fixes. With UDR, you could get
> >accurate speeds and positions while riding inside a tunnel. UDR
> >products are available, but not (yet) in a phone suitable for running
> >the Strava app:
> ><https://www.u-blox.com/en/press-release/navilock%E2%80%99s-new-gnss-receiver-series-features-u-blox%E2%80%99s-untethered-3d-dead-reckoning-udr>
> >NMEA-0183 to RS-232 via USB converters are available that will talk to
> >a smartphone, but the dongle and wiring mess and the added external
> >GPS receiver combination are probably not suitable for cycling.
> I've been using GPS for many years, for sailing, driving, hiking,
> kayaking, and now bicycling. When I was sailing, I depended on it to
> avoid reefs and sandbars and to safely put me through to anchorages
> and docks. I've never noticed any inaccuracies beyond a few feet, and
> even then, only rarely. I know many modern crop farmers use it to
> guide their planting, spraying, and harvesting endeavors. The military
> uses it for, among other things, to guide missile attacks. When I
> ride, I have three GPS devices, my watch, my cellphone, and my Garmin
> bike computer. I don't need any of them, but it's nice to be able to
> see my speed on a map at any point in my ride.

The maximum inaccuracy of civilian GPS is 13 feet plus or minus. This only occurs when all of the satellites are on one horizon or the other. This rarely happens so the normal accuracy is very close. Military GPS corrects for all of the inaccuracies and has accuracies of about an inch all the time. This is why nuclear war is impractical from the start. All of the government leaders would be wiped out from the start and it would leave no one but military lower ranks that know that any further war is fruitless.

Lou takes the position that my Garmin reported 87 mph was a freak error of the GPS. I tend to side with him but I am not as sure as he is. Having worked on instruments like a GPS I would program them to average many readings before producing such an outlandish number. This suggests that perhaps that speed was correct. But it would only be acceptable if repeated at least with a near number.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:29:31 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:53:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 04:51:55 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>><funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>This is a short MTB trail in the park I frequent. It's about 100 yards long and has a 20% average grade. The KOM belongs to a guy whose computer logged him doing it in 3 seconds,, or 73 mph. It's a sketchy part of the woods for GPS reception, so all of the top ten efforts are under 5 seconds, 10th place is 5 seconds, or 43 mph - for a trail up a 20% average grade.
>>
>>Erratic GPS reception is going to be a non-problem if we could ever
>>get a GPS with UDR (Untethered Dead Reckoning).
>><https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/udr-untethered-dead-reckoning-0>
>>Basically, these use inertial navigation (accelerometer and compass)
>>to fill in the gaps between GPS fixes. With UDR, you could get
>>accurate speeds and positions while riding inside a tunnel. UDR
>>products are available, but not (yet) in a phone suitable for running
>>the Strava app:
>><https://www.u-blox.com/en/press-release/navilock%E2%80%99s-new-gnss-receiver-series-features-u-blox%E2%80%99s-untethered-3d-dead-reckoning-udr>
>>NMEA-0183 to RS-232 via USB converters are available that will talk to
>>a smartphone, but the dongle and wiring mess and the added external
>>GPS receiver combination are probably not suitable for cycling.

>I've been using GPS for many years, for sailing, driving, hiking,
>kayaking, and now bicycling. When I was sailing, I depended on it to
>avoid reefs and sandbars and to safely put me through to anchorages
>and docks. I've never noticed any inaccuracies beyond a few feet, and
>even then, only rarely. I know many modern crop farmers use it to
>guide their planting, spraying, and harvesting endeavors. The military
>uses it for, among other things, to guide missile attacks. When I
>ride, I have three GPS devices, my watch, my cellphone, and my Garmin
>bike computer. I don't need any of them, but it's nice to be able to
>see my speed on a map at any point in my ride.

I'm not talking about accuracy. I'm talking about getting enough GPS
location fixes (not fixies) and speed measurements to connect the
dots. GPS uses Doppler shift in order to determine speed, which is
VERY accurate. It's far more accurate than distance between fixes
divided by time. If you want details, I wrote something on the topic
in RBT a few months ago. I can try to find my rants if you're
interested. When riding through urban jungles, forests, and GPS dead
zones, the problem isn't accuracy, but rather getting enough fixes to
calculate any kind of route or speed.

UDR (untethered dead reckoning) will do the job where there are no GPS
signals. It won't do anything for your sailing, which is generally in
high signal areas. It's marginal for hiking, depending on where you
like to hike. If you're hiking through a canyon, UDR will be a big
help. If you're climbing a mountain, with a good view of the sky, it
won't be much use. For driving, UDR will help in urban canyons,
tunnels, and under bridges.

I'm quite familiar with older GPS technology used in farming. The
accuracy of such systems is dependent on using differential GPS
transmitters located on the ground near the farm. Accuracy is +/- a
few centimeters. I have some old AutoFarm hardware that was used for
the plowing:
<https://precisionagricultu.re/autofarm-gps-precision-farming-paradyme/>
There's no need for UDR on a farm, where signal obstructions are
unlikely. The military has the money to buy all the latest toys. They
probably already have UDR GPS receivers. However, UDR won't do
anything useful in a missile or airplane, which presumably have the
best possible view of the sky.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>The maximum inaccuracy of civilian GPS is 13 feet plus or minus.

Wrong. Please stop inventing numbers for your convenience. Show your
source or your calculations and I might believe your numbers.

>This only occurs when all of the satellites are on one horizon or the other.

Wrong. The Doppler shift change from a given satellite is zero at
both the horizon and at zenith (directly overhead). When all the
satellite are at the horizon, you nothing.

>This rarely happens so the normal accuracy is very close.

Actually, it does happen quite often in a building with lots of
windows and a roof impervious to RF.

>Military GPS corrects for all of the inaccuracies and has
>accuracies of about an inch all the time.

No, it doesn't. All that a "military" GPS does is use additional
encrypted "military only" frequencies which are used along with the
civilian frequencies to provide a better correction for atmospheric
diffraction.

>This is why nuclear war is impractical from the start. All of
>the government leaders would be wiped out from the start and it
>would leave no one but military lower ranks that know that any
>further war is fruitless.

Have you considered a career writing science fiction? That would make
a tolerable plot for a movie.

>Lou takes the position that my Garmin reported 87 mph was
>a freak error of the GPS. I tend to side with him but I am
>not as sure as he is.

Perhaps if you searched for a similar problem? I posted this
previously, but apparently you were too busy complaining to notice.
<https://forums.garmin.com/apps-software/mobile-apps-web/f/garmin-connect-web/52217/max-speed-error>
"Max speed reported was 82 mph!"

>Having worked on instruments like a GPS I would program them
>to average many readings before producing such an outlandish
>number. This suggests that perhaps that speed was correct.
>But it would only be acceptable if repeated at least with a
>near number.

Baloney, but I don't have time to fix your mistakes. Gone for lunch
with some friends.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558