Ken and Dana - I don't think Aggie and Nick will be there on Friday. If not do you want to do the Grantham-Newport time trial? I've never done it before, and you guys will likely leave me in the dust, but I'm game for some abuse if its the three of us.

Joe

Sounds like a good time. You don't have to worry about a good time out of me though. I am going to be racing tonight at Loudon, so I will be pretty tired tomorrow at 5am.

Tonight is the oval course at Loudon, should be fun.

-- Ken
 
"If you brake, you don't win." Racer Mario Cipollini

24 minutes 46 seconds. 22.70 mph average. Can only go up from there.

Hmmmm.....looks like I need to calibrate my cycle computer. Doing the math works out to 22.29 mph. 2% error! Unacceptable!

Joe, I'd be more to believe that your bike was correct. The distance derived from the mapping software or whatever means of arriving at the distance isn't necessarily pin pointed. So for your records I'd take the bike average, but the time is what really counts on local loops.

Dana

the distance used and timed started from the southern end of the church parking lot entrance to the football tower. That came out to 9.2 on bike computer and on local loops. if you timed from any place different that would effect the average mph.

PJ

Joe, higher mph means a shorter measured distance, I'm thinking you did not in fact beat my time, because you did not ride far enough. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just kidding.

Ryan

Yep, Joe rode the exact course, Ken and I are witness to it...

so our bike computers don't exactly read the same, give or take

Rockboy, you better pull yourself up the ranks...

perhaps

FYI, it's possible the code which generates the mph isn't 100% either, but I doubt that is the issue, I'd sooner believe the difference is in bike computers. If your computer isn't registering exactly 9.2 miles than your computer mph will not match Local Loops mph.

Ryan

Whoa boys.... my "unacceptable" comment was some engineering humor. No self-respecting engineer would let his cycling computer be that out of whack. In any event - it wasn't. Measuring 10 tire revolutions onmy driveway, dividing by 10, etc. yielded an error of less than .5% from where I was before. I guess I can live with that. What a geek, huh?

It was an interesting chain, however. Good to know the consensus is I'm not the slowest time, whatever the distance :D .

Wow, 0.5% you're going to accept that mr engineer, that's a lot of error. Wouldn't 0.01% be a lot closer to an acceptable engineering tolerance??? 0.5% is 242.88 feet of error per 9.2 miles (i.e. route 10 Sprint) or at your average speed of 22.09 mph that equates to approximately 8 seconds of travel time.

Of course time would only matter if you didn't already have a fixed starting and stopping locations and if someone was within the tolerance variable of 8 seconds. :D

It's all good :D

Ryan