LoRouter: "cyclist's power" not usable in all cycle profiles
Not processed
With v4.28 LoRouter got the configuration option "cyclist's power" which shall drastically improve time estimation according to news (at bottom). Please add this option to all cycling profiles.
Motivation:
- MTB is for mountain biking, so for tours with a lot of uphill & downhill – where the current configuration option "average speed on flat ground" is not applying that often (but do not remove because it's important for approach / comeback). Watts/power is massively influencing how fast you go uphill, so often for 1/3 of MTB track distances, hence it has strong influence on time estimation.
- It greatly improves time prediction for e-bikes of all cycling profiles/types (Touring/MTB/gravel/Road) because the additional power does a drastic difference – even untrained persons can easily move with 300W using an eBike – and the additional power is configurable on the bike, i.e. the router cannot simply assume one hard coded value.
In this context, we shall increase the max. value from 240W to e.g. 400W. I do not suggest more because I assume the more power a human has, the lower the motor power will be chosen in vast majority of cases, so we do not need e.g. 240W of athlete plus e.g. 250W of motor but e.g. 200W+100W or 120W+250W.
The same problem 
Hi Georg. The reason why we used power in wats for road cycling exclusively is more "cultural" than "technical". We believed roadies use power-meters and also train with power based data much more likely than bikers or bike-packers or touring people. The "average speed on flat ground" is meant as a simple way for people to say "How fit I am". For uphills and downhills, this avg speed is adjusted, of course. (For walking and cycling profiles). Both avg speed on flat ground and power in wats are two ways we ask: Tell me how fit you are (or how hard you push), then we can adjust ETA. But yes, for 300W e-bikes, this approach is not perfect, I agree. We just did not want to bother all cycling people with wats just for ETA calculation.
Hi Georg. The reason why we used power in wats for road cycling exclusively is more "cultural" than "technical". We believed roadies use power-meters and also train with power based data much more likely than bikers or bike-packers or touring people. The "average speed on flat ground" is meant as a simple way for people to say "How fit I am". For uphills and downhills, this avg speed is adjusted, of course. (For walking and cycling profiles). Both avg speed on flat ground and power in wats are two ways we ask: Tell me how fit you are (or how hard you push), then we can adjust ETA. But yes, for 300W e-bikes, this approach is not perfect, I agree. We just did not want to bother all cycling people with wats just for ETA calculation.
I understand. I agree MTB or touring bikers are much less likely knowing the watts than road racers.
In order that you can better understand me: The naming "average speed on flat ground" did not transport it's the base for uphill calculation, the in-app tool tipp does not mention it, same the manual. Hence I was providing my actual speed with MTB on flat ground and observed the ETA was quite realistic in flat terrain (telling 0h58 where I need 0h50) but massively wrong for uphill (telling 1h50 where I need 0h50).
With your info, I know I need to set 19km/h for a route with no or little uphill (my MTB has uphill optimized gear ratio, heavy tires with bold profile, and there are traffic lights etc. where I need to stop completely), and on a route with much uphill, I need to change the "average speed on flat ground" to 33km/h which is completely unrealistic but delivers a realistic ETA. Feedback: That does not really feel intuitive for me, and changing back & forth all the time for each route segment is not convenient. Hence, for profile MTB – which will naturally be often used for routes with much uphill parts – I'd clearly prefer to keep "average speed on flat ground" but making it do what the name tells, and adding a second option for uphill calculation. Whether that is watts or "average speed 10% slope uphill" or something else, I don't really care.
I understand. I agree MTB or touring bikers are much less likely knowing the watts than road racers.
In order that you can better understand me: The naming "average speed on flat ground" did not transport it's the base for uphill calculation, the in-app tool tipp does not mention it, same the manual. Hence I was providing my actual speed with MTB on flat ground and observed the ETA was quite realistic in flat terrain (telling 0h58 where I need 0h50) but massively wrong for uphill (telling 1h50 where I need 0h50).
With your info, I know I need to set 19km/h for a route with no or little uphill (my MTB has uphill optimized gear ratio, heavy tires with bold profile, and there are traffic lights etc. where I need to stop completely), and on a route with much uphill, I need to change the "average speed on flat ground" to 33km/h which is completely unrealistic but delivers a realistic ETA. Feedback: That does not really feel intuitive for me, and changing back & forth all the time for each route segment is not convenient. Hence, for profile MTB – which will naturally be often used for routes with much uphill parts – I'd clearly prefer to keep "average speed on flat ground" but making it do what the name tells, and adding a second option for uphill calculation. Whether that is watts or "average speed 10% slope uphill" or something else, I don't really care.
Thanks for explanation. Clearly there is something not quite right in the speed handling. So I need to examine routing engine internals and double check relevant calculations. What I do as a first step is conversion from speed on flat ground to power in wats for cycling profiles (except road). That seems to be correct, the rest is messy stuff to check. First thing in the morning. It looks like total mass is set to 110 kg by default or something like this.
Thanks for explanation. Clearly there is something not quite right in the speed handling. So I need to examine routing engine internals and double check relevant calculations. What I do as a first step is conversion from speed on flat ground to power in wats for cycling profiles (except road). That seems to be correct, the rest is messy stuff to check. First thing in the morning. It looks like total mass is set to 110 kg by default or something like this.
Replies have been locked on this page!