Power Meters?

[Mark cleary]

What do you think of this power meter. I don't want pedal one until they come out with Shimano cleat model and I don't want a hub based. What if any does the group use?4IIII PRECISION PRO SHIMANO ULTEGRA R8000 DUAL-SIDED CRANKSET
Deacon Mark

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, Mark cleary wrote:
> What do you think of this power meter. I don't want pedal one until they come out with Shimano cleat model and I don't want a hub based. What if any does the group use?4IIII PRECISION PRO SHIMANO ULTEGRA R8000 DUAL-SIDED CRANKSET
> Deacon Mark

Since I'm not racing it doesn't interest me in the least whether I know exactly how much power I'm generating or not. My Garmin calculates the amount of Calories I'm expending by assuming that there is no wind. So 1.2 calories per second of actual riding time is about 200 watts of power output. If you have a head or tail wind you can adjust your output per second during that time though circular courses generally have the same up an down adjustments so that the Garmin is fairly accurate. The Garmin program tells you the actual moving time so that you can calculate calories per second. Of course, this only counts on flat ground and full out efforts, most of the time you are riding well below your peak and so the readings are inaccurate as hell. But why do you need to know how much power you are generating?

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 29 april 2021 om 17:40:22 UTC+2 schreef Mark cleary:

> What do you think of this power meter. I don't want pedal one until they come out with Shimano cleat model and I don't want a hub based. What if any does the group use?4IIII PRECISION PRO SHIMANO ULTEGRA R8000 DUAL-SIDED CRANKSET
> Deacon Mark

Mark the new Garmin power pedals have a Shimano option now:

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/03/garmin-rally-power-meter-review-spd-spd-sl-look-keo.html

Lou

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 29 april 2021 om 18:02:23 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 29 april 2021 om 18:02:23 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

Tom it isn't about you this time. Why do you need to know the power you are generating? As a reference for your trainings intensity. You are not into that? OK, don't use them. Simple.

Lou

[Mark J.]

Also, Tom, "1.2 calories per second of actual riding time" comes to
4,320 calories per hour. That's enough for most cyclists to cover 100
miles; nobody - and I do mean nobody - is doing that many *kilo*calories
[or big-C Calories] for an hour, while 200W for a full hour is quite
plausible for many - maybe even me. If you meant actual *calories*
[small-C calories], so 4.32 big-C Calories, then I can do that in one
minute, and I'm nobody special.

Working it another way, 1.2 kilocalories per sec at 25% metabolic
efficiency (a plausible number), is close enough to 1.2 *kilo* Watts.
Plausible for strong sprinters, but not for a full hour. 1.2 calories
per sec comes to 1.2 *Watts*. Nobody's that weak.

Working it a third way, 200 Watts is 200 Joules/sec, close enough to 200
small-c calories per sec at 25% efficiency, or 0.2 big-C Calories per
second.

Finally, no, the Garmin Calorie estimate is *not* fairly accurate, in
general. I used it for years, then I got a HRM. My Calorie estimates
changed dramatically. Then I got a power meter. Another dramatic
Calorie estimate change.

Mark "There are wrong answers in math" J.

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, this is about Mark Cleary, who is a Christian pastor and hardly anyone that would be interested in training up to professional standards.

[Tom Kunich]

Mark, while indeed when we say "calorie" we usually mean Kilocalorie, in this case it was really calorie. 200 watts is about 10 mph or perhaps a little more over normal rolling terrain. Maybe around 14 mph on flat terrain with no wind. I just finished a 22 mile ride at an average of 13.5 mph into a 10-15 mph headwind and then the downwind stretches were 18-22 mph. And I most definitely am not strong anymore.

Despite comments from you and Lou, I STILL don't see the need for any non-pro to want nor have a power meter. Of what use would it be knowing how many calories you burned if you aren't counting your calorie intake? And THAT is 100 times harder than reading a power meter. How many calories do you suppose my French fried potatoes were last night? What about the codfish to go along with it?

[Mark cleary]

I find Garmin Connect to under count calories a bit. I have a Garmin 910xc that I use a tri watch I use for cycling and running. My resting HR is 40 and has been most my years as a lifelong runner and cyclist. At 59 I am supposed to have a max heart rate of 161 or about that. Most guys my age easily get to that HR on runs and cycling. Myself I have hit 161 once in the past year on a huge climb up a ski resort. I have hit 157 running an all out 400 meters or so. I rarely get past 140 and at 140 I feel like I am working hard.

Yesterday I road 64 miles in 3:31 averaged 18.1 mph no stops. My heart rate was 117 and Garmin said I burned up 1433 calories. I think I really burned up more maybe closer to 1800-1900. Today I went out and road 50 miles at 17.4 mph no stops and about same amount of climbing I live in the flatlands. Garmin said I burned up 1233. I think it was really about 1500. The key is today I was really tired and beat and had to push it to even get the speed I average. I managed to do it but yesterday was easy compared to today., yet I went farther and fast but same HR. I think a power meter would clear things up.

My heart rate running is higher and that makes sense it is more work. Cycling takes longer and has a different effect on my body. Seems a long ride will take more out of me than decent pace 7-8 mile run. I do have high blood pressure and take meds but it is not a beta blocker it is an angiotesion II receptor so that should not effect performace at least too much. I have take meds since I was a teenager for high blood pressure to so that is different.

Actually I am not a pastor I am a deacon in the Roman Catholic Church we cannot be pastors not priest......although i am see about going back to seminary....
Deacon Mark

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 29 april 2021 om 21:43:46 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

200W for 14 mph on flat terrain with no wind? I don't know where you get these numbers but I did a recovery ride yesterday on flat terrain (all we got here), little wind with an average speed of 23.1 km/hr (14.4 mph) with an average power of 93W measured at the cranks on a bike with the aerodynamics of an elephant.

Lou, what moron invented Calories when he means kilocalories?

[AMuzi]

That can go different ways for different people.
Karol Wojtyla had a respectable racing career.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:48:03 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
<lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>...what moron invented Calories when he means kilocalories?

There are a variety of people whom you can blame. See:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie#History>
The solution would have been to use Joules instead, but that involved
dividing by 4.2, which was probably deemed too difficult for those
involved. "One calorie is defined as exactly 4.184 J, and one
Calorie (kilocalorie) is 4184 J." At least they tried:
"Use of the calorie was officially deprecated by the ninth General
Conference on Weights and Measures, in 1948"

Rather than implement the obvious solution of eliminating the Kcal,
efforts to fix the problem were centered around juggling the spelling.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/121058d0> (1928)

Off topic drivel: If you are entertained by really strange and
confusing units of measure, I recommend the system of radiation
measurement.


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

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, Mark cleary wrote:

> What do you think of this power meter. I don't want pedal one until they come out with Shimano cleat model and I don't want a hub based. What if any does the group use?4IIII PRECISION PRO SHIMANO ULTEGRA R8000 DUAL-SIDED CRANKSET
> Deacon Mark

Buy a Stages. Its the best. https://store.stagescycling.com/ You can get a single-sided arm pretty cheap and decide whether it is worth the investment, and if it's not, then sell it. I'm personally not interested in power data, but a lot of my friends love to ponder their data. I'm also way behind the technology -- having just purchased my first GPS cyclo-computer, a Stages Dash which I really like.

Full disclosure: Stages has operations here in Portland, and they used to employ my son, so I'm very partial. I still think they have the best low-cost option.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 29 april 2021 om 22:38:05 UTC+2 schreef Mark cleary:

Mark, looking at your average speed my estimate would be around 600 kcal/hr. For that 3.5 hr ride that would be 2000-2100 kcal. The day before yesterdays recovery ride I rode 60.11 km in 1:56:29 hr, average 166 W, work 1163 kJ so I burned 1105 kcal (25% efficiency.

Lou

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 29 april 2021 om 23:35:31 UTC+2 schreef jbeattie:

If you already have the Dash why not buy the left crank when you can get it cheap?

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

Remember that when I got that concussion it screwed up my memory. Thinking about it, yes, 14-15 mph is only about 95 watts.

Just going up to a doctors appointment a little while ago I got lost so I always have to have where I'm going on Maps. This may be funny to some people but not when it is you.

When you get a power meter OF COURSE your expenditure of energy goes up because the calculation of the Garmin assumes either zero wind or a circular course so that it all averages out. Usually when you use a power meter you are impressing yourself on hard climbs, big sprints or attempted TT's. If you try the power meters and Garmin under general conditions you're not going to find a very significant difference. It isn't as if this is something that should be of interest to people that aren't in training for racing. Unless you have a lot of free money and like to impress yourself.

[Lou Holtman]

Op vrijdag 30 april 2021 om 00:52:56 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

I really don't understand your need to impose your opinion on something you don't care about and come up with ridiculous figures and embarrass yourself.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

I would say that urging anyone to pay for things that at best mean little to nothing is rather foolish on anyone's part unless you're a shill for a manufacturer.

[jbeattie]

My son asked me the same question, and I kind of relented -- agreeing to buy his Ultegra crank arm cheap if he upgrades to a Dura Ace double sided -- which he may do when he builds a new road racing bike (he sold-off his old Tarmac as part of a down-sizing and spends more time mountain biking now). Like I said, knowing my power is not a big deal for me.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

Of course you and I are rather beyond the age of worrying about out power output. And that is how it should be. But the real problem is the media like GCN and the like are busy propagandizing people that this is something they MUST KNOW. Well, I wouldn't complain if it was $25. But we're talking $500 and up. And that is a lot of money for almost no return. And people should be aware of that. The Deacon is probably hardly in an economic position to buy something that is sort of for bragging rights.

[sms]

On 4/30/2021 8:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> My son asked me the same question, and I kind of relented -- agreeing to buy his Ultegra crank arm cheap if he upgrades to a Dura Ace double sided -- which he may do when he builds a new road racing bike (he sold-off his old Tarmac as part of a down-sizing and spends more time mountain biking now). Like I said, knowing my power is not a big deal for me.

A few years ago I was contracting for a small company and we were
invited to present at a very large bicycle manufacturer. We had several
sensor-based products we could do for them. A much-improved assometer
for seat fitting, tire pressure sensing (not for tubeless though), and
spindle-based power-meter that did not use strain-gauges.

The assometer design was too expensive for them to consider, it would
have cost about $100 to build and would have to sell for about $200 to
shops, but it might have helped sell more high-priced seats.

The spindle-based power meter measured both right and left power. It
would have been pretty cheap to manufacture, adding about $25 to the BOM
of a new bicycle. But the thought was that only a very, very few
cyclists care about power meters and to build a $25 extra expense into
every bicycle when it's being manufactured would not be practical. One
company did offer a spindle-based power meter for a while, for about
$600
<https://www.bikeradar.com/news/easton-race-face-launch-spindle-based-cinch-power-meter/>.
There is still some stock available. The replacement product goes onto
the crank spider. Also around $600.

I think that pedal-based power-meters are the most likely to become more
of a mass-market item since they can be manufactured cheaply and are
easy to install. Right now they are costly, but as soon as some Chinese
company starts making them the price will fall.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/30/2021 11:19 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> I wouldn't complain if it was $25. But we're talking $500 and up. And that is a lot of money for almost no return.

That logic applies as well to almost every "you gotta have it!" bit of
bike technology since index shifting. The industry is chasing after ever
diminishing improvements and touting them as necessary.

Since index, the only real game changer for anyone except racers has
been e-bikes. And that's because they're a step away from being a bicycle.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

That is true Frank, but do you recommend a person who has been out of work for a year buy a $10,000 bike? Though I suppose that I shouldn't ask you that since you don't think that anyone needs more than a $25 touring bike. People want what they want and indeed some of it is pure foolishness. After 10 years of covering the ground I did 40 years before my concussion has brought me back perhaps closer to your point of view than that of Velonews. I am now going back to "normal" bikes that cost me about $1,500. Perhaps that is higher than you would spend but it isn't the sort of bike you wouldn't feel perfectly comfortable riding.

[Ralph Barone]

As a fat, old, out of shape cheapskate cyclist who likes tech gadgets, the
Velocomp PowerPod
https://velocomp.com
sounds like the sweet spot for me.

The iQ2 “power meter in a crank extender” looked hopeful at first, but they
completely changed their design to a power meter in a pedal and now seem to
be stuck in a loop of producing vague, positive press releases while the
backers continue to complain on their Facebook page about the complete
absence of product being shipped.
https://www.iqsquare.com

[Mark J.]

Yup, the purpose of power meters for old guys like us is to show us in
an objective way how pathetic we are athletically. Or as I also say,
"to chronicle our decline." And I knew that *before* I bought two power
meters (two bikes). I just wanted to play with the data - which is
fascinating for a data junkie like me, with lots of surprises - but "how
strong am I (not)" is not one of them.

And yes, the iQ2 saga has been interesting to watch (dcrainmaker.com has
documented a lot of it). I only followed b/c that was the only game
(nearly) in town for mtb pedals before Garmin's recent release.

Mark J.

[jbeattie]

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:41:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

You could put a power meter on a beater to monitor your recovery from a heart attack. Power-meter (and heart monitor) are purchased by elite athletes and old ladies. People have a lot of reasons for wanting power data -- including plain old curiosity. It's not just the latest and greatest mentality.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

Op vrijdag 30 april 2021 om 18:41:31 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:

> On 4/30/2021 11:19 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > I wouldn't complain if it was $25. But we're talking $500 and up. And that is a lot of money for almost no return.
> That logic applies as well to almost every "you gotta have it!" bit of
> bike technology since index shifting. The industry is chasing after ever
> diminishing improvements and touting them as necessary.

Like any other commercial industry.

>
> Since index, the only real game changer for anyone except racers has
> been e-bikes. And that's because they're a step away from being a bicycle.

Also for non racers there are many improvements and E bikes is certainly a game changer. It's a 'plaque' around here. Now also 'old' people can go fast or less fast without getting tired or sweating. Teenager already go to school on a E bike.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

I had a similar product and I think that it is laying about here somewhere. It was only $100 when I got it. The numbers seemed to me to be totally overinflated.

[Tom Kunich]

What the couple of riders in the group did with them was to make their heart conditions much worse. You keep trying to improve your numbers no matter what the doctor says.

[Mark J.]

Agree, but please tell me what 'plaque' means in this context?

Mark J.

[AMuzi]

it's a 'plague' both there and here.

[AMuzi]

> The iQ2 “power meter in a crank extender†looked hopeful at first, but they

> completely changed their design to a power meter in a pedal and now seem to
> be stuck in a loop of producing vague, positive press releases while the
> backers continue to complain on their Facebook page about the complete
> absence of product being shipped.
> https://www.iqsquare.com
>
>

Help out an old luddite , pal.

I looked at the Velocmp page. Does it impute net power from
speed, slope, wind and air density? Did I miss something? I
didn't see a pedal/crank/spindle gizmo.

I suppose for normal bicycles there aren't significant
losses from bearings, tires, brake shoe drag (bent rim),
worn drivetrain and so on but at the extremes those could be
real losses (as noticed riding past riders with
half-inflated tires n a regular basis).

[John B.]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:21:36 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Snipped

>
>I looked at the Velocmp page. Does it impute net power from
>speed, slope, wind and air density? Did I miss something? I
>didn't see a pedal/crank/spindle gizmo.

Yes, if you delve deep enough you will find a test write up by Michael
Hanslip which says, in part:

"The power measurement is inferred. There are times when it may not be
as accurate as directly measured power would be. I noticed near-zero
wattage readouts, for example, during an extremely windy ride when I
know I was pushing hard on the pedals"

>I suppose for normal bicycles there aren't significant
>losses from bearings, tires, brake shoe drag (bent rim),
>worn drivetrain and so on but at the extremes those could be
>real losses (as noticed riding past riders with
>half-inflated tires n a regular basis).
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

I think that it insinuates power by rate of change of altitude and air speed. Like I said, the numbers seemed overinflated to me and I was a lot faster then

[Ralph Barone]

>> The iQ2 “power meter in a crank extender” looked hopeful at first, but they

>> completely changed their design to a power meter in a pedal and now seem to
>> be stuck in a loop of producing vague, positive press releases while the
>> backers continue to complain on their Facebook page about the complete
>> absence of product being shipped.
>> https://www.iqsquare.com
>>
>>
>
> Help out an old luddite , pal.
>
> I looked at the Velocmp page. Does it impute net power from
> speed, slope, wind and air density? Did I miss something? I
> didn't see a pedal/crank/spindle gizmo.
>
> I suppose for normal bicycles there aren't significant
> losses from bearings, tires, brake shoe drag (bent rim),
> worn drivetrain and so on but at the extremes those could be
> real losses (as noticed riding past riders with
> half-inflated tires n a regular basis).
>
>

It reads data from the speed/cadence sensor that’s already talking to your
GPS, so it knows road speed and when you’re pedaling. It then uses a three
axis accelerometer to determine acceleration as well as road slope. It
measures air speed from a differential pressure transducer. It then does a
boatload of math to solve for the unknowns (CdA, Crr, etc) and derive
power. The real magic appears to be that it is constantly recalculating
these parameters, so it won’t immediately figure out that you’ve changed
your position on the bike, but it will slowly notice the model isn’t as
accurate and adjust CdA accordingly. So on a long ride, it should do quite
well as long as you aren’t constantly changing position.

[Frank Krygowski]

People may have lots of reasons they think they want a power meter, but
my point is it's not going to make a significant difference to anyone
but a racer.

You don't really need one to get in shape; and if it does help you get
in slightly-even-better shape, so what? If you're not racing, it just
doesn't matter.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Ralph Barone]

The toughest race out there is always the one against yourself. Being able
to objectively quantify things can up the competition (ie: you can’t just
blame the wind for a slow day).

[Lou Holtman]

Op zaterdag 1 mei 2021 om 01:00:03 UTC+2 schreef Mark J.:

Ai, lot of typos. What happened here is because of E bikesfor a lot of people biking became a hobby because they don't get (too) tired anymore. There are pelotons E bikers now of people 60 yr and older. That is all good, but the problem is that they don't pay attention, always ride two abreast even if it is not wise and a lot of them have a hearing problem. I'm still in a shape that I go faster which means I have to fright my way through them. On a nice Sunday afternoon this is almost impossible without getting irritated now and then. I adapt and chose to ride outside the 'rush hours', but they got scarce. The numbers of people killed in traffic went up the last years here, mainly because the people on E bikes can't handle their E bike in the current traffic.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

I don't think that it gets you in better shape - I believe that it gets you into your best shape a little more rapidly. It is really clear to me when I get into shape, suddenly the hills are no longer endless and while I expend just as much energy it doesn't hurt so much and I am not sore for days.

[Mark cleary]

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set me straight he had good points.

Deacon Mark

[sms]

On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

<snip>

> Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at times for me to remember how to run.
>
> A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may occur
at some time in the future.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/1/2021 3:42 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> What happened here is because of E bikesfor a lot of people biking became a hobby because they don't get (too) tired anymore. There are pelotons E bikers now of people 60 yr and older. That is all good, but the problem is that they don't pay attention, always ride two abreast even if it is not wise and a lot of them have a hearing problem. I'm still in a shape that I go faster which means I have to fright my way through them. On a nice Sunday afternoon this is almost impossible without getting irritated now and then. I adapt and chose to ride outside the 'rush hours', but they got scarce. The numbers of people killed in traffic went up the last years here, mainly because the people on E bikes can't handle their E bike in the current traffic.

I've read about the increased number of crashes and deaths of people
(especially older ones) on E-bikes.

I know one older woman with many decades of club riding experience. She
bought an E-bike specifically to allow her to keep up on club rides, but
so far is afraid to use it except on solo rides until she gets more used
to it. She says it's less controllable.

I haven't tried one yet, but I've heard that there is sometimes a surge
in power that is surprising, and that sometimes the motor continues to
produce power for a second when the rider has stopped pedaling. (I
suppose that depends on the manufacturer.) Can others here verify that?

But I suspect that the main safety problem may be that an E-bike simply
allows people to go faster than their skills and reflexes can handle. On
another forum, someone pointed out that until now being fast came only
very gradually, and only because of countless miles and hours of
experience. People learned to avoid certain mistakes while they were
still riding at low speeds.

Now people can spend money and immediately become as fast as an
experienced racer. But they have no experience, little skill and
insufficient knowledge to stay out of trouble.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

[Mark J.]

Ahh, got it.
Mark J.

[Mark J.]

On 5/1/2021 7:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I've read about the increased number of crashes and deaths of people
> (especially older ones) on E-bikes.
>
> I know one older woman with many decades of club riding experience. She
> bought an E-bike specifically to allow her to keep up on club rides, but
> so far is afraid to use it except on solo rides until she gets more used
> to it. She says it's less controllable.
>
> I haven't tried one yet, but I've heard that there is sometimes a surge
> in power that is surprising, and that sometimes the motor continues to
> produce power for a second when the rider has stopped pedaling. (I
> suppose that depends on the manufacturer.) Can others here verify that?
>
> But I suspect that the main safety problem may be that an E-bike simply
> allows people to go faster than their skills and reflexes can handle. On
> another forum, someone pointed out that until now being fast came only
> very gradually, and only because of countless miles and hours of
> experience. People learned to avoid certain mistakes while they were
> still riding at low speeds.
>
> Now people can spend money and immediately become as fast as an
> experienced racer. But they have no experience, little skill and
> insufficient knowledge to stay out of trouble.
>

I've ridden two different E-bikes, both for about 200 feet, "just to see."

My impression is that they just handle *differently* and they surprise
our inadequate, or perhaps just *ingrained* reflexes.

My personal experience is probably due to a lifetime habit of hitting
the first pedal stroke quite firmly from a stop. Doing that on my
wife's E-bike threatened to shoot it out from underneath me. Same on
the other E-bike (at a public demo). In retrospect, the acceleration
probably wasn't *that* great, it's just that a lifetime of doing this
generates a bunch of subconscious, reflexive expectations - and the
E-bike is *different* from those expectations.

Kind of like switching from my minivan (VERY sensitive accelerator
pedal, very soft brake pedal) to my Prius (fairly soft accelerator
pedal, very sensitive brake pedal) and vice-versa. In the van after
days in the Prius, I tend to "peel out" from stops without meaning to.
In the Prius after the van, I hit the brakes so hard I lurch forward in
my seat. Neither car is "dangerous," and my skill level is the same in
both, but they're *different* and I tend to subconsciously continue what
the *other* car required.

Mark J.

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 7:57:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/1/2021 3:42 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > What happened here is because of E bikesfor a lot of people biking became a hobby because they don't get (too) tired anymore. There are pelotons E bikers now of people 60 yr and older. That is all good, but the problem is that they don't pay attention, always ride two abreast even if it is not wise and a lot of them have a hearing problem. I'm still in a shape that I go faster which means I have to fright my way through them. On a nice Sunday afternoon this is almost impossible without getting irritated now and then. I adapt and chose to ride outside the 'rush hours', but they got scarce. The numbers of people killed in traffic went up the last years here, mainly because the people on E bikes can't handle their E bike in the current traffic.
> I've read about the increased number of crashes and deaths of people
> (especially older ones) on E-bikes.
>
> I know one older woman with many decades of club riding experience. She
> bought an E-bike specifically to allow her to keep up on club rides, but
> so far is afraid to use it except on solo rides until she gets more used
> to it. She says it's less controllable.
>
> I haven't tried one yet, but I've heard that there is sometimes a surge
> in power that is surprising, and that sometimes the motor continues to
> produce power for a second when the rider has stopped pedaling. (I
> suppose that depends on the manufacturer.) Can others here verify that?

Most ebikes have power settings and software that moderate the amount of motor assist depending on the gear and rider input, so if you take my wife's Vado, select power level 3, put it in the smallest cog and hit it, the thing feels like an e-motorcycle. Riding it that way is not good for the battery or the motor, but even with maximum motor assist, the bike is not dangerous or hard to control. If you put the bike on power level 1 and pick a gear appropriate to the terrain, the assist is like "normal guy with tailwind." That is how the bike should be ridden for maximum battery and motor life. My wife does not feel imperiled riding with me or my son or with her neighborhood old lady ebike posse. Her speed is notable only going up hill, and on the flats, she is JRA at a nice clip that she could not accomplish without some motor assist.

The problem with ebikes in a commuter pack is the speed differential and the fact that a lot of people like to hit the maximum power setting, drop it in a low gear and ride it like a motorcycle among other cyclists. That's an obvious problem riding with slower, non-motorized riders and is not particularly good for the bike's battery, motor or drivetrain either.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

Op zaterdag 1 mei 2021 om 19:36:16 UTC+2 schreef jbeattie:

Jay, Frank I was talking about this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrrzFnzYUXI&list=RDCMUC67YlPrRvsO117gFDM7UePg

This clip was from 2013. Currently all of these people are on E bikes; all of them. To be fair the groups are not as large as you see in the clip. Most of the times 4-10 people.

Lou

[Lou Holtman]

Op zaterdag 1 mei 2021 om 19:36:16 UTC+2 schreef jbeattie:

Typical E bike rider her in the Netherlands:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/8XJ5uJepSASL4Mhz7

Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

You'll probably love the guitar and enjoy it each time you play it.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

`
Lou, how old would you estimate the people in that group to be? Motor vehicles (including e-bikes) have a lot more rake and trail in them so that you can't power the wheel over and go over the handlebars. This is the source of people riding these bikes looking very comfortable. Handling is slow purposely. I was dropped several times by young ladies that appeared to be non-bike riders who were sitting bolt upright and talking back and forth to one another without a thought of having to steer to stay in their lane.

[John B.]

On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000 watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Ralph Barone]

Agreed, with the caveat that how hard you’re working may have little
correlation to the absolute amount of power you are putting out.

[John B.]

Well no, but in real life each individual has some maximum amount of
force that he/she/it can produce which can be measured in Watts,(
jules x 1 second) but the amount of work that he/she/it can produce
for any length of time is a totally different figure. If for no other
reason than instantaneous force is almost always anaerobic while
sustained force is aerobic.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Lou Holtman]

Op zondag 2 mei 2021 om 00:54:26 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

Here in The Netherlands almost everyone over 50 years old not riding a road bike or ATB for exercise is on a E bike or the next bike they buy will be an E bike.

Lou

[Ralph Barone]

I’m not sure you got my point. If I’m riding at a heart rate of 150 bpm
today and I ride at a heart rate of 150 bpm tomorrow, there’s no guarantee
that I’m putting out the same amount of power both times. Even during a
ride, heart rates will tend to drift upwards at a constant power level.
While a HRM will give you some indication of how hard you’re working
(incidentally, so will just answering the question “How hard does it feel
like you’re working?”), if you want an accurate, absolute, repeatable
measure of how much work you are doing, a power meter is the way to go.
There are other ways to estimate power (out and back time trial, speed up a
known hill), but a power meter will give you real numbers in exchange for a
non-trivial amount of money. Whether that is worth it to you, is of course
up to you to decide.

[jbeattie]

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

Op zondag 2 mei 2021 om 17:57:26 UTC+2 schreef jbeattie:

Just looking at the figure of your HR and/or power doesn't do the trick. You have to interpret the data to turn them into information. Here is the data of todays group ride. For me it was an easy ride were I only pushed myself during about 15 minutes and dropped half of the group just before the coffee stop. After the coffee stop it was a social ride again.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LSvLHhVB8B7Ye3Ws7

Besides a delay there is a very good correlation between the heart rate and power. The ratio between them however changes with in- or decreasing fitness and thats is what your are interested in.

Lou

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 1 May 2021 11:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Lou Holtman
<lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Typical E bike rider her in the Netherlands:
>https://photos.app.goo.gl/8XJ5uJepSASL4Mhz7
>Lou

More of the same:
"The use of electric bikes in The Netherlands continues to grow"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Y_MhY_PG8>

However, seems odd. This 2019 promotional bicycle video doesn't show
or mention a single eBike:
"Dutch Cycling"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayPDlDi9Ug4>


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

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, you are quite right that you CAN derive power input any number of ways but a power meter makes it simple. But does that make it necessary for the overwhelming number of riders?

[Mark J.]

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

[John B.]

On Sun, 2 May 2021 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>

My point was, and is, that your torque reading times RPM doesn't give
you any indication of what percent of your ability to produce power -
to use your term - that you are expending. Which is why VO2max is the
usual test of "fitness" rather then torque and a cheap and dirty
method of measuring VO2max is by measuring pulse rate.

>Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would strengthen the economy.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.
>

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J." <MarkU...@comcast.net>
wrote:

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Ralph Barone]

Yup. Your maximum heart rate can be easily determined by working all out
and seeing what the highest heart rate you achieved was. I recall that mine
used to be above the 220 - age formula, but now it’s a bit under that (or
more likely I don’t ride as close to the “vomit zone” as I used to.

[Mark J.]

Yes, I think that's the one I read.

> The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
> developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
> HRmax=212-0.77(age).
> Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
> formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.

>
> One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
> ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
> maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
> actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
> calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger
than the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because
people vary a lot.

>
> The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
> to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
> 226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Mark J.

[Frank Krygowski]

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burning-many-calories-cycling-think-194200200.html


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Most people eat more at a hamburger stand than they burn off in a hard 25 mile ride.

[Ralph Barone]

Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. ”. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

[Frank Krygowski]

I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP8ijGF4pw

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Frank, how do you suppose you can improve if there's no room for improvement? Why isn't the Tour de France a 190 way tie?

[Tom Kunich]

This whole thing started with power meters didn't it? Everyone has a certain maximum power output beyond which they absolutely CANNOT improve. Talking about efficiency and muscle output is simply nonsensical. Power in and power out minus efficiency factor hits a brick wall when you reach your physical limitations.

[Tom Kunich]

Pro cyclists are those people who discovered that they had the muscle and energy storage capacity to be good at the sport. If they hadn't been they would have chosen something else like say a lawyer that thinks that Portland was a "mostly peaceful demonstration". Physical abilities are innate and while you can improve your performance it is only to your genetically endowed abilities. This is why I think that sports riders buying power meters is foolishness. It is a belief that they can become like their heroes and that just isn't the case. After the age of about 30, even if you had the extraordinary physical abilities, if you hadn't exercised them before that they are GONE never to ever return. Why would you suppose that people that buy power meters find that so unacceptable?

[Mark cleary]

I can attest that calories burned are not just exercise. One does get more efficient and you clearly burn less calories by being more efficient. I remember once back in about 1990 when I was running 60-75 miles per week. One week I finished and I had 88 miles on the books. I then went out later in the afternoon to run 3 more miles so I could say I legitimately ran a 90 mile week. That particular week I gained about 2 pounds when done. I am not sure I actually eat any less today on days with I walk 6 miles and ride my bike 20-30. Back then a normal days run of 11 miles would have taken me about 85-88 miles going 7:35-8:10 minutes per mile. Now if I get going and run a 10:45 mile pace my heart rate just ups pretty quick for my age. Indicating I am much less efficient and burning more calories because of it. I have similar responses riding success weeks of 300-360 miles. I don't suddenly drop weight and I don't eat a more or what seems much more
Deacon Mark

[Tom Kunich]

I am not a particularly large eater though sometimes I eat my fill. My wife tends towards junk food and I towards healthier foods, not by any special attempt but because it is my preference. Maybe that garbage at the Chow Hall made as much of an impression as my mother. But my weight remains between 180 and 190 depending on how much riding I do. Before my injury it was a constant 210.

[John B.]

On Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski

The University of Cape Town Medical School recently studied eight fast
and eight average runners. The fast individuals averaged 33 minutes
for the 10K and 74 minutes for the half-marathon, while the average
harriers clocked about 40 minutes for the 10K and 94 minutes in the
half-marathon.

They found that both classes ran at about 90% maximum heart rate so
both runners were exerting the same effort but the faster people have
higher capacities (greater VO2maxs, loftier max heart rates).

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

In another post I gave some details of a study conducted by a S.
African school testing fast and slow runners which showed that while
both fast and slower runners both ran at about 90% maximum pulse rate
that the faster runners were faster :-) or in other words generated
more power for the same effort (heart rate) as the slower runners.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Probably because there were only 176 riders in the TdeF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Tour_de_France
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net>:

>On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

...

>>> Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
>>> article from _Buycycling_ magazine.
>>>
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burning-many-calories-cycling-think-194200200.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
>> the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
>> you ride at a given pace. ”. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
>> track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
>> offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
>> a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
>> the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
>> bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
>> I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
>
>I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
>case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
>least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
>muscles.

This, plus better aerodynamics. As you well know, because you commented
on it a while ago, I prefer to ride a bike in clothing that doesn’t look
like the latest ads in a sports magazine. But that doesn’t mean that I
don’t try to avoid avoidable air drag, by riding a road bike and using
the low positions on the drop bar.

I'm riding for fun, not as a matter of competition or to loose fat. Part
of that fun is getting around, though. Part of the fun, however, is
getting around, and that’s better if you can cycle faster.

Problem: The faster you ride, the more difficult it becomes to estimate
how much power you need for speed. I am no hunter/gatherer, I don't ride
that much. A quick back on the evelope calculation: last year I rode
less than 130 hours combined. When I was still working, it was about 220
hours - roughly one hour per work day.

I'm not that exited about power meters, but I see a use for these. One
of my sons has a pair, built into the pedals. I could try these, both on
my stationary bike (an old Tacx 1680) and indirectely, by him riding
closely behind me on one of my tours. The data gathered is quite
interesting. I'm going up gradients too fast and then I’m weakening when
it gets flat. This, even though I am well aware of the effect. Actually
I told beginners to avoid it, before. :-}


Anyway, I see a benefit for me, similar to the speedometer in our car.
That device is completely unnessesary, I rarely look at it. But so is
a lot of stuff on my road bike, lights, some bags, navigation device,
air pump, pedals, water bottle, some tools, a camera ... I could take
everything off my bike, except the gear and a single front brake and
would still be able to do my trips. I haven't used the pump in years,
could do without water for most of the year, etc.

>
>A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
>takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
>simply "calories input vs. exercise."
>
>I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
>active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
>One way or another, efficiency does change with training.
--

Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

[Tom Kunich]

Well, YOU know what you're getting and are willing to pay for it. That is one thing. But as I said, there is absolutely no NEED for a power meter for most sports riders because everything you need to know you learn in 20 minutes. A power meter will not improve your performance since if you've been riding for awhile you are probably as good as you are ever going to get. If one day you feel punk, looking at a lower than normal reading isn't going to tell you anything that your legs haven't. They are an unnecessary expense, though if you like to use them simply as a piece of instrumentation and you have the spare change, it isn't going to hurt anything.

I have a Garmin and it used to show speed and distance on the lead page. They they updated the program and it is very difficult to find distance - it is two or three pages away. This is really irritating to me since I like to see the difference in distance of various routes. But now I just wait until I'm home and plug it into my home computer.

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

My God Tom, you can adjust/delete any data page and data field on a data page, RTFM. If you are too lazy/stubborn go to youtube and do a search like 'how to change data field on Garmin Edge xxx.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, I have an 800 and an 810. Neither of these allow you to change the data fields and the last time I updated the programs they went into this funny mode in which the data fields on both of the units cannot be obviously changed and there is no "change display" mode on either. If I go to "Display" the entries are "Backlight timeout", "Color Mode", "Screen Capture" and "Calibrate Screen". Perhaps you know better than the guy who is holding it in his hands? Not only that but since it updated the program it looks like it is adding the rotational speed of either the satellites or the Earth to the speed reading since at a dead stop it measures between .5 and 1 mph though it doesn't change mileage.

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

Jesus Christ you are stubborn. I had a Edge 810 myself for many years so I would now. It is not in the display settings it is in the activity settings IIRC. Anyhow I looked it up for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHDqLUiT-eU

Lou

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 10:56:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Not only that but since it updated the program it looks like
>it is adding the rotational speed of either the satellites
>or the Earth to the speed reading since at a dead stop it
>measures between .5 and 1 mph though it doesn't change mileage.

Nope. The earth's rotational speed is about 1,000 mph (1609 km/hr)
and the GPS satellites orbit at about 14,000 km/hr.

What's happening is that your Garmin is looking at small changes in
position as the various satellites wander around the sky, and as your
GPS clock tries to maintain sync with the satellite clock.
Synchronization is not perfect due to jitter (phase noise, atmospheric
diffraction, atmospherics, Faraday rotation, etc). The result is a
drunkards walk centered about your location. Examples:
<https://freegeographytools.com/2009/evaluating-gps-receiver-accuracy-with-visualgps>
<https://www.visualgps.net/VisualGPSView/images/ssScatter.png>
<https://www.visualgps.net/VisualGPSView/images/ssPosPlot.png>
I highly recommend the various VisualGPS programs for GPS performance
checking. I've been using them for many years:
<https://www.visualgps.net>

While the indicated GPS position is wandering around your location,
the tiny changes in position are interpreted as movement, which your
GPS displays as distance moved divided by time, also known as speed.
That's where the 0.5 to 1 mph speed indication originates.

If the speed jitter bothers you, get a GPS that does GPS, WAAS,
GLONASS, GALILEO and maybe BEIDOU and QZSS. More satellites means
more accuracy and less jitter. Most current cell phone GPS receivers
will do this. I'm not sure of which systems the 800 or 810 supports.
<https://5cycling.com/garmin-edge-810-vs-820/>
Looks like the 810 only supports GPS, while the 820 supports GPS and
GLONASS but not any of the others.

On my Moto G Power 2020 Android phone, I don't see any jitter with 22
satellites in view, 16 in use, and AGPS enabled. That's probably far
more satellites than can be seen by either your 800 or 810.

Back to plumbing. Oh, what fun...

[Tom Kunich]

I did a factory reset and it started working correctly. Believe me that these units started doing this after it supposedly entered a program update. I reset the 800 which also updated the unit the same way and it too came back to operating properly. Your references were not helpful because these units were not operating anything like was shown in the video.

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

That doesn't make sense. I bought my Edge 810 as soon as it came out and from day one it acted exactly as shown in the video. It had many updates but none of them changed the way the data pages and data fields were configured so a factory reset should bring you back to a software version that would act as shown in the video. How did your unit entered a 'program update'? Are we talking about the same units? Does your unit and the user interface even look like what you see in the video?

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

Seriously Lou? I just told you that both the 800 and the 810 failed identically after they updated the program. Obviously after they updated the program they didn't do a reset as the final step in their program. They both had the same displays that acted in the same manner and which you couldn't change anything. What exactly doesn't make sense about them not including a reset?

[Lou Holtman]

Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 00:18:47 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

A lot of of things doesn't make sense to me:
- the edge 810 and edge 800 don't update their FW by itself. You either do that via the Garmin Express application on your PC or via WIFI, if connected. It case of the latter it ask you if you want to update,
- the edge 800 has a different user interface than the edge 810 so when turned on they look different and operate differently,
- after a factory reset I would expect that the edge 810 would operate like mine and in that case the data pages and data fields could be configured as shown in the video, because that is how it works out of the box.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, updated in the desktop program. I don't think it asked to update but did it automatically. But perhaps it asked. Why wouldn't I update? The last time it updated it also lost all of the information stored in the meter itself. The programmers that write update programs usually do so from customer complaints, they are usually not the highest class of programmer and forgetting to reset the program afterward instead of just picking up where it left off is the sort of mistake you should expect from them. I simply forgot that an update changes the area in which the program is stored and lengthens it so that in this case it appeared to be working but all of the display was in a different area.

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, By the way, the 800 and the 810 have the identical user interface. That is the two buttons and touch screen. The 705 I have has manual buttons and no touch screen.

[Lou Holtman]

Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 15:44:02 UTC+2 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:

We have a different definition of a user interface . I don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on the display and how you navigate through the screens and how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over complicate/over think matters. Never mind this is going nowhere.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

I figured that is probably what you meant. Remember that I am a programmer and it means something quite different to me. I think that once I finally stumbled upon the means to reset the unit and it totally changed back to what it originally was I knew instantly what had happened. 100 to one if I were to update the software from this version it would not lose all of the data like it did last time.

Interesting thing - remember I said that the speed appeared to be following satellite or earth revolutions - when I reset the program and it was sitting there it said "speed is detected, should I start the time". So this latest version of the software is not calculating speed with the change in GPS coordinate or wheel revolution counts for total speed.

This tells me that the programmer really didn't know what he is doing. So I'm not surprised that he forgot to add a reset at the end of his download program.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/7/2021 5:46 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> We have a different definition of a user interface . I don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on the display and how you navigate through the screens and how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over complicate/over think matters.

I often gripe about user interfaces, on everything from microwave ovens
to my wrist watch to web pages.

Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
standardized?

Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is to start a
timer? And when I accidentally change it, why does it take 48 pushes of
a button to return to the time zone I want?

It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential functions are
sometimes buried a couple levels down in menus. (Example: a "music speed
changer" app that can slow down a recording's sound file, change its
pitch, etc. but in which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)

But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern electronics. I remember
printed equipment manuals in which a critical photo or diagram was
several pages away from its explanatory text.

I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction that teaches
programmers how to communicate with human beings - "Control Psychology"?
- but there should be.

> Never mind this is going nowhere.

Not unusual here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

in re watches:
Vintage Swiss mechanical automatic[1].
When people our age die, their children sell those for just
nothing. No batteries!

[1]Right now I'm wearing a beautiful Rado
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[John B.]

I've got a battery powered Rolex, cost me something like $1,000
probably 20, or maybe more, years ago. Now I see it for something like
$10,000 on e-bay :-) And, Rolex will still service the watch but I now
have to take it to a Rolex distributor
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/7/2021 5:46 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>
>> We have a different definition of a user interface . I don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on the display and how you navigate through the screens and how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over complicate/over think matters.
>
>I often gripe about user interfaces, on everything from microwave ovens
>to my wrist watch to web pages.
>
>Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
>differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
>standardized?

A strange problem. I buy my wife a "microwave" whenever the old one
dies. Carry it in from the car and put it on the kitchen table. It
somehow gets unpacked and moves the spot on the counter where the
microwave lives and apparently turns itself on and off in some
miraculous manner as I have, only once, tried to use it and then my
wife told me I was doing it wrong :-)

>
>Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is to start a
>timer? And when I accidentally change it, why does it take 48 pushes of
>a button to return to the time zone I want?
>
>It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential functions are
>sometimes buried a couple levels down in menus. (Example: a "music speed
>changer" app that can slow down a recording's sound file, change its
>pitch, etc. but in which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)
>
>But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern electronics. I remember
>printed equipment manuals in which a critical photo or diagram was
>several pages away from its explanatory text.
>
>I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction that teaches
>programmers how to communicate with human beings - "Control Psychology"?
>- but there should be.
>
>> Never mind this is going nowhere.
>
>Not unusual here.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[News 2021]

On Sat, 08 May 2021 08:25:14 +0700, John B. scribed:

> On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

>>Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
>>differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
>>standardized?
>
> A strange problem. I buy my wife a "microwave" whenever the old one
> dies. Carry it in from the car and put it on the kitchen table. It
> somehow gets unpacked and moves the spot on the counter where the
> microwave lives and apparently turns itself on and off in some
> miraculous manner as I have, only once, tried to use it and then my wife
> told me I was doing it wrong :-)

Our old one was just set the dials and press a button.
SWMBO'd just nukes everything at full power.
I'm more a 'where the hell is the manual' guy.

The real questions is 'who the hell has any use for those auto cook
options'?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
>differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
>standardized?

Microwave oven digital timers are set in minutes and seconds. Frozen
foods specify the cooking time in decimal minutes.

>Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is to start a
>timer? And when I accidentally change it, why does it take 48 pushes of
>a button to return to the time zone I want?

Just buy a smartwatch. Instead of 48 button presses, you can program
it to do anything you might conceivably want to do, if you can find
the settings. Bigger menus do not make better a better UI.

>It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential functions are
>sometimes buried a couple levels down in menus. (Example: a "music speed
>changer" app that can slow down a recording's sound file, change its
>pitch, etc. but in which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)

Ummm... I just say "Hey Google. Play (name of tune)". If it's on the
device, it will play. If nothing found, my Android finds and plays it
from Pandora, while I think Apple offers to sell you the tune for $1.
The hard part is finding the music play so as to stop the music.
"Google Assistant: Listen to music"
<https://support.google.com/assistant/answer/7539710>
Soon you will be able to have a discussion or argument with your smart
devices.

>But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern electronics. I remember
>printed equipment manuals in which a critical photo or diagram was
>several pages away from its explanatory text.

Printed manual? Nobody reads the manual until after they've made a
mess, and then only the specific part dealing with the problem at
hand. The most difficult part of using a printed or PDF manual is
finding it when one needs it. Products no longer include printed
manuals, which have been replaced by a "Quick Setup" pamphlet in 12
languages and a 50 page pamphlet in the smallest possible font
explaining why you don't have any legal recourse should something go
wrong, go wrong, go wrong, etc.

>I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction that teaches
>programmers how to communicate with human beings - "Control Psychology"?
>- but there should be.

"Software User Interface Design"
<https://www.tutorialspoint.com/software_engineering/software_user_interface_design.htm>
User interface design:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface_design>
Basically, it defines how the user tells the device to do things, how
the device returns information to the user, and the workflow needed to
make things happen.

It's not that various industries are trying to make your life
difficult by failing to standardize the UI. The problem is that each
company wants to be creative (Apple "Think Different") and innovative.
They also want to have some kind of product differentiation to
separate their device from the competitions device. If everything
looked and worked the same, these companies would probably sue each
other for "look and feel" infringement, plagiarism, or theft of IP
(intellectual property). There's no major sales benefit if everything
looks and works the same. It's difficult to innovate if you can't
make changes. If microwave oven manufacturers were stuck with a
standardized package, UI, operational specs, safety specs, etc the
only thing left to compete on would be price and service. While
competitive price wars are initially great for the consumer, they tend
to eventually result in a consolidation of the companies involved,
resulting in something resembling a monopoly. Careful what you wish
for. It might not be such a good idea.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 07 May 2021 19:23:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
>>differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
>>standardized?

>Microwave oven digital timers are set in minutes and seconds. Frozen
>foods specify the cooking time in decimal minutes.

Oops. That should be:
Frozen foods specify the cooking time in minutes and fractional
minutes (no seconds).