Conversation
karussell
changed the title
ratrun
reviewed
Sep 28, 2026
ratrun
left a comment
ratrun
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with these changes.
This branch was successfully deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Recently we increased the racingbike already in #3218 but I think we should go higher like proposed in this PR. A more appropriate base speed (on flat roads) is higher than 24km/h and so I picked 28km (160W). After playing with 200W (30km/h) the 160W seems more appropriate as it is not a value for professional riders and still reasonable for an averaged trained person in favor of a racingbike profile.
WDYT @ratrun?
Furthermore I removed the boost for
goodandexcellentsmoothness. Initially I removed it mainly because the encoded value is not sufficient for it (1.2*28=34), but now I think it is important in general as the speed increase because of good smoothness is not in the area of 10% (and especially not 20% faster), but more like 2%, i.e. a factor larger 1.02 is physically unsupported. But a small factor cannot make a difference for the encoded value (which has a granularity of 2km/h). So I would keep the factor forgoodandexcellenceat1.0for now, also for the other bike profiles. In general we could move the smoothness handling to the custom model (as also any small factors will work), but I think this would need a remake as I would not want introduce a boost again (factor>1.0) and only a degradations (factor<1.0).