On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:57:44 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 2:55:24 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 9:53:42 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 12:59:55 AM UTC-8, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 02.02.2022 um 03:25 schrieb Ralph Barone:
> >>>>>>> russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 9:33:06 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:35 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 1:32:11 PM UTC-5, Ted Heise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 09:51:27 -0800 (PST),
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before, I bought a Garmin 820 and received a Garmin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 810. After using the 810 for awhile I am wondering what sort of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements that they could make in the 810 save minor changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to make it easier to use.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For those who have used 810' and 820's or 30's - what sort of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements have you noticed and were they actually worth it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Ebay prices of used 830's is almost new Garmin prices and I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can't see buying them when I have an 800 and a 1020. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> advantage of the 1020 is that it has a much stronger mount but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is covered with buttons. I haven't used it in so long I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can't remember how close to the others abilities it has but I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to remember that the only real change is buttons whereas
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the 800 and 810 are touch screen.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Those of you with actual experience with these things could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps enlighten me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This guy does great and in depth reviews, and here's his take on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the 830 (with some comparisons to the 820)...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/04/garmin-edge-830-cycling-gps-in-depth-review.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And here are links to his brief review of the 820 and his in depth
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reviews of the 810 and 800...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/07/garmin-edge-820.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/01/garmin-edge-810-in-depth-review.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/08/garmin-edge-800-in-depth-first-look.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We've shown tommy the links to DC rainmaker before. He refuses to look.
> >>>>>>>>>> Tom does suffer lots and lots of confusion. Pity.
> >>>>>>>>> I am over 400 miles for the year and 1000 meters of climbing. What have
> >>>>>>>>> you don't with that razor sharp mind of yours.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Bay area has much better January weather than Ohio. That might
> >>>>>>>> explain any distance difference between residents of those places. At
> >>>>>>>> least explain it to a logical thinking person with an operating mind.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tommy boy, I find it slightly odd that you mix up your distances and
> >>>>>>>> elevation. Why do you use miles for distance and meters for elevation?
> >>>>>>>> Why not use USA standard imperial measurements for both? Or metric for
> >>>>>>>> both? Why mix them up? Is there a logical (HaHaHoHo) reason you are
> >>>>>>>> doing this? I know you are deeply rooted to Oakland for some reason.
> >>>>>>>> And have never ever traveled. But if you ventured as far away as say the
> >>>>>>>> Rocky Mountains, Colorado, you would find signs alongside the road that
> >>>>>>>> say miles to the next town AND at the top of mountains, there are signs
> >>>>>>>> saying how many FEET high the mountain top is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1000 metres of climbing over 400 miles of riding (assuming they’re all out
> >>>>>>> and back rides) amounts to an average slope of 0.3%. That’s awfully flat.
> >>>>>>> Has Tom moved next door to Lou?
> >>>>>> I am now thinking that 'really flat' is 2m per km or 10 ft per mile. On
> >>>>>> those riedes, the Garmin typically suggests GPS-based climb is 50%
> >>>>>> higher, and Strava corrects the climb map based. This kind of climb is
> >>>>>> necessaray to cross a few highways or railway lines in suburbia, rather
> >>>>>> than due to landscape features.
> >>>>>> Maybe Tom has spent his time cycling along the coast line?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Typically when I am recording climbing it is over 5% and the Garmin is
> >>>>> accurate since it uses an altimeter rather than GPS triangulation.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Even so the climbing is somewhat low as a ratio of the distance, I live and
> >>>> commute across london which is flat, the north Downs are lumpy and in
> >>>> places steep but mountains they are not.
> >>>>
> >>>> So with two weeks off due illness, I’m at 342miles and 9456 ft/2894meters
> >>>> climbed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The vast majority of my rides (commutes) are flat 150ft for just under
> >>>> 12miles each way, most folks do a lot more climbing per distance for that
> >>>> reason,
> >>>>
> >>>> Though I do hilly gravel/MTB rides the total distance is quite low per
> >>>> year.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not familiar with London but perhaps it suffers from large and often
> >>> pressure fronts that move in and out fairly rapidly? This is something
> >>> that is unusual most places such as here where a pressure front usually
> >>> takes a week or more to move through. Altimeters use atmospheric pressure
> >>> to detect climbing and are very sensitive as you would expect, for fronts
> >>> moving in and out will show as climbing and/or descending.
> >>>
> >> It’s a temperate climate but no not really a feature, clearly does have
> >> fronts moving in mostly in winter, but it’s fairly stable as to the height
> >> gained, and generally is believable considering the route for either my
> >> commute or Gravel/MTB rides.
> >>
> >> Most units will recalculate, to known heights etc. so while it’s true there
> >> is some variably it’s a few feet over a big ride than by the 1000ft or so.
> >
> > My altimeter on both the Garmin and the Levon (I think it is - a speedo
> > with altitude and rate of climb) report every 3 feet on climbs so they
> > are extremely sensitive to even rollers.
> >
> To the best of my knowledge the devices and websites ie Garmin
> connect/Strava and so on do correct to known values, last big ride it
> claimed 3,970 ft climbing on device and websites.
>
> The Garmin 830 in particular will flash up that it’s recalibrated to
> location, every now and then when It’s started up.
>
> In short I don’t believe that it’s massively over reading, I’m aware it’s
> one of the things that gets claimed but the numbers do tend to tally with
> the hills I’m climbing.

My 810 kept telling me I was at 60,000 feet. The climbs were always correct compared to the Levon, but I couldn't find any way to fix that 60,000 foot altitude. Then I noticed a button somewhere that caused it to recalibrate to sea level. Problem solved. The known climbs I do fairly often always give me the same altitude within 3 feet.