OFFLINE

Hi all - I have a standard 101 km route that I used to test a shop loan Rider 50 in July before buying my own. That record showed a height gain of 455m, with a calorie count of 1696. Time for this ride was 3 hrs 38 mins.
Using my own Rider 50 today, the same route was logged has having a height gain of 1093m and a grand calorie count of 3524. Time for this ride was 3hrs 59 mins (it is winter!).
Looking at the profile, there are three main climbs
23 to 200 - 180m
94 to 192 - 100m
115 to 272 - 150m
Both tracks show about the same heights.
The rest of the route has ups and downs, but nothing over 30m. I would reckon that the 455m total is maybe 100m less than the full ride is, but the 1093m is getting on for twice the actual total.
Does the Rider just make these numbers up? How can any training programme be run using numbers so disparate and unreliable?

OFFLINE

Hi, Colin,

Can you provide your Bryton ID or link and we check from the background?  thanks!

OFFLINE

Hi all - I posed the same question direct to Bryton Support and got this response -

"We've check the second 3 track, following is the dump of all Valley -> Peak altitude difference. The difference between these three track is coming from the different input data. Every ride for the same route will generate different (x,y,z) serial of data. We believe that you are riding on exactly the same route, the data will just not be the same.
If you have interest the following is our analysis.

The format and data as below:
<track point index>:<peak or valley>:<altitude> <alt diff>
track id          241773,                                                     243209,                                           246054
             4:V:39.3  -> 11:51.5 dz=12.2,         4:V:44.8 -> 11:57.8 dz=13.0,         9:V:49.4 -> 49:84.2 dz=34.8
             30:V:47.7 -> 58:79.1 dz=31.4,       19:V:51.0 -> 55:86.2 dz=35.2,        59:V:78.5 -> 69:84.8 dz=6.3
             163:V:47.9 -> 177:56.9 dz=9.0,     155:V:49.2 -> 174:59.3 dz=10.1,   157:V:50.2 -> 169:59.4 dz=9.2
             198:V:56.9 -> 261:83.0 dz=26.1,   193:V:58.9 -> 247:81.8 dz=22.9,   193:V:59.9 -> 245:82.2 dz=22.3
             269:V:77.4 -> 329:147.3 dz=69.9, 253:V:74.5 -> 309:146.6 dz=72.1, 260:V:80.1 -> 316:149.0 dz=68.9
             .... skip
             1499:V:50.6 -> 1510:55.6 dz=5.0, 1569:V:53.8 -> 1581:58.8 dz=5.0, 1483:V:47.5 -> 1491:52.5 dz=5.0
gain       461.2,                                                                515.8,                                               449.9


About the first 2 tracks issue. because we used to change the algorithm but not re-calculate all old tracks. So if you can ride same route should get close altitude gain.


Best regards,
Bryton support team."

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Colin George Chadfield:
Hi all - I have a standard 101 km route that I used to test a shop loan Rider 50 in July before buying my own. That record showed a height gain of 455m, with a calorie count of 1696. Time for this ride was 3 hrs 38 mins.
Using my own Rider 50 today, the same route was logged has having a height gain of 1093m and a grand calorie count of 3524. Time for this ride was 3hrs 59 mins (it is winter!).
Looking at the profile, there are three main climbs
23 to 200 - 180m
94 to 192 - 100m
115 to 272 - 150m
Both tracks show about the same heights.
The rest of the route has ups and downs, but nothing over 30m. I would reckon that the 455m total is maybe 100m less than the full ride is, but the 1093m is getting on for twice the actual total.
Does the Rider just make these numbers up? How can any training programme be run using numbers so disparate and unreliable?

I have a Rider 50 that does not give an accurate total altitude climbed when compared to a Garmin or Polar which are almost identical. It always shows between 50% and80% more than the other two depending on the distance cycled - usually between 40 & 100Km.

I also find the slope very inacurate, one minute showing 22deg descent and the next 13deg incline when I am on a level road. It seems to be worse on bumpy roads. The Garmin does not function like this.