Reading the comparison

The comparison view is where the analysis lives. It tells you, for a single run, where you gained and lost time relative to the reference — section by section and moment by moment.

This page covers what the numbers and curves are showing you, and how to read them critically.

The three things you're looking at

A comparison surfaces three layers of information, each more granular than the last:

1. Total time — how long the whole run took, alongside the reference's total. Useful, but coarse.
2. Per-split times — how long each section took, with the delta to the reference for that section. This tells you which sections you gained or lost time in.
3. Continuous time delta — a curve that shows the gap to the reference at every moment of the run, not just at split points. This tells you where inside a section the time changed hands.

Most riders start by glancing at total time and per-split deltas, then go to the continuous delta to understand why a particular section was slow.

How to read a per-split delta

Each split shows the time at that split for the current run alongside the reference's time. The delta is the difference:

• a negative delta means you reached that split faster than the reference — you were ahead
• a positive delta means you reached that split slower — you were behind

The delta is cumulative — it's the gap at that split, not the gap added in that section. To see how a single section played out, look at how the delta changed from one split to the next.

For example: a delta of -0.2s at split 1 and +0.4s at split 2 means you were 0.2s up entering the section, lost 0.6s within it, and exited 0.4s down. The section itself cost you 0.6s.

How to read the continuous time delta

The continuous delta is a curve plotted across the run. Where it dips, you're faster than the reference at that moment; where it climbs, you're slower.

This is the layer that tells you where exactly time was won or lost. Two runs can have identical split times and very different continuous deltas — one rider might lose time on the corner entry and gain it back on the exit, while the other does the opposite. The split times don't distinguish them; the continuous delta does.

Use it to test specific hypotheses about your riding:

• "I think I'm braking too early into that corner" — look at the delta approaching the corner and see whether it climbs there
• "I'm gaining time on the rough section" — look for a dip across that segment

What the comparison won't tell you

A few honest limits:

• It doesn't tell you why. The delta shows where the time changed hands; understanding the cause — line choice, body position, braking, gearing — is the rider's or coach's job.
• It assumes the runs are on the same track. If the track has fundamentally changed since the reference was recorded, the delta will be misleading.
• Alignment has uncertainty. When the camera saw something ambiguous — a long uniform section, a fogged lens, a knocked mount — the continuous delta is less precise. Stable, distinctive footage produces sharper deltas.

If you want to push the analysis further, the next step is usually to record more runs targeting a specific section, mark or refine the splits around it, and compare again. The product is at its best when used in a loop, not as a one-shot review.