Polar S725x lap data scrambled

[Frank Bowman]

Hello Stuart.

This looks much better! Today's session was indoors so no altitude data which I'll check next time out.
The graph and lap data now look OK. But still the odd bug:
Cadence OK but Average Cadence not shown on graph (boxes checked!)
Power OK but Average Power, L/R Balance & Power PI not shown on graph.
Lap pop-ups now pop up! But Power units (in pop-up only) stated as rpm!?
Curiously, AHR shows if HR box checked even if AHR box not checked.
The same goes for Speed & AS.
The only difference for this session imported from V2 that I can spot is that the V2 import data graph shows L/R & PI scales on the chart axis (but no data).

I'll post another report with a session involving altitude.

Hopes this helps with the debugging.
Cheers.

[Frank Bowman]

Hello again Stuart.
Today's session added directly to V3.0.4 looks OK except for Ascent on the Data Graph which reads 1.457(more numbers)e+7 although the graph itself and the Lap Data looks OK compared to the same session imported via V2 which also has a correct Ascent figure on the Data Graph.
Cheers.

[RayG]

Frank
That's scientific notation and I think it means you've done 14570000 somethings of climbing.

RayG
Keen to download the latest version now that it seems to work, but wondering why my subscription to this thread only lasted for one notification.

[Frank Bowman]

Thanks Ray, nice to hear from you.
As a scientist myself, I know what the notation is - the point is I haven't done that much climbing! Unless IST has converted the Polar data to inches, or something. The figure appears to bear no resemblance to the other ascent data on the data graph or lap data screens (the keywords climb graph looks ok, too), and is different to the same data item when the download is done to V2, so something is going wrong with the way that V3 is managing the data to produce this particular figure. Unless you can do the maths (which is beyond me!) to prove that the figure is, in fact, a correct mathmatical representation of the data?
Cheers.

[RayG]

Frank
So what IS the correct ascent figure?

RayG

[Frank Bowman]

Hi Ray.
Here are the figures for my most recent ride out.
Total Climb 3665ft
Ascent (ft) 1.636800e+7
I'll be really impressed if you can tell me that these are compatible. When I said scientist, I meant physics, chemistry, biology and medicine; I never was any good at maths!
Cheers.

[RayG]

Frank
I think I've found an explanation. Or just a coincidence.

1.636800e+7 divided by 3665 = 4474.761

1760 (yards in a mile) times 2.54 (centimetres in an inch) = 4470.4

I'd imagine any rounding errors or differences in the way your watch and iSMARTtrain do the calculations would account for the very minor difference in the numbers (0.08%?).

Quite WHY this has happened is beyond me. Perhaps Stuart has just entered an incorrect constant or two in his program.

Ray

[Frank Bowman]

Hi Ray.

I'll take your word for it!

[Stuart]

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's a units conversion issue. I just need to find out where!

Thanks & Regards

Stuart