Road Cycling Essentials

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've noticed that Endomondo and Strava calculate the average speed of rides differently. Endomondo counts the stops (ie non moving time) and Strava doesn't. Which do people think is correct?

For example, exactly the same ride, Endomondo says 16.3mph average, whereas Strava says 17.8mph.
 
I've noticed that Endomondo and Strava calculate the average speed of rides differently. Endomondo counts the stops (ie non moving time) and Strava doesn't. Which do people think is correct?

For example, exactly the same ride, Endomondo says 16.3mph average, whereas Strava says 17.8mph.
I only ever consider the moving time. How long I spent stuck at traffic lights and other junctions isn't really something I have any control over, after all.
 
I think that for the whole of a ride, you don't count stops, but for segments, you do. So for a ride only time spent moving counts, but for a segment on strava you shouldn't be able to cheat by having a nap halfway through.

I've just been out and done 16 miles in my new mo77 shoes. Pretty comfy to be in shoes the right size! I'm still banging my head against a brick wall with a segment near me - can't seem to get better than a third best time, and I'm 12 seconds off my best time. No idea how I managed my PR when I did it back whenever it was.
 
I've noticed that Endomondo and Strava calculate the average speed of rides differently. Endomondo counts the stops (ie non moving time) and Strava doesn't. Which do people think is correct?

I dont think either is more 'correct' than the other. They are different values for different purposes.

Strava does not count stops because then you could pause for short sections during a segment and cut a few seconds off your time.
 
I prefer it counting stops though because that gives a proper time then. It's not like you can have an hour-long break in the middle of a stage but not count it towards your total time.
 
Genesis Equilibrium Ti @ Eurobike :eek:

1346315220763-lbmiz2zmiukd-670-75.jpeg


Want!
 
Careful, remember what happened last time you bought a Ti bike...

:p I'm already planning my next Ti. Price of the frame alone is absolutely shocking though so postponing it for this time next year, that way I have a year to plan the spec and a year to let the price tag sink in before pulling the trigger and joining the 3-6 month waiting list. :D
 
I've noticed that Endomondo and Strava calculate the average speed of rides differently. Endomondo counts the stops (ie non moving time) and Strava doesn't. Which do people think is correct?

For example, exactly the same ride, Endomondo says 16.3mph average, whereas Strava says 17.8mph.

I don't seem to get that on Strava? Do you mean when you physically stop/start? With my Garmin 310 the only way I can get average moving time is via Garmin Connect which seems to use cadence
 
been seriously thinking of getting a road bike along side my MTB lately

been looking around and trying to understand what bikes come with what set of gears (shimanos) and also looking second hand..

Id like to try and get a cheap bike (but not Vintage) but likeing the idea of getting shimano 105 group set at a minimum, but seem costly

ive come accross this bike at auction, and id like to ask what you guys think its worth ?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/140839673302?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Thanks
 
been seriously thinking of getting a road bike along side my MTB lately

been looking around and trying to understand what bikes come with what set of gears (shimanos) and also looking second hand..

Id like to try and get a cheap bike (but not Vintage) but likeing the idea of getting shimano 105 group set at a minimum, but seem costly

ive come accross this bike at auction, and id like to ask what you guys think its worth ?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/140839673302?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Thanks

No idea pricewise, I'd take a stab at somewhere north of £500 but that's a guess, but the thing I'd point out straight off is that the chainrings on there are a 53/39 "double" which will likely be quite a step up from your mountain bike gears. Unless you've already got massive thighs, you'd probably be better off with a 50/34 "compact". You could buy the alternative chainrings, but of course you're then looking at extra costs for the parts and the work.

I now await the folk who will turn up and tell you that I'm a right jessie for suggesting a compact, and that you should man up and get the double.
 
No idea pricewise, I'd take a stab at somewhere north of £500 but that's a guess, but the thing I'd point out straight off is that the chainrings on there are a 53/39 "double" which will likely be quite a step up from your mountain bike gears. Unless you've already got massive thighs, you'd probably be better off with a 50/34 "compact". You could buy the alternative chainrings, but of course you're then looking at extra costs for the parts and the work.

I now await the folk who will turn up and tell you that I'm a right jessie for suggesting a compact, and that you should man up and get the double.

cheers for that

infact you reminded me, i did read up on the types of chainrings, and i read that for me , was best to get a compact, but I didnt know about the numbers (in the compact case 50/34) what do these numbers mean? is that 50 teeth on one of the rear cogs and 34 teeth on one of the front cogs?
 
I now await the folk who will turn up and tell you that I'm a right jessie for suggesting a compact, and that you should man up and get the double.

You're right that a compact would be the best choice for a new cyclist. And, for somebody buying a new bike who has a free choice of chainset, it's the obvious choice.
However, you cant always be so picky when you're looking for a second-hand bike. If something nice comes up at a good price but has a standard chainset, it might be worth looking at. You could always compensate with a larger cassette if you find you're really struggling, but you might find that the standard is ok for you anyway.
 
I'm really glad I went for a compact, I think I could have been put off road bikes if I hadn't.

I've still got virtually no endurance in my thighs at the moment, I can probably really mash for no more than 7 seconds or so before they just pack in. I can do sustained 80km rides without taking any rest stops at an average of 24-26km/h relatively easily, I just don't seem to be able to tolerate a real push/sprint of any description. Or is that the norm?
 
im looking at some new wheels and a good deal has come up on some american classic 58 carbon tubular wheels. ive never ridden on tubular wheels before. would i be silly to go for them, or should i wait a while, save up some more and go for some decent clinchers?

Im not the lightest of riders (approx 97kg). can anyone recommend so decent wheels for 400-500 pounds?
Im not really going to be racing but im going to be joining a cycle club
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom