CycloComputer Question

Leo Lichtman said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Average Velocity = Distance you travel / time
it takes [period] (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, Paul, not [period]. I'm not going to explain it again, but if you would
re-read some of the other posts in this thread, maybe you would realize that
the time-weighted average which you specify is not the only one. The OP
compared two DIFFERENT averages, asking which one the cyclometer computes.
The other one could also have some validity under other circumstances.
{period}.

No, actually the other one has no validity whatsoever.

Jasper

Leo Lichtman said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Average Velocity = Distance you travel / time
it takes [period] (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, Paul, not [period]. I'm not going to explain it again, but if you would
re-read some of the other posts in this thread, maybe you would realize that
the time-weighted average which you specify is not the only one. The OP
compared two DIFFERENT averages, asking which one the cyclometer computes.
The other one could also have some validity under other circumstances.
{period}.

At the last second I deleted a portion of my post. It read:

"You don't seem to fully understand the definitions of velocity or speed"

Had I left that in the post, I would have stood by them.

\\paul

Note: I should have said "speed" not "velocity." A track racer's world
record time results from an average velocity of zero over the entire
race. His average speed, however, would be quite high.
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the words to numbers
if you want to reply to me:.

Quoted message said:

That's why a hilly course will always hurt your average speed.

And why our club rides average 26mph here in Florida.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Hell and High Water said:

Is the average calculated by a factor of distance or time?

IE:

(Theory here)

If I go up a one mile hill at 10 MPH, then come down the hill at 20 MPH,
my average will be 15 MPH. (Easy math)

OR....

If I go up a hill at 10 MPH for three minutes, then come down the hill
at 20 MPH for 30 seconds, my average is x. (Too lazy to do the math)

Does the computer average the amount of the DISTANCES I covered, or the
two TIMES I covered.

Again, theory here. No need to bring in the 'time to turn
around/slowing/speeding up/etc.' stuff.

The basic formula for figuring average speed.
Suppose one travels d_1 at speed v_1 and distance d_2 at
speed v_1, and the average speed over d_1 and d_2 is v_avg.

d_1 d_2 d_1+d_2
--- + --- = -------
v_1 v_2 v_avg

v_1 v_2 d_1 = d_2 v_avg
___________________________________________________
8 25 1 12.12
10 25 1 14.28
8 27 1 12.34

--
Michael Press

Leo Lichtman said:

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Average Velocity = Distance you travel / time
it takes [period] (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, Paul, not [period]. I'm not going to explain it again, but if you would
re-read some of the other posts in this thread, maybe you would realize that
the time-weighted average which you specify is not the only one. The OP
compared two DIFFERENT averages, asking which one the cyclometer computes.
The other one could also have some validity under other circumstances.
{period}.

In fact I was thinking about it this morning and I came to the
conclusion that the "other" average (distance/time) is not that useful
(for a cyclist) too...

Jasper Janssen said:

Quoted message said:

Nope, even several MegaLights won't do it. Instantaneous transfer from B
to A is the only way.

Ah, but due to the power of relativity, c essentially *is* instantaneous.

There was a young cyclist of Wight,
Who pedalled much faster than light,
He departed one day,
In a relative way,
And arrived on the previous night.

Francesco Devittori said:

In fact I was thinking about it this morning and I came to the
conclusion that the "other" average (distance/time) is not that useful
(for a cyclist) too...

If not useful or relevant, why bother to compute it in the first place?

--
[email hidden]

Stanislav Sviderek said:

Francesco Devittori said:

In fact I was thinking about it this morning and I came to the
conclusion that the "other" average (distance/time) is not that useful
(for a cyclist) too...

If not useful or relevant, why bother to compute it in the first place?

My computer does it for free. I don't bother to compute it :-)

Francesco