D
Dan
Guest
I have been using a CycloMaster (CycloSport) 436M for a few months. It is similar to the HAC4 but
lacks the heart monitor capability. I did the Death Ride this year (www.deathride.com) and collected
a full data set for the ride (http://www.geocities.com/danmerrick/deathride2003/). I only measured a
total climb of about 14,500 feet as opposed to the advertised 16,000 feet. a large error that seemed
unlikely. I have worked as an engineer in data acquisition and analysis for many years so I decided
to check for errors. By comparing my data elevations and topo elevations (www.topozone.com) at 13
points along the ride, I found that the error varied with elevation. I set up a spreadsheet and did
a linear regression analysis and came up with a correction (or calibration) factor. My first
analysis of the data after applying the factor came up with a climb total of 15,900 feet - good
enough for me.
So, I guess my point is - don't trust altimeter data until you have done a calibration check.
lacks the heart monitor capability. I did the Death Ride this year (www.deathride.com) and collected
a full data set for the ride (http://www.geocities.com/danmerrick/deathride2003/). I only measured a
total climb of about 14,500 feet as opposed to the advertised 16,000 feet. a large error that seemed
unlikely. I have worked as an engineer in data acquisition and analysis for many years so I decided
to check for errors. By comparing my data elevations and topo elevations (www.topozone.com) at 13
points along the ride, I found that the error varied with elevation. I set up a spreadsheet and did
a linear regression analysis and came up with a correction (or calibration) factor. My first
analysis of the data after applying the factor came up with a climb total of 15,900 feet - good
enough for me.
So, I guess my point is - don't trust altimeter data until you have done a calibration check.