Cadence vs. Wireless??

I was looking for cycloputers last year. After looking at various wirless models, I decided against
it, mostly due to potential interference problems and having to buy yet another battery. I regularly
have problems with the heart rate functions on my current 'puter and electric transformers. As far
as cadence, I'm a believer in "the more information avilable, the better." I know there are plenty
of people around here who fall into the "ignorance is bliss" camp, but I always have the option of
not looking.

Besides, I have a white bike, which makes it easy to hide the wires with white electrical
tape, anyway.

Eric

"Joel Rose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Just wondering but when choosing a cyclocomputer, what is more important - one with cadence or
> one that is wireless?? The new Cateye's cover both, it is just which one to chose. Thanks for
> any advice,
>
> Joel

I prefer wireless myself, basically because I'm still training my mind to recognize cadence. My body
wants to spin but I know that will cut into my endurance significantly. I find that with cadence I
can look down, and see that I'm at 110 cadence, but my mind is still thinking that I'm just doodling
around. This also tells me that I'm cheating my muscles and not giving them enough load. I pick up a
gear, my cadence drops to 90 something, and I keep going.

At some point in time I will be able to recognize cadence better without the device, but for now it
really helps. "Joel Rose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just wondering but when choosing a cyclocomputer, what is more important - one with cadence or
> one that is wireless?? The new Cateye's cover both, it is just which one to chose. Thanks for
> any advice,
>
> Joel

What's more important for you? I have a Cyclosport Alti (wired) for my touring bike because I like
climbing mountains and knowing how far I've climbed (and how steep), and I like to keep tabs on my
RPM's while I
climb. So the cadence is important there.

On my MTB, cadence is not a concern. Very few trails even let you maintain a cadence, period. So I
use a wireless on it. Besides, there's no wires to get snagged.

So ask yourself "what do I need most?"

May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris

Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 01:40:15 -0400, Joel Rose wrote:

> Just wondering but when choosing a cyclocomputer, what is more important
> - one with cadence or one that is wireless?? The new Cateye's cover both, it is just which one to
> chose. Thanks for any advice,

Initially, I thought cadence would be very important, and I put up with the wires. Turned out,
the wires were a giant headache - I went through 3 sets before I got one that continued to work
- and the cadence was a curiosity that ceased to be interesting long before the magnet fell off
the crankarm.

I switched to wireless and I haven't looked back since. It's much easier installing one; no
unsightly wires; and for me the Cateye Cordless II has all the functionality I want or need.

i have a cadence and a wireless. i prefer the cadence, or wired non-cadence, since the wireless
(cateye) has interferance problems with my HRM. on an off-road ride though cadence doesnt really
amply so much anyway. so if i was u stick to wired, with or without cadence

panda

--
change "net" to "uk"

"Joel Rose" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Just wondering but when choosing a cyclocomputer, what is more important - one with cadence or
> one that is wireless?? The new Cateye's cover both, it is just which one to chose. Thanks for
> any advice,
>
> Joel