Flight Deck



kdelong

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2006
3,477
134
48
Camilo said:
But what's wrong with that? Nothing. Surely it's not confusing to see a calculated cadence when you're not actually pedaling? In fact it could be considered better in that it will tell you what you'd better be prepared to pedal at when you quit coasting and start pedaling. If I see a reading of 150 when I'm coasting, I know I might as well keep coasting because pedaling is not going to help and might make me more unstable than just sitting in the drops in a stable, aero position.

It seems silly to me to have two computers on the bars just to replace a calculated cadence with the exact same cadence read out except "actual". Both are accurate.

My bias: the flight deck computer is one of the best innovations since I've been using computers (early-mid 90s). Buttons on hoods are great, easier and safer than buttons on the computer head.
I personally have nothing against the Flight Deck, I use one myself but I don't train to compete. Most of the competive riders that I know want the actual cadence rather than the virtual cadence so that they know what their cadence is, not what it should be.

My recomendation to the OP was that he keep his Cateye and not add a Flight Deck as the Cateye will give him all the same information that the Flight Deck does except for showing what gear he is in. Plus the Cateye will give him real time cadence rather than a computed cadence which is not always the most accurate reading of the true cadence. Another plus is that he doesn't need to reprogram his computer if he decides to use a different selection of gearing on his cassette or chain rings. You have to do that with the Flight Deck as I found out last week.
 

Camilo

Member
Apr 5, 2007
391
6
18
[Edit - just ralized that this might seem defensive or argumentative - don't intend it as such, just intending a discussion]

I still don't understand what the difference between calculated cadence and actual - I don't believe there would be a difference between the two or if there was it would be meaningless, except when coasting. It's a simple mechanical calculation based on crank length, sprockets (front and back) and tire size and is accurate. But that's just me. The cadence isn't a selling point for Flight Deck - many computers have cadence, and to me the "wireless" cadence of FD is not a meaningful feature. My opinion is that they do it that way mostly because they can - their computer is designed to "know" the sprocket teeth and there fore is able to do it via calculation and therefore not need the additional wiring and pick up. But that's not important to me personally.

To me the selling points are the in-hood controls and the graphic gearing read out. I've been riding road bikes since the 70s (no newby) and think these features are really very useful and safer/easier to use. Yes, I rode for years with downtube friction shifters and developed the ability to pretty much know what gears I was in either by remembering or by lightly touching the shift handles to see what position they were in. But like most riders I also glanced down and/or back to see for myself from time to time.

Now I never have to do that - better and safer. I also don't ahve to take my hands off the bars to scroll through the data I like to look at on the computer.
 

kdelong

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2006
3,477
134
48
Camilo said:
[Edit - just ralized that this might seem defensive or argumentative - don't intend it as such, just intending a discussion]

I still don't understand what the difference between calculated cadence and actual - I don't believe there would be a difference between the two or if there was it would be meaningless, except when coasting. It's a simple mechanical calculation based on crank length, sprockets (front and back) and tire size and is accurate. But that's just me. The cadence isn't a selling point for Flight Deck - many computers have cadence, and to me the "wireless" cadence of FD is not a meaningful feature. My opinion is that they do it that way mostly because they can - their computer is designed to "know" the sprocket teeth and there fore is able to do it via calculation and therefore not need the additional wiring and pick up. But that's not important to me personally.

To me the selling points are the in-hood controls and the graphic gearing read out. I've been riding road bikes since the 70s (no newby) and think these features are really very useful and safer/easier to use. Yes, I rode for years with downtube friction shifters and developed the ability to pretty much know what gears I was in either by remembering or by lightly touching the shift handles to see what position they were in. But like most riders I also glanced down and/or back to see for myself from time to time.

Now I never have to do that - better and safer. I also don't ahve to take my hands off the bars to scroll through the data I like to look at on the computer.
I whole heartedly agree with the convinience of the control buttons located in the brifter hoods. I have heard reports that the contacts in the hoods can be rather finicky at times, but mine are working flawlessly. I also like having the graphic display of the gearing, but it disappears too quickly. It seems to only be displayed for a couple of seconds after a shift and then disappears until I shift again.

By the way......isn't scrolling through your cycling computer while you are riding a little like texting while driving:rolleyes:?
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
kdelong said:
By the way......isn't scrolling through your cycling computer while you are riding a little like texting while driving:rolleyes:?

Yeah, that stuck me a bit strange, too. Having to move a hand to scroll through data maybe compromises control, a tad, but watching your computer as you scroll through data? That's like the statistical difference between crashes involving hand held cell phone users and hands free cell phone users, i.e. the difference is, uhm, nil.
 

Camilo

Member
Apr 5, 2007
391
6
18
alienator said:
Yeah, that stuck me a bit strange, too. Having to move a hand to scroll through data maybe compromises control, a tad, but watching your computer as you scroll through data? That's like the statistical difference between crashes involving hand held cell phone users and hands free cell phone users, i.e. the difference is, uhm, nil.

There's only a few features I use. After a few rides, I remember the number of button pushes needed to go from one to another. So (this is just an example, not necessarily based in actuality), let's say I want to go from total or lap distance to cadence or time or something. I just push the button X times and then glance at the read-out. The only difference with the hood buttons vs. conventional computer buttons is that I don't have to take my hands off the hoods to push the buttons. I think this is a great feature.

Makes me think that it would be pretty easy for any computer maker to have controls that could be added somewhere on the handlebars or hoods, wired under the tape to the computer.
 

kdelong

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2006
3,477
134
48
Camilo said:
There's only a few features I use. After a few rides, I remember the number of button pushes needed to go from one to another. So (this is just an example, not necessarily based in actuality), let's say I want to go from total or lap distance to cadence or time or something. I just push the button X times and then glance at the read-out. The only difference with the hood buttons vs. conventional computer buttons is that I don't have to take my hands off the hoods to push the buttons. I think this is a great feature.

Makes me think that it would be pretty easy for any computer maker to have controls that could be added somewhere on the handlebars or hoods, wired under the tape to the computer.
This is great if you ride on the hoods all the time, but some people ride in the drops and some ride on the tops of the bars.

Also there are a lot of people who use flat MTB type handlebars. I don't believe that Shimano makes any buttons for use with these type handlebars.

I suppose that it is reasonable to say, in regards to the Flight Deck, that what works for some does not work for all, but isn't that just about right for all cycling components?
 

vspa

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2009
2,203
76
0
i have a Flight Deck unit on my touring road bike and i cannot understand why it doesn't have an autostart feature... for me that is the basic-of-basics things to expect, so to speak
(moreover if you guys say it was developed by Cateye)
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
kdelong said:
I suppose that it is reasonable to say, in regards to the Flight Deck, that what works for some does not work for all, but isn't that just about right for all cycling components?

I think that about sums it up.