Bike Cafe · Public discussion

Well. That sucks.

Started by DrunkenBiker · · Last activity · 17 posts · 1,899 views

← Back to Bike Cafe

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postWell. That sucks.DrunkenBiker · 4 Sep 2007 02 / This pagePosts 1–17Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #17kdelong · 13 Sep 2007

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Bike Cafe
Published
4 September 2007
Last activity
13 September 2007
Original author
DrunkenBiker
Posts
17
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,899
Views / 30 days
0
Topics
Cycling computers

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–17 of 17
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    DrunkenBiker
    Archived post
    #1

    I recently got me a brandy new road bike. A yellow one for those who want to know what it is. And what's the first thing I bought to go along with my new toy ?

    A brandy new cyclometer. Yep. Wireless no less.

    I hook it up. Follow all the instructions in the manual like the good little boy I am, and set off on my usual daily ride. A tad over 16 miles.

    I arrive home safe and sound and...what's this ?? My brandy new cyclometer only reads 14.2 miles. Hmmmmm

    I triple check the settings in the manual and all seems ok. But something is seriously wrong here. I take both bikes to the nearest school that has a 1/4 mile track and do a little test.

    Oh my.

    Seems all the mileage I recorded on my mtn bike the last 10 months is over by at least 10%.

    Which kills the 100 mile week I thought I finally did just last week.

    Damn. Now I know why I started drinking. Quick. Someone remind me why I quit.

    😄

    Report
  2. Cycler6n
    Archived post
    #2

    bah, it's not about mileage, its about fitness. If ya feel good, yuor doin fine, it shouldn't be about a number.

    Report
  3. ilmooz
    Archived post
    #3
    DrunkenBiker said:

    Damn. Now I know why I started drinking. Quick. Someone remind me why I quit.

    😄


    You quit so you could get your bike computer settings accurate, remember?

    If you knew you were at 90 miles you'd have had an easy time knocking off those last 10 to complete 100 anyway.

    Report
  4. DrunkenBiker
    Archived post
    #4
    Cycler6n said:

    bah, it's not about mileage, its about fitness. If ya feel good, yuor doin fine, it shouldn't be about a number.

    Yep. Totally agree. Actually laughed about it when I realized my mistake.

    It ain't about the mileage. In the last 10 months I've lost 40 pounds and haven't been in this kind of shape since my late 20's.

    That said: I still want my first 100 mile week. 😄

    Report
  5. kdelong
    Archived post
    #5
    DrunkenBiker said:

    Yep. Totally agree. Actually laughed about it when I realized my mistake.

    It ain't about the mileage. In the last 10 months I've lost 40 pounds and haven't been in this kind of shape since my late 20's.

    That said: I still want my first 100 mile week. 😄

    No better time to get it than this week. Go getter done!😄

    Report
  6. cheapie
    Archived post
    #6

    you do realize that the wheel size for a road and mtn bike require different settings, right? i assume you do but just wanted to check. 😉

    Report
  7. Farmguy
    Archived post
    #7

    Its not the miles you ride, its the ride In the miles.😄

    Report
  8. DrunkenBiker
    Archived post
    #8
    cheapie said:

    you do realize that the wheel size for a road and mtn bike require different settings, right? i assume you do but just wanted to check. 😉

    Yep. I ain't that stupid. I hope not anyway. 😄

    I hosed the setting when I took off the knobby tires and threw slicks on the mtn bike. I used the setting for 26x1.9 instead of 26x1.5.

    Good timing for this anyway. I've actually taken advice I've seen in a few places and I mostly now go by time instead of distance. I still record mileage but don't really worry about it. It just became a problem because the 2 bikes were different.

    Report
  9. JTE83
    Archived post
    #9

    That's not so bad... My ergomo pro distance does not match the Polar S720i distance I get when riding my CF Cervelo Soloist. And this is an expensive $1650 powermeter!

    Report
  10. DrunkenBiker
    Archived post
    #10
    JTE83 said:

    That's not so bad... My ergomo pro distance does not match the Polar S720i distance I get when riding my CF Cervelo Soloist. And this is an expensive $1650 powermeter!

    OK.....now that would make me start drinking again. 😉

    Report
  11. Lesq
    Archived post
    #11
    DrunkenBiker said:

    Yep. Totally agree. Actually laughed about it when I realized my mistake.

    It ain't about the mileage. In the last 10 months I've lost 40 pounds and haven't been in this kind of shape since my late 20's.

    That said: I still want my first 100 mile week. 😄


    That sounds like reason enough to celebrate with a few beers!!!😉

    Report
  12. Powerful Pete
    Archived post
    #12
    DrunkenBiker said:

    Yep. I ain't that stupid. I hope not anyway. 😄

    I hosed the setting when I took off the knobby tires and threw slicks on the mtn bike. I used the setting for 26x1.9 instead of 26x1.5.

    Most probably that is your problem. Do not use the setting in the manual. Inflate your tires to your usual riding pressure, mark the ground for the starting point, get on the bike, and roll it until you have made a full wheel revolution. Then measure that distance and use that for your wheel settings, and you will probably get a much more accurate reading on your odometer.

    Report
  13. meehs
    Archived post
    #13
    Powerful Pete said:

    Most probably that is your problem. Do not use the setting in the manual. Inflate your tires to your usual riding pressure, mark the ground for the starting point, get on the bike, and roll it until you have made a full wheel revolution. Then measure that distance and use that for your wheel settings, and you will probably get a much more accurate reading on your odometer.

    Yep! That's how you gotta do it. The manual just gives you some generic "700 x 23C" number (for expample) and the fact is there's a lot of variation in the circumference of all of the various 700c X 23mm tires. If you just plug-in the number in the manual, expect "approximate" readings form your computer. I recently set-up a Cateye wireless computer and the number the manual gave for the circumference of a 700 X 35C tire was about 30mm less than the actual measured circumference (with me on the bike).

    Report
  14. DrunkenBiker
    Archived post
    #14
    meehs said:

    Yep! That's how you gotta do it. The manual just gives you some generic "700 x 23C" number (for expample) and the fact is there's a lot of variation in the circumference of all of the various 700c X 23mm tires. If you just plug-in the number in the manual, expect "approximate" readings form your computer. I recently set-up a Cateye wireless computer and the number the manual gave for the circumference of a 700 X 35C tire was about 30mm less than the actual measured circumference (with me on the bike).

    For my the one I bought for my road bike(cheapo Bell cyclometer) it gave a generic number for all 700c tires. No mention of different sizes within that range. I used a chart from Sheldon Browns site to get a useful number for 23mm.

    Approximate works for me. Drove a car thru my usual route and the numbers are all close enough now. I just wanted both bikes to read the same. Having one say 16 and the other say 14.2 was just too much of a difference.

    Report
  15. jcthomasjr
    Archived post
    #15
    meehs said:

    Yep! That's how you gotta do it. The manual just gives you some generic "700 x 23C" number (for expample) and the fact is there's a lot of variation in the circumference of all of the various 700c X 23mm tires. If you just plug-in the number in the manual, expect "approximate" readings form your computer. I recently set-up a Cateye wireless computer and the number the manual gave for the circumference of a 700 X 35C tire was about 30mm less than the actual measured circumference (with me on the bike).

    I'll third that. Having used different computers and having set up computers on my parents' bikes (all different), they all give different readings that are not even close. Gotta get on the bike and measure a revolution. I guess I am just anal in that I want my computers to read as accurate as possible. Must admit a Cateye I had on my road bike that I now have on my mtn. bike is the most accurate.

    Report
  16. tt1106
    Archived post
    #16

    My edge 205 reads less than my cateye. 🙂
    C'est la vie.

    Report
  17. kdelong
    Archived post
    #17

    I trust whichever device shows the fastest speed and the longest distance!

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionBike Cafe Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.