What's your average speed ????

[Claire Petersky]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I'm really getting tired of computers and numbers.

I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked me
up -- what's that in base 10?

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky ([email protected]) Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm Singing with you at: http://www.tiferet.net/ Books
just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at: http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

 

[dane]

Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> I'm really getting tired of computers and numbers.

> I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked
> me up -- what's that in base 10?

5.5 miles, assuming no clipping of the display and it uses the most common binary representation of
floating point numbers.

No, don't mind me, I'll just grab my coat. It's the one with all the nifty digital watches on it.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g mathematician, n.: Some one who believes
imaginary things appear right before your i's.

 

[Bob M]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:08:27 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>> I'm really getting tired of computers and numbers.
>
>> I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked
>> me up -- what's that in base 10?
>
> 5.5 miles, assuming no clipping of the display and it uses the most common binary representation
> of floating point numbers.
>
> No, don't mind me, I'll just grab my coat. It's the one with all the nifty digital watches
> on it.
>

Wouldn't it be 6.5? (Isn't "110" 6?)

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:07:00 GMT, Bob M <[email protected]> from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:08:27 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>> I'm really getting tired of computers and numbers.
>>
>>> I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked
>>> me up -- what's that in base 10?
>>
>> 5.5 miles, assuming no clipping of the display and it uses the most common binary representation
>> of floating point numbers.
>>
>> No, don't mind me, I'll just grab my coat. It's the one with all the nifty digital watches
>> on it.
>>
>
>Wouldn't it be 6.5? (Isn't "110" 6?)

Never mind that, what do you call the "decimal" point?

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace I once decorated my apartment entirely in ten
foot salad forks!!
3:18:54 PM 2 July 2003

 

[dane]

Bob M <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:08:27 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked
>>> me up -- what's that in base 10?
>>
>> 5.5 miles, assuming no clipping of the display and it uses the most common binary representation
>> of floating point numbers.
>>
>> No, don't mind me, I'll just grab my coat. It's the one with all the nifty digital watches
>> on it.
>>

> Wouldn't it be 6.5? (Isn't "110" 6?)

Doh! You are correct sir.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g "A University without students is like an
ointment without a fly." -- Ed Nather, professor of astronomy at UT Austin

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni"
<[email protected]> writes:
>
> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'm really getting tired of computers and numbers.
>
> That's nice to hear Tom, but here's a little eye opener for you recreational rider types.

Actually, my riding is more /practical/ than recreational.

Anyhow, I forgot Bourne Shell arithmetic is restricted to integers, and my average speeds are
mixed/rational. That's why 'expr' didn't like my syntax.

I grep'd them out of my journal with something like: $ egrep "A: " | cut -d " " -f 2 >> speeds.txt
to make a data file.

Then I added them up using bc: $ a=0 $ for i in `cat speeds.txt`
> do a=`echo "$a + $i" | bc` done

Finally, I divided the result by the number of lines in the data file, obtained from: wc -l
speeds.txt

So my "average average" speed, derived from 1 1/2 years of journalizing, is 16 km/h. That ranges
across a lot of short hops to the store, as well as some longer trips to North Delta and suchlike.

The actual numbers were 9701.0 / 591

for a 10 to 20 km out-&-back, I generally average about 18 - 20 km/h.

This morning, I averaged 16.3 coming home from Pauline's (a 5 km trip). But I was hauling a load of
glass cookware I'd left there over the months.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Ian Wright]

Speed at the moment slow (not riding) as I'm injured, see recovering from radial head fracture. However, when I'm riding usually something between 30 and 50 km imperially 20 - 30 mph, at the time of the big off I was travelling at about 25 mph.

Ian

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Claire Petersky) writes:

> I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked
> me up -- what's that in base 10?

110.10

Actually, as a binary number, that is denary 6.5 as has been pointed-out.

The binary repesentation of denary 110 is 01101110 In hex it's 6E octal: 156

There's a way of converting the denary rational component to another base by either multiplying or
dividing (I forget which) by the desired radix, and listing either the whole or the rational
components (I forget which) of the results.

Please, oh please, don't make me relearn it. <g> 'cause that would just lead me to having to review
about arbitrary-precision arithmetic.

I like math, but arithmetic is boring. (That's why we have computers.)

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, Kevan Smith
<[email protected]/\/\> writes:

> Never mind that, what do you call the "decimal" point?

The dot.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Donny Harder Jr]

In article <ux3Ma.30158$ZE.17775@lakeread05>, "Chris Hughes" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I been wondering what other riders are averging on thier daily rides. I'm a 50 year old rider who
> usually does about 25 miles when I ride. I don't race now, so you could not say I'm training but I
> do try to maitain a fairly good average speed for the ride. This of course depends on lights, stop
> signs and traffic. I also ride alone. For the 25 miles I usually do about 17.6 mph. Of course when
> it's windy that drops off and my best for the distance was 19.1. What are you people doing.

Through the streets of Chicago I am averaging low 15s on my best days. This is weird to me because I
usually stay above 17 mph on my 25 miles round-trip commute, but I don't argue with the computer.
I'm on a hybrid Fisher with brand new tires, moderately inflated. I'd LOVE to see what I can do on a
road bike.

 

[dane]

Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Claire Petersky) writes:

>> I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked
>> me up -- what's that in base 10?

> 110.10

> Actually, as a binary number, that is denary 6.5 as has been pointed-out.

> The binary repesentation of denary 110 is 01101110 In hex it's 6E octal: 156

> There's a way of converting the denary rational component to another base by either multiplying or
> dividing (I forget which) by the desired radix, and listing either the whole or the rational
> components (I forget which) of the results.

> Please, oh please, don't make me relearn it. <g> 'cause that would just lead me to having to
> review about arbitrary-precision arithmetic.

I started to write a long explanatory post to Kevan about it, but then realized I would have to pull
out my digital logic text. I said "hmmmm", canceled my post and picked up the Honor Harrington novel
I'm reading. [1]

[1] Field of Dishonor. [2]
[2] A cracking good read. [3]
[3] Damn scary devil monastery monks, that's another set of books they made me buy. [4]
[4] I'd say I'm running out of bookshelf space, except I passed that point a while ago.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g The reason that every major university
maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Donny Harder Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <ux3Ma.30158$ZE.17775@lakeread05>,

>but I don't argue with the computer.

Good, Don, good. When did you acheive this breakthrough?

;-)

--
Robin Hubert <[email protected]

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:06:49 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

>said "hmmmm", canceled my post and picked up the Honor Harrington novel I'm reading. [1]
>
>[1] Field of Dishonor. [2]
>[3] Damn scary devil monastery monks, that's another set of books they made me buy. [4]

Never seen any monks trying to push HH enough to qualify as "made you". Besides, the latest HH book
comes with a CDROM including electronic versions of all the previous ones, unless I'm
misremembering, so virtually no shelf space.

Jasper

 

[Donny Harder Jr]

In article <[email protected]>, "Robin Hubert"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >but I don't argue with the computer.
>
> Good, Don, good. When did you acheive this breakthrough?

It's too small and doesn't break easily. I've tried to drown it in the washing machine three times
and it still keeps on ticking. If it's that resolute in its existence, how can I argue?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
>
> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I'm really getting tired of computers and numbers.
>
> That's nice to hear Tom, but here's a little eye opener for you recreational rider types.
>
> On July 21 guys like me will be doing stage 15 Bagneres-De- Bigorre to Luz-Ardiden with an average
> speed of between 31 - 35 kph. Now this is a short stage of only 159km but we climb the Col d'
> Aspin, Tourmalet, and Luz Ardiden, that's 43km of climbing that day.
>
> Now take a flat stage like stage 18 Bordeaux to St. Maixent-L'Ecole. On this day we are expected
> to ride this out at a pace of between 39 - 43 kph!
>
> Just to show you the vast difference between the ablities of someone like you guys and pros
> like me.

YAWN, zzzzzzz...

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Fabrizio Mazzol]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>
>> YAWN, zzzzzzz...
>
Tom if you don't have anything to say, then shutup or go play on your bent.

 

[Nate99]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> >
> >> YAWN, zzzzzzz...
> >
> Tom if you don't have anything to say, then shutup or go play on your bent.

Jeez, Fab I'm _really_ in awe of your "abilities". Were you perhaps dropped on your head when you
were a baby? I'm sure glad I have more career options than you do. Get a life.

 

[Pete Hickey]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Claire Petersky) writes:

> I got a very digital read-out yesterday on my way to work: 110.10 miles on the odometer. Cracked
> me up -- what's that in base 10?

Hey Claire, If you are amused by readouts on the odometer, you may be interested in this thing I
wrote several years ago....(The last bit gives a clue when it was written)

>
> First of all, on my computer, there is a single digit after the decimal point for the trip meter.
> (its a Veta). This is small, and I ignore it while reading the numbers. (eg I read 121.5 as 1215).
> I don't play any games until it reaches 1000 ( a hundred km). Then I start looking for numerical
> patterns, such as 1234, 1357, 2468, 1111, etc. I also look for palindromes 1221, 1331, as dyslexic
> palindromes such as 1212.
>
> Of course, finding powers of 2 are fun, because I then try to imagine the internal binary
> representation of all zero or all ones. (OK, so they might work in decimal... Please don't destroy
> my fantasy)
>
> I also like finding perfect squares.
>
> As numbers get higher, I imagine them to be years, and look for years of great signifigance (such
> as the year of my birth). Had I paid more attention in History, I could be starting this much
> sooner than I do.
>
> Let me tell you my favorite game by far. Still imagining them to be years, I like watching the
> numbers reach 1998, 1999, then as it hits 2000, I scream, "Yeah, my cycle comuter is Y2K
> complient!"

--
--
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot taste the difference between
fried dog and fried cat?

 

[Art Harris]

"Chris Hughes" wrote:

> I been wondering what other riders are averging on thier daily rides. I'm a 50 year old rider who
> usually does about 25 miles when I ride. I don't race now, so you could not say I'm training but I
> do try to maitain a fairly good average speed for the ride. This of course depends on lights, stop
> signs and traffic. I also ride alone. For the 25 miles I usually do about 17.6 mph. Of course when
> it's windy that drops off and my best for the distance was 19.1. What are you people doing.

This is an interesting question. Some people get downright obsessive about their average
speed readouts.

Many factors come into play. If you're riding in a paceline, your average will be a couple of mph
faster for the same effort than if you're riding alone. If you walk your bike any distance (e.g., at
a lunch stop) your average will drop.

And there are tricks for increasing your average without actually getting stronger. You can go full
speed up to a red light and then brake hard, rather than coasting up. You can "cheat" at stop signs.
You can push the envelope on descents, curves, and dicey road conditions. You can even remove the
computer when walking the bike. In my opinion, people sometimes take unnecessary risks just to
increase their average speed by a fraction of a mph.

Bike computers can be helpful in measuring long-term progress. But try not to become a slave to the
darn things, and take the numbers with a grain of salt!

Art Harris