| |
Main
Date: 27 Jul 2005 08:15:41
From: Dex
Subject: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
Accurate calibration of cycle computer
I measure the distance convered by several revolutions of the wheel
that I am calibrating. Make a scratch k on the surface with the
valve stem at the bottom of the wheel. Make several revolutions of
the wheel and make another scratch k with the stem at the bottom
again. I usually use 10 wheel revolutions. Measure this distance and
record it. If the distance was measured in feet, you usually have to
convert it to centimeters to use it in setting your wheel
circumferance. First, find your wheel circumferance by dividing the
distance by the number of wheel revolutions. Then multiply this
answer 30.48 -- this will be the number you use to set the wheel
size. Some cyclocomputers require different inputs for KPH or MPH. -
If you need to use a conversion factor to change from KPM to MPH,
simply divide the kilometer wheel size number by 1.61 - this should
give you speed and distance in miles instead of kilometers.
The tables included with bicycle electronic speedometers work pretty
well, but I like to calibrate them accurately, so I inflate my tires
to working pressure and sit on the bike while doing the wheel
measurements so that they will be more typical of actual operation.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:08:40
From:
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
I've used the measured course method as told by Sheldon Brown
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/cyclecomputer-calibration.html#measuredmile.
I use the same course, a twisty section of road about 4 miles long I
regularly ride. I've plugged the formula into the excel spreadsheet
and calibrate my bikes. I use the mile kers on the side of the
road, and during testing, I keep the speed down so I can stay about
the same distance from the edge of the road, no cutting corners.
Very curious thing, the small wheels provide a very repeatable result.
I run the route and collect the data, enter it into the spreadsheet
and adjust the computer and retest to find more accuracy. 16 and 20"
wheels work very well.
26 and 700 wheels get a bigger error than started with. I've no idea
why.
My GPS, a Garmin Vista mounted on the handle bars, has almost no
error, .01over the 4 miles, so long as we don't drop satellite
contact.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2005 12:02:24
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
<mike.euritt@sbcglobal.net > wrote
>
> Very curious thing, the small wheels provide a very
> repeatable result.
> [...]
>
> 26 and 700 wheels get a bigger error than started with.
> I've no idea why.
We can speculate...
Cyclometers work by counting pulses or switch closures
from the wheel sensor. It is possible that they may miss a
pulse or see one pulse as two. With larger wheels, the
resulting error in computed distance is larger than with
smaller wheels. However, smaller wheels would result
in a higher pulse rate and perhaps more opportunity to
skip or miscount! %^P Hmmm....
One could design a cyclometer (and perhaps they do)
that used frequency sampling and averaging over a time
increment to reduce the effect of skipped/miscounted
pulses....
In any case, it seems unlikely that such miscounts could
account for a significant error, though. What size is the
deviation/variation you see over what distance?
In my five-mile surveyed kers route, I saw the same 2%
error for each of the miles. This was with a 650c wheel
mounted sensor. I also have bikes where the sensor is
on 16" and 20" wheels and haven't noticed significantly
more or less accurate distance readings for the route I
commonly ride.
Jon Meinecke
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2005 13:36:39
From:
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:02:24 -0500, "Jon Meinecke"
<jonmein@nospam.net > wrote:
>
>In any case, it seems unlikely that such miscounts could
>account for a significant error, though. What size is the
>deviation/variation you see over what distance?
Working from memory here because my notes are about 100 miles away..
When set to the printed suggestions tat came with the computer I was
about half mile off over the measure course.
After running the numbers through the spreadsheet, I was over a mile
off. Suggested number was something like 82.2 inches and corrected
number was 100.
I guessed at a new number, based on the fact the 100 seemed to go the
wrong direction with the error, and set the new number at 75 and I've
not had a chance to recheck, since this current calibration is a work
in progress, not to mention, I changed from a large tire on the wheel
to a narrow tire yesterday while doing some maintenance, so I will
have to start all over again.
Mike
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2005 12:01:41
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
<mike.euritt@sbcglobal.net > wrote
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:02:24 -0500, "Jon Meinecke"
> <jonmein@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >What size is the deviation/variation you see over what distance?
I may have misinterpreted your comments on differences in
repeatability differences between cyclometer sensors on small
wheels and big wheels. I thought you were saying you saw
more variance in the cyclometer measured distance over
the same course when riding with larger diameter wheels.
> When set to the printed suggestions tat came with the computer
> I was about half mile off over the measure course.
The correct setting is equal to the old setting times the actual
distance divided by the distance as reported with the old setting.
Since it is a simple ratio, it doesn't matter what the setting number
unit is (circumference in cm, mm, in, diameter in whatever...)
A = actual distance in miles
D = distance as reported with S setting
S =setting (that generated D)
C = correct setting
A / D = C / S
C = S * A / D
For instance, if the actual distance is 10 miles, the reported
distance is 10.5 and the setting was 82.2 then the correct setting
is 78.3.
In my case, my cyclometer shows I've ridden 1.02 miles for an
actual 1 mile course. I don't recall the exact number, but say my
current setting is 1995, the corrected setting would be 1956...
> I changed from a large tire on the wheel
> to a narrow tire yesterday while doing some maintenance, so I will
> have to start all over again.
The known measured course need only be long enough to show
the error within the precision of the cyclometer. Shorter may be
better, as then there may be less variance, wandering on the
course. Ride it once and apply the formula.
I've never found the suggested setting numbers in cyclometer
instructions to be very accurate. In fact, I've always found them
to be too large for a given wheel/tire size. That makes sense,
if they're going to err, err on the side that makes people think
they're riding faster and further! %^)
I've also noticed the price scanning errors are most often in
favor of the store.... %^P
Jon Meinecke
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 20:53:51
From: Mark Leuck
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
I use White-out on the concrete garage floor
"Dex" <dexnjan@netscape.com > wrote in message
news:1122470159.70c6ed5bb0271305fb5d1b10abb65485@teranews...
> Accurate calibration of cycle computer
>
> I measure the distance convered by several revolutions of the wheel
> that I am calibrating. Make a scratch k on the surface with the
> valve stem at the bottom of the wheel. Make several revolutions of
> the wheel and make another scratch k with the stem at the bottom
> again. I usually use 10 wheel revolutions. Measure this distance and
> record it. If the distance was measured in feet, you usually have to
> convert it to centimeters to use it in setting your wheel
> circumferance. First, find your wheel circumferance by dividing the
> distance by the number of wheel revolutions. Then multiply this
> answer 30.48 -- this will be the number you use to set the wheel
> size. Some cyclocomputers require different inputs for KPH or MPH. -
> If you need to use a conversion factor to change from KPM to MPH,
> simply divide the kilometer wheel size number by 1.61 - this should
> give you speed and distance in miles instead of kilometers.
> The tables included with bicycle electronic speedometers work pretty
> well, but I like to calibrate them accurately, so I inflate my tires
> to working pressure and sit on the bike while doing the wheel
> measurements so that they will be more typical of actual operation.
>
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2005 07:00:26
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
"k Leuck" <m..leuck@comcast.net > wrote
>
> I use White-out on the concrete garage floor
Yes. The weight of the rider on the bike changes the
wheel circumference by a small amount. Some people
resort to putting a spot of paint or other material on the
ground, riding through it, and then measuring the distance
between the paint imprints as the wheel rotates.
Where a surveyed accurate known distance course is
available, such as perhaps a running track or a highway
speedometer test zone, you can simply ride the course, note
the mileage, and apply a correction to the cyclometer setting
in ratio to the actual vs. reported distance. Repeat as
desired.
I generally don't bother with more than a simple single
rotation measurement when I get a new cyclometer
or a new tire. I recently rode through a five-mile
ked speedometer test zone and found even my
relatively casual setting was within 2%. I haven't
bothered to adjust the setting...
When this subject has come up before, some people
mention use of GPS distance measurement or automobile
odometer readings for comparison. Both are subject to
errors, of course. GPS constructs a route by "connecting
the dots" of its sampling period and doesn't account for
the curves it cuts out. Some are better than others.
Automobile odometers are often off by several percent
and are subject to tire size changes and inflation differences.
For most of us, close is good enough. Even a single
wheel rotation measurement is more accurate than using
the wheel/tire size tables that come with most cyclometers.
Jon Meinecke
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2005 14:41:31
From: Adrian Godwin
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
Jon Meinecke <jonmein@nospam.net > wrote:
>
> When this subject has come up before, some people
> mention use of GPS distance measurement or automobile
> odometer readings for comparison. Both are subject to
> errors, of course. GPS constructs a route by "connecting
> the dots" of its sampling period and doesn't account for
> the curves it cuts out. Some are better than others.
>
True, I've seen as much as 10% error between two GPS receivers
measuring the same twisty route (when subject to variable tree cover
etc.).
However, they can be used to get a very much more accurate measurement
if you can use them to create mile kers over a straight line.
Choose a time when there are many satellites visible in a location
without buildings or tree cover. Halt at one end of the route, allow
some time to average the position and waypoint that location. Note
the display of estimated position error (this isn't totally reliable
but you can at least try to ensure it's only a few feet). Then move
to the other end of the straight stretch, again stand still to get
the best out of the position averaging and use the function which
measures distance to the first waypoint. This value should be
accurate to within 2x the claimed accuracy of the receiver, which
is far better than the odometer function. You might want to repeat,
tweaking your location for an exact mile etc.
It's also possible to use projected waypoints to get an exact mile but
the principle is similar - you're using the comparison of two averaged
locations rather than the sum of a sequence of estimated movements.
It's always best to use a straight line - mile kers on a twisty
route are not necessarily reliable unless you follow the same line
with the bike as the original ker took.
-adrian
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 17:23:18
From: rBOB
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
This thread is timely for me because I just got in from doing a roll
out for my ScooterBike CLWB (16 x 1.75 front) to fit it for a new
computer. I'll post the results here in case it helps someone else. I
ked the start and rolled out 4 revolutions of the front tire
(sitting on the bike). I repeated the roll out 3 times and it came out
to 196 inches per roll out. So, one revolution comes out to: 196 / 4 =
49). 49 inches x 25.4 = 1244.6 mm. Let's call it 1245 even.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 18:11:45
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
Dex wrote:
> Accurate calibration of cycle computer
>
> I measure the distance convered by several revolutions of the wheel
> that I am calibrating. Make a scratch k on the surface with the
> valve stem at the bottom of the wheel. Make several revolutions of
> the wheel and make another scratch k with the stem at the bottom
> again. I usually use 10 wheel revolutions. Measure this distance and
> record it. If the distance was measured in feet, you usually have to
> convert it to centimeters to use it in setting your wheel
> circumferance. First, find your wheel circumferance by dividing the
> distance by the number of wheel revolutions. Then multiply this
> answer 30.48 -- this will be the number you use to set the wheel
Where does this number come from? The conversion I use is:
millimeters = Inches * 2.54
A 20 inch wheel should be in the range of 1400 - 1500 if your cyclometer takes
4 digits. If it only uses 3 digits it would be 140 - 150, and I'd toss it to
get a cyclometer that is some accuracy, not just a guess at speed and distance.
mike
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 15:33:38
From: bent_pilot
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
"Mike" <mvore@moc.tenmoc.xi > wrote in message
news:B7QFe.17945$aY6.2429@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Dex wrote:
>> Accurate calibration of cycle computer
>>
>> I measure the distance convered by several revolutions of the wheel
>> that I am calibrating. Make a scratch k on the surface with the
>> valve stem at the bottom of the wheel. Make several revolutions of
>> the wheel and make another scratch k with the stem at the bottom
>> again. I usually use 10 wheel revolutions. Measure this distance and
>> record it. If the distance was measured in feet, you usually have to
>> convert it to centimeters to use it in setting your wheel
>> circumferance. First, find your wheel circumferance by dividing the
>> distance by the number of wheel revolutions. Then multiply this
>> answer 30.48 -- this will be the number you use to set the wheel
>
> Where does this number come from? The conversion I use is:
> millimeters = Inches * 2.54
>
> A 20 inch wheel should be in the range of 1400 - 1500 if your cyclometer
> takes 4 digits. If it only uses 3 digits it would be 140 - 150, and I'd
> toss it to get a cyclometer that is some accuracy, not just a guess at
> speed and distance.
>
> mike
>
A mm=1"/25.5 (.03937"/mm) so inches*25.4=mm. A centimeter is 10 mm,
cm*2.54=inches. These conversions come from Machinery's Handbook. Where do
your numbers come from, Mike? Either you made a typo, or your values are off
by a factor of 10. Dex, what's with the 30.48???
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2005 13:09:10
From: Dex
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:33:38 -0500, "bent_pilot" <bp@gofast.com >
wrote:
>
>"Mike" <mvore@moc.tenmoc.xi> wrote in message
>news:B7QFe.17945$aY6.2429@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Dex wrote:
>>> Accurate calibration of cycle computer
>>>
>>> I measure the distance convered by several revolutions of the wheel
>>> that I am calibrating. Make a scratch k on the surface with the
>>> valve stem at the bottom of the wheel. Make several revolutions of
>>> the wheel and make another scratch k with the stem at the bottom
>>> again. I usually use 10 wheel revolutions. Measure this distance and
>>> record it. If the distance was measured in feet, you usually have to
>>> convert it to centimeters to use it in setting your wheel
>>> circumferance. First, find your wheel circumferance by dividing the
>>> distance by the number of wheel revolutions. Then multiply this
>>> answer 30.48 -- this will be the number you use to set the wheel
>>
>> Where does this number come from? The conversion I use is:
>> millimeters = Inches * 2.54
>>
This is the number (30.48) that I think I have been using to convert
feet to cm.
-Dex
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 17:23:46
From: Ohio Jerry
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
"bent_pilot" <bp@gofast.com > wrote in message
news:42e7f049$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
>
> "Mike" <mvore@moc.tenmoc.xi> wrote in message
> news:B7QFe.17945$aY6.2429@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Dex wrote:
> >> Accurate calibration of cycle computer
> >>
> >> I measure the distance convered by several revolutions of the wheel
> >> that I am calibrating. Make a scratch k on the surface with the
> >> valve stem at the bottom of the wheel. Make several revolutions of
> >> the wheel and make another scratch k with the stem at the bottom
> >> again. I usually use 10 wheel revolutions. Measure this distance and
> >> record it. If the distance was measured in feet, you usually have to
> >> convert it to centimeters to use it in setting your wheel
> >> circumferance. First, find your wheel circumferance by dividing the
> >> distance by the number of wheel revolutions. Then multiply this
> >> answer 30.48 -- this will be the number you use to set the wheel
> >
> > Where does this number come from? The conversion I use is:
> > millimeters = Inches * 2.54
> >
> > A 20 inch wheel should be in the range of 1400 - 1500 if your cyclometer
> > takes 4 digits. If it only uses 3 digits it would be 140 - 150, and I'd
> > toss it to get a cyclometer that is some accuracy, not just a guess at
> > speed and distance.
> >
> > mike
> >
>
> A mm=1"/25.5 (.03937"/mm) so inches*25.4=mm. A centimeter is 10 mm,
> cm*2.54=inches. These conversions come from Machinery's Handbook. Where
do
> your numbers come from, Mike? Either you made a typo, or your values are
off
> by a factor of 10. Dex, what's with the 30.48???
>
There are 30.48 cm in a foot (12 * 2.54).
Jerry
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 08:31:23
From: bent_pilot
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
"Dex" <dexnjan@netscape.com > wrote in message
news:1122470159.70c6ed5bb0271305fb5d1b10abb65485@teranews...
> Accurate calibration of cycle computer
>
> I measure the distance convered by several revolutions of the wheel
> that I am calibrating. Make a scratch k on the surface with the
> valve stem at the bottom of the wheel. Make several revolutions of
> the wheel and make another scratch k with the stem at the bottom
> again. I usually use 10 wheel revolutions. Measure this distance and
> record it. If the distance was measured in feet, you usually have to
> convert it to centimeters to use it in setting your wheel
> circumferance. First, find your wheel circumferance by dividing the
> distance by the number of wheel revolutions. Then multiply this
> answer 30.48 -- this will be the number you use to set the wheel
> size. Some cyclocomputers require different inputs for KPH or MPH. -
> If you need to use a conversion factor to change from KPM to MPH,
> simply divide the kilometer wheel size number by 1.61 - this should
> give you speed and distance in miles instead of kilometers.
> The tables included with bicycle electronic speedometers work pretty
> well, but I like to calibrate them accurately, so I inflate my tires
> to working pressure and sit on the bike while doing the wheel
> measurements so that they will be more typical of actual operation.
Do some cyclometers have more than one digit of accuracy? My Cateye only has
a single digit to the right of the decimal. I think there is going to be a
1% tolerance at best.
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 15:27:17
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
bent_pilot wrote:
> Do some cyclometers have more than one digit of accuracy? My Cateye
> only has
> a single digit to the right of the decimal. I think there is going to
> be a 1% tolerance at best.
Cateye Astrale can be done to the nearest mm, as can the Trek Incite 11
which I have on my MTB after the Astrale which used to live there went to
sleep with the fishes. At the bottom of the canal. The Mity, however, can
only be set to the nearest cm. Don't know about any others, as it's been
ages since I've used anything else.
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
A complimentary biro(tm) is /not/ to be sniffed at.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2005 11:39:02
From: bent_pilot
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
"Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:3kpkpfFvgspiU1@individual.net...
> bent_pilot wrote:
>
snippage
>
> Cateye Astrale can be done to the nearest mm, as can the Trek Incite 11
> which I have on my MTB after the Astrale which used to live there went to
> sleep with the fishes. At the bottom of the canal. >
> --
> Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
> A complimentary biro(tm) is /not/ to be sniffed at.
>
>
>
I certainly hope you applied for the proper licenses for adding to the
detritis at the bottom of the canal.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2005 10:36:46
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: Accurate calibration of cycle computers/cyclometers
|
bent_pilot wrote:
> I certainly hope you applied for the proper licenses for adding to the
> detritis at the bottom of the canal.
Yes, and sadly when British Waterways discovered that my bike does not
currently have a permanent mooring, they charged me extra for a Continuous
Cruising one :-)
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
|
|
