Sandra Vi going for record across America

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.

You can put a shield around a Sunnto and see if you flatline. Hopefully it does not call 911 to rescue you.

Old Timey Guy wrote:

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.[/quote]

Ok, at least that indicates the the Strava data is matching the Movescount data.

Do you know if you walk at a slow speed, does Movescount just round it off and make it look the same and thus could explain the 4 hours of data from Mimi's Oct. 2 upload?

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Old Timey Guy wrote:

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.

Ok, at least that indicates the the Strava data is matching the Movescount data.

Do you know if you walk at a slow speed, does Movescount just round it off and make it look the same and thus could explain the 4 hours of data from Mimi's Oct. 2 upload?[/quote]

It does round the speed if you are walking. You can calculate the actually (unrounded) speed by looking at the split times and distances on the graph.

Suunto Shield wrote:

You can put a shield around a Sunnto and see if you flatline. Hopefully it does not call 911 to rescue you.

https://www.popsci.com/

gadgets/article/2013-08/how-protect-yourself-your-phone

"The aptly-named Faraday Bag line of accessories by British data recovery company Disklabs includes pouches to shield cell phones from signals, as well as laptop-sized options."

Makes sense wrote:

It does round the speed if you are walking. You can calculate the actually (unrounded) speed by looking at the split times and distances on the graph.

Since that's the case, then I may have spoke too soon about the Movescount data being a smoking gun. It looks like Movescount is just overly aggressive in smoothing out data to a level that makes it look unnatural.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Makes sense wrote:

It does round the speed if you are walking. You can calculate the actually (unrounded) speed by looking at the split times and distances on the graph.

Since that's the case, then I may have spoke too soon about the Movescount data being a smoking gun. It looks like Movescount is just overly aggressive in smoothing out data to a level that makes it look unnatural.

Then the Suunto is in the clear? Why is Movescount tweaking the data in the first place?

Sunnto Watch wrote:

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Since that's the case, then I may have spoke too soon about the Movescount data being a smoking gun. It looks like Movescount is just overly aggressive in smoothing out data to a level that makes it look unnatural.

Then the Suunto is in the clear? Why is Movescount tweaking the data in the first place?

Seems like the explanations from the LRC posters are reasonable and I don't have an issue with the Suunto data otherwise at the moment. My spoofed Strava data looks way more convincing than the "real" Suunto data the way Movescount overly smooths it.

The Garmin breadcrumbs have a similar thing where they show the same speeds repeating over and over. I'm not smart enough to figure out why but it seems the Suunto may do the same thing.

My theory is that if someone is smart enough to spoof the Movescount and Strava data they're smart enough to fuzz it to make it look convincing. I don't think you would see these obvious flatlines if someone was manipulating the data. I'll wait for someone to run 10-20 miles with her and see what is reported back.

I actually don't care anymore. These stunt runs are stupid, even Pete's. Just race, everything else is just a publicity stunt

This isn't running, this isn't racing it's clown shoes stuff. Ignore it

not 1024 wrote:

Those watch-based thermometers always read way too high in my experience, and are next to useless.

As are optical heart rate sensors, especially when the watch is not tight against the skin.

BTW, thanks Asher for the video and introducing yourself to Mimi uninvited. More uninvited boots between Kansas and NYC would help convince me that this trans-con isn't a con.

St Marker wrote:

I actually don't care anymore. These stunt runs are stupid, even Pete's. Just race, everything else is just a publicity stunt

This isn't running, this isn't racing it's clown shoes stuff. Ignore it

I don't feel that way about Pete's run. It was fun to follow along and very inspiring to me personally. I can see how a lot of people wouldn't be into it.

When I see stunt runners trying to sell books, speaking tours, and movies off of their runs, yes, that rubs me the wrong way. I admit I like the drama too of seeing frauds exposed. I'm not proud of it but it's the truth.

Sunnto Watch wrote:

Then the Suunto is in the clear? Why is Movescount tweaking the data in the first place?

My guess: somewhere internally, Movescount is storing each data point with a speed (like meters/second or miles/hour) rather than with a pace (minutes/km or minutes/mile). And they are storing it with only one decimal point of precision, so something like 3.7534 miles/hour gets stored as 3.8 mph. This would quantize the data in a way that becomes more obvious the slower the runner is moving, because each 0.1 mph of error represents a larger fraction of the total speed when the runner goes slower.

For a runner moving at a pretty slow pace, and running a fairly consistent pace, this could incorrectly make it appear as if they were running the *exact* same pace for long periods. For example:

3.650 mph = 16:26 minutes/mile

3.749 mph = 16:00 minutes/mile

So any pace between 16:00/mile and 16:26/mile might be stored as 3.7 mph, and small pace variations within that range would be invisible.

Results wrote:

St Marker wrote:

I actually don't care anymore. These stunt runs are stupid, even Pete's.

I don't feel that way about Pete's run. It was fun to follow along and very inspiring to me personally. I can see how a lot of people wouldn't be into it.

+1

Humdrum hogwash.

Sandy Vi has reached the Great Plains. Fort Collins is coming up.

In case you've missed it, while we are busy questioning the integrity of a transcon attempt, a previous LRC acquaintance is crashing and burning in the mediterranean:

https://www.facebook.com/Amy-Hughes-188981147892380/

LOL.

Sh(amy) wrote:

In case you've missed it, while we are busy questioning the integrity of a transcon attempt, a previous LRC acquaintance is crashing and burning in the mediterranean:

https://www.facebook.com/Amy-Hughes-188981147892380/

LOL.

not previous

What's up with Sandy Vi's Strava data? According to Strava, she hasn't done any more running since Monday morning. That was over 48 hours ago.

https://www.strava.com/athletes/20356331

But according to her live tracker, she's covered more than 100 miles since then. What gives? Everyone was giving Mimi sh*t about her Strava uploads that were 1 hour delayed, and now Sandy's uploads are 48+ hours delayed?

Sandy? wrote:

But according to her live tracker, she's covered more than 100 miles since then. What gives? Everyone was giving Mimi sh*t about her Strava uploads that were 1 hour delayed, and now Sandy's uploads are 48+ hours delayed?

It wasn't just a delayed Strava upload that we had problems with Mimi and her team. It was multiple and repeated excuses from them that were not at all believable that was the main problem along with repeated lies about their GPS tracker. People got on Mimi's and teams case for their many delayed Strava uploads because they had no other credible evidence. Sandra and her team are much different. You could email them and they will actually respond unlike Mimi and her team.