Sigma Sport BC1600 average speed

[Derek]

I recently bought a Sigma Sport BC1600 cycle computer and have since
read in this newsgroup that it overestimates the average speed. That's
a bit disappointing but at least I can calculate it later on. But what
about the actual and maximum speeds - are they also incorrect?

Apart from that the unit seems okay; I wanted a cadence function and
this was cheap. Otherwise I would have stuck with my Cateye Mity 3.

Thanks,
Derek

 

[giantbike]

I recently bought a Sigma Sport BC1600 cycle computer and have since
read in this newsgroup that it overestimates the average speed. That's
a bit disappointing but at least I can calculate it later on. But what
about the actual and maximum speeds - are they also incorrect?

Apart from that the unit seems okay; I wanted a cadence function and
this was cheap. Otherwise I would have stuck with my Cateye Mity 3.

Thanks,
Derek

Hmmm ... Strangely that I got the Polar 725 and the BC1600 side by side on all rides,and they seem to agree with each others with the average speeds.I might double check them more closely then.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

giantbike wrote:
>
> Derek Wrote:
> > I recently bought a Sigma Sport BC1600 cycle computer and have since
> > read in this newsgroup that it overestimates the average speed. That's
> > a bit disappointing but at least I can calculate it later on. But what
> > about the actual and maximum speeds - are they also incorrect?
> >
> > Apart from that the unit seems okay; I wanted a cadence function and
> > this was cheap. Otherwise I would have stuck with my Cateye Mity 3.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Derek
>
> Hmmm ... Strangely that I got the Polar 725 and the BC1600 side by side
> on all rides,and they seem to agree with each others with the average
> speeds.I might double check them more closely then.
>
> --
> giantbike

I didn't notice a problem with mine, but then, I never bothered to
check. Plus I've got a smaller wheelsize programmed in, to encourage me
to go faster. It's always a nice surprise when I finish and find I was
averaging 1 km/h faster.

Tam

 

[flyingdutch]

I didn't notice a problem with mine, but then, I never bothered to
check. Plus I've got a smaller wheelsize programmed in, to encourage me
to go faster. It's always a nice surprise when I finish and find I was
averaging 1 km/h faster.

Tam

cheater!!!

The most serious discussion on any BR ride has been the need (from the slow ones. runs away ) to sync speedos/wheel circumference

 

[Tamyka Bell]

flyingdutch wrote:
>
> Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> >
> > I didn't notice a problem with mine, but then, I never bothered to
> > check. Plus I've got a smaller wheelsize programmed in, to encourage
> > me
> > to go faster. It's always a nice surprise when I finish and find I was
> > averaging 1 km/h faster.
> >
> > Tam
>
> cheater!!!
>
> The most serious discussion on any BR ride has been the need (from the
> slow ones. runs away ) to sync speedos/wheel circumference
>
> --
> flyingdutch

It's not cheating! I check my speedo, and I think, damn, that was
slow... then my official results come out and I feel way faster, totally
legit!

 

[TimC]

On 2005-06-03, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> giantbike wrote:
>> Hmmm ... Strangely that I got the Polar 725 and the BC1600 side by side
>> on all rides,and they seem to agree with each others with the average
>> speeds.I might double check them more closely then.
>
> I didn't notice a problem with mine, but then, I never bothered to
> check. Plus I've got a smaller wheelsize programmed in, to encourage me
> to go faster.

You're not one of these freaks who set their watch fast so they'll
never be late for events, even though you know precisely how fast your
watch is?


--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
DJ - "Isn't it pathetic to quote yourself?"
David Barnes - "No, not when you are as good as me"

 

[Tamyka Bell]

TimC wrote:
>
> On 2005-06-03, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > giantbike wrote:
> >> Hmmm ... Strangely that I got the Polar 725 and the BC1600 side by side
> >> on all rides,and they seem to agree with each others with the average
> >> speeds.I might double check them more closely then.
> >
> > I didn't notice a problem with mine, but then, I never bothered to
> > check. Plus I've got a smaller wheelsize programmed in, to encourage me
> > to go faster.
>
> You're not one of these freaks who set their watch fast so they'll
> never be late for events, even though you know precisely how fast your
> watch is?

Nope. I set my watch fast because my army boss sets her watch fast. So I
aim for five minutes before five minutes before, and that's before her
time, which is another five minutes before things start. Then I wait for
half an hour, because the big boss has something else to do.

Tam

 

[aeek]

I recently bought a Sigma Sport BC1600 cycle computer and have since
read in this newsgroup that it overestimates the average speed. That's
a bit disappointing but at least I can calculate it later on. But what
about the actual and maximum speeds - are they also incorrect?

I've been very happy with a BC1200 which was also rather weird on average speeds. I think it fed the readings thru a pipeline somehow so the average could go down as I was going faster. I miss the resetting the functions individually.
Clearing MAX for each descent especially. No probs with actual & maximum speeds.

 

[Derek]

aeek wrote:
>
> Clearing MAX for each descent especially. No probs with actual &
> maximum speeds.

That's a good idea, I'd wondered why you'd want to reset things
individually. With my old computer, I'd often wondered what my max was
for hills but didn't want to reset everything else. I'll use that
function now, thanks!

 

[Derek]

giantbike wrote:

> Hmmm ... Strangely that I got the Polar 725 and the BC1600 side by side
> on all rides,and they seem to agree with each others with the average
> speeds.I might double check them more closely then.

If I use the recorded distance and ride time to calculate my average
speed, then it is less than the displayed average. About 1 km/h less
over my 9 km commute, I'll find out what the difference is for longer
rides this weekend.

 

[Michael Warner]

On 2 Jun 2005 22:28:49 -0700, Derek wrote:

> I recently bought a Sigma Sport BC1600 cycle computer and have since
> read in this newsgroup that it overestimates the average speed. That's
> a bit disappointing but at least I can calculate it later on. But what
> about the actual and maximum speeds - are they also incorrect?
>
> Apart from that the unit seems okay; I wanted a cadence function and
> this was cheap. Otherwise I would have stuck with my Cateye Mity 3.

I got one recently, and its averages seem to agree with those of others
on the same ride. It was indeed cheap for a unit with a cadence sensor,
and further discounted for not having a manual, which I was quite
happy to download from the net. AFAIK Sigmas are unique in that you can
rotate the mount and put it on the stem, leaving the bars free for two
other gadgets (light and HRM in my case). I like the display more than
those of the Cateyes, too.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

 

[Daniel S]

Derek wrote:
> I recently bought a Sigma Sport BC1600 cycle computer and have since
> read in this newsgroup that it overestimates the average speed. That's
> a bit disappointing but at least I can calculate it later on. But what
> about the actual and maximum speeds - are they also incorrect?
>
> Apart from that the unit seems okay; I wanted a cadence function and
> this was cheap. Otherwise I would have stuck with my Cateye Mity 3.
>
> Thanks,
> Derek
>
They are cheap but you will notice that plenty of pros use them. I think
the speed discrepencies may be related to it registering when you are
stopped. Maybe the ride time keeps ticking but not the avg? I should
really test it out one day.....