HAC4 vs. Polar CS200

waverider said:

Hello,

I'm currently looking at these two cyclocomputers/HRM's. I can get the Polar CS200 w/o cadence for $140 and the HAC4 w/o cadence for $180. I like the altimeter function on the HAC4, but I also like the main display on the CS200 which shows you much more info without having to push buttons. Any recommendations?

Thanks!

I've got the HAC4+ w/cadence. It's a nice computer and I haven't minded the display since I usually just set it up before a ride and then leave it alone. The display is crystal clear in bright sunlight (nice feature). The altitude function works like all the others and is therefore pretty useless for absolute altitude after the first few minutes. I only use the climb grade function, which is sometimes nice to know. The feature I like most is the 2 countdown timers (sequential) for intervals. FWIW, I also have a Polar and the HAC4 seems to have a more "stable" HR -- may be the averaging interval. I just find it annoying when the Polar jumps around.

I don't think stores are going to be getting the CS200 until the end of July, so good luck finding a review or an opinion. FWIW, for a few pesos more, you can get the CS200cad (er, the CS200 w/ cadence.). Hopefully battery life will be nearly as good as what they profess it will be.

I purchased the CS200 from Nashbar about 3 weeks ago. It has worked GREAT for me!! I purchased the wireless cadence sensor, and added that to the mix. It is very convenient having all three primary uses in one device. The only drawback I can find so far is the speed sensor was dead out of box, but I was able to swap it out with out to much trouble. Other than that, everything has worked as advertised or better.

waverider said:

Hello,

I'm currently looking at these two cyclocomputers/HRM's. I can get the Polar CS200 w/o cadence for $140 and the HAC4 w/o cadence for $180. I like the altimeter function on the HAC4, but I also like the main display on the CS200 which shows you much more info without having to push buttons. Any recommendations?

Thanks!

I've been using the Polar CS200CAD (with cadence) for over a month now and several hundred miles. It works well and I like the fact that I can upload my data through the Polar Weblink and keep track of my training on their website. My only compaint is that the reporting capability is limited. I would like to be able to print detailed daily, weekly, and monthly reports to keep and review. Also, occasionally I get an eroneous heart rate reading (over 200 beats per minute) when I lean over too far in the drops. I'm 49 so that would be quite a max heart rate. I believe that it's a great computer for the money!

I could be wrong, but doesn't the HAC4 also do power output? Might be nice to have.

ToffoIsMe said:

I could be wrong, but doesn't the HAC4 also do power output? Might be nice to have.

It does, but it's imputed power (from speed, grade, etc.) and it's basically worthless.

krpoin said:

I've been using the Polar CS200CAD (with cadence) for over a month now and several hundred miles. It works well and I like the fact that I can upload my data through the Polar Weblink and keep track of my training on their website. My only compaint is that the reporting capability is limited. I would like to be able to print detailed daily, weekly, and monthly reports to keep and review. Also, occasionally I get an eroneous heart rate reading (over 200 beats per minute) when I lean over too far in the drops. I'm 49 so that would be quite a max heart rate. I believe that it's a great computer for the money!

Been using my CS200cad for six months/2,000 miles. Sensors dead or weak out of the box is not uncommon. Erroneous heart rate readings are a fact of life, especially when cars come by too close. The so-called coded HR transmitter is a joke - my odl Sigma HR picks up the Polar's signal, and if my wife's using the Sigma, it screws up the signal on the Polar. Otherwise I'm pretty happy with it - displays what I need to see, although I agree the website's a bit clunky.

RapDaddyo said:

It does, but it's imputed power (from speed, grade, etc.) and it's basically worthless.

Isn't that how the tacx trainers calculate power, too? A lot of people seem to use those.

p.s. sorry if it seems like I'm high jacking the thread, just doing some learning.

ToffoIsMe said:

Isn't that how the tacx trainers calculate power, too? A lot of people seem to use those.
.

In a similar vein, anyone know how the CS200 works out calories burned? I assume it's worked out on speed and heart rate, so if you're climbing slowly it thinks you're using less energy than if you're spinning along on the flat at the same effort.

ToffoIsMe said:

Isn't that how the tacx trainers calculate power, too? A lot of people seem to use those.

p.s. sorry if it seems like I'm high jacking the thread, just doing some learning.

For trainers, it's a little different issue. The issue is speed (easily calculated) and the power required to attain the speed by overcoming the total resistance. Resistance of trainers changes as a result of heating up, the resistance setting and tire/tire pressure differences. While not completely accurate, it's possible to predict power on some trainers within a reasonable error factor. On the road, the resistances are much more complex and requires sophisticated sensors. The only device I am aware of that stands a chance of imputing power as a function of resistances (as opposed to directly measuring power at some point on the drivetrain) is the new iBike computer. The iBike uses an accelerometer, barometric pressure gauge and anemometer to measure resistances. Even then, it's not yet clear (to me) how accurately the iBike computes power in all conditions (e.g., uphill, downhill, upwind, downwind, short accelerations, different bike positions, wind gusts, paceline riding, etc.).

RapDaddyo said:

For trainers, it's a little different issue. The issue is speed (easily calculated) and the power required to attain the speed by overcoming the total resistance. Resistance of trainers changes as a result of heating up, the resistance setting and tire/tire pressure differences. While not completely accurate, it's possible to predict power on some trainers within a reasonable error factor. On the road, the resistances are much more complex and requires sophisticated sensors. The only device I am aware of that stands a chance of imputing power as a function of resistances (as opposed to directly measuring power at some point on the drivetrain) is the new iBike computer. The iBike uses an accelerometer, barometric pressure gauge and anemometer to measure resistances. Even then, it's not yet clear (to me) how accurately the iBike computes power in all conditions (e.g., uphill, downhill, upwind, downwind, short accelerations, different bike positions, wind gusts, paceline riding, etc.).

Ok, I think I get it now. I never heard of iBike before. Do you have a link with more info?

ToffoIsMe said:

Ok, I think I get it now. I never heard of iBike before. Do you have a link with more info?

Here's the company's website ibikesports.comdefault.aspxOpen ↗. But, they have just recently shipped the first units (~9 months late) and there aren't many user reports yet. There are a few people with PT or SRM power meters who are planning to ride various efforts with the iBike unit and compare the results (to the PT and/or SRM). It's still too early to draw any conclusions about the iBike unit's acccuracy and consistency under all training situations. Chances are that it is accurate in some situations and inaccurate in others. It will then be an individual decision as to whether the situations under which the iBike is inaccurate matters or not. Keep an eye on the Power Forum here for user reports on the iBike. There are a couple of threads on the iBike now.

There are some user comments on iBike in this Weight Weenies thread. The consensus seems to be that it's a pretty good device, with a lot of potential. There is some question as to its absolute accuracy, but how often does someone need to know exactly the power they're producing? Its relative accuracy seems to be fine, which is probably all that matters. After all, for training what you want to see is how you're improving or not improving relative to a previous condition.

If iBike has any problem it's that you can lose readout on roads that exceed a certain bumpiness. This is to be expected, though, given that the unit relies, in part, on the use of accelerometers. According to the users, it doesn't lose signal that often.

As a first iteration, it seems as though the iBike guys did a nice job, especially given how relatively cheap the unit is. I suspect follow on units will be even better and that they'll fix the accelerometer issue on bumpy roads with either a hardware fix or some sort of signal damping via software.

iBike definitely gets an A+ for innovation.