Cycling and bicycle racing discussion forums.   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage


Go Back   Cycling Forums > General > The Bike Café
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


Well. That sucks.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-09.-2007, 09:01 AM   #1
DrunkenBiker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Newton, NJ
Posts: 72
Default Well. That sucks.

I recently got me a brandy new road bike. A yellow one for those who want to know what it is. And what's the first thing I bought to go along with my new toy ?

A brandy new cyclometer. Yep. Wireless no less.

I hook it up. Follow all the instructions in the manual like the good little boy I am, and set off on my usual daily ride. A tad over 16 miles.

I arrive home safe and sound and...what's this ?? My brandy new cyclometer only reads 14.2 miles. Hmmmmm

I triple check the settings in the manual and all seems ok. But something is seriously wrong here. I take both bikes to the nearest school that has a 1/4 mile track and do a little test.

Oh my.

Seems all the mileage I recorded on my mtn bike the last 10 months is over by at least 10%.

Which kills the 100 mile week I thought I finally did just last week.

Damn. Now I know why I started drinking. Quick. Someone remind me why I quit.


Last edited by DrunkenBiker : 04-09.-2007 at 09:25 AM.
DrunkenBiker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-09.-2007, 09:57 AM   #2
Cycler6n
Registered User
 
Cycler6n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 551
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

bah, it's not about mileage, its about fitness. If ya feel good, yuor doin fine, it shouldn't be about a number.
__________________
“(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster”
-Greg Lemond
Cycler6n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-09.-2007, 10:07 AM   #3
ilmooz
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 75
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenBiker

Damn. Now I know why I started drinking. Quick. Someone remind me why I quit.


You quit so you could get your bike computer settings accurate, remember?

If you knew you were at 90 miles you'd have had an easy time knocking off those last 10 to complete 100 anyway.
ilmooz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-09.-2007, 10:40 AM   #4
DrunkenBiker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Newton, NJ
Posts: 72
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cycler6n
bah, it's not about mileage, its about fitness. If ya feel good, yuor doin fine, it shouldn't be about a number.
Yep. Totally agree. Actually laughed about it when I realized my mistake.

It ain't about the mileage. In the last 10 months I've lost 40 pounds and haven't been in this kind of shape since my late 20's.

That said: I still want my first 100 mile week.
DrunkenBiker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-09.-2007, 12:53 PM   #5
kdelong
Registered User
 
kdelong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South Western Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,772
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenBiker
Yep. Totally agree. Actually laughed about it when I realized my mistake.

It ain't about the mileage. In the last 10 months I've lost 40 pounds and haven't been in this kind of shape since my late 20's.

That said: I still want my first 100 mile week.
No better time to get it than this week. Go getter done!
__________________
One life, one chance. Don't waste it!
kdelong is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09.-2007, 04:34 AM   #6
cheapie
Registered User
 
cheapie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 850
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

you do realize that the wheel size for a road and mtn bike require different settings, right? i assume you do but just wanted to check.
cheapie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09.-2007, 04:49 AM   #7
Farmguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington
Posts: 68
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Its not the miles you ride, its the ride In the miles.
Farmguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09.-2007, 05:32 AM   #8
DrunkenBiker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Newton, NJ
Posts: 72
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapie
you do realize that the wheel size for a road and mtn bike require different settings, right? i assume you do but just wanted to check.
Yep. I ain't that stupid. I hope not anyway.

I hosed the setting when I took off the knobby tires and threw slicks on the mtn bike. I used the setting for 26x1.9 instead of 26x1.5.

Good timing for this anyway. I've actually taken advice I've seen in a few places and I mostly now go by time instead of distance. I still record mileage but don't really worry about it. It just became a problem because the 2 bikes were different.
DrunkenBiker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09.-2007, 06:40 AM   #9
JTE83
Registered User
 
JTE83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,226
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

That's not so bad... My ergomo pro distance does not match the Polar S720i distance I get when riding my CF Cervelo Soloist. And this is an expensive $1650 powermeter!
JTE83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09.-2007, 07:43 AM   #10
DrunkenBiker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Newton, NJ
Posts: 72
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTE83
That's not so bad... My ergomo pro distance does not match the Polar S720i distance I get when riding my CF Cervelo Soloist. And this is an expensive $1650 powermeter!
OK.....now that would make me start drinking again.
DrunkenBiker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09.-2007, 09:23 AM   #11
Lesq
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 36
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenBiker
Yep. Totally agree. Actually laughed about it when I realized my mistake.

It ain't about the mileage. In the last 10 months I've lost 40 pounds and haven't been in this kind of shape since my late 20's.

That said: I still want my first 100 mile week.

That sounds like reason enough to celebrate with a few beers!!!
Lesq is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09.-2007, 09:49 PM   #12
Powerful Pete
Registered User
 
Powerful Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 3,870
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenBiker
Yep. I ain't that stupid. I hope not anyway.

I hosed the setting when I took off the knobby tires and threw slicks on the mtn bike. I used the setting for 26x1.9 instead of 26x1.5.
Most probably that is your problem. Do not use the setting in the manual. Inflate your tires to your usual riding pressure, mark the ground for the starting point, get on the bike, and roll it until you have made a full wheel revolution. Then measure that distance and use that for your wheel settings, and you will probably get a much more accurate reading on your odometer.
__________________
De Rosa Planet
Campagnolo Per Sempre!
PAOLO BETTINI CAMPIONE DEL MONDO x 2!
Powerful Pete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09.-2007, 12:54 AM   #13
meehs
Registered User
 
meehs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 1,848
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerful Pete
Most probably that is your problem. Do not use the setting in the manual. Inflate your tires to your usual riding pressure, mark the ground for the starting point, get on the bike, and roll it until you have made a full wheel revolution. Then measure that distance and use that for your wheel settings, and you will probably get a much more accurate reading on your odometer.


Yep! That's how you gotta do it. The manual just gives you some generic "700 x 23C" number (for expample) and the fact is there's a lot of variation in the circumference of all of the various 700c X 23mm tires. If you just plug-in the number in the manual, expect "approximate" readings form your computer. I recently set-up a Cateye wireless computer and the number the manual gave for the circumference of a 700 X 35C tire was about 30mm less than the actual measured circumference (with me on the bike).
__________________
Rebellion with no point or purpose is worse than conformity.
meehs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09.-2007, 01:16 AM   #14
DrunkenBiker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Newton, NJ
Posts: 72
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meehs
Yep! That's how you gotta do it. The manual just gives you some generic "700 x 23C" number (for expample) and the fact is there's a lot of variation in the circumference of all of the various 700c X 23mm tires. If you just plug-in the number in the manual, expect "approximate" readings form your computer. I recently set-up a Cateye wireless computer and the number the manual gave for the circumference of a 700 X 35C tire was about 30mm less than the actual measured circumference (with me on the bike).
For my the one I bought for my road bike(cheapo Bell cyclometer) it gave a generic number for all 700c tires. No mention of different sizes within that range. I used a chart from Sheldon Browns site to get a useful number for 23mm.

Approximate works for me. Drove a car thru my usual route and the numbers are all close enough now. I just wanted both bikes to read the same. Having one say 16 and the other say 14.2 was just too much of a difference.
DrunkenBiker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13-09.-2007, 08:03 AM   #15
jcthomasjr
Registered User
 
jcthomasjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 93
Default Re: Well. That sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meehs
Yep! That's how you gotta do it. The manual just gives you some generic "700 x 23C" number (for expample) and the fact is there's a lot of variation in the circumference of all of the various 700c X 23mm tires. If you just plug-in the number in the manual, expect "approximate" readings form your computer. I recently set-up a Cateye wireless computer and the number the manual gave for the circumference of a 700 X 35C tire was about 30mm less than the actual measured circumference (with me on the bike).
I'll third that. Having used different computers and having set up computers on my parents' bikes (all different), they all give different readings that are not even close. Gotta get on the bike and measure a revolution. I guess I am just anal in that I want my computers to read as accurate as possible. Must admit a Cateye I had on my road bike that I now have on my mtn. bike is the most accurate.
__________________
Like each bike ride, life is a journey.
jcthomasjr is offline  
Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 04:08 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com

Links to websites we like:
Pezcyclingnews | Cyclingnews.com | Wine Zone | iinet