ciclosport hac4 INFO

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Jerryortega, Jan 23, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jerryortega

    Jerryortega Guest

    Have any of you had any experience using the ciclosport HAC4 hrm,speed,POWER monitor? I am thinking
    of getting one?

    Thanks
     
    Tags:


  2. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    "jerryortega" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Have any of you had any experience using the ciclosport HAC4
    hrm,speed,POWER
    > monitor? I am thinking of getting one?

    The heartrate and speed info are probably accurate.
     
  3. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "jerryortega" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Have any of you had any experience using the ciclosport HAC4
    > hrm,speed,POWER
    > > monitor? I am thinking of getting one?
    >
    > The heartrate and speed info are probably accurate.

    Using those two inputs to calculate power is probably a really stupid idea.
     
  4. Dan Gregory

    Dan Gregory Guest

    "Tom Arsenault" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > Power output is not accurate at all, but can only give you a very vague and hazy image of where
    > your power is while riding. For instance, riding a 9% grade hill at 17MPH, it rater my power
    > output as being 105 watts. Although not a power machine, I'd have to think I was putting out more
    > than that. Also, once while coasting downhill at 40+, my power output was above 300. So just kind
    > of ignore the whole power thing. As a HRM and cyclo-computer, it is good.
    Have you entered your body weight and bike weight accurately? Mine seems remarkably consistent on
    similar parts of the courses I ride. It may not be absolutely accurate compared to SRM cranks but it
    does show a good record of my progress. My battery went down in the cold today though! All the best
    Dan Gregory
     
  5. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    "Dan Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > "Tom Arsenault" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > Power output is not accurate at all, but can only give you a very vague and hazy image of where
    > > your power is while riding. For instance, riding a 9% grade hill at 17MPH, it rater my power
    > > output as being 105 watts. Although not a power machine, I'd have to think I was putting out
    > > more than that. Also, once while coasting downhill at 40+, my power output was above 300. So
    > > just kind of ignore the whole power thing. As a HRM and cyclo-computer, it is good.
    >
    > Have you entered your body weight and bike weight accurately? Mine seems remarkably consistent on
    > similar parts of the courses I ride. It may not
    be
    > absolutely accurate compared to SRM cranks but it does show a good record
    of
    > my progress.

    I was sort of surprised at Tom's observations, too. I would have expected that the HAC-4 would
    perform as you experienced (i.e., consistent though with unknown accuracy). BTW, if Tom is able to
    ride up a 9% hill at 17mph, that's pretty impressive. For a normal-sized guy, that should be in the
    ballpark of 1 hp.
     
  6. Sparhawk

    Sparhawk Guest

    On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:41:42 +0100, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Dan Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote
    >>
    >> "Tom Arsenault" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> > Power output is not accurate at all, but can only give you a very vague and hazy image of where
    >> > your power is while riding. For instance, riding a 9% grade hill at 17MPH, it rater my power
    >> > output as being 105 watts. Although not a power machine, I'd have to think I was putting out
    >> > more than that. Also, once while coasting downhill at 40+, my power output was above 300. So
    >> > just kind of ignore the whole power thing. As a HRM and cyclo-computer, it is good.
    >>
    >> Have you entered your body weight and bike weight accurately? Mine seems remarkably consistent on
    >> similar parts of the courses I ride. It may not
    >be
    >> absolutely accurate compared to SRM cranks but it does show a good record
    >of
    >> my progress.
    >
    >I was sort of surprised at Tom's observations, too. I would have expected that the HAC-4 would
    >perform as you experienced (i.e., consistent though with unknown accuracy). BTW, if Tom is able to
    >ride up a 9% hill at 17mph, that's pretty impressive. For a normal-sized guy, that should be in the
    >ballpark of 1 hp.

    I've found the Hac4 to be very consistent and it produces repeatable results which is what I am
    interested in getting from it.

    Sparhawk
     
  7. Sparhawk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:41:42 +0100, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Dan Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote
    > >>
    > >> "Tom Arsenault" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> > Power output is not accurate at all, but can only give you a very vague and hazy image of
    > >> > where your power is while riding. For instance, riding a 9% grade hill at 17MPH, it rater my
    > >> > power output as being 105 watts. Although not a power machine, I'd have to think I was
    > >> > putting out more than that. Also, once while coasting downhill at 40+, my power output was
    > >> > above 300. So just kind of ignore the whole power thing. As a HRM and cyclo-computer, it is
    > >> > good.
    > >>
    > >> Have you entered your body weight and bike weight accurately? Mine seems remarkably consistent
    > >> on similar parts of the courses I ride. It may not
    > be
    > >> absolutely accurate compared to SRM cranks but it does show a good record
    > of
    > >> my progress.
    > >
    > >I was sort of surprised at Tom's observations, too. I would have expected that the HAC-4 would
    > >perform as you experienced (i.e., consistent though with unknown accuracy). BTW, if Tom is able
    > >to ride up a 9% hill at 17mph, that's pretty impressive. For a normal-sized guy, that should be
    > >in the ballpark of 1 hp.
    >
    > I've found the Hac4 to be very consistent and it produces repeatable results which is what I am
    > interested in getting from it.
    >
    > Sparhawk
    > >

    I'll have to go back and check my settings once again. I thought I had entered them pretty
    accurately, but they may have been changed.

    And the 9% at 17, it was a VERY short hill. Just so that there are no preconceptions that I am a
    climber. Nope, short burst and hard up a short hill.

    Tom
     
  8. Michael Fuhr

    Michael Fuhr Guest

    [email protected] (Tom Arsenault) writes:

    > And the 9% at 17, it was a VERY short hill. Just so that there are no preconceptions that I am a
    > climber. Nope, short burst and hard up a short hill.

    The burst may have been too short for the HAC4 to calculate the power. Rate of elevation gain is
    relevant to the power calculation, and any device that uses changes in barometric pressure to
    estimate elevation gain needs time before it has enough data to calculate an accurate number. If you
    were done with the climb before the HAC4 had enough data, then the results would have been skewed. I
    expect these devices' power function is more accurate for sustained efforts.

    --
    Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
     
  9. Dan Connelly

    Dan Connelly Guest

    The HAC4 power calculation is useful only on extended efforts uphill. Even for that, it's crude. Try
    climbing a dirt road, then a smoothly paved one. Or climb into a headwind, then without one. The
    HAC4 really only knows about altitude gain, not rolling or wind resistance, which is can only
    crudely estimate. It's a good computer, but it's not a power meter.

    Dan

    Michael Fuhr wrote:
    > [email protected] (Tom Arsenault) writes:
    >
    >
    >>And the 9% at 17, it was a VERY short hill. Just so that there are no preconceptions that I am a
    >>climber. Nope, short burst and hard up a short hill.
    >
    >
    > The burst may have been too short for the HAC4 to calculate the power. Rate of elevation gain is
    > relevant to the power calculation, and any device that uses changes in barometric pressure to
    > estimate elevation gain needs time before it has enough data to calculate an accurate number. If
    > you were done with the climb before the HAC4 had enough data, then the results would have been
    > skewed. I expect these devices' power function is more accurate for sustained efforts.
     
  10. James

    James Guest

    I believe also that the sampling rate is every 20 seconds (if it is the same as the CM414 Alti M -
    same but w/o the heartrate info). That could also affect it on a "VERY short hill". It might not be
    able to get an accurate sampling of data for the hill just as Michael suggested. In that he might
    have transitioned into the 9% going 17mph and slowed down before the next sampling by the computer
    was taken. I have noticed this on my CM414 Alti M.

    James

    "Michael Fuhr" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Tom Arsenault) writes:
    >
    > > And the 9% at 17, it was a VERY short hill. Just so that there are no preconceptions that I am a
    > > climber. Nope, short burst and hard up a short hill.
    >
    > The burst may have been too short for the HAC4 to calculate the power. Rate of elevation gain is
    > relevant to the power calculation, and any device that uses changes in barometric pressure to
    > estimate elevation gain needs time before it has enough data to calculate an accurate number. If
    > you were done with the climb before the HAC4 had enough data, then the results would have been
    > skewed. I expect these devices' power function is more accurate for sustained efforts.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...