Cycle computers - wired or wireless?

[Ken C. M.]

I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
better wireless model?

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

[nash]

Is the battery good? If you have a spare one throw it in and see.
I have Cateye Enduro 2.
I found I had to scrape the contacts to get a reading at times. Winter
could be rusting things up.

[Ken C. M.]

nash wrote:
> Is the battery good? If you have a spare one throw it in and see.
> I have Cateye Enduro 2.
> I found I had to scrape the contacts to get a reading at times. Winter
> could be rusting things up.
>
>
It should be good. I mean it seems to work o.k. in the garage, spinning
the rear wheel. This bike is my good weather ride only bike has never
seen rain and winter here in Florida is not like winter in other places.
Like I said it's not the first time I have noticed inaccurate readings.
When I had it mounted in sight I would sometimes look at it and see some
pretty crazy readings. Like average speeds in the 30's, current speeds
in the 50's.

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

[Roger Zoul]

Read the manual to see what the range is. My VDO C3CD claims to have a
pickup range of 1.5 m. I figure it probably has half that, so I'm good even
on my recumbent. I rode a course who distance I've measured off on another
computer and it is very close. I note that my polar 720i has a much smaller
range. I think the digital transmissions offer slight greater range since
all they need to do is detect a 0 or a zero, in essence.

Ken C. M. wrote:
:: I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have
:: the cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit
:: mounted on the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't
:: the first time I have notice it, but thought it might make for an
:: interesting tech sort of thread here, now this was a two and a half
:: hour ride. When I got home I checked the readings, and clearly it's
:: not getting info from the pick-up all the time. It said my average
:: speed was about 7.5 miles per hour, and total distance was 15.5
:: miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but not even close to being THAT
:: slow. Now the cycle computer in question is not a very expensive
:: model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I mean enough already.
:: So whats some advice about computers, go with a wired design like my
:: Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a better wireless
:: model?
::
:: Ken
:: --
:: The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it
:: gets old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one
:: without shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:11:44 -0500, Ken C. M. wrote:

> I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
> cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
> the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
> I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
> of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
> I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
> pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
> hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
> not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
> not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
> mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
> better wireless model?

The last computer(s) I got were also these wireless Ascent. POS. Mine
would get interference from everything; many rides would indicate a max
speed of 76 mph. Now, I like to downhill fast, but not that fast. They
also are hard to read in the sun, rattle, and finally they broke. What
did I expect for $20, IÂ*guess.

I do like the wirelessness. It is just one less thing to fuss about.
Also, many wired computers have cheesy wiring and/or connections, so they
don't last all that long for me, anyway.

I got a Planet Bike Aero to replace these (going to switch from bike to
bike as soon as I get a second holder/sender). Much nicer screen, good
information, and, so far, no interference.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
_`\(,_ | common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
(_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my
trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

[catzz66]

Ken C. M. wrote:
> I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
> cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
> the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
> I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
> of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
> I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
> pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
> hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
> not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
> not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
> mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
> better wireless model?
>
> Ken

For me, wired computers have been less trouble to get running and keep
running on the family stable of bikes. A lot of people love the
wireless, but having the wires lacing up the fork is not a big deal for
me and I sure don't go fast enough for it to hurt the aeorodynamics of
my ride. Plus, there's one less battery to go dead on a wired unit.

Obviously, if you mount yours where you can't see it, it is a little
hard to catch your computer not working if you can't look down and
glance every so often at the odo/mph on your handlebars, but I
understand how you might not care that much about keeping up with those
things every day.

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:11:44 -0500, "Ken C. M."
> may have said:

>I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
>cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
>the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
>I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
>of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
>I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
>pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
>hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
>not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
>not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
>mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
>wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
>better wireless model?

Wired units and wireless can both misread if the wheel magnet is just
a trifle out of position, but wireless units add errors due to low
battery at the sender, signal loss, or interference, and the latter
factor can actually cause them to read high on speed and distance.

I've considered wireless units once or twice, but for the few uses I
make of a comp, I have stuck with wired. Although wires can break,
it's my opinion that wired units have fewer ways for things to go
wrong overall.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[JP]

I've got a cateye wired on the MTB and a Sigma wireless on the road.
Both have been trouble-free in a few years of use.
I prefer the larger display on the Sigma but otherwise I've had no
complaints.

[catzz66]

Werehatrack wrote:
>
> Wired units and wireless can both misread if the wheel magnet is just
> a trifle out of position, but wireless units add errors due to low
> battery at the sender, signal loss, or interference, and the latter
> factor can actually cause them to read high on speed and distance.
>
> I've considered wireless units once or twice, but for the few uses I
> make of a comp, I have stuck with wired. Although wires can break,
> it's my opinion that wired units have fewer ways for things to go
> wrong overall.
>

On the same thought as your last sentence, I also get the least
expensive, least complicated wired unit. I basically just want to know
mph and keep up with mileage.

[landotter]

catzz66 wrote:
> Werehatrack wrote:
> >
> > Wired units and wireless can both misread if the wheel magnet is just
> > a trifle out of position, but wireless units add errors due to low
> > battery at the sender, signal loss, or interference, and the latter
> > factor can actually cause them to read high on speed and distance.
> >
> > I've considered wireless units once or twice, but for the few uses I
> > make of a comp, I have stuck with wired. Although wires can break,
> > it's my opinion that wired units have fewer ways for things to go
> > wrong overall.
> >
>
> On the same thought as your last sentence, I also get the least
> expensive, least complicated wired unit. I basically just want to know
> mph and keep up with mileage.

Yup, the cheapest computer I've owned is my favorite, a Sigma BC506.
Just does the basics, and is easy to read. Mine was $13 on sale, and
currently $18. Totally weatherproof in case you get a freak downpour.

[Ivar Hesselager]

I have two computers on my bike - one wireless Flight Deck and one wired
VDO, the former with a virtual cadence, the latter with heart rate
indication. They are operated by the same magnet on the front wheel.
They are fairly accurate, and the wireless doesn't give me any problems.
But there are inaccuracies at times. F.ex. when I accellerate (or the
opposite)they disaggree on the current speed.
I have calibrateded the two computers accurately by riding 10 km between
km-stones (milestones). Yet at times the one is a little ahead of the
other. In the long run - which means over 200 km - the relative
difference between them is about 1 - 2 pct., which I find satisfying and
better than the measurement I get from my car.

But when it comes to max speed there are huge differences - and I find max
speeds way above what I had read when I was going the fastest. I think I
have figured out why.

Inside the sensor is a little metal piece rattling around, as you may be
able to hear, activated by the rotating magnet and turning a contact off
and on.
Sometimes it will skip a turning on, somtimes it will be delayed a
fraction of a second.
If the frequency of the skipping is fairly constant, you will be able to
work the inaccuracy into the calibration, so the measurement in the long
run will be fairly acurate anyway.
But the max speed is probably a calculation made from only one turn of the
magnet. If the metal piece inside the sensor is delaied for a split
second, the next measured period will be too short - just as the former
was too long. But multiplying this inaccuracy will display the
unrealistic high speed. There is nothing to do about it - other than
disregarding max speeds you didn't see when it was going on for some
time. (Which is difficult. If I go 60 km/h I don't like to move my eyes
from the road to the computer for long.)
Once in a while one of the sensors get out of place - sometimes so much
that the measurement stops. At other times so little that the reception of
the magnetism only skips once in a while, giving a low measure.

Sometimes I try to tell myself not to look at the computers - so I can
understand why it can be a good idea to place your computer under the seat.
But if you want it to be reliable, you have to keen an eye on it.
Ivar








Den 12.12.2006 kl. 00:10 skrev David L. Johnson >:

> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:11:44 -0500, Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>> I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
>> cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
>> the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
>> I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
>> of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
>> I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
>> pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
>> hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
>> not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
>> not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
>> mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
>> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
>> better wireless model?
>



> The last computer(s) I got were also these wireless Ascent. POS. Mine
> would get interference from everything; many rides would indicate a max
> speed of 76 mph. Now, I like to downhill fast, but not that fast. They
> also are hard to read in the sun, rattle, and finally they broke. What
> did I expect for $20, I*guess.
>
> I do like the wirelessness. It is just one less thing to fuss about.
> Also, many wired computers have cheesy wiring and/or connections, so they
> don't last all that long for me, anyway.
>
> I got a Planet Bike Aero to replace these (going to switch from bike to
> bike as soon as I get a second holder/sender). Much nicer screen, good
> information, and, so far, no interference.
>



--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

[nash]

>>>Although wires can break,
it's my opinion that wired units have fewer ways for things to go
wrong overall.

Cateye Enduro have extra thick wiring and a plastic coil also to protect it
at the top end.

the possible problems you stated about covers it.
Steel wool on the contacts or just a knife did it for me.

[Earl Bollinger]

"Ken C. M." > wrote in message
...
>I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
>cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on the
>seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time I have
>notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort of thread
>here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home I checked
>the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the pick-up all the
>time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per hour, and total
>distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but not even close to
>being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is not a very expensive
>model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I mean enough already. So
>whats some advice about computers, go with a wired design like my Cateye
>Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a better wireless model?
>
> Ken
> --
> The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets old
> and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without shocking
> the entire community. ~Ann Strong

One thing is the batteries that come with the units may be old and or very
low quality or capacity. Thus the wireless models usually run the batteries
down fast.
Second, is I haven't seen a wireless unit that use the rear wheel yet. All
the ones i dealt with need to have the sensor mounted on the front wheel as
close as possible to the cyclecomputer, and it has to be a unobstructed
straight line shot to it.
Third, so far the wireless units I used, all can be interfered with from
other RFI sources, such as big commericial radio transmitter antennas, High
tension power lines, some city utility trucks (I like this one, as you are
stopped waiting for the stop light to change, a city utility truck pulls up
next to you and your computer says you are doing 12mph).
Fourth, the battery life with good batteries may not be very good for some
wireless units. Mine all state they have about 40 hours of use before you
should change the batteries. But I tend to run them for longer than that.
But if your batteries are weak, then after a certain speed the computer
starts to have wild and erratic readings.

Wired computers on the other hand, don't need radio signals, aren't
sensitive to RFI, and the batteries last like forever. Plus the sensor can
be mounted anywhere that is convenient within the length of the wires. But
you can solder in extensions if needed.

[Werehatrack]

On 11 Dec 2006 17:02:33 -0800, "landotter" > may
have said:

>
>catzz66 wrote:
>> Werehatrack wrote:
>> >
>> > Wired units and wireless can both misread if the wheel magnet is just
>> > a trifle out of position, but wireless units add errors due to low
>> > battery at the sender, signal loss, or interference, and the latter
>> > factor can actually cause them to read high on speed and distance.
>> >
>> > I've considered wireless units once or twice, but for the few uses I
>> > make of a comp, I have stuck with wired. Although wires can break,
>> > it's my opinion that wired units have fewer ways for things to go
>> > wrong overall.
>> >
>>
>> On the same thought as your last sentence, I also get the least
>> expensive, least complicated wired unit. I basically just want to know
>> mph and keep up with mileage.
>
>Yup, the cheapest computer I've owned is my favorite, a Sigma BC506.
>Just does the basics, and is easy to read. Mine was $13 on sale, and
>currently $18. Totally weatherproof in case you get a freak downpour.

In this area, that's not a freak occurrence. Cycling survival skills
here include knowing where the nearest places to take shelter are
located[1].



[1] and which ones won't flood if the rain keeps coming down for
several hours.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Doc O'Leary]

In article >,
"Ken C. M." > wrote:

> So whats some advice about computers, go with a
> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
> better wireless model?

Would you classify GPS as "a better wireless model"? Prices have come
down so much and GPS units are much more versatile than a bike-only
gadget. My bike computer crapped out a few years ago and I haven't
really missed it, but if I were going to get back in the habit of
gathering ride data I would definitely go GPS.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[Ken C. M.]

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article >,
> "Ken C. M." > wrote:
>
>> So whats some advice about computers, go with a
>> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
>> better wireless model?
>
> Would you classify GPS as "a better wireless model"? Prices have come
> down so much and GPS units are much more versatile than a bike-only
> gadget. My bike computer crapped out a few years ago and I haven't
> really missed it, but if I were going to get back in the habit of
> gathering ride data I would definitely go GPS.
>
Yeah I have considered that option. I guess I just need to shop around
and research them a bit. I like the idea of having a GPS to record my
ride routes. Plus having a navigator would be a plus.

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

[catzz66]

Ken C. M. wrote:
>
> Yeah I have considered that option. I guess I just need to shop around
> and research them a bit. I like the idea of having a GPS to record my
> ride routes. Plus having a navigator would be a plus.
>

I know some of you do use GPS units instead of computers. Is the margin
of error, standard deviation, whatever you want to call it, acceptable?
It seems like they monitor my speed pretty well in the car. Drawbacks
I could see with my Garmin unit (have been using it exclusively in the
car) are that takes a while to find the satellites and does not always
find them in all kinds of weather/conditions. It seems to me like I
would be pretty likely to have quite a few episodes where I don't have a
good signal over a year's time if I tried to rely on it every day on the
bike.

[Stephen Harding]

Ivar Hesselager wrote:

> Sometimes I try to tell myself not to look at the computers - so I can
> understand why it can be a good idea to place your computer under the seat.

I often ride with the computer set to clock only. It still tells
speed, but I don't really want to know the ride statistics, and even
some electrical tape over the speed reading can be acceptable during
certain rides or moments of a ride.

The worst (at times) are those darned pace arrows that tell you if
you're falling off your pace...which you generally are if you're
climbing a hill.

Those pace arrows can be brutal! Best to disconnect the display
and put it in the seat bag when in that frame of mind! Some times
your own mind demands that you suffer, and the cycle computer is
its means to make it so.


SMH

[gds]

Ken C. M. wrote:
> I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
> cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
> the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
> I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
> of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
> I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
> pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
> hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
> not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
> not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
> mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
> better wireless model?
>
> Ken
> --
> The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
> old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
> shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

Is it possible that your calibration (wheel size setting ) is off? From
what you say it looks like the computer properly read the time. So, it
seems that it sensed that you were moving for the two hours. So it was
reading something for the entire ride and that would lead me to believe
it isn't the sensor or the sending function but soemthing to do with
the measurement.

[Doc O'Leary]

In article >,
"Ken C. M." > wrote:

> Yeah I have considered that option. I guess I just need to shop around
> and research them a bit. I like the idea of having a GPS to record my
> ride routes. Plus having a navigator would be a plus.

I see something like a Garmin Forerunner as a good starting point. The
danger is in looking for too many features that bulk up the size and
price of the unit. I would *love* to find a cheap GPS unit that did
little more than buffer data and Bluetooth it when a computer/phone/iPod
is available. This comes close:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/security/8212/

but it's about $200 overpriced for what it does.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[[email protected]]

i use a Garmin Fortrex 101 [gps]

has wrist strap that fits on handle bar [with foam]
can also be used while walking, hiking, running

very solid construction
under $100 [ebay]
see much more info www.Amazon.com

waterboy

[TomP]

I've had the same Cateye wireless computer on two different bikes for a
total mileage over 75k miles.
No problems here.

"Ken C. M." wrote:

> I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
> cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
> the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
> I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
> of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
> I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
> pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
> hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
> not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
> not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
> mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
> better wireless model?
>
> Ken
> --
> The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
> old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
> shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

[Solvang Cyclist]

Stephen Harding > wrote in news:JlBfh.5223$Li6.2567
@trndny03:

> The worst (at times) are those darned pace arrows that tell you if
> you're falling off your pace...which you generally are if you're
> climbing a hill.
>

Hills or not, since for each moment that you have the "pace arrow"
indicating you are exceeding your average pace, the average goes up. So the
only way to keep the arrow pointing up is to continually increase your
average. I really don't find that "feature" of any use.

Cheers,
David

[Solvang Cyclist]

Doc O'Leary > wrote in
:

> I see something like a Garmin Forerunner as a good starting point.
> The danger is in looking for too many features that bulk up the size
> and price of the unit. I would *love* to find a cheap GPS unit that
> did little more than buffer data and Bluetooth it when a
> computer/phone/iPod is available. This comes close:
>
> http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/security/8212/
>
> but it's about $200 overpriced for what it does.
>

Unfortunately this thing is not too useful for bike rides (from the web
site):

>> The record interval is adjustable to anything between 1 and 15
>> minutes

I have a Bluetooth GPS that I use with a Pocket PC, but I rarely use it
on the bike (only when I'm riding in unfamiliar areas.)

I haven't found a GPS that's ideal for biking. The Garmin
bicycle-specific units don't offer maps or routes. Ideally, a bike GPS
should allow you to download a route to the unit and then give
turn-by-turn directions to tell you how to stay on the route (or get
back to it when you miss a turn.) It should also have Bluetooth to allow
you to share the route you programmed with others at the start of a club
ride and to upload your ride information to a computer.

Cheers,
David

[Doc O'Leary]

In article >,
Solvang Cyclist > wrote:

> Unfortunately this thing is not too useful for bike rides (from the web
> site):
>
> >> The record interval is adjustable to anything between 1 and 15
> >> minutes

It all depends what you want from it but, yeah, a 1 minute minimum is a
bit high. I've since found this, which is a lot better:

http://www.hexten.net/wbt-200/

> I haven't found a GPS that's ideal for biking. The Garmin
> bicycle-specific units don't offer maps or routes. Ideally, a bike GPS
> should allow you to download a route to the unit and then give
> turn-by-turn directions to tell you how to stay on the route (or get
> back to it when you miss a turn.) It should also have Bluetooth to allow
> you to share the route you programmed with others at the start of a club
> ride and to upload your ride information to a computer.

You're putting too much functionality into one device. I'm still most
interested in a cheap GPS unit that mainly logs data. Bluetooth is a
welcome way to bridge to a display device, since I'm getting pretty
tired of every single device in my pocket having its own screen. That
leaves it up to me to decide if I want to take a fancy mapping PDA with
me.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[Solvang Cyclist]

Doc O'Leary > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Solvang Cyclist > wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately this thing is not too useful for bike rides (from the
>> web site):
>>
>> >> The record interval is adjustable to anything between 1 and 15
>> >> minutes
>
> It all depends what you want from it but, yeah, a 1 minute minimum is
> a bit high. I've since found this, which is a lot better:
>
> http://www.hexten.net/wbt-200/
>
>> I haven't found a GPS that's ideal for biking. The Garmin
>> bicycle-specific units don't offer maps or routes. Ideally, a bike
>> GPS should allow you to download a route to the unit and then give
>> turn-by-turn directions to tell you how to stay on the route (or get
>> back to it when you miss a turn.) It should also have Bluetooth to
>> allow you to share the route you programmed with others at the start
>> of a club ride and to upload your ride information to a computer.
>
> You're putting too much functionality into one device. I'm still most
> interested in a cheap GPS unit that mainly logs data. Bluetooth is a
> welcome way to bridge to a display device, since I'm getting pretty
> tired of every single device in my pocket having its own screen. That
> leaves it up to me to decide if I want to take a fancy mapping PDA
> with me.
>

Obviously we have differing needs/desires for a GPS device. I would
prefer to have only one device on my bike. With the exception of a map
and maintaining a route, everything that a GPS can provide can be done
by a cheap cycle computer. I can always map my routes after I return
using a site such as bikely.com. Instead, if I'm going to add a GSP, I
want it to provide a moving map display. The rest would be simple to do.

Cheers,
David

[Doc O'Leary]

In article >,
Solvang Cyclist > wrote:

> Obviously we have differing needs/desires for a GPS device. I would
> prefer to have only one device on my bike.

So would I, but it's getting to be impossible. I already have my cell
phone with me. I also bring my iPod sometimes. If it's dark, I have
lights. While I could add a big honking GPS display to the mix, I would
much rather use one of the displays I already have with me.

> With the exception of a map
> and maintaining a route, everything that a GPS can provide can be done
> by a cheap cycle computer. I can always map my routes after I return
> using a site such as bikely.com.

This is where our needs obviously differ. I'm of the opinion that most
of the "instant" feedback is useless, but logging data over time paints
a rich picture. Your cheap bike computer won't be the best device to
tell you how you've been improving, say, on a particularly tough hill.
It won't be at all helpful in trying out different routes and seeing
which sections are faster on average.

> Instead, if I'm going to add a GSP, I
> want it to provide a moving map display. The rest would be simple to do.

While that can be handy at times, would you *really* say you need to be
looking at a moving map 90% of the time you're on a bike? I still think
a simple logger is a great start, and if I'm lost and need to see a map
I could whip out my cell phone.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[CN]

I am using the Polar 720 and Garmin Edge 305 on one bike (these 2 are
wireless).

I am using the Flight Deck on my other bike (wired).

It is clear to me that both systems have problems when the batteries
are weak or if the magnets are out of alignment.

The wireless will also have problems is specific areas such as
electrics at train stations or power lines.

The two wireless systems can download to the computer but only the
Polar will allow you to correct the data and the troubled areas for
more accurate performance/training statistics. The two wireless systems
can also store files for specific exercise.

I am also using the Polar at the gym/Spinning and running.


Main point:
For me the Polar is the main computer as I use it on and off the bike!
It is more about the functionality vs. the wired/wireless question.






Ken C. M. wrote:
> I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
> cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
> the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
> I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
> of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
> I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
> pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
> hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
> not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
> not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
> mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
> better wireless model?
>
> Ken
> --
> The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
> old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
> shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

[Solvang Cyclist]

Doc O'Leary > wrote in
:

> While that can be handy at times, would you *really* say you need to be
> looking at a moving map 90% of the time you're on a bike? I still think
> a simple logger is a great start, and if I'm lost and need to see a map
> I could whip out my cell phone.
>

90% of the time? No. But for organized rides it would be much easier with a
moving map and turn directions than the "classic" routeslips in your jersey
pocket.

Cheers,
David

[Doc O'Leary]

In article >,
Solvang Cyclist > wrote:

> Doc O'Leary > wrote in
> :
>
> > While that can be handy at times, would you *really* say you need to be
> > looking at a moving map 90% of the time you're on a bike? I still think
> > a simple logger is a great start, and if I'm lost and need to see a map
> > I could whip out my cell phone.
> >
>
> 90% of the time? No. But for organized rides it would be much easier with a
> moving map and turn directions than the "classic" routeslips in your jersey
> pocket.

But then why buy a kitchen sink unit for the 5% scenario? Most GPS
units like that are big and expensive and chew up batteries. I still
say there is a lot to be said for having a simple $50 receiver/logger
that will Bluetooth to some other device for whatever extra immediate
use you might have. For example, I'd be *very* interested in seeing
something like the Nike+iPod that is instead based off of GPS data.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[Dan]

i've found that the key thing with wireless computers is the alignment
of the sender on the fork (or in your case the seatstay im guessing),
and the receiver. the second thing is the distance between the magnetic
spoke thingy and the sender. I suggest mounting it on the front, at
least for testing, ensuring that the spoke thingy and sender is 5mm or
less apart, and put the receiver on the handlbars, directly above and
inline with the sender, and see how you go. if you find that you go on
a ride and it works, then that was the problem.

good luck

Daniel

, and receiver
Ken C. M. wrote:
> I rode for a couple of hours this afternoon on the road bike, I have the
> cycle computer reading off the rear wheel and the head unit mounted on
> the seat post. It's an Ascent wireless model. This isn't the first time
> I have notice it, but thought it might make for an interesting tech sort
> of thread here, now this was a two and a half hour ride. When I got home
> I checked the readings, and clearly it's not getting info from the
> pick-up all the time. It said my average speed was about 7.5 miles per
> hour, and total distance was 15.5 miles. Now I KNOW that I am slow, but
> not even close to being THAT slow. Now the cycle computer in question is
> not a very expensive model. and not a GREAT brand, but really now? I
> mean enough already. So whats some advice about computers, go with a
> wired design like my Cateye Enduro 8 on my other bike, or just get a
> better wireless model?
>
> Ken
> --
> The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
> old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
> shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong