Power Meters?

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.

Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.

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

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.
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
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.

Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.
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
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.

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

On Thu, 6 May 2021 10:56:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
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...



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

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.
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
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.
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

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.

Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.
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
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.
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
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.

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

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?

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?

Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 00:18:47 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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?

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

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 11:41:01 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 00:18:47 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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, 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.