I thought that I should get a wireless one (it sounds cooler and if it’s wireless, it’s gotta be better) and one of my primary reasons for the computer would be to measure cadence (I’m tired of counting and multiplying by 4).
I see now that cadence is a rare function in wireless computers. Adding cadence increases the price of the computer quit a bit.
What hinderances are there in using a wired computer?
Will a wireless computer interfere with a wrist worn HR monitor (I have a polar).
I use to have the Astrale 8 which was wired but had cadence for only about $35-50 depending where you get it. Plus it wires to the back wheel so it works on the trainer.
I use to have the Astrale 8 which was wired but had cadence for only about $35-50 depending where you get it. Plus it wires to the back wheel so it works on the trainer.
Any reason to NOT get a wired computer. Other than the coolness factor (which is pretty important to me).
I have the same one… great value for the money. I’d like to upgrade to something wireless, but its hard for me to justify an extra $100 (minimum) for something that will do the same thing.
Screw the coolness factor. Get the Astrale 8. It’s cheap, reliable, has cadence, and doesn’t suffer from the intermittency, dropouts, interference with HRMs, etc. that the wireless ones do. Stop in at your local bike shop and ask the mechanic how many people come in bitching about each type.
Don’t listen to these guys, they’re so un-hip.
I have the Cateye double wireless. Had a speed/cadence sensor in one unit. Works great. You can find it for like $110-115 online.
“Stop in at your local bike shop and ask the mechanic how many people come in bitching about each type”
Excellent point/suggestion. At my LBS, it seems the wireless ones are in constantly for fiddling around and minor mal-functions. The old-school wired ones are rarely in.
You know what they say - high tech = high hassle!
Actually, my choice these days is to ride naked - with no computor on the bike. If I have two hours to ride, I have two hours to ride and I’ll fill that two hours with as much riding and enjoyment as I can. A wristwatch is my guide!
I’ve owned two wireless computers in the past - a Cateye Cordless 2 and a Polar Protrainer XT heart rate monitor with the optional, wireless bike speed sensor.
The Cateye featured only speed, and after some initial setup problems (due to the speed sensor having been installed too far from the computer), it worked flawlessly afterwards.
The Polar however was unreliable - it lost the signal from its speed and/or heart rate sensors whenever there were any high-voltage lines in proximity (such as railway powerlines), or other wireless transmitters nearby (when riding in a group), and it literally ate up batteries!
Both computers lacked pedaling cadence, so I decided to go for a comparatively ‘cheap’ wired computer two years ago - a Sigma Sports BC1600 costing 30 EUR, cadence sensor included. This cheapie has turned out to be the best bike computer I’ve owned so far:
No more hassle with lost signals, a big, clear display, lots of functionality but still intuitive to use and setup (…no need for a manual to adjust the time or the wheel circumference whenever the batteries go flat - those who have owned a Protrainer XT know what I mean!)
So, if you don’t mind about the odd cable being taped/zip-tied to your frame, I would recommend you save a lot of money and trouble and go for a wired computer with cadence instead.
Based on my thoughts and everyone’s input, I decided to go with the Cateye Astrale 8.
When I got to the store (Mission Bay Multisport on Randolph in Chicago), the mechanic strongly steered me towards the Trek 11. It is wired and has cadence. He said that the Cateye’s wires were less reliable. The Trek was much sturdier. I went with his suggestion.
I had him install the computer on my bike and I am sure glad I did that. He tucked the wires away and tied everything down with care a precision and an expertise that I would not have the experience, ability or patience for.
I am just disappointed that during my ride this morning I could not get the Tetrus feature to work on the thing.
I use a CT inside and I guess that has helped me nail down pretty precisely what 80, 90, 100 and 110RPM’s feels like across a wide range of gears. When I’m out on the road I find that I “self select” my optimal cadence on hills and on the flats. Again, having a good feel for your gearing plays a big part here I think. My sense of cadence at lower RPM’s is not as keen–doing 60RPM hill repeats for example. With that said, I think the cateye is one of the better setup’s, I just couldn’t see paying that much of a premium for cadence.
Actually, i dont really see much of a use for a cadence sensor. If u actually put enough time in the saddle, u can actually tell if u are riding at a confortable cadence or not. Also, cadence vary from person to person like saddle choices. Lance’s 110 rpm may not work for everyone, and so does Bjorn’s cadence of 65.
If i had one, all it would tell me is that “Ooooh, i am riding at a cadence of 85 today”. Big friggin deal…
If u cover the same distance in less pedal strokes in the same amount of time, it means that u are putting in more work per revolution of pedalling. Conversely, if u are pedalling faster, but taking the same amount of time to reach your destination, it means that u are doing less work per revolution. Ultimately, its still the same amount of work performed to get from point A to B. You’re back to square 1. Just do whatever that is sustainable to u and feels comfortable.
I subscribe to the ‘JFT’ training method.
BTW…, definitely go the wired route. Less 2 problems. (extra battery to die on u, and no wireless communication problems)
