GPS or Traditional bike computer

[datakoll]

Paddlenews from Backpacker sez if no moss:

TIP #10. Use your watch as a compass. If you are lost without a
compass, point the hour hand of your watch at the sun. Halfway between
the hour hand and the 12 on the watch will be south. This even works
with Daylight Saving Time.

 

[Tom Sherman]

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> Paddlenews from Backpacker sez if no moss:
>
> TIP #10. Use your watch as a compass. If you are lost without a
> compass, point the hour hand of your watch at the sun. Halfway between
> the hour hand and the 12 on the watch will be south. This even works
> with Daylight Saving Time.

I have never owned a watch with hands on it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Booker Bense]

In article <3057f4[email protected]>,
steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
>Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
>incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
>etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
>required.
>I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
>GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
>merits of both systems?

Garmin uses a wheel sensor as backup if you get the cadence
option.

> Which is more accurate. On the surface it
>seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
>then what do I know.

Wheel sensors are only more accurate if you know the true rollout
distance, figuring this out is harder than you might think.

> However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
>and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
>comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.

Yes it's really true. The Edge is not particularly convenient for
looking at while running, but it provides a nice summary
after-wards.

The Garmin Edge with the latest software is a very nice tool.
It's not a great GPS, but it has some interesting features that
just aren't available on any other system. I've no idea whether
the features of the Edge would be useful to you, but I like mine
a lot. It does pretty much every thing it says it does in
reasonably accurate fashion. There are occasional glitches and
it doesn't like below freezing temps very much, but it's a fun
toy.

_ Booker C. Bense

 

[Booker Bense]

In article <f27ffb[email protected]>,
Brian Huntley <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 9:35 pm, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't use either of them. I stopped caring how far I'd come and how
>> fast I'd travelled a while back. I just ride; when I get there, I get
>> there.
>
>I can see that when you're out for a ride, but when you're bicycle
>touring it's sure handy to know how far you are to the next food/water/
>camp/turn, assuming you also have some knowledge of what's ahead. Even
>if you don't, it's a good reminder to stop and eat or whatever, before
>you bonk without realizing it.
>
>I can also think of a few times it would have been nice to have a GPS
>instead of a bike computer, just so I could turn it off for a while
>and not be reminded about the horrible lack of headway I was making
>into the wind.

The Garmin Edge would be pretty terrible for that kind of use. No
maps.

_ Booker C. Bense

 

[[email protected]]

Booker Bense writes:

>> I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless
>> Bike Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read
>> altitude, incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual
>> speed time etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice
>> but not required.

>> I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin
>> is GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What
>> are the merits of both systems?

> Garmin uses a wheel sensor as backup if you get the cadence option.

>> Which is more accurate. On the surface it seems to me that the
>> Polar would measure distance more accurately but then what do I
>> know.

> Wheel sensors are only more accurate if you know the true rollout
> distance, figuring this out is harder than you might think.

Fear monger! What's hard about measuring the distance the bicycle
makes, on your floor from the valve stem at the bottom to when it is
again at the bottom, with normal inflation and rider position? If you
can operate a KBD you are smart enough to do that and measure it in
the units the manual gives. Mine accepts mm or inches.

Jobst Brandt

 

[datakoll]

the roller is more accurate here if set up correctly on actual wheel
travel.
The Garmin 76 gets me down I-95 and unbelievably bang right on Kayak
Jeff's doorstep but is inaccurate measuring a mile or two or 1.2 or
1.15 or..for a straight line running distance.
cateye's enduro is accurate using a fresh rubber measure to 2-3 feet
over 5-6 miles on grippy asphalt.