Bike Computers on Suspension Forks



S

Steve C

Guest
I need to buy a new bike computer after my previous one was stolen
(along with my bike... ). I was told by someone that you can't use
wireless computers with suspension forks. Doubt it myself, as I used to,
but would the general recommendation be to go for a wired computer or a
wireless computer for use with suspension forks?

Steve C
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 18:09:23 +0100, Steve C wrote:

> I need to buy a new bike computer after my previous one was stolen
> (along with my bike... ). I was told by someone that you can't use
> wireless computers with suspension forks. Doubt it myself, as I used to,
> but would the general recommendation be to go for a wired computer or a
> wireless computer for use with suspension forks?


I've used a wired one on my suspension forks for years. The only watch-it
is to make sure the cable isn't tied to the frame tight, becuase if the
suspension forks extend and it could snap the cable!

I tried a wireless computer quite a while ago as it was built into a
front light. I didn't like it at all - the sensor was big and took some
obscure camera battery and it just wasn't particularly responsive. I'm
not sure if the responsiveness was due to the suspension forks or just
because it was a **** computer!

peter
 
Steve C wrote:
> I need to buy a new bike computer after my previous one was stolen
> (along with my bike... ). I was told by someone that you can't use
> wireless computers with suspension forks. Doubt it myself, as I used
> to, but would the general recommendation be to go for a wired
> computer or a wireless computer for use with suspension forks?


I've had a Cateye Mitty (wired) on my MTB for years (*).
Totally reliable computer with battery life of many many years.
Constrast with a VDO cordless on a road bike which requires at least two new
batteries per year.


I run the wire up the brake cable (with enough slack where it leaves for the
fork leg). I'm still on V-brakes, but I expect one could run the cable up a
disk brake line.



(* I have one Mitty and two mounts and use the wheel-size swap option within
the Mitty. Thus same computer is used on my tourer and MTB. ).


- Nigel




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 18:09:23 +0100, Steve C wrote:
>
>> I need to buy a new bike computer after my previous one was stolen
>> (along with my bike... ). I was told by someone that you can't use
>> wireless computers with suspension forks. Doubt it myself, as I used to,
>> but would the general recommendation be to go for a wired computer or a
>> wireless computer for use with suspension forks?


Just as well I didn't know that wireless computers weren't supposed to
work with suspension forks, otherwise I might have thought mine wasn't
working! I would be interested to hear a sound, logical reason why it
shouldn't work :)

I have a Sigma BC1606L DTS, and the wireless speed sensor works
absolutely fine with suspension forks. All three components (including
the cadence sensor) take standard lithium batteries that are so
ridiculously cheap that I don't care if they only last six months.

I specifically chose wireless to avoid the hassle of leaving enough wire
flapping about (that *will* catch on something) to allow the forks to work.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Paul Boyd wrote:

> I have a Sigma BC1606L DTS, and the wireless speed sensor works
> absolutely fine with suspension forks. All three components (including
> the cadence sensor) take standard lithium batteries that are so
> ridiculously cheap that I don't care if they only last six months.
>
> I specifically chose wireless to avoid the hassle of leaving enough wire
> flapping about (that *will* catch on something) to allow the forks to work.
>



I've got a cateye micro wireless and it's fine. In fact, the cateye
sensors seem to be more suited to chunky suspension forks than most
other models. It's very easy to adjust the gap and they stay where
they're put, even after a pounding down rocky routes.

R
 
Random wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>
>> I have a Sigma BC1606L DTS, and the wireless speed sensor works
>> absolutely fine with suspension forks. All three components
>> (including the cadence sensor) take standard lithium batteries that
>> are so ridiculously cheap that I don't care if they only last six months.
>>
>> I specifically chose wireless to avoid the hassle of leaving enough
>> wire flapping about (that *will* catch on something) to allow the
>> forks to work.
>>

>
>
> I've got a cateye micro wireless and it's fine. In fact, the cateye
> sensors seem to be more suited to chunky suspension forks than most
> other models. It's very easy to adjust the gap and they stay where
> they're put, even after a pounding down rocky routes.
>
> R


My previous computer was a Shimano FlightDeck which was wireless. I
can't buy the mounting kit anymore (and my new bike uses SRAM shifters)
so I'm also interested in suggestions for different models.

Steve C
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 19:46:38 +0100, Random <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Paul Boyd wrote:
>
>> I have a Sigma BC1606L DTS, and the wireless speed sensor works
>> absolutely fine with suspension forks. All three components (including
>> the cadence sensor) take standard lithium batteries that are so
>> ridiculously cheap that I don't care if they only last six months.
>>
>> I specifically chose wireless to avoid the hassle of leaving enough wire
>> flapping about (that *will* catch on something) to allow the forks to work.
>>

>
>
>I've got a cateye micro wireless and it's fine. In fact, the cateye
>sensors seem to be more suited to chunky suspension forks than most
>other models. It's very easy to adjust the gap and they stay where
>they're put, even after a pounding down rocky routes.
>
>R


Likewise Not sure why the OP was told otherwise!
 
Steve C writtificated

> I need to buy a new bike computer after my previous one was stolen
> (along with my bike... ). I was told by someone that you can't use
> wireless computers with suspension forks. Doubt it myself, as I used to,
> but would the general recommendation be to go for a wired computer or a
> wireless computer for use with suspension forks?


A decent wireless will be fine, with no problems other than having an extra
battery to replace every few thousand miles. This disadvantage of wired is
the cable getting caught on the scenery.

One possible reason for the 'no wireless with suspension' myth is that
early models countered interference by being higly directional. The wide
suspension forks would have meant that the receiver needed to be far over
on the bars, prolly on that awkward bend bit that many mtb bars had.
 
On May 30, 2:49 am, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 18:09:23 +0100, Steve C wrote:
>
> >> I need to buy a new bike computer after my previous one was stolen
> >> (along with my bike... ). I was told by someone that you can't use
> >> wireless computers with suspension forks. Doubt it myself, as I used to,
> >> but would the general recommendation be to go for a wired computer or a
> >> wireless computer for use with suspension forks?

>
> Just as well I didn't know that wireless computers weren't supposed to
> work with suspension forks, otherwise I might have thought mine wasn't
> working! I would be interested to hear a sound, logical reason why it
> shouldn't work :)


The range may be too great, and/or the fork bridge may obscure the
signal. Obviously these don't guarantee that such computers will never
work, but they do explain why some people might have trouble (or at
least think the risk makes them best avoided).

I think I've had these problems with wireless computers (it was long
enough ago that I can't remember exactly why I gave up on them -
battery life is also an issue, or was with the earlier models).

James
 
[email protected] said the following on 30/05/2008 03:45:

> The range may be too great, and/or the fork bridge may obscure the
> signal. Obviously these don't guarantee that such computers will never
> work, but they do explain why some people might have trouble (or at
> least think the risk makes them best avoided).


On mine, the speed sensor is mounted on the right fork blade, but the
computer is mounted to the left of the stem. Even with a lot of metal
in the way, it is 100% reliable. BUT... the reason that I have the
computer mounted on the left is that the cadence sensor has to go on the
left chainstay, and it didn't work reliably with the stem in the way! I
would have been quite happy with a wired cadence sensor, but it's all
wireless or nothing.

> I think I've had these problems with wireless computers (it was long
> enough ago that I can't remember exactly why I gave up on them -
> battery life is also an issue, or was with the earlier models).


Obviously I don't have experience of them all, but certainly on my Sigma
battery life isn't an issue. I have only had it for about 6-8 months
though!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/