Wireless or wired computer?

[[email protected]]

Bought my first wireless bike computer, a Sigma Sport and had a
horrible time getting it to work. Unless I physically moved the
computer below my handlebars, I couldn't get the pairing to work or get
a speed reading (and I was well within the specs for distance and
angle).

Was also disappointed in the size of the sensors/transmitters (speed
and cadence). Returned the unit to my LBS.

I'm assuming my experience was atypical, but are wireless computers as
reliable as wired? I was going to try a different brand wireless (like
the new CatEye CC-MC100W), but if these units are all flaky, I'll stick
with a traditional wired computer. Don't want big bulky
sensors/transmitters and want rock solid information with no delay.

I liked cadence on my old unit, but decided I don't even need it. Just
want a simple front wheel unit with the usual functions.

Also, am I the only one that doesn't want to see all information at
once? I like to keep my average speed (and/or ride time) a surprise
until the ride is over. My old unit lacked a pace arrow, which I hated
it first and then grew to love. I found seeing a lower-than-expected
average speed was a psychological blow. I like to push hard until the
end of the ride and hope for a pleasant surprise. So I don't look at
my average until I unclip and stop.

 

[Werehatrack]

On 18 Jul 2006 19:51:23 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Bought my first wireless bike computer, a Sigma Sport and had a
>horrible time getting it to work. Unless I physically moved the
>computer below my handlebars, I couldn't get the pairing to work or get
>a speed reading (and I was well within the specs for distance and
>angle).
>
>Was also disappointed in the size of the sensors/transmitters (speed
>and cadence). Returned the unit to my LBS.
>
>I'm assuming my experience was atypical, but are wireless computers as
>reliable as wired?

That depends on a number of things.

Wireless computers never fail due to a broken sensor lead.

Wired computers are seldom subject to interference from outside
signals.

I've had wired units that were useless. (They were Nashbar's house
brand, FWIW.) OTOH, I haven't bought any wireless ones because my
Cateye wired unit works perfectly well on those occasions when I want
to ride a bike that has a comp. Mostly, I ride the other ones,
though; I'm much less interested in the process than the destination
and the route.

>I was going to try a different brand wireless (like
>the new CatEye CC-MC100W), but if these units are all flaky, I'll stick
>with a traditional wired computer. Don't want big bulky
>sensors/transmitters and want rock solid information with no delay.
>
>I liked cadence on my old unit, but decided I don't even need it. Just
>want a simple front wheel unit with the usual functions.
>
>Also, am I the only one that doesn't want to see all information at
>once? I like to keep my average speed (and/or ride time) a surprise
>until the ride is over. My old unit lacked a pace arrow, which I hated
>it first and then grew to love. I found seeing a lower-than-expected
>average speed was a psychological blow. I like to push hard until the
>end of the ride and hope for a pleasant surprise. So I don't look at
>my average until I unclip and stop.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Michael Halliwell]

[email protected] wrote:

>Bought my first wireless bike computer, a Sigma Sport and had a
>horrible time getting it to work. Unless I physically moved the
>computer below my handlebars, I couldn't get the pairing to work or get
>a speed reading (and I was well within the specs for distance and
>angle).
>
>Was also disappointed in the size of the sensors/transmitters (speed
>and cadence). Returned the unit to my LBS.
>
>I'm assuming my experience was atypical, but are wireless computers as
>reliable as wired? I was going to try a different brand wireless (like
>the new CatEye CC-MC100W), but if these units are all flaky, I'll stick
>with a traditional wired computer. Don't want big bulky
>sensors/transmitters and want rock solid information with no delay.
>
>I liked cadence on my old unit, but decided I don't even need it. Just
>want a simple front wheel unit with the usual functions.
>
>Also, am I the only one that doesn't want to see all information at
>once? I like to keep my average speed (and/or ride time) a surprise
>until the ride is over. My old unit lacked a pace arrow, which I hated
>it first and then grew to love. I found seeing a lower-than-expected
>average speed was a psychological blow. I like to push hard until the
>end of the ride and hope for a pleasant surprise. So I don't look at
>my average until I unclip and stop.
>
>
>
Myself, I'm not hung up on all that a computer will keep track of, but I
like to keep tabs on the info after the ride....i.e. I like to keep
track of distance and enjoy seeing how my average speeds or ride
distances have come up over time as I have become more fit. My more
pressing concern is speed as we have a few cops who love pulling over
bikes in school/playground zones and there are a couple places locally
where a sprint across a bridge is well worth it...the faster I'm going,
the less likely I'll become a hood ornament so seeing the number helps.
On the trails, computers are not anywhere near as useful, but it is
still nice to get an idea how fast is "pushing" a section and if any
mods to the bike have helped.

I run wired myself as I find them a little easier to set up and a little
more robust for when I have my bike out on the trails (yeah, I only have
one and it's a mountain bike). I have killed a sensor or two in
wipe-outs or on snags, but I find as long as you're willing to route the
wires in a common sense way and not be afraid of a couple extra zip ties
to hold the wires where you put them, they're pretty good about staying
in one piece.

As an FYI, I use a Filzer computer from MEC right now, but have used Cat
Eye units in the past, both with good results.

Michael Halliwell

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bought my first wireless bike computer, a Sigma Sport and had a
> horrible time getting it to work. Unless I physically moved the
> computer below my handlebars, I couldn't get the pairing to work or
> get a speed reading (and I was well within the specs for distance and
> angle).
>
> Was also disappointed in the size of the sensors/transmitters (speed
> and cadence). Returned the unit to my LBS.
>
> I'm assuming my experience was atypical, but are wireless computers as
> reliable as wired? I was going to try a different brand wireless
> (like the new CatEye CC-MC100W), but if these units are all flaky,
> I'll stick with a traditional wired computer. Don't want big bulky
> sensors/transmitters and want rock solid information with no delay.
>
> I liked cadence on my old unit, but decided I don't even need it.
> Just want a simple front wheel unit with the usual functions.
>
> Also, am I the only one that doesn't want to see all information at
> once? I like to keep my average speed (and/or ride time) a surprise
> until the ride is over. My old unit lacked a pace arrow, which I
> hated it first and then grew to love. I found seeing a
> lower-than-expected average speed was a psychological blow. I like
> to push hard until the end of the ride and hope for a pleasant
> surprise. So I don't look at my average until I unclip and stop.

My wireless cyclometers (an old Specialized that was dormant in the garage
for years until I bought a road bike and a new Cateye 7 that I got for my
second road bike) both work flawlessly. Only problems have been with the
magnet-sensor pickup (had to be REALLY close on the new bike -- now it's
better because I had to buy a new magnet to work on bladed spokes and it
seems to be more reliable); and with cold weather (the old Specialized would
kind of go to sleep in cold temps; didn't seem to be a battery problem,
either).

As for the other part, I almost always just leave mine in "shows current
speed and total distance" mode. Only exception is when I want to time
something (TT laps or the outside hill at Torrey Pines) -- helps me push it
as my goal time approaches.

I prefer wireless just for the cleaner look. I've never tried any of the
"fancy" units that do cadence, calories burned and even heart rate. Just
the facts, man.

Sorno

 

[res09c5t]

Another common differnce (at least on the ones we've owned) is that after
stopping for a while, the wired ones will automatically restart themselves.
You have to remember to turn the wireless ones back on.
Also, the wireless ones have another battery to be concerned about.
My wireless computers generally worked fine but took a little more futzing
to keep working properly. I've gone back to wired.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bought my first wireless bike computer, a Sigma Sport and had a
> horrible time getting it to work. Unless I physically moved the
> computer below my handlebars, I couldn't get the pairing to work or get
> a speed reading (and I was well within the specs for distance and
> angle).
>
> Was also disappointed in the size of the sensors/transmitters (speed
> and cadence). Returned the unit to my LBS.
>
> I'm assuming my experience was atypical, but are wireless computers as
> reliable as wired? I was going to try a different brand wireless (like
> the new CatEye CC-MC100W), but if these units are all flaky, I'll stick
> with a traditional wired computer. Don't want big bulky
> sensors/transmitters and want rock solid information with no delay.
>
> I liked cadence on my old unit, but decided I don't even need it. Just
> want a simple front wheel unit with the usual functions.
>
> Also, am I the only one that doesn't want to see all information at
> once? I like to keep my average speed (and/or ride time) a surprise
> until the ride is over. My old unit lacked a pace arrow, which I hated
> it first and then grew to love. I found seeing a lower-than-expected
> average speed was a psychological blow. I like to push hard until the
> end of the ride and hope for a pleasant surprise. So I don't look at
> my average until I unclip and stop.
>

 

[catzz66]

res09c5t wrote:
> Another common differnce (at least on the ones we've owned) is that after
> stopping for a while, the wired ones will automatically restart themselves.
> You have to remember to turn the wireless ones back on.
> Also, the wireless ones have another battery to be concerned about.
> My wireless computers generally worked fine but took a little more futzing
> to keep working properly. I've gone back to wired.
>
>

Wired units seem to be fairly idiot proof in general, in my experience
of working on the family's six bikes. I've never not been able to get a
wired unit to work where my one experience with a wireless unit was not
as good. I just did not have the patience to keep messing with the
wireless and reinstalled an old wired one instead. I buy the basic
CatEye wired units since everyone seems happy to leave them set on the
odo screen displaying mileage and speed.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bought my first wireless bike computer, a Sigma Sport and had a
> horrible time getting it to work. Unless I physically moved the
> computer below my handlebars, I couldn't get the pairing to work or get
> a speed reading (and I was well within the specs for distance and
> angle).
>
> Was also disappointed in the size of the sensors/transmitters (speed
> and cadence). Returned the unit to my LBS.
>
> I'm assuming my experience was atypical, but are wireless computers as
> reliable as wired? I was going to try a different brand wireless (like
> the new CatEye CC-MC100W), but if these units are all flaky, I'll stick
> with a traditional wired computer. Don't want big bulky
> sensors/transmitters and want rock solid information with no delay.
>
> I liked cadence on my old unit, but decided I don't even need it. Just
> want a simple front wheel unit with the usual functions.
>
> Also, am I the only one that doesn't want to see all information at
> once? I like to keep my average speed (and/or ride time) a surprise
> until the ride is over. My old unit lacked a pace arrow, which I hated
> it first and then grew to love. I found seeing a lower-than-expected
> average speed was a psychological blow. I like to push hard until the
> end of the ride and hope for a pleasant surprise. So I don't look at
> my average until I unclip and stop.

The fairly cheap Cateye wired computers have everything you are looking
for. Enduro model is around $25 and the Mity is around $20. Pretty
darn close to 110% reliable in any weather from my decade of experience
using them.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> The fairly cheap Cateye wired computers have everything you
> are looking for. Enduro model is around $25 and the Mity is
> around $20. Pretty darn close to 110% reliable in any weather
> from my decade of experience using them.

Thanks for everyone's advice.

I've decided to go back to my Cateye Astrale 8. I was originally
looking for a new computer because I was having problems with my
previously-trustworthy Astrale 8. During a ride, I would
intermittently loose either speed and/or cadence.

The battery appeared good (bright display), and it's two different
magnets/sensors, so I figured it was the computer or wire, which meant
time for a new one. On a perfectly smooth ride, sometimes speed would
go to 0 and cadence would still work. Other times I would get no
cadence and speed would work. Sometimes both would go to 0 and other
times I would have no problems for the ride. I couldn't understand it
because it's two different wires. I could see one breaking, but both?
Nothing visible, and no crashes and the sensors and magnets were
properly adjusted.

I'll try reinstalling it with a new battery (just for kicks) and see if
the problem goes away. If not, I'll just get another CatEye wired.

 

[Roger Sacilotto]

I have had good results with the Cateye Micro Wireless, once I learned how
to avoid resetting it accidentally - a stray thumb on the start/stop while
changing the mode will do it...

I also have a VDO C2DS wireless with cadence that works okay, but the
cadence signal occasionally drops out momentarily during my ride. I like
the UI of the VDO unit. I got it in the first place because I had a lot of
problems with my previous wired cadence setup (Sigma Sport) - I think that
one of my cable ties broke the copper inside the wire, it failed
intermittently.

I'm basically 50/50 with wireless, to me it comes down to cleaner look with
fewer wiring hassles vs. battery cost and occasional signal dropouts.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[dtmeister]

[email protected] wrote:
> The battery appeared good (bright display), and it's two different
> magnets/sensors, so I figured it was the computer or wire, which meant
> time for a new one. On a perfectly smooth ride, sometimes speed would
> go to 0 and cadence would still work. Other times I would get no
> cadence and speed would work. Sometimes both would go to 0 and other
> times I would have no problems for the ride. I couldn't understand it
> because it's two different wires. I could see one breaking, but both?
> Nothing visible, and no crashes and the sensors and magnets were
> properly adjusted.

Have you checked the contacts on the computer and the computer mount?
I've found that some of the Cateyes have spring loaded contacts on the
computer that are essentially very small ball bearings. Mine have
flattened over time and I sometimes have to wiggle the module in it's
mount to regain contact. Cleaning them every so often helps my problem.

--
..dt

 

[[email protected]]

dtmeister wrote:

> Have you checked the contacts on the computer and the computer mount?
> I've found that some of the Cateyes have spring loaded contacts on the
> computer that are essentially very small ball bearings. Mine have
> flattened over time and I sometimes have to wiggle the module in it's
> mount to regain contact. Cleaning them every so often helps my problem.

Funny, I just noticed this tonight. The balls have flattened a little
(which I'm surprised about, since I rarely take the computer out of
it's mount).

And I do recall tapping on the face of the computer a couple times and
having the data come back. That would explain why it's sometimes speed
and sometimes cadence.

I also found in the manual:

"If the speed or cadence data is not displayed, have the contact points
short-circuited a few times by a metal plate. In the case that this
short-circuiting is detected by the computer, the computer is
considered normal and the bracket and the sensor possibly have the
cause of trouble."

I tried this, but I see no reaction from the computer when they are
short-circuited. It doesn't say how this should be "detected".

 

[dtmeister]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Funny, I just noticed this tonight. The balls have flattened a little
> (which I'm surprised about, since I rarely take the computer out of
> it's mount).


I suspect that it's caused by vibration more than anything else.


> And I do recall tapping on the face of the computer a couple times and
> having the data come back. That would explain why it's sometimes speed
> and sometimes cadence.
>
> I also found in the manual:
>
> "If the speed or cadence data is not displayed, have the contact points
> short-circuited a few times by a metal plate. In the case that this
> short-circuiting is detected by the computer, the computer is
> considered normal and the bracket and the sensor possibly have the
> cause of trouble."

Hmm, not sure what they're trying to say there (a metal plate??). I do
know that when it rains, the water sometimes causes what is probably a
short circuit and I sometimes get zero readings. Taking it off and
blowing across the contacts on both the mount and module usually fixes
it up for a while.


--
..dt

 

[jim beam]

dtmeister wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Funny, I just noticed this tonight. The balls have flattened a little
>> (which I'm surprised about, since I rarely take the computer out of
>> it's mount).
>
>
> I suspect that it's caused by vibration more than anything else.
>
>
>> And I do recall tapping on the face of the computer a couple times and
>> having the data come back. That would explain why it's sometimes speed
>> and sometimes cadence.
>>
>> I also found in the manual:
>>
>> "If the speed or cadence data is not displayed, have the contact points
>> short-circuited a few times by a metal plate. In the case that this
>> short-circuiting is detected by the computer, the computer is
>> considered normal and the bracket and the sensor possibly have the
>> cause of trouble."
>
> Hmm, not sure what they're trying to say there (a metal plate??). I do
> know that when it rains, the water sometimes causes what is probably a
> short circuit and I sometimes get zero readings. Taking it off and
> blowing across the contacts on both the mount and module usually fixes
> it up for a while.
>
>
a dab of silicone electrical grease sorts that out perfectly. prevents
corrosion, water intrusion, maintains good contact.

 

[dtmeister]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> dtmeister wrote:
>> know that when it rains, the water sometimes causes what is probably a
>> short circuit and I sometimes get zero readings. Taking it off and
>> blowing across the contacts on both the mount and module usually fixes
>> it up for a while.
>>
>>
> a dab of silicone electrical grease sorts that out perfectly. prevents
> corrosion, water intrusion, maintains good contact.

Thanks, I'll try that out.


--
..dt

 

[RonSonic]

On 19 Jul 2006 20:36:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>dtmeister wrote:
>
>> Have you checked the contacts on the computer and the computer mount?
>> I've found that some of the Cateyes have spring loaded contacts on the
>> computer that are essentially very small ball bearings. Mine have
>> flattened over time and I sometimes have to wiggle the module in it's
>> mount to regain contact. Cleaning them every so often helps my problem.
>
>Funny, I just noticed this tonight. The balls have flattened a little
>(which I'm surprised about, since I rarely take the computer out of
>it's mount).
>
>And I do recall tapping on the face of the computer a couple times and
>having the data come back. That would explain why it's sometimes speed
>and sometimes cadence.
>
>I also found in the manual:
>
>"If the speed or cadence data is not displayed, have the contact points
>short-circuited a few times by a metal plate. In the case that this
>short-circuiting is detected by the computer, the computer is
>considered normal and the bracket and the sensor possibly have the
>cause of trouble."
>
>I tried this, but I see no reaction from the computer when they are
>short-circuited. It doesn't say how this should be "detected".

By indicating a speed or cadence.

Ron

 

[Simon]

dtmeister wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Funny, I just noticed this tonight. The balls have flattened a
>> little

I have seen this on a Cateye as well... A good suggestion from jim beam
using some conductive paste/grease - thanks!

>> "If the speed or cadence data is not displayed, have the contact points
>> short-circuited a few times by a metal plate. In the case that this
>> short-circuiting is detected by the computer, the computer is
>> considered normal
>
> Hmm, not sure what they're trying to say there (a metal plate??).

My guess is that they want you to rapidly connect and disconnect the
contact points (with any 'metal plate', wire or similar), that should
activate the computer. - That's essentially what the wheel magnet does
each time it passes the sensor...

--
Simon, Denmark | __o
Men are from here, and women | _`\ \_
are from way the hell over there. | (_)/ (_)

 

[jim beam]

Simon wrote:
> dtmeister wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> Funny, I just noticed this tonight. The balls have flattened a
> >> little
>
> I have seen this on a Cateye as well... A good suggestion from jim beam
> using some conductive paste/grease - thanks!

silicone grease is /not/ conductive - it's a very good insulator. it
works in this situation because the metal-to-metal contact still makes,
but the grease doesn't allow crud or moisture to affect the contact
points. /don't/ use a conductive paste.

>
>>> "If the speed or cadence data is not displayed, have the contact points
>>> short-circuited a few times by a metal plate. In the case that this
>>> short-circuiting is detected by the computer, the computer is
>>> considered normal
>>
>> Hmm, not sure what they're trying to say there (a metal plate??).
>
> My guess is that they want you to rapidly connect and disconnect the
> contact points (with any 'metal plate', wire or similar), that should
> activate the computer. - That's essentially what the wheel magnet does
> each time it passes the sensor...
>

 

[Simon]

jim beam wrote:

re bad contact points

> silicone grease is /not/ conductive - it's a very good insulator. it
> works in this situation because the metal-to-metal contact still makes,
> but the grease doesn't allow crud or moisture to affect the contact
> points.

I see your point (!)...
But I can remedy the bad connections in my computer by placing small
aluminium foil strips between the computer and the bracket at each
contact point. In other words, I belive the connection is bad because
the points are worn down and the distance a little too big. So a *tiny*
amount of some conductive paste on each point might be more elegant..

[You wrote "silicone electrical grease (..), maintains good contact."
and I thought 'electrical' referred to some variant made conductive by
eg. metal particle addition]

--
Simon | __o
Men are from here, and women | _`\ \_
are from way the hell over there. | (_)/ (_)

 

[jim beam]

Simon wrote:
<snip>
> [You wrote "silicone electrical grease (..), maintains good contact."
> and I thought 'electrical' referred to some variant made conductive by
> eg. metal particle addition]

no, it works because it's inert and prevents corrosion. electrical
current between [slightly moving] pieces and in the presence of water,
salts, etc. = bad connection is a short period of time. silicone is
frequently used in automotive, data and telecoms electrics.

 

[[email protected]]

Will this work?

<http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102858>

The only hit searching for silicone grease at my local radioshack...