GPSs for cyling

pedalchick wrote in message ...

... If you have the $$, I
would get one with an altimeter so you can calculate ft. of climbing
done. I find it to be very reliable in calculating speed&distance - at
least compared to my cyclocomputer.

Actually, they ALL have altimeters as part of the GPS function. It's
just that most don't do anything else with that data until the
recorded "tracks" are processed with software on a computer. That's
where a package like TopoFusion comes in and you CAN calculate
climbing and show graphical representations of profiles, etc., you
just can't do it on the screen of the GPSR. While there are units
with built-in barometric altimeters too, I believe that additional
functionality is largely unnecessary and not worth the extra $, not to
mention that it is another drain on the power that decreases battery
life.

DR

"hold my beer and watch this..." wrote in message
...
So I just moved up to the freakin' Poconos, and even though I can't seem
to
find a ride where I don't have to use my 23, its 10 degrees colder here
than
anywhere else in Pennsylvania, and I haven't seen a single another rider
after almost a month of being here, the riding's not too bad. Anyway, I
was
thinking about getting a GPS with a bike mount to help in finding new
rides,
maybe something like this:

http://www.thegpsstore.com/Detail-Ma...ak-Map-GPS.asp

Anyone train with a GPS or have any suggestions...?

I don't train with it but I have an older version of that Magellan model and
I like it a lot. I have also used a Garmin device in a GIS class and,
despite what the other poster said in this thread, I cannot say one is
better than the other. IME, they are pretty similar. If you get one and use
it to explore new roads, perhaps its best feature is the real-time record of
your route, which can really help you not get lost.

Also, GPS does a terrible job of measuring altitude on its own. Barometric
pressure is far more accurate. Perhaps I misunderstood the other poster's
response about altitude capability, but you will see significant drift and
variance in the altitude measurements.

Whatever you get, please carry it in your pocket--it's too freakin geekish
to ride around with a big dashboard like that on your bike! (Unless it's an
SRM)

Mark
(Another closet map geek)

"hold my beer and watch this..." wrote in message
...
So I just moved up to the freakin' Poconos, and even though I can't seem
to
find a ride where I don't have to use my 23, its 10 degrees colder here
than
anywhere else in Pennsylvania, and I haven't seen a single another rider
after almost a month of being here, the riding's not too bad. Anyway, I
was
thinking about getting a GPS with a bike mount to help in finding new
rides,
maybe something like this:

http://www.thegpsstore.com/Detail-Ma...ak-Map-GPS.asp

Anyone train with a GPS or have any suggestions...?

I don't train with it but I have an older version of that Magellan model and
I like it a lot. I have also used a Garmin device in a GIS class and,
despite what the other poster said in this thread, I cannot say one is
better than the other. IME, they are pretty similar. If you get one and use
it to explore new roads, perhaps its best feature is the real-time record of
your route, which can really help you not get lost.

Also, GPS does a terrible job of measuring altitude on its own. Barometric
pressure is far more accurate. Perhaps I misunderstood the other poster's
response about altitude capability, but you will see significant drift and
variance in the altitude measurements.

Whatever you get, please carry it in your pocket--it's too freakin geekish
to ride around with a big dashboard like that on your bike! (Unless it's an
SRM)

Mark
(Another closet map geek)

I use a Garmin Forerunner 201 with an inexpensive heart rate monitor
mount, way less expensive then the Garmin mount. It is light weight
and provides a lot of information but lacks mapping. I also have a
cycling computer. I use both but for different reasons. The cycling
computer is used for cadence, speed and total distance purposes while
the Garmin is used in the "virtual partner" mode to provide a constant
competitor when I ride solo. In addition, the download of data from
the Garmin is great for post-ride analysis.


--
CDR114

I use a Garmin Forerunner 201 with an inexpensive heart rate monitor
mount, way less expensive then the Garmin mount. It is light weight
and provides a lot of information but lacks mapping. I also have a
cycling computer. I use both but for different reasons. The cycling
computer is used for cadence, speed and total distance purposes while
the Garmin is used in the "virtual partner" mode to provide a constant
competitor when I ride solo. In addition, the download of data from
the Garmin is great for post-ride analysis.


--
CDR114

"Mark Fennell" wrote in message news:jERjd.37445$SW3.26965@fed1read01...

Also, GPS does a terrible job of measuring altitude on its own.
Urban myth, repeated often but nonetheless not good information.

Barometric pressure is far more accurate.
Only true under some very particular circumstances, but not true as a
general statement.

Perhaps I misunderstood the other poster's
response about altitude capability, but you will see significant drift and
variance in the altitude measurements.

Given a reasonable satellite fix, a GPSR is virtually always within 30
feet or so of the correct altitude and NEVER varies as the barometer
fluctuates. In contrast you could calibrate a barometric altimeter
today, and tommorrow it can easily read +/-300 feet of today's
reading at the same location. And if you have moved to a different
location in that time you would not know you had a 300 foot error.

So if you don't know where you are and don't know what the barometric
trend has been, a GPSR actually gives far MORE reliable elevation
information. On the other hand if you merely want to know the
difference in elevation between point A and point B as you travel
between them in some short period of time, then, YES, the barometric
altimeter may be more accurate, especially if your concern is only the
"relative" elevations and you don't care about the absolute elevation
of either point.

Whatever you get, please carry it in your pocket--it's too freakin geekish
to ride around with a big dashboard like that on your bike! (Unless it's an
SRM)

Depends entirely on whether you want to see any of the data or maps
while riding.

DR

"Mark Fennell" wrote in message news:jERjd.37445$SW3.26965@fed1read01...

Also, GPS does a terrible job of measuring altitude on its own.
Urban myth, repeated often but nonetheless not good information.

Barometric pressure is far more accurate.
Only true under some very particular circumstances, but not true as a
general statement.

Perhaps I misunderstood the other poster's
response about altitude capability, but you will see significant drift and
variance in the altitude measurements.

Given a reasonable satellite fix, a GPSR is virtually always within 30
feet or so of the correct altitude and NEVER varies as the barometer
fluctuates. In contrast you could calibrate a barometric altimeter
today, and tommorrow it can easily read +/-300 feet of today's
reading at the same location. And if you have moved to a different
location in that time you would not know you had a 300 foot error.

So if you don't know where you are and don't know what the barometric
trend has been, a GPSR actually gives far MORE reliable elevation
information. On the other hand if you merely want to know the
difference in elevation between point A and point B as you travel
between them in some short period of time, then, YES, the barometric
altimeter may be more accurate, especially if your concern is only the
"relative" elevations and you don't care about the absolute elevation
of either point.

Whatever you get, please carry it in your pocket--it's too freakin geekish
to ride around with a big dashboard like that on your bike! (Unless it's an
SRM)

Depends entirely on whether you want to see any of the data or maps
while riding.

DR

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Fennell" wrote in message
news:jERjd.37445$SW3.26965@fed1read01...

Also, GPS does a terrible job of measuring altitude on its own.
Urban myth, repeated often but nonetheless not good information.


Well, that's what I get for using a subjective term like "terrible"! Given
that this discussion is related to bike racing, my thought is that any
altitude-measuring device would be used in training to measure the elevation
change of some route. E.g., I have a set of hills/mountains where I ride and
I want to know as precisely as possible what the elevation change is so I
can know my all-important VAM parameter . The short hills are ~100 ft and
the mountains are up to 4,000 ft. When I took my gps out to do this, its
altitude measurement varied way too much to be helpful on the short hills.
Just now, I took it outside and over a duration of a few minutes, the
elevation varied between 74 ft and 119 ft, whereas I *know* my true
elevation is ~90 ft. Using a barometric pressure device, I can set it when I
start the ride, and it sure seems to be more consistent and accurate **for
that ride**. Of course, one can always pull out a topo map and a magnifying
glass and generally get close enough... but that's way too low tech!

Barometric pressure is far more accurate.
Only true under some very particular circumstances, but not true as a
general statement.

I still claim that pressure is better for getting elevation change, granted,
over a reasonable time duration (as in, no storms moving in).

Perhaps I misunderstood the other poster's
response about altitude capability, but you will see significant drift
and
variance in the altitude measurements.

Given a reasonable satellite fix, a GPSR is virtually always within 30
feet or so of the correct altitude and NEVER varies as the barometer
fluctuates. In contrast you could calibrate a barometric altimeter
....snip...
Whatever you get, please carry it in your pocket--it's too freakin
geekish
to ride around with a big dashboard like that on your bike! (Unless it's
an
SRM)

Depends entirely on whether you want to see any of the data or maps
while riding.

That last part was a joke, but apparently not a very good one.

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Fennell" wrote in message
news:jERjd.37445$SW3.26965@fed1read01...

Also, GPS does a terrible job of measuring altitude on its own.
Urban myth, repeated often but nonetheless not good information.


Well, that's what I get for using a subjective term like "terrible"! Given
that this discussion is related to bike racing, my thought is that any
altitude-measuring device would be used in training to measure the elevation
change of some route. E.g., I have a set of hills/mountains where I ride and
I want to know as precisely as possible what the elevation change is so I
can know my all-important VAM parameter . The short hills are ~100 ft and
the mountains are up to 4,000 ft. When I took my gps out to do this, its
altitude measurement varied way too much to be helpful on the short hills.
Just now, I took it outside and over a duration of a few minutes, the
elevation varied between 74 ft and 119 ft, whereas I *know* my true
elevation is ~90 ft. Using a barometric pressure device, I can set it when I
start the ride, and it sure seems to be more consistent and accurate **for
that ride**. Of course, one can always pull out a topo map and a magnifying
glass and generally get close enough... but that's way too low tech!

Barometric pressure is far more accurate.
Only true under some very particular circumstances, but not true as a
general statement.

I still claim that pressure is better for getting elevation change, granted,
over a reasonable time duration (as in, no storms moving in).

Perhaps I misunderstood the other poster's
response about altitude capability, but you will see significant drift
and
variance in the altitude measurements.

Given a reasonable satellite fix, a GPSR is virtually always within 30
feet or so of the correct altitude and NEVER varies as the barometer
fluctuates. In contrast you could calibrate a barometric altimeter
....snip...
Whatever you get, please carry it in your pocket--it's too freakin
geekish
to ride around with a big dashboard like that on your bike! (Unless it's
an
SRM)

Depends entirely on whether you want to see any of the data or maps
while riding.

That last part was a joke, but apparently not a very good one.

"hold my beer and watch this..." wrote:

So I just moved up to the freakin' Poconos, and even though I can't seem to
find a ride where I don't have to use my 23, its 10 degrees colder here than
anywhere else in Pennsylvania, and I haven't seen a single another rider
after almost a month of being here, the riding's not too bad. Anyway, I was
thinking about getting a GPS with a bike mount to help in finding new rides,
maybe something like this:

http://www.thegpsstore.com/Detail-Ma...ak-Map-GPS.asp

Anyone train with a GPS or have any suggestions...?

Dumbass,

Have you considered a map?