Have you used such a HRM yourself or are you just guessing?
Robert Chung said:
"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Robert Chung said:
I'm not quite sure how informative it is.
Erm well, informative, in any case nice to have a look at for a minute.
That's the issue in a nutshell, I think. The graphs are kinda pretty to look at but what do you do with them? I tend to think that the software that comes with HRMs and power meters is optimized for drawing nice graphs, but not so much for useful information.
Have you used such a HRM yourself or are you just guessing?
I know he's not guessing, but I am interested to know what Robert thinks *is* much more useful than the graphs as they are now. I mean it's just the basic data, and it's slapped together in a chart against time cq. datapoint index; very basic maybe but I think Polar is right to not spend too much effort on different graph options. I guess you could very easily use Excel for example to plot every parameter against another, or different datasets in one graph, or other useful(?) gadgetery.
"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I know he's not guessing, but I am interested to know what Robert thinks *is* much more useful than the graphs as they are now.
Well, I think the graphs could be better but that wasn't my main point. Nor am I talking about the interesting questions that you can address with HR and power data which require extra analysis outside of the supplied software. I'm talking about something simpler.
My main point is that it's hard to interpret HR and power data in isolation and the existing software packages make it hard to take those data out of isolation and put them into context. If you're doing a ride with laps or intervals, it ought to be simpler to compare segments to each other. If you often do the same training course, it ought to be simpler to have the software locate the right files and compare rides to each other, or segments of those rides. Looking at all of Knaven's data for the Tour would help to put more of that context on the table, but not all of it. The graphs don't make those kinds of comparisons easy.
BTW: with the Polar software you CAN overlay different datasets on the same graph. Useful for comparing identical routes/sections/intervals/etc.
Ewoud Dronkert said:
Gary said:
Have you used such a HRM yourself or are you just guessing?
I know he's not guessing, but I am interested to know what Robert thinks *is* much more useful than the graphs as they are now. I mean it's just the basic data, and it's slapped together in a chart against time cq. datapoint index; very basic maybe but I think Polar is right to not spend too much effort on different graph options. I guess you could very easily use Excel for example to plot every parameter against another, or different datasets in one graph, or other useful(?) gadgetery.
My main point is that it's hard to interpret HR and power data in isolation and the existing software packages make it hard to take those data out of isolation and put them into context. If you're doing a ride with laps or intervals, it ought to be simpler to compare segments to each other. If you often do the same training course, it ought to be simpler to have the software locate the right files and compare rides to each other, or segments of those rides.
I agree. You have made some good "guesses" about possible HRM uses.
I'd like to assign a "exercise type" or code to various forms of training and then recall all of them from the previous month, or compare them to last year.
"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I'd like to assign a "exercise type" or code to various forms of training and then recall all of them from the previous month, or compare them to last year.
Exactly. These are common database functions that none of the HRM and power meter software that I've seen have. You have to annotate them yourself, then scan through the comments yourself, then line up the appropriate segments and overlay them yourself. It's such a pain in the butt that no one does it on a regular basis. These are all things that the software ought to keep track of.
It's such a pain in the butt that no one does it on a regular basis. These are all things that the software ought to keep track of.
I get your point, and I thought as much earlier. However I agree with Polar's practice of only providing basic software. Like I said, people could probably meet their individual needs fairly easy (well I could anyway) with a general spreadsheet or database program. And it leaves a market for external applications.
"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I get your point, and I thought as much earlier. However I agree with Polar's practice of only providing basic software. Like I said, people could probably meet their individual needs fairly easy (well I could anyway) with a general spreadsheet or database program. And it leaves a market for external applications.
Yeah, I sort of separate these things into analytical functions and organizational database functions. I'm not suggesting that Polar does much extra work on the analytical functions, especially since I mostly disagree with how much of it is done (and yes, I'm talking about the SRM). I think the software should do much more in database-like stuff for you.
However, if there was one thing that would make comparisons across laps or rides a bit simpler, it would be to plot against distance and not against time.
