MO: I stand corrected. Henceforth will use same settings on higher DIN bindings.
But think there's a whole thread about smart phones and speed, apparently folks who keep track of satellite positions, triangulation, etc. seem to feel that there's low reliability. Which I use here in the technical sense, variance sq. for error/variance sq for observed, with components of accuracy and precision. Accuracy is measured by reference to a gold standard (neither a car nor radar qualify) and precision by reproducibility over multiple trials under multiple conditions by multiple users. The best GPS has mediocre reliability for speed estimates, apparently, and the stuff we use in phones truly sucks. Don't shoot the messenger.
This is kinda like my argument about neurological reflexes. First, our consumer culture - which we can't escape - teaches us from infancy to believe in technology's progress. Even when objective evidence suggests it may not be significantly better than many iterations ago (pharms come to mind with their incessant rollouts of new meds that don't do anything to improve outcomes beyond stuff available 20 years ago) or if it is, the definition of "better" can be problematic. (Is Windows 8 "better" because it offers more possible options and a different screen than Windows 7? Is GMF "better" because farmers can get bigger yields so it's cheaper? Is the 2014 Ford Focus better than the 2013 cuz of that grill and two more inches somewhere?) So we buy a new smartphone with a GPS app, and we're preconditioned to accept its tech as "better." Hell, it's shiny, and we've just dropped some Benjamins for it, and new toys are very cool. So let's make sure the grass is greener on our side of the fence. Psych 1.
Second, for a preselected crowd like Epic or TGR, our egos are set up to accept one end of the possible error curve as more likely. Makes more sense that we'd be hitting 60 or 70 routinely than 40 or 50, right? Why? Because, well, we just know how good we are. The road to ego hell is paved with psych 2 experiments showing just how willing we are to always accept the more ego-satisfying overestimation, whether it's how strong we are, how fast we are, what a good driver/skier we are, or how, ah, long we are. And new stuff even shows how we tend to overestimate our attractiveness. Surprise.
So what's left is the "other guy" argument. It's OK for me to run the stop sign because I have a special reason. And I'm a really good driver. But I think other guys who do it are idiots who endanger all of us. And other guys definitely overestimate their skiing speeds; it's ridiculous. But I'm just telling it like it is; my tech is more likely to be accurate than those other guys' because it agrees with how fast I know I am anyway. Psych 3.