I rode a 200 mile event on Saturday. My GRADE field seemed to go a great job. Felt better than the native grade. It didn't produce any unreasonable values, seemed to follow the native GRADE closely, but was a bit more stable on what felt like steady gradients (the native grade would sometimes vary +/- 1-2 percent). For grades under 2% I only show an integer, but over 2% I show one decimal point.. since there seems to be more noise in the nearly flat sections of road.
Anyway - two things. One particular user has two observations that seem strange.
1. He uses a RideWithGPS route he loads into his EDGE to simulate a real route using the EDGE to control his trainer. He says the grade field displays grades that are not consistent with the native grade or the expected grade from the loaded file - sometimes way off. I can't explain why the CIQ field would perform differently. Unless the elevation data in the loaded file isn't properly sent to CIQ's Activity.info.altitude?
2. He swears that my field changes the way the EDGE controls the trainer. LOL. That when my field is running he feels a significant difference in the resistance being sent to the trainer. NO WAY. Right? All my field does is read the distance and elevation and generate a GRADE estimate. Must be a placebo effect of seeing a grade reading. Unless there is another device bug and the compute resources used to run the simple field impacts the priority of sending control data to the trainer?
