Home Chat General Chat

Elevation - agin ....

Just checked out the elevation stats on my Garmin which has the 'elevation correction' on Garmin connect enabled, similar to motionbased. For my weekend ride it showed 780m climb on my Garmin but only 500m climb on mapmyride.com. I then checked the info on UK 70.3 in Wimbleball which is 1750m climb as per organizers, but on mapmyride.com it only shows only 1070m.

I also entered the same courses into runsaturday.com and get yet another result - what to believe?

Comments

  • threerockthreerock Posts: 10
    Haven't done corrected Garmin on my 405 but as you know uncorrected is ridiculous, I regularly climb 700ft while doing a 5 mile run along the canal! When I compare map-my-ride to counting contours on an OS map it (map my ride) is always lower. My gold standard (or nearest I can get) is the barometric altimeter on my cycle computer (VDO wireless MC1.0) - usually fairly accurate. I got it for 70 but I think they're over £100 now... So, get a new computer or count the squiggly lines on the map. Seemples.
  • md6md6 Posts: 969
    The Garmin tends to be well off, my flat route along the Thames path regularly has me climbing a >100m. Are the calculating in the same way - i.e. total of all climbs added together or just highest elevation-starting point? That could explain some of the differences
  • just2trijust2tri Posts: 198
    Garmin is supposed to calculate the total climb, but you need to have the 'auto correct' for altitude enabled on Garmin Connect. Have a look at the picture with explanation.
  • pataallenpataallen Posts: 94
    on a similar note, and apologies if this has been mentioned before, has anybody noticed how way-out the calorie conters are on the Garmins? I reckon out by approx 50%?
  • TRIumphantTRIumphant Posts: 850
    I've not had an issue with the calories on my 310XT, I think they're fairly accurate. On a good bike session, around 450 cals/hour.
  • md6md6 Posts: 969
    pataallen wrote:
    on a similar note, and apologies if this has been mentioned before, has anybody noticed how way-out the calorie conters are on the Garmins? I reckon out by approx 50%?
    Why what kind of readings do you get? Mine seems pretty accurate for running anyway - i don't ever use it for cycling calculations as i always forget to set it to cycling.
  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    The 310XT and 405CX have a different, improved, method of calorie counting than ealier models (305, 405 etc).

    You also have to enter your weight correctly.

    Compared to other methods (other gadgets, what the literature says) I find my plain 405 to be reasonably accurate - i.e. nothing like 50% out.
  • pataallenpataallen Posts: 94
    md6 wrote:
    [quote="pataallen":m24pda6f]on a similar note, and apologies if this has been mentioned before, has anybody noticed how way-out the calorie conters are on the Garmins? I reckon out by approx 50%?
    Why what kind of readings do you get? Mine seems pretty accurate for running anyway - i don't ever use it for cycling calculations as i always forget to set it to cycling.[/quote:m24pda6f]

    a 2 hr bike ave 20mph i get around 2000kcal. for an 80 miler i got 6500 kcal!!

    weight etc all set correctly
Sign In or Register to comment.