Cycling computer idea

  • Thread starter Qui si parla Campagnolo
  • Start date



Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
Tell ya what I would like to see. I ride w/o a cycling computer, only a
wrist watch. I would love to see a SIMPLE, wrist watch based wireless
computer. A watch most of the time, when ya get on the bike, push a
button, and now it shows speed and distance. Off the bike, push button,
it's a watch. Small, simple,

NOT heart rate, or GPS or power or anything else...anybody heard of
such a thing?
 
On 5 Feb 2006 07:10:55 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tell ya what I would like to see. I ride w/o a cycling computer, only a
>wrist watch. I would love to see a SIMPLE, wrist watch based wireless
>computer. A watch most of the time, when ya get on the bike, push a
>button, and now it shows speed and distance. Off the bike, push button,
>it's a watch. Small, simple,
>
>NOT heart rate, or GPS or power or anything else...anybody heard of
>such a thing?


What's wrong with leaving a simple computer on the bike? Either way,
you still need the sending unit on the bike, anyway.

You could install a wireless computer and carry the head in your
pocket.

I don't think you will find what you are looking for, but I may be
wrong.


Life is Good!
Jeff
 
> Tell ya what I would like to see. I ride w/o a cycling computer, only a
> wrist watch. I would love to see a SIMPLE, wrist watch based wireless
> computer. A watch most of the time, when ya get on the bike, push a
> button, and now it shows speed and distance. Off the bike, push button,
> it's a watch. Small, simple,
>
> NOT heart rate, or GPS or power or anything else...anybody heard of
> such a thing?


Peter: What you ask sounds so simple, and yet is so difficult.

The issue is wireless. It takes four times the power to transmit a signal
twice as far, so the distance between sending unit and your wrist is a major
issue; every time you remove your hands from the bars, you'd probably lose
the signal. Plus, they conserve power by attempting to transmit in a
fairly-narrow beam, and this only works when you have a fixed position for
the receiver (wrist watch).

Heart monitors don't have quite as much trouble because the max distance
from transmitter to wrist watch... well, trying to figure that out now, but
it's not much more than two feet. Plus, when you lose the signal, you're not
messing up your distance figures (which may be important to some).

And finally, perhaps you're a lot younger than I am, or, as an ex fighter
pilot, have exceptional eyes? I'd have a difficult time reading the numbers
on a wrist watch. Easier to focus on something that sits in one place.

I'm going the opposite direction (why don't I think that comes as a surprise
to you?) and getting one of the Garmin 305s when they come in.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
Jeff Starr wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2006 07:10:55 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Tell ya what I would like to see. I ride w/o a cycling computer, only a
> >wrist watch. I would love to see a SIMPLE, wrist watch based wireless
> >computer. A watch most of the time, when ya get on the bike, push a
> >button, and now it shows speed and distance. Off the bike, push button,
> >it's a watch. Small, simple,
> >
> >NOT heart rate, or GPS or power or anything else...anybody heard of
> >such a thing?

>
> What's wrong with leaving a simple computer on the bike? Either way,
> you still need the sending unit on the bike, anyway.
>
> You could install a wireless computer and carry the head in your
> pocket.


Don't like anything mounted on the handlebars....Like the clean look.
>
> I don't think you will find what you are looking for, but I may be
> wrong.
>
>
> Life is Good!
> Jeff
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Tell ya what I would like to see. I ride w/o a cycling computer, only a
> > wrist watch. I would love to see a SIMPLE, wrist watch based wireless
> > computer. A watch most of the time, when ya get on the bike, push a
> > button, and now it shows speed and distance. Off the bike, push button,
> > it's a watch. Small, simple,
> >
> > NOT heart rate, or GPS or power or anything else...anybody heard of
> > such a thing?

>
> Peter: What you ask sounds so simple, and yet is so difficult.
>
> The issue is wireless. It takes four times the power to transmit a signal
> twice as far, so the distance between sending unit and your wrist is a major
> issue; every time you remove your hands from the bars, you'd probably lose
> the signal. Plus, they conserve power by attempting to transmit in a
> fairly-narrow beam, and this only works when you have a fixed position for
> the receiver (wrist watch).


A cateye double wireless sends from way at the end of the bike to the
front and lots of HRM also have a front fork speed pickup, to your
wrist.
>
> Heart monitors don't have quite as much trouble because the max distance
> from transmitter to wrist watch... well, trying to figure that out now, but
> it's not much more than two feet. Plus, when you lose the signal, you're not
> messing up your distance figures (which may be important to some).
>
> And finally, perhaps you're a lot younger than I am, or, as an ex fighter
> pilot, have exceptional eyes? I'd have a difficult time reading the numbers
> on a wrist watch. Easier to focus on something that sits in one place.


Well, not younger but I still have good eyes.
>
> I'm going the opposite direction (why don't I think that comes as a surprise
> to you?) and getting one of the Garmin 305s when they come in.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Don't like anything mounted on the handlebars....Like the clean look.
> >


I am in the same boat, but I am warming to some of the stem-mounted
solutions. It's the asymmetry rather than the clutter that bothers me.
I also like holding the tops close to the stem with my thumbs and
fingers of each hand crossing sometimes and then all computers get in
the way.

Joseph
 
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:11:57 GMT, Jeff Starr <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 5 Feb 2006 07:10:55 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Tell ya what I would like to see. I ride w/o a cycling computer, only a
>>wrist watch. I would love to see a SIMPLE, wrist watch based wireless
>>computer. A watch most of the time, when ya get on the bike, push a
>>button, and now it shows speed and distance. Off the bike, push button,
>>it's a watch. Small, simple,
>>
>>NOT heart rate, or GPS or power or anything else...anybody heard of
>>such a thing?

>
>What's wrong with leaving a simple computer on the bike? Either way,
>you still need the sending unit on the bike, anyway.


Perhaps the OP wants the convenience of not having to dismount the
comp head to prevent it from being stolen every time the bike is
parked?

>You could install a wireless computer and carry the head in your
>pocket.


OTOH, if there was a wrist strap to mount the head on, that might meet
the spec, assuming a comp which goes dormant in time-display mode can
be found.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
Peter

Suunto has a wide range of functions on wrist watches. Fabulous
quality. They have a watch called: Suunto t6 (1st URL). It woks w/ the
bike pod. (2nd URL)
However I'm sure it's overkill for you. Way too many functions, inc
heart rate, & ~$800 retail. You could overlook all the functions you
are not interested it. It is one possibility. You might e-mail them for
a simpler solution. They were a great Co. for customer service for
scuba dive computers. I doubt much has changed.

(These two URLs were ~a mile long each & didn't wrap around. So I
truncated them. You'll have to find the exact products, if you are
interested.

http://www.suunto.com/suunto/main/product

http://www.suunto.com/suunto/main/product

I'm curious how your search goes, John
 
>> The issue is wireless. It takes four times the power to transmit a signal
>> twice as far, so the distance between sending unit and your wrist is a
>> major
>> issue; every time you remove your hands from the bars, you'd probably
>> lose
>> the signal. Plus, they conserve power by attempting to transmit in a
>> fairly-narrow beam, and this only works when you have a fixed position
>> for
>> the receiver (wrist watch).

>
> A cateye double wireless sends from way at the end of the bike to the
> front and lots of HRM also have a front fork speed pickup, to your
> wrist.


The Cateye has a fairly-large transmitter, and a different design where both
the cadence and speed pickups share the same unit. It's the first rear wheel
unit I've come across that's been reliable, but it's a bit bulky for a front
fork. The HRMs that attach to your wrist are far more problematic than those
that attach to the handlebar.

>> And finally, perhaps you're a lot younger than I am, or, as an ex fighter
>> pilot, have exceptional eyes? I'd have a difficult time reading the
>> numbers
>> on a wrist watch. Easier to focus on something that sits in one place.

>
> Well, not younger but I still have good eyes.


Hope they stay that way! I'm still a young punk, at least for the next two
months. But after that, it's going to be difficult justifying that I have
more in common with someone 30 than 50... nor will I look forward to my next
doctor's appointment (not that I ever have).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> > Tell ya what I would like to see. I ride w/o a cycling computer, only a
>> > wrist watch. I would love to see a SIMPLE, wrist watch based wireless
>> > computer. A watch most of the time, when ya get on the bike, push a
>> > button, and now it shows speed and distance. Off the bike, push button,
>> > it's a watch. Small, simple,
>> >
>> > NOT heart rate, or GPS or power or anything else...anybody heard of
>> > such a thing?

>>
>> Peter: What you ask sounds so simple, and yet is so difficult.
>>
>> The issue is wireless. It takes four times the power to transmit a signal
>> twice as far, so the distance between sending unit and your wrist is a
>> major
>> issue; every time you remove your hands from the bars, you'd probably
>> lose
>> the signal. Plus, they conserve power by attempting to transmit in a
>> fairly-narrow beam, and this only works when you have a fixed position
>> for
>> the receiver (wrist watch).

>
> A cateye double wireless sends from way at the end of the bike to the
> front and lots of HRM also have a front fork speed pickup, to your
> wrist.
>>
>> Heart monitors don't have quite as much trouble because the max distance
>> from transmitter to wrist watch... well, trying to figure that out now,
>> but
>> it's not much more than two feet. Plus, when you lose the signal, you're
>> not
>> messing up your distance figures (which may be important to some).
>>
>> And finally, perhaps you're a lot younger than I am, or, as an ex fighter
>> pilot, have exceptional eyes? I'd have a difficult time reading the
>> numbers
>> on a wrist watch. Easier to focus on something that sits in one place.

>
> Well, not younger but I still have good eyes.
>>
>> I'm going the opposite direction (why don't I think that comes as a
>> surprise
>> to you?) and getting one of the Garmin 305s when they come in.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

>
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> >>
> >> I'm going the opposite direction (why don't I think that comes as a
> >> surprise
> >> to you?) and getting one of the Garmin 305s when they come in.
> >>
> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



Yep. What I would really love is one of those fork mount computers,
like Fignon used to have, with a magnet on the wheel(not the little
belt drives), where ya just looked down at your fork to see speed and
distance-neat!! Avocet? I don't know, I had one about 2 decades ago...
 
Buy a Polar 720i and ignore the HR function. Speed, distance, altitude,
even optional cadence.

The main drawback of a wristwatch/computer is the size issue. The Polar
is on the very large size for a wristwatch, but on the very small size
for a cycling computer.
 
> Yep. What I would really love is one of those fork mount computers,
> like Fignon used to have, with a magnet on the wheel(not the little
> belt drives), where ya just looked down at your fork to see speed and
> distance-neat!! Avocet? I don't know, I had one about 2 decades ago...


I remember those! Just barely. Don't recall who it was, but know that it
wasn't Avocet. Kind of an electronic version of the Huret Multito (the
belt-driven one).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
On 6 Feb 2006 05:53:56 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> I'm going the opposite direction (why don't I think that comes as a
>> >> surprise
>> >> to you?) and getting one of the Garmin 305s when they come in.
>> >>
>> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> >> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

>
>
>Yep. What I would really love is one of those fork mount computers,
>like Fignon used to have, with a magnet on the wheel(not the little
>belt drives), where ya just looked down at your fork to see speed and
>distance-neat!! Avocet? I don't know, I had one about 2 decades ago...


I saw a guy riding with a Huret Multito a few weeks ago...

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************