Makes sense wrote:
I see the pace varying a couple minutes per mile or more. I think it's important that she keeps the pace relatively even while running across a state as exciting and Kansas.
Are you looking at the same thing as I am? Look at all the sections in her speed plots where it stays constant. That is very unnatural. And looking nothing like what gets recorded from a real run.
URC will not believe wrote:
The URC trolls keep changing the thread subject title. Please edit the subject name when replying to these trolls.
I will remember to do that. I think the URC trolls are going to try to sweep the Movescount data under the carpet, too.
Scam_Watcheroo wrote:
Makes sense wrote:I see the pace varying a couple minutes per mile or more. I think it's important that she keeps the pace relatively even while running across a state as exciting and Kansas.
Are you looking at the same thing as I am? Look at all the sections in her speed plots where it stays constant. That is very unnatural. And looking nothing like what gets recorded from a real run.
The URC trolls never look at the data.
Scam_Watcheroo wrote:
URC will not believe wrote:The URC trolls keep changing the thread subject title. Please edit the subject name when replying to these trolls.
I will remember to do that. I think the URC trolls are going to try to sweep the Movescount data under the carpet, too.
All the data is being swept under the carpet. That is their plan.
Yes, it's very odd, all of sudden they're completely flat and even. Opening up the splits, you see very clearly. Paces are all over the place until Lap 21, then everything goes flat (pace, cadence and HR) and paces are within a few seconds of each other from lap to lap.
Cheating or not, her data collection is impossibly bad. How can there be this much difficulty? It's so freakin' odd.
Hmm, this does not look good to me at all.
Budding Dipshit, Shut Up wrote:
Yes, it's very odd, all of sudden they're completely flat and even. Opening up the splits, you see very clearly. Paces are all over the place until Lap 21, then everything goes flat (pace, cadence and HR) and paces are within a few seconds of each other from lap to lap.
Cheating or not, her data collection is impossibly bad. How can there be this much difficulty? It's so freakin' odd.
It is all about the $how. It has always been about the $how. Nothing but unicorns and Nessie videos and photos.
Is there other Suunto data we can compare this to? Is it possible the watches are just crap?
Results wrote:
Is there other Suunto data we can compare this to? Is it possible the watches are just crap?
I use a Suunto. I've NEVER seen results like that.
Results wrote:
Is there other Suunto data we can compare this to? Is it possible the watches are just crap?
I don't have access to other Movescount accounts but it will be interesting to see what people can find. I've looked at few other of Mimi's Movescount uploads and I can also see sections where it goes flat line at speed while the rest of the file shows "normal" looking speed variations.
Could there be an averaging setting or something that cuts down data points to save battery life or something? (really trying to give benefit of doubt here)
Old Timey Guy wrote:
Results wrote:Is there other Suunto data we can compare this to? Is it possible the watches are just crap?
I use a Suunto. I've NEVER seen results like that.
Good to hear that I'm not insane.
Mea Culpa....
I looked at about twenty of my runs. I did see a couple of runs where I saw this phenomenon. All of them were at points where I was running next to a tall long building. My guess is that there was a temporary loss of a GPS signal and Suunto smoothed the data.
Sorry guys.
Scam_Watcheroo wrote:
Old Timey Guy wrote:I use a Suunto. I've NEVER seen results like that.
Good to hear that I'm not insane.
Race Drone, Garmin, Suunto ... all thrown under the bus. Strava is next. ... Will Mimi ever get another tracker company to sponsor her? Will tracker companies even allow her to use their gear or software?
Old Timey Guy wrote:
Makes sense wrote:I see the pace varying a couple minutes per mile or more. I think it's important that she keeps the pace relatively even while running across a state as exciting and Kansas.
That movescount data is very odd. If you place your cursor over the graph on those flat sections, her pace is exactly the same for the whole section. There's not a runner alive who can maintain the exact same pace to the second for a period of a mile. Then you add in elevation changes.
This is very strange for sure. I'm not sure you could do this even on a bike or in a car?
The data is not odd. It just that it looks odd visually because of the scale. On 10/1/17, Mimi slows down to a fast walk pace (5.4-5.8 km/hr). It's not surprising that such a pace what be somewhat consistent. But the graphing program on Movescount makes it look like a straight line even though it varies. For example, from split time 5:40'36.0 to 5:48'50.0, Movescount represents the speed as 5.8 km/hr, but the real speed is:
(34.93km - 34.15km) * 60 / 8.25 = ~5.672 km/hr. Other split times show 5.72 km/hr walking pace and 5.65 km/hr walking pace with various slow downs in between. The fact that Movescount only plots data every 26 seconds or so coupled with the fact that the graph rounds to the nearest 0.4 km/hr makes it look like a straight line.
Old Timey Guy wrote:
Mea Culpa....
I looked at about twenty of my runs. I did see a couple of runs where I saw this phenomenon. All of them were at points where I was running next to a tall long building. My guess is that there was a temporary loss of a GPS signal and Suunto smoothed the data.
Sorry guys.
Thanks for the check. Would it make sense to lose the GPS signal for the watch for 4 hours like on Mimi's Oct. 2, 2017 run and have it smoothed?
4 hours seems awfully extreme. I've been thinking about this and here's a potential theory. If she is running extremely close to an RV, that RV could be blocking the line of site to a satellite causing the issues that we are seeing. In order for her issues to be the same as what I can see in my movescount, she'd need to have an obstruction between her watch and a satellite.
I think in order to get accurate readings, you need a fix on 3 maybe 4 satellites....if you don't have a fix on all at the same time, then things can start to smooth out.
Old Timey Guy wrote:
4 hours seems awfully extreme. I've been thinking about this and here's a potential theory. If she is running extremely close to an RV, that RV could be blocking the line of site to a satellite causing the issues that we are seeing. In order for her issues to be the same as what I can see in my movescount, she'd need to have an obstruction between her watch and a satellite.
I think in order to get accurate readings, you need a fix on 3 maybe 4 satellites....if you don't have a fix on all at the same time, then things can start to smooth out.
If you look at your smoothed Suunto data on Strava is it still smoothed?
Old Timey Guy wrote:
If she is running extremely close to an RV, .
they aren't
Scam_Watcheroo wrote:
Old Timey Guy wrote:4 hours seems awfully extreme. I've been thinking about this and here's a potential theory. If she is running extremely close to an RV, that RV could be blocking the line of site to a satellite causing the issues that we are seeing. In order for her issues to be the same as what I can see in my movescount, she'd need to have an obstruction between her watch and a satellite.
I think in order to get accurate readings, you need a fix on 3 maybe 4 satellites....if you don't have a fix on all at the same time, then things can start to smooth out.
If you look at your smoothed Suunto data on Strava is it still smoothed?
When the data gets to Strava, it's no longer smoothed.