I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly "bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen this model you'll know what I mean.
Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes, and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly get sucked in?
I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly "bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen this model you'll know what I mean.
Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes, and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly get sucked in?
if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0700, jim beam <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Paul said:
I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly "bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen this model you'll know what I mean.
Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes, and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly get sucked in?
if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0700, jim beam <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Paul said:
I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly "bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen this model you'll know what I mean.
Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes, and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly get sucked in?
if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.
I'm using wireless. The issue I'm worried about is the geometry of this sensor and whether it's really safe *behind* the fork, the way I see pretty much everyone do it. Hasn't anyone had an unfortunate accident this way? Maybe it's secure enough not to even venture into the spokes. The sensor (for those who haven't seen it) can be seen on the manual page: http://www.cateye.com/en/pdfs/MC100Wv2ENG.pdf
Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.
Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.
That's so it doesn't get caught on anything. Think weedless fishing hook.
If it bugs you so much, quitcherbitchin, and mount it on the other side. It will still work the same. Once the screw is tightened, it's not moving unless you break the bracket. Really.
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:52:12 -0700, jim beam <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Jeff Starr said:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0700, jim beam <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Paul wrote:
>I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or >anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about >something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly >"bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room >between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're >going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless >range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a >pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen >this model you'll know what I mean. > >Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on >this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes, >and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating >my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up >mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly >get sucked in? >
if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.
One word - Wireless!
eh? how exactly does that effect sensor location?
It doesn't, you told him that the cable was long enough. What cable? It's wireless.
I'm using wireless. The issue I'm worried about is the geometry of this sensor and whether it's really safe *behind* the fork, the way I see pretty much everyone do it. Hasn't anyone had an unfortunate accident this way? Maybe it's secure enough not to even venture into the spokes. The sensor (for those who haven't seen it) can be seen on the manual page: cateye.comMC100Wv2ENG.pdfOpen ↗
Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.[/QUOTE]
It looks to me from the diagrams that you can mount it on the front of the fork and be well within the range of the receiver. It should work ok and if it does for some reason move into the spokes it would be knocked outwards rather than hammered inwards.
I'm using wireless. The issue I'm worried about is the geometry of this sensor and whether it's really safe *behind* the fork, the way I see pretty much everyone do it. Hasn't anyone had an unfortunate accident this way? Maybe it's secure enough not to even venture into the spokes. The sensor (for those who haven't seen it) can be seen on the manual page: http://www.cateye.com/en/pdfs/MC100Wv2ENG.pdf
Note how it's supposed to angle into the spokes from behind the fork.
It looks to me in diagram B that you only rotate it far enough to get the gap right.
I always try to mount sensors on the front of the fork since the spokes are traveling in that direction and it seems safer to me. To keep the strap ties from slipping, I put tape over them on the inside of the fork blade.
not tochange the subject - butbutbut how does one mount the sensor if the wheel isn't 36 spokes? like 36 spokes geometry is cateye sensor standard, no? ifn yawl mount the sensor with 32 or less spokes??? where's it go?
I have used a Cateye Micro Wireless on a folding 20" bike as well as a 26", both mounted to the front of the fork.
On the folding bike the sensor to computer distance was close to the 700mm maximum. I found that I needed a good line of sight between the two with the base of the computer pointing to the transmitter/sensor. Otherwise operation could be unreliable, especially in cold weather.
My recomendation is to use whatever configuration works well with your forks (and brakes) keeping line of sight in mind.
I suspect that carbon forks would shield the radio signal as much as metal forks since the carbon fibres are (likley to be) conductive.
jim beam said:
Jeff Starr said:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0700, jim beam <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Paul wrote:
>I have a new Cateye Micro Wireless cycle computer (no cadence or >anything, just a front-tire speed computer) and I wonder about >something regarding how I mounted the sensor.. My fork is fairly >"bladed", as many carbon forks are, and there's also not a lot of room >between the fork and the spokes. This particular model assumes you're >going to mount it on the back of the fork (high up due to the wireless >range limits, I guess) and then the thing makes a 90 degree turn on a >pivot in order to place it near the magnetted spoke. If you've seen >this model you'll know what I mean. > >Well, this is all well and good but that would put it IN the spokes on >this bike. So, I have it turned out enough so it's not IN the spokes, >and it works. BUT - am I running a serious risk of it ending up eating >my spokes some day? Have other folks had problem with this and end up >mounting their sensor on the FRONT of the fork so it cannot possibly >get sucked in? >
if it worries you, front mount it - it still works. you can also mount closer to the hub - the cable's long enough for that and there's much less wheel flex relative to the sensor down there.
