Good wireless speedo/cadence meter

[* * Chas]

I'm looking for a good wireless speedo/odometer/cadence meter with a
pickup that mounts on the chainstay or seat stay.

I don't need an expensive super fancy over complicated device. Something
under $50 USD would be good price range.

Any suggestions?

Chas.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm looking for a good wireless speedo/odometer/cadence meter with a
> pickup that mounts on the chainstay or seat stay.
>
> I don't need an expensive super fancy over complicated device. Something
> under $50 USD would be good price range.
>
> Any suggestions?

Good and wireless are disjoint sets. I would mail you
my wireless for free, but it does not have the cadence
system. The maximum speed is always 90+ km/hr. The time
and distance appear realistic, but who knows? Thanks
for reminding me, I will get a Cateye Mity 8 wired
system in the next week or so.

--
Michael Press

 

[dalebenjamin]

* * Chas wrote:
> I'm looking for a good wireless speedo/odometer/cadence meter with a
> pickup that mounts on the chainstay or seat stay.
>
> I don't need an expensive super fancy over complicated device. Something
> under $50 USD would be good price range.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Chas.

My experience leads me to concur with Michael. I got a Filzer dB4LW-C
with wireless wheel sensor, wired cadence, and the receiver in the
display is way too sensitive, picks up vehicle ignitions or other
digital devices.

Have an Axiom A08C, all wired, with momentary cadence, about 600 miles
on city streets, still works fine, 2d cell, 3d magnet switch.

I took the Filzer apart and removed the antenna, now the cadence works
OK at least. It has momentary and average cadence, low 60s is my usual
over a ten mile ride.

I might have seen an all wired job that had momentary, average, and max
cadence beside the usual speedo/odo stuff last week, think it was $70.

 

[Solvang Cyclist]

"* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I'm looking for a good wireless speedo/odometer/cadence meter with a
> pickup that mounts on the chainstay or seat stay.
>
> I don't need an expensive super fancy over complicated device.
> Something under $50 USD would be good price range.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Chas.
>
>
>

What they said. (Forget wireless.)

The wireless systems always seem to be temperamental, the sensors are
HUGE and of course there's another battery to worry about. Another plus
to a wired system is that you will get more computer for your money than
what you would get by paying for the wireless feature.

I have two bikes with computers wired for both speed and cadence. The
wires, as well as both speed sensors, are "glued" to the frame using
silicone. The wires and sensors were held in place and the frame masked
with blue painter's tape prior to placing on the silicone bead. After
the silicone set, the masking tape was removed to provide a clean edge.
(Some smoothing of the edge is required before the silicone completely
dries.) I find this to be superior to the use of clear tape that some
people recommend and a VAST improvement over the nylon cable ties that
come with the computers.

The older bike has an (impossible to find now) TTT stem that has a hole
specifically designed to route the computer wires down the headtube. The
newer bike doesn't even have enough clearance between the tire and the
top of the fork to snake the wire past - even if modern stem designs
allowed for that. So for the new bike, the speed sensor wire is routed
down the front brake cable housing and both are contained in nylon weave
tubing
(http://cableorganizer.com/images/bentley-harris/expando-pt-plus.jpg)
that matches the cable housing color (in my case - black.) The cadence
wire was also enclosed with the nylon weave together with the front
derailleur cable housing until it got to the downtube. At that point the
wire exits the weave and is routed along the bottom of the downtube.

The installation took two of us several hours to complete - but the
results are well work the effort. The installation is even more
unobtrusive than a wireless system because the sensors are MUCH smaller.
And the old wire harness has been on the bike for about 20 years. I've
replaced the computer a few times, but since all wired computers use the
same simple reed switch for a sensor, I've always been able to connect
the old harness to the new computer (with a minor issue of cutting and
soldering the wires.)

If anyone is interested, I can take some photos of the details and post
them on the Web.

Cheers,
David

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:47:52 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> "* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a good wireless speedo/odometer/cadence meter with a
>> pickup that mounts on the chainstay or seat stay.
>>
>> I don't need an expensive super fancy over complicated device. Something
>> under $50 USD would be good price range.

>Good and wireless are disjoint sets. I would mail you
>my wireless for free, but it does not have the cadence
>system. The maximum speed is always 90+ km/hr. The time
>and distance appear realistic, but who knows? Thanks
>for reminding me, I will get a Cateye Mity 8 wired
>system in the next week or so.

I'll toss my hat in the ring for a Cateye as well. Mine's the Astrale,
which is basically the same thing as a Mity but with cadence sensor, and
the speed also in rear. I did have problems with wire length originally,
but after I lost the first one and bought a new one, I spliced the wiring
harnesses together and now I have one that works perfectly on my oversized
bike.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:29:57 -0600, Solvang Cyclist <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have two bikes with computers wired for both speed and cadence. The
>wires, as well as both speed sensors, are "glued" to the frame using
>silicone. The wires and sensors were held in place and the frame masked
>with blue painter's tape prior to placing on the silicone bead. After
>the silicone set, the masking tape was removed to provide a clean edge.
>(Some smoothing of the edge is required before the silicone completely
>dries.) I find this to be superior to the use of clear tape that some
>people recommend and a VAST improvement over the nylon cable ties that
>come with the computers.

Just next time buy a bike whose frame is painted black; on the sensors in
particular, black cable ties on black frame are much sturdier and just as
invisible (ie, not very).

You've still got a point for the cable routing, though.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:29:57 -0600, Solvang Cyclist <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I've
>replaced the computer a few times, but since all wired computers use the
>same simple reed switch for a sensor, I've always been able to connect
>the old harness to the new computer (with a minor issue of cutting and
>soldering the wires.)

My experience with cutting and soldering the Cateye sensor wires (I
spliced two harnesses together for length) was that it was pretty hard.
The wires they use don't take solder very well. I definitely wouldn't want
to be doing it while the whole thing was attached to a complete bike, with
the ends shortening each time you do it. If you do, of course, more power
to ya.

Also: If you route along the cables and expect to never loosen that,
you're not going to be able to replace the cables either -- and with speed
and cadence going to two completely different places over different
cables, it might be difficult to unwind the thing from the mount without
desoldering wires.

Jasper

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:29:57 -0600, Solvang Cyclist <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I've
> >replaced the computer a few times, but since all wired computers use the
> >same simple reed switch for a sensor, I've always been able to connect
> >the old harness to the new computer (with a minor issue of cutting and
> >soldering the wires.)
>
> My experience with cutting and soldering the Cateye sensor wires (I
> spliced two harnesses together for length) was that it was pretty hard.
> The wires they use don't take solder very well. I definitely wouldn't want
> to be doing it while the whole thing was attached to a complete bike, with
> the ends shortening each time you do it. If you do, of course, more power
> to ya.
>
> Also: If you route along the cables and expect to never loosen that,
> you're not going to be able to replace the cables either -- and with speed
> and cadence going to two completely different places over different
> cables, it might be difficult to unwind the thing from the mount without
> desoldering wires.

Do not need to solder the wires. Use the
Western Union splice.

<http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14176/css/14176_46.htm>

--
Michael Press

 

[Solvang Cyclist]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote in news:jack-AF1396.19544512112006
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:

> Do not need to solder the wires. Use the
> Western Union splice.

That's actually the splice I do, but then I cover the results with solder
(a little extra flux makes the soldering easier) and heat shrink tubing. Of
course, since the wires on the old bike have any excess stuffed in the
headtube, there's room to work. For the new one, the wires are wrapped
under the handlebar tape and therefore the splices will need to be as thin
as possible (if and when I need to change computers on it.)

Cheers,
David

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:54:43 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

<cateye sensor wires>

>Do not need to solder the wires. Use the
>Western Union splice.
>
><http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14176/css/14176_46.htm>

You've obviously never tried this with cateye sensor wire. Western union
splices are only mechanically strong if it's *wire*, rather than cable.
The cateye stuff is highly flexible, not single-copper-wire.

Also, I doubt it's that great an electrical connection without some
serious environmental shielding, that might be harder on a bike than on a
telegraph pole. I used pretty close to the WU splice, plus solder.
Staggered ones, no less.

Jasper

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:54:43 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <cateye sensor wires>
>
> >Do not need to solder the wires. Use the
> >Western Union splice.
> >
> ><http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14176/css/14176_46.htm>
>
> You've obviously never tried this with cateye sensor wire. Western union
> splices are only mechanically strong if it's *wire*, rather than cable.
> The cateye stuff is highly flexible, not single-copper-wire.
>
> Also, I doubt it's that great an electrical connection without some
> serious environmental shielding, that might be harder on a bike than on a
> telegraph pole. I used pretty close to the WU splice, plus solder.
> Staggered ones, no less.

Worked it on similar wires. There are easier splices
than 22 gauge stranded, but we do what we can with what
we have.

--
Michael Press

 

[Solvang Cyclist]

"* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote in news:
[email protected]:

> Thanks for all the feedback. I did some research a while back. With all
> of the inexpensive BlueTooth stuff available, I would have though that
> some company would have gotten away from standard RF senders.
>
>

The problem with Bluetooth for this application is that it requires too
much power - unless you want to have to recharge batteries in the pickup
units. (Remember that Bluetooth headsets and cell phones are recharged
quire often compared to replacing a battery in your cycle computer once a
year.) However, since Bluetooth is adding UWB (ultra wide band)
transmission to the spec, we may someday see a lower power Bluetooth
device, but for now bike computers are stuck with proprietary, low power,
RF designs. Actually, Bluetooth would be nice for allowing the cycle
computer to upload ride data to your laptop, but so far, nobody's making
such a thing.

Then again, there is also the low power Zigbee standard. It doesn't have
the bandwidth that Bluetooth offers, but since the cadence and speed
sensors are sending very limited data, it should work fine - and should
allow for very long battery life.

On the other hand, wireless in general for a bike computer is overkill
(except perhaps for the data upload feature above.) Given that the need
for electronics and batteries makes the sensor units quite large,
wireless offers no real advantage for producing a "clean" installation
vs. the wiring options that I suggested in my earlier post. Plus the
added complexity vs. a simple reed switch tends to lead to premature
failures for wireless systems. And of course, with the money you save on
the wireless electronics, you can get more features from the wired
computer at a lower price.

Cheers,
David

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:54:00 -0600, Solvang Cyclist <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On the other hand, wireless in general for a bike computer is overkill
>(except perhaps for the data upload feature above.) Given that the need
>for electronics and batteries makes the sensor units quite large,
>wireless offers no real advantage for producing a "clean" installation
>vs. the wiring options that I suggested in my earlier post. Plus the
>added complexity vs. a simple reed switch tends to lead to premature
>failures for wireless systems. And of course, with the money you save on
>the wireless electronics, you can get more features from the wired
>computer at a lower price.

This is one area where aheadsets may help. You could feed a wire down the
tube quite easily, especially if you use a compression plug rather than a
starnut for the initial tensioning. On the downside, you'd have to remove
it when you wanted to adjust the height of the stem or the headset
preload. You'd need a plug in there somewhere.


Jasper

 

[Solvang Cyclist]

Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Also: If you route along the cables and expect to never loosen that,
> you're not going to be able to replace the cables either -- and with
> speed and cadence going to two completely different places over
> different cables, it might be difficult to unwind the thing from the
> mount without desoldering wires.
>
>

Not at all. By using the woven cable cover over the cable and wire, it's
much easier to remove and replace the brake or derailleur cable than if you
use the "standard" method of winding the computer cable around the brake
cable. Simply remove the cable from the brake and the housing can be pulled
right out of the woven sheath.

Cheers,
David