Speed sensor suck-in?

I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or
anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about
something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly
"bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room
between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're
going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless
range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a
pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen
this model you'll know what I mean.

Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on
this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes,
and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating
my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up
mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly
get sucked in?

Paul wrote:
I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or
anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about
something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly
"bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room
between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're
going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless
range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a
pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen
this model you'll know what I mean.

Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on
this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes,
and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating
my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up
mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly
get sucked in?

if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount
closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much
less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0700, jim beam
wrote:

Paul wrote:
I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or
anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about
something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly
"bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room
between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're
going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless
range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a
pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen
this model you'll know what I mean.

Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on
this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes,
and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating
my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up
mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly
get sucked in?

if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount
closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much
less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.

One word - Wireless!

Jeff Starr wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0700, jim beam
wrote:


Paul wrote:

I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or
anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about
something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly
"bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room
between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're
going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless
range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a
pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen
this model you'll know what I mean.

Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on
this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes,
and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating
my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up
mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly
get sucked in?


if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount
closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much
less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.


One word - Wireless!

eh? how exactly does that effect sensor location?

Jeff Starr wrote:


One word - Wireless!

I'm using wireless. The issue I'm worried about is the geometry of
this sensor and whether it's really safe *behind* the fork, the way I
see pretty much everyone do it. Hasn't anyone had an unfortunate
accident this way? Maybe it's secure enough not to even venture into
the spokes. The sensor (for those who haven't seen it) can be seen on
the manual page: http://www.cateye.com/en/pdfs/MC100Wv2ENG.pdf

Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.

Paul wrote:

Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.

That's so it doesn't get caught on anything. Think weedless fishing hook.

If it bugs you so much, quitcherbitchin, and mount it on the other side.
It will still work the same. Once the screw is tightened, it's not
moving unless you break the bracket. Really.

--
BMO

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:52:12 -0700, jim beam
wrote:

Jeff Starr wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0700, jim beam
wrote:


Paul wrote:

I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or
anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about
something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly
"bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room
between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're
going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless
range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a
pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen
this model you'll know what I mean.

Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on
this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes,
and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating
my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up
mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly
get sucked in?


if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount
closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much
less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.


One word - Wireless!

eh? how exactly does that effect sensor location?

It doesn't, you told him that the cable was long enough. What cable?
It's wireless.

Now do you understand?


Life is Good!
Jeff

Paul Wrote:
Jeff Starr wrote:


One word - Wireless!

I'm using wireless. The issue I'm worried about is the geometry of
this sensor and whether it's really safe *behind* the fork, the way I
see pretty much everyone do it. Hasn't anyone had an unfortunate
accident this way? Maybe it's secure enough not to even venture into
the spokes. The sensor (for those who haven't seen it) can be seen on
the manual page: http://www.cateye.com/en/pdfs/MC100Wv2ENG.pdf

Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.

It looks to me from the diagrams that you can mount it on the front of
the fork and be well within the range of the receiver. It should work
ok and if it does for some reason move into the spokes it would be
knocked outwards rather than hammered inwards.


--
waxbytes

Paul wrote:
Jeff Starr wrote:


One word - Wireless!

I'm using wireless. The issue I'm worried about is the geometry of
this sensor and whether it's really safe *behind* the fork, the way I
see pretty much everyone do it. Hasn't anyone had an unfortunate
accident this way? Maybe it's secure enough not to even venture into
the spokes. The sensor (for those who haven't seen it) can be seen on
the manual page: http://www.cateye.com/en/pdfs/MC100Wv2ENG.pdf

Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.

It looks to me in diagram B that you only rotate it far enough to get
the gap right.

I always try to mount sensors on the front of the fork since the spokes
are traveling in that direction and it seems safer to me. To keep the
strap ties from slipping, I put tape over them on the inside of the fork
blade.

not tochange the subject - butbutbut how does one mount the sensor if
the wheel isn't 36 spokes? like 36 spokes geometry is cateye sensor
standard, no? ifn yawl mount the sensor with 32 or less spokes???
where's it go?