Are heart rate monitors better now?

[Ken M]

I was looking through some old threads, and didn't really see an answer to
my question. Back when I still ran (before knees started giving me problems)
I bought a Polar heart rate monitor. I remember paying quite a bit for it.
It was a wireless model but you had to bring the wrist watch display to
within a couple of inches of the chest band to get a reading of your heart
rate. Now I was browsing nashbar and some of the ones I looked at had a
"handlebar mount". So my question really is how close does the display have
to be to the chest band to get a reading? I can't imagine getting my chest
that close to the handlebars and being able to look at a display mounted on
the bars. Has wireless tech improved the range?

Ken M

[rdclark]

Ken M wrote:
> I was looking through some old threads, and didn't really see an answer to
> my question. Back when I still ran (before knees started giving me problems)
> I bought a Polar heart rate monitor. I remember paying quite a bit for it.
> It was a wireless model but you had to bring the wrist watch display to
> within a couple of inches of the chest band to get a reading of your heart
> rate. Now I was browsing nashbar and some of the ones I looked at had a
> "handlebar mount". So my question really is how close does the display have
> to be to the chest band to get a reading? I can't imagine getting my chest
> that close to the handlebars and being able to look at a display mounted on
> the bars. Has wireless tech improved the range?

My first HRM was a bottom-of-the-line (but still almost $100) Polar
Beat I bought in 1995. It worked fine, and I had no trouble with
transmission distance on a bike or at the gym.

Other HRMs I've owned or used since have also not exhibited such a
problem. Nor can I actually recall the issue coming up, but that may
not mean anything.

Certain kinds of RF energy can interfere with HRMs, possibly reducing
their range or causing the signal to drop out. Power lines (especially
railroad/trolley power lines, for me) can be an issue. Digital control
circuits (in some bike lights, or communication devices) can interfere
with wireless transmission.

I suspect that your original problem may have had a cause that was not
intrinsic to the Polar HRM.

RichC

[Leo Lichtman]

"rdclark" wrote: (clip) I suspect that your original problem may have had a
cause that was not intrinsic to the Polar HRM.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Backing up what rdclark said, I find that while I am driving my car, I have
to hold the wrist unit to my chest to get a reading. On the bike, no
problem.

[amakyonin]

The Timex HRMs use FM transmision which is a little more noise immune
than the usual AM employed by Polar and others. They also pose less of
a risk for interfering with a wireless speedometer. Distance from
transmitter to receiver has never been a problem on the bike. You can
still get lost signals and the occasional bad reading (>250 bpm) from
the Timex units.

[bitwisebob]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:45:39 -0500, "Ken M"
> wrote:

>So my question really is how close does the display have
>to be to the chest band to get a reading? I can't imagine getting my chest
>that close to the handlebars and being able to look at a display mounted on
>the bars. Has wireless tech improved the range?

I have a low cost model, Polar A3. I wear the watch on my wrist, but
the wrist is close to the handle bars when I ride, and it works fine.

However, on the treadmill, if I take the watch off and place it on the
treadmill it doesn't receive. The control panel of the treadmill is
maybe a foot further away...


---
Bob Anderson*Bitwisebob
Eugene Oregon

[Gooserider]

"Ken M @netzero.net>" <kencmjr<(nospam)> wrote in message
...
>I was looking through some old threads, and didn't really see an answer to
>my question. Back when I still ran (before knees started giving me
>problems) I bought a Polar heart rate monitor. I remember paying quite a
>bit for it. It was a wireless model but you had to bring the wrist watch
>display to within a couple of inches of the chest band to get a reading of
>your heart rate. Now I was browsing nashbar and some of the ones I looked
>at had a "handlebar mount". So my question really is how close does the
>display have to be to the chest band to get a reading? I can't imagine
>getting my chest that close to the handlebars and being able to look at a
>display mounted on the bars. Has wireless tech improved the range?
>
> Ken M

I have a ten year old Polar that works flawlessly. I think your problem was
a defect, not a design issue. Polar has improved the transmitter by putting
it in a soft strap now, which is supposed to be more comfortable and stay in
place better.

[gty]

i have the mio ultimate which uses a polar chest strap or you can use
no strap. if i am within 3 ft of tv, i will not get reading with strap.
i find that strapless is fine.just put two fingers on watch to get
reading. i can do this while running. dont have to worry about the
strap. great for hiking.

[[email protected]]

> rate. Now I was browsing nashbar and some of the ones I looked at had a
> "handlebar mount". So my question really is how close does the display have
> to be to the chest band to get a reading?

The range is such that these days when so many people ride with
monitors, that you can pick up the rate of the person riding next to
you in a group. That is why some higher end models have some sort of
coding feature to tie one transmitter to one reciever.

But it sounds like you have something wrong with your Polar. I have
among others an old Cateye HRM/Computer that is over 10 years old that
works fine. And Polar at that time was most certainly better in all
respects.

Joseph