Strava segments

[StreetCowboy]

I've started using Strava, and almost all the 'segments' I come across are short climbs - a few hundred metres only.

I understand

a) Longer segments are less easy to randomly stumble across, because of the low likelihood of following exactly the same route as others for several kilometres

In the suburban environment in which I cycle, traffic lights can make a mockery of segment times.

I've defined a few segments for my longer "standard" routes - basically from one pub to the next, typically 4 - 10 km, and also between major junctions on the longer routes - Jn 54 - Service Station, Service Station - Jn 15.

I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions on Strava segments

SC

[moonoi]

I only use them to gauge my own performance to see if I'm improving or not. Obviously there are factors you can't control like traffic lights, density of traffic and weather that would all affect it, but it is a good indicator of your own performance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MESmith]

You can "explore segments" in your area on strava.

[StreetCowboy]

You can "explore segments" in your area on strava.

The "Explore" doesn't return all segments in the area - I don't know the sort / selection criteria; possibly 'most popular', i.e. most used, which would tend to count against the longer, more complicated segments that people are unlikely to accidentally ride over.

I've found the search functions on Strava generally disappointing. Although not so disappointing that I'll pay for something different.

It turns out my 'pub to pub' segments have not proved very popular; maybe because people don't find them in the Segment search (see above) and don't accidentally stumble across them (literally or figuratively), unless they are actually going between those two pubs by bike. I've tried to terminate the segments at the main road going past, so that you don't actually need to ride into the pub forecourt to complete the segment.

SC

[JCCR6]

Strava segments are generally short, you might want to look for 'routes' rather than 'segments'. A route, or ride will cross many segments in general.

With regard to many being climbs, they're usually for cyclists to gauge their performance against others on the climb. Why a climb? Because they're a good test of fitness, power to weight ratio and they are MUCH harder to cheat on (riding in a big group or drafting a car for example).

A good use for segments is to gauge your own performance vs past efforts rather than turning every ride into a virtual race. You can setup a few segments then look at your previous speed/heart-rate/power on that same segment.

Cycle.Coach

[StreetCowboy]

Strava segments are generally short, you might want to look for 'routes' rather than 'segments'. A route, or ride will cross many segments in general.

With regard to many being climbs, they're usually for cyclists to gauge their performance against others on the climb. Why a climb? Because they're a good test of fitness, power to weight ratio and they are MUCH harder to cheat on (riding in a big group or drafting a car for example).

A good use for segments is to gauge your own performance vs past efforts rather than turning every ride into a virtual race. You can setup a few segments then look at your previous speed/heart-rate/power on that same segment.

Cycle.Coach

I didn't understand the route function.

One problem I have with my various longer segments is that they suffer from traffic lights, which have as big an impact on timing as any effort on my part.

SC

[StreetCowboy]

Sorry - Double Post!

I try to make sure that the longer segments go between obvious stopping points or junctions, truncating to just before the junction so that people register the segment whichever way they are going next.

SC

Edited December 1, 2015 by StreetCowboy

[taony]

I have made segments for each of the three or four routes i have for my commute so i can compare how i do over time. The rest are short, mostly 0.5-1.0 km and they stop short of the interesections where the cars tend to pile up the most. Using the slow riding in between columns of cars for comparison isn't so informative.

[StreetCowboy]

I collect my data using Runtastic App on my phone. I then export to Strava for analysis and review, and I have exported a couple of rides to RideWithGPS for comparison. The three applications obviously process the data differently, as they give quite different statistics.

Here, for example, are some numbers for a long but fairly flat ride a few months back -its not quite out and back home, as the phone battery died a few hundred metres from home:

Runtastic:97.93 km, 1008 m climbing, ave. moving speed 18.93 km/h (the auto-pause function is done on the phone) max speed 48.6 km/h

Strava: 98.2 km, 811 m climbing, ave. moving speed 22.3 km/h (Strava works out pauses from the gps data), max. speed 53.2 km/h

RideWGPS: 98.3 km, 1144 m climbing, ave. moving speed 23.5 km/h, max. speed 53.3 km/h.

Maybe I'll switch to RideWithGPS - I seem fitter over there...

[moonoi]

I collect the data on my Garmin Fenix 3, and then share the data from Garmin connect to Endomondo/Strava automatically. Doing this the data is very consistent across all the apps, so I suspect the problem is with the data collection on your phone which are notoriously inaccurate for elevation :-)

Sent from my turnip using Tapatalk

[StreetCowboy]

I collect the data on my Garmin Fenix 3, and then share the data from Garmin connect to Endomondo/Strava automatically. Doing this the data is very consistent across all the apps, so I suspect the problem is with the data collection on your phone which are notoriously inaccurate for elevation :-)

But it seems strange that the different apps give quite different elevation numbers for the same gpx file. The Strava / Runtastic difference is quite consistent

Sent from my turnip using Tapatalk

[moonoi]

I collect the data on my Garmin Fenix 3, and then share the data from Garmin connect to Endomondo/Strava automatically. Doing this the data is very consistent across all the apps, so I suspect the problem is with the data collection on your phone which are notoriously inaccurate for elevation :-)

But it seems strange that the different apps give quite different elevation numbers for the same gpx file. The Strava / Runtastic difference is quite consistent

Sent from my turnip using Tapatalk

There is a feature in Strava where you can select to override the elevation data from the device and it uses data based on the map. I believe this is enabled by default. I would suspect Runtastic is similar.

Sent from my turnip using Tapatalk

[StreetCowboy]

I collect the data on my Garmin Fenix 3, and then share the data from Garmin connect to Endomondo/Strava automatically. Doing this the data is very consistent across all the apps, so I suspect the problem is with the data collection on your phone which are notoriously inaccurate for elevation :-)

But it seems strange that the different apps give quite different elevation numbers for the same gpx file. The Strava / Runtastic difference is quite consistent

Sent from my turnip using Tapatalk

There is a feature in Strava where you can select to override the elevation data from the device and it uses data based on the map. I believe this is enabled by default. I would suspect Runtastic is similar.

Sent from my turnip using Tapatalk

I "refined" the data in a sample ride on Runtastic, and the elevation went up by about 10% (although Runtastic is already a higher estimate than Strava).

I couldn't do the same in Strava - I think it automatically uses its own data when I import the Runtastic gpx export file, as there is no device information in the file.

On RidewGPS I tried "Replace Elevation Data" and the elevation went down by about 1%.

I tried the same ride in Runtastic - the original data values were close to within 1% between Runtastic and RideWGPS. After refining, RideWGPS reduced its estimate by 1%, while Runtastic increased its estimate by 10%. So I think I will just stick with the original Runtastic data, for the sake of consistency

SC

[StreetCowboy]

On a recent ride, Strava said one particular section was 3 - 5% gradient, while I remember it as flat - albeit along the side of a steep hill, following the contours. But surprisingly, Runtastic, which I think uses the raw GPS data for elevation, also says the same thing. Maybe the Runtastic elevation data is from map data as well.

I can see that, reading the map elevation data, you could get widely incorrect data, as the road is cut into the hill a bit, and it is a steep slope on the uphill side of the road. I can see that being a big problem for cycling in mountains, where the road is much smoother than the surrounding countryside.

[ianf]

Try enjoying riding your bike without going for segments!

[StreetCowboy]

Try enjoying riding your bike without going for segments!

I only load the data up to the Strava web-site when I get home, but I will sometimes go out with the specific aim of getting a good time on a specific segment - typically between two pubs, or something. I don't ride exactly the same route very often, so the common segments give me some way of comparing the different rides.

SC

[kaorop]

Try enjoying riding your bike without going for segments!

Try remembering the saying "each to his own"

[StreetCowboy]

Try enjoying riding your bike without going for segments!

Try remembering the saying "each to his own"

I thought he had a fair point.

I think I mentioned elsewhere that I took a tumble right outside my front door, and I am not sure if it was because I was unconsciously thinking "this would be a good day to hammer the little hill at the end", while I was consciously thinking less competitive thoughts.

A moment later, I was thinking "Ow, me knackers!" and many less printable thoughts; the last thing I thought was "I can't see this ending well", before I stood up, picked the bike up and thought how grateful I was there was no traffic about. Then I gave a little smile and a wave to the truck driver stopped 20 yards back, and took a sit down for a moment for a bit of stock-taking.

SC