nklr: gps vs bicycle computer mileage

[Kurt Simpson]

> It's my HOPE to have a high quality nut and a chain with a master > link make > the sprocket change something that won't make me bleed or > continue to give my > 4 year old daughter colorful obscenities to add to her growing vocabulary.

Lamar you might want to give Elden Carl a call on this. He might have an idea. Then again he might not as it is my understanding that he is in the process of building a pair of his KLR dream engines and one of the parts he's retained fromt the earlier models is the countershaft sprocket system...two small bolts and voila it is off...just like the DR650. Kurt

[Zachariah Mully]

Lamar- You can try calling these people, my old robotics company bought tons of weird ass fasteners from them, and I think they might even do custom work. I am not sure, but if they do, I am sure you could get many people on the list to help defray the cost... Robnet Inc 3701 Commerce Dr # 104 Baltimore, MD (410) 247-7273 Best of Luck, Zack 1991 KLR (with the funny plate and two bolts, yeay!)

> Here's the deal: I wrestled the nut off and took it to two different > fastener places to match it in order to have a better quality, non-tapered > nut with which to work. Much to my surprise, neither place could match it! > The nut measures out at 18 mm with a coarse pitch, I'm told, but a > replacement one won't thread on the shaft. Has anyone changed the nut to > something NOT made of the same stuff as the shift lever? (Yes, I checked the > archive first.)

[toolbox21@webtv.net]

Find a local machine shop with a machinist that is willing to try and fabricate something. Got several in the Bismarck/Mandan ND area that I would reccomend.

[Steve Anderson]

Dreas, I think you missed a decimal point there my friend. 0.11 / 58 = 0.001897... = ~0.19% But you missed the point. It is NOT a relative error, it is an absolute error, that is independent of speed. I doubt your bicycle computer can come even close to this error, whether measured relative or absolute at 58mph. Maybe you have a really good one;-] And if you want to look at the relative error anyway, why not compare it to the appropriate frame of reference: Your speed relative to the satellites is well over 1000mph. 0.11 / 1000 = 0.00011 = .011% ; pretty darn good!! Steve (been around a few blocks with GPS) Anderson

--- In DSN_klr650@egroups.com, "Dreas Nielsen" wrote: > > --- In DSN_klr650@egroups.com, "Dreas Nielsen" wrote: > > > > > > > I don't know the relative precision of the GPS's distance > > > measurements (neither the Garmin manual nor Web site provides this > > > information) (and it's probably speed-dependent), but I'd be > > > surprised if it was much better than a couple of percent. > > > > > > Dreas > > > > > Garmin specifies the speed of the GPSIII(and +) at 0.1 knot, pretty darn > > good. The errors in the GPS come from the fact that most of the units we > use update > > once per second, and compute speed in terms of the straight line between > the > > two points, even though in a turn you travel a larger distance. > > > > Steve A. > > An error of 0.1 knot (or 0.11 mph) at 58 mph, the average rolling speed I > made on my trip, is equivalent to 1.9 percent, which I certainly consider to > be not much better than a couple of percent. I don't mean to argue that > that is not pretty darn good, but that it indicates that the correspondence > between the BC and GPS was markedly better than expected. > > Dreas