Cycling computer w/ Polar 720-like features, but less $

[Brad Ford]

I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:

1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
2) heart rate
3) cadence
4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
5) wireless

Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).

Does anyone have suggestions?

Thx.

-B.

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On 18 Jan 2006 01:34:12 -0800, "Brad Ford" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
>the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
>for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>
>1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
>2) heart rate
>3) cadence
>4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
>5) wireless
>
>Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
>makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
>rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>
>Does anyone have suggestions?
>
>Thx.
>
>-B.

Polar CS200 is about GBP80 over here, so probably less than $150 plus
whatever the optional cadence sensor adds.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[Francesco Devittori]

Brad Ford wrote:
> I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
> the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
> for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>
> 1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
> 2) heart rate
> 3) cadence
> 4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
> 5) wireless
>
> Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
> makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
> rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>
> Does anyone have suggestions?
>
> Thx.
>
> -B.
>

The HAC4 costs a bit less and has the features you are looking for. The
backlight only lasts about 2 seconds, then you have to press the button
againg. Not very practical if you are riding at night.

The polar cs200cad also should match your needs, but I don't know if
it's backlit.

Francesco

 

[Lou Holtman]

"Brad Ford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
> the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
> for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>
> 1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
> 2) heart rate
> 3) cadence
> 4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
> 5) wireless
>
> Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
> makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
> rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>
> Does anyone have suggestions?
>

The Polar CS200cad has all the features you want and is cheaper then the
720i.

Lou

 

[John Everett]

n 18 Jan 2006 01:34:12 -0800, "Brad Ford" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
>the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
>for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>
>1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
>2) heart rate
>3) cadence
>4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
>5) wireless
>
>Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
>makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
>rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>
>Does anyone have suggestions?

There's a guy in Hong Kong that's selling Supergo HRM1000
cyclocomputers on Ebay (Item number: 7207742115) for $9.90 (plus
shipping). They don't have all the features you're looking for, but at
this price what's to complain about.

I've been using these HRMs for years, going back to when they were
Vetta HR-1000s. My oldest one is on its 14th year.

Recently I had the wire pull out of the mounting bracket on one of
these and Supergo (RIP) no longer carried either parts or complete
HRMs. I ordered three from the Hong Kong guy which cost something like
$80 (his shipping prices are a bit high), not bad considering I expect
these to last for years. I managed to resolder the broken wire so the
three spares are still sitting on my parts shelf.


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

 

[damyth]

Francesco Devittori wrote:
> Brad Ford wrote:
> > I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
> > the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
> > for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
> >
> > 1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
> > 2) heart rate
> > 3) cadence
> > 4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
> > 5) wireless
> >
> > Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
> > makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
> > rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
> >
> > Does anyone have suggestions?
> >
> > Thx.
> >
> > -B.
> >
>
> The HAC4 costs a bit less and has the features you are looking for. The
> backlight only lasts about 2 seconds, then you have to press the button
> againg. Not very practical if you are riding at night.
>
> The polar cs200cad also should match your needs, but I don't know if
> it's backlit.
>
> Francesco

HAC 4 only shows current speed in integer increments (no tenths of a
mile). That's almost as bad as useless.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
John Everett <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> n 18 Jan 2006 01:34:12 -0800, "Brad Ford" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
>> the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
>> for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>>
>> 1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
>> 2) heart rate
>> 3) cadence
>> 4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
>> 5) wireless
>>
>> Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential.
>> Cateye makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other
>> does heart rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>>
>> Does anyone have suggestions?
>
> There's a guy in Hong Kong that's selling Supergo HRM1000
> cyclocomputers on Ebay (Item number: 7207742115) for $9.90 (plus
> shipping). They don't have all the features you're looking for, but at
> this price what's to complain about.
>
> I've been using these HRMs for years, going back to when they were
> Vetta HR-1000s. My oldest one is on its 14th year.
>
> Recently I had the wire pull out of the mounting bracket on one of
> these and Supergo (RIP) no longer carried either parts or complete
> HRMs. I ordered three from the Hong Kong guy which cost something like
> $80 (his shipping prices are a bit high), not bad considering I expect
> these to last for years. I managed to resolder the broken wire so the
> three spares are still sitting on my parts shelf.
>
Same with me, having two of them in use still, for around the same period of
time, one as a Vetta, the other as a Supergo, and one stuck in the box as a
spare. Can't recommend them highly enough, unless you really need average
pulse and altitude.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Francesco Devittori]

damyth wrote:
> Francesco Devittori wrote:
>
>>Brad Ford wrote:
>>
>>>I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
>>>the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
>>>for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>>>
>>>1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
>>>2) heart rate
>>>3) cadence
>>>4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
>>>5) wireless
>>>
>>>Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
>>>makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
>>>rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>>>
>>>Does anyone have suggestions?
>>>
>>>Thx.
>>>
>>>-B.
>>>
>>
>>The HAC4 costs a bit less and has the features you are looking for. The
>>backlight only lasts about 2 seconds, then you have to press the button
>>againg. Not very practical if you are riding at night.
>>
>>The polar cs200cad also should match your needs, but I don't know if
>>it's backlit.
>>
>>Francesco
>
>
> HAC 4 only shows current speed in integer increments (no tenths of a
> mile). That's almost as bad as useless.
>

Why? Which useful conclusion do you draw when you read for example a
speed of 30.5 km/h vs. 30?
Of course when you download the data it gives you the average speed with
2 decimals (which also may or may not be useful).

Francesco

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Brad Ford" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
> the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
> for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>
> 1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
> 2) heart rate
> 3) cadence
> 4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
> 5) wireless
>
> Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
> makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
> rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>
> Does anyone have suggestions?

No, not for the computer. Do you take into account that
many devices in urban and suburban environments will
trigger wireless cyclocomputers? I was doing 60 km / hr
while at a traffic stop one time. I get back from a ride
and I cannot trust the maximum speed because it often
displays impossible values; not that maximum speed is
important to me, only that other measurements become less
reliable.

--
Michael Press

 

[Antti Salonen]

Brad Ford <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
> the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
> for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>
> 1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
> 2) heart rate
> 3) cadence
> 4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
> 5) wireless

Polar has new cheaper cycle computers on the market. Even the cheapest
one, CS100 has everything you say you need. The price here is 110 euros
including a wireless speed sensor. Wireless cadence sensor is available
but optional.

In the 720/725, the two features that really set it apart from cheaper
alternatives are the altimeter and the possibility to download the
exercise data to your computer.

-as

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:12:12 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> "Brad Ford" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
>> the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
>> Does anyone have suggestions?
>
>No, not for the computer. Do you take into account that
>many devices in urban and suburban environments will
>trigger wireless cyclocomputers? I was doing 60 km / hr
>while at a traffic stop one time. I get back from a ride
>and I cannot trust the maximum speed because it often
>displays impossible values; not that maximum speed is
>important to me, only that other measurements become less
>reliable.

On the Polar Precision Software, you can correct anomalous readings
manually on your PC, either one at a time or across a spread of
readings by interpolating between two good points.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[damyth]

Francesco Devittori wrote:
> damyth wrote:
> > Francesco Devittori wrote:
> >
> >>Brad Ford wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
> >>>the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
> >>>for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
> >>>
> >>>1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
> >>>2) heart rate
> >>>3) cadence
> >>>4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
> >>>5) wireless
> >>>
> >>>Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
> >>>makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
> >>>rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
> >>>
> >>>Does anyone have suggestions?
> >>>
> >>>Thx.
> >>>
> >>>-B.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The HAC4 costs a bit less and has the features you are looking for. The
> >>backlight only lasts about 2 seconds, then you have to press the button
> >>againg. Not very practical if you are riding at night.
> >>
> >>The polar cs200cad also should match your needs, but I don't know if
> >>it's backlit.
> >>
> >>Francesco
> >
> >
> > HAC 4 only shows current speed in integer increments (no tenths of a
> > mile). That's almost as bad as useless.
> >
>
> Why? Which useful conclusion do you draw when you read for example a
> speed of 30.5 km/h vs. 30?
> Of course when you download the data it gives you the average speed with
> 2 decimals (which also may or may not be useful).
>
> Francesco

Well, considering that you (or I) don't know what the rounding
algorithm that computer uses, while the cycle comp displays 30 kmph
you could conceivably be anywhere from 29.5 to 30.4 kmph. And for most
people doing a time trial that's a sufficiently large enough
difference. And for us poor folks in the USA using imperial units, 0.9
miles=1.45 km. 0.9 mi "resolution" just ain't good enough.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
damyth ([email protected]) wrote:

> HAC 4 only shows current speed in integer increments (no tenths of a
> mile). That's almost as bad as useless.

So does a Cateye Mity 8 once you get over 60 km/h

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Nicht in die laufende Trommel greifen.

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On 19 Jan 2006 00:44:26 -0800, "damyth"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Francesco Devittori wrote:
>> damyth wrote:
>> > Francesco Devittori wrote:
>> >
>> >>Brad Ford wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I'm looking for a good cycling computer with many of the features of
>> >>>the Polar 720, but I'm having a hard time justifying a $300 purchase
>> >>>for a cyclometer. Here are the features that are important to me:
>> >>>
>> >>>1) The basics, of course (avg & max speed, distance, etc)
>> >>>2) heart rate
>> >>>3) cadence
>> >>>4) backlit (I frequently ride at night)
>> >>>5) wireless
>> >>>
>> >>>Altimeter would be a "nice to have" feature, but not essential. Cateye
>> >>>makes two wireless computers. One does cadence, the other does heart
>> >>>rate, but they don't sell one that does both (rats!).
>> >>>
>> >>>Does anyone have suggestions?
>> >>>
>> >>>Thx.
>> >>>
>> >>>-B.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>The HAC4 costs a bit less and has the features you are looking for. The
>> >>backlight only lasts about 2 seconds, then you have to press the button
>> >>againg. Not very practical if you are riding at night.
>> >>
>> >>The polar cs200cad also should match your needs, but I don't know if
>> >>it's backlit.
>> >>
>> >>Francesco
>> >
>> >
>> > HAC 4 only shows current speed in integer increments (no tenths of a
>> > mile). That's almost as bad as useless.
>> >
>>
>> Why? Which useful conclusion do you draw when you read for example a
>> speed of 30.5 km/h vs. 30?
>> Of course when you download the data it gives you the average speed with
>> 2 decimals (which also may or may not be useful).
>>
>> Francesco
>
>Well, considering that you (or I) don't know what the rounding
>algorithm that computer uses, while the cycle comp displays 30 kmph
>you could conceivably be anywhere from 29.5 to 30.4 kmph. And for most
>people doing a time trial that's a sufficiently large enough
>difference. And for us poor folks in the USA using imperial units, 0.9
>miles=1.45 km. 0.9 mi "resolution" just ain't good enough.

That's a bit silly; you shouldn't be riding to a certain speed, which
will be affected by terrain and wind, but to a level of effort judged
sustainable for the duration of the TT. The HRM will guide you on
this, but learning to do it on feel is the best way.

On the other hand, if you don't know the course well an trip meter in
tenths of a mile is essential to allow you to pick the point at which
to start winding it past your aerobic limit for the last half mile in
a short TT.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[john]

I know I'm beginning to sound like the preverbal broken record, but are
the 720/725 altimeters temperature compensated? IIRC, they are not. If
not, IMO, they are virtually useless as altimeters. An earlier poster
was concerned about fractions of a mile average speed. That is really
nothing, compared to random gains or losses of 400 feet in a few
minutes, caused by a jump of temp due to leaving the shade of trees
behind as one climbs closer to or above the tree and also by the heat
of ones arm.

 

[Antti Salonen]

john <[email protected]> wrote:

> I know I'm beginning to sound like the preverbal broken record, but are
> the 720/725 altimeters temperature compensated? IIRC, they are not. If
> not, IMO, they are virtually useless as altimeters. An earlier poster
> was concerned about fractions of a mile average speed. That is really
> nothing, compared to random gains or losses of 400 feet in a few
> minutes, caused by a jump of temp due to leaving the shade of trees
> behind as one climbs closer to or above the tree and also by the heat
> of ones arm.

When I used my S725 in the Alps, I noticed no such jumps. The computer
also has a thermometer, so it would be suprising if the altimeter WASN'T
temperature compensated. The only thing I did notice was that when I
climbed from 1000 to 2500 meters or so, the altimeter reading
consistently increased slightly less than it should have, but the error
was only about one percent or so.

Of course the altimeter can not compensate for changes in air pressure
at given altitude, but that is not a real problem. In general I would
consider the altimeter very accurate, although you obviously have to
calibrate it often if you want to see correct absolute readings and not
just correct relative changes in altitude.

The biggest real problem with Polars is the interference from power
lines and powered rail road tracks, but even that is a minor issue.

-as

 

[Lou Holtman]

"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I know I'm beginning to sound like the preverbal broken record, but are
> the 720/725 altimeters temperature compensated? IIRC, they are not.

I own a 720i and all I can tell is that the altimeter works great within the
limits of barometric changes. Since it has a temperature sensor, I would
expect that the altimeter is temperature compensated.

> If not, IMO, they are virtually useless as altimeters. An earlier poster
> was concerned about fractions of a mile average speed. That is really
> nothing, compared to random gains or losses of 400 feet in a few
> minutes, caused by a jump of temp due to leaving the shade of trees
> behind as one climbs closer to or above the tree and also by the heat
> of ones arm.

This is not the case with the 720/725.

Lou

 

[Andrew Price]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:12:12 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>No, not for the computer. Do you take into account that
>many devices in urban and suburban environments will
>trigger wireless cyclocomputers? I was doing 60 km / hr
>while at a traffic stop one time.

Indeed. Supermarket antti-theft detectors send them into a tizzy as
well. Until I gave up taking my Ciclo wireless with me when going
shopping, it regularly clocked up between 50 and 300 metres just going
past the entry turnstiles.

 

[john]

Dear Antti & Lou

I must be incorrect about 720/725 lack of temp compensation.
This is good, as I have owned one or another Polar heart monitor since
1984, but never one w/ a barometer.
I would like to get a 720/725.

Thanks, for your replies, John