I have two boys that are just getting into biking and I want to get them a basic computer so they can learn proper cadence mostly and record their practice data. If I’m only going to spend $50 to $75, should I stick with a wired device, and if so which one?
Thanks for slowtwitch help!!
Parts not included weigh nothing, cost nothing, and are 100% reliable.
What do you intend on learning from recording data off a basic computer? Just curious.
Vetta V100 is only $56 on Amazon and it’s wireless. I have one myself and like it.
Just how far they went, how long it took them, and how fast they rode. They are very competitive and love setting small goals and/or beating their personal times, distances, etc. I’m more interested in teaching them to ride efficiently so that’s why whatever I buy needs to have a cadence monitor. Any ideas? Also, I didn’t understand the first part of your post about the “Parts not included weigh nothing, cost nothing, and are 100% reliable”
Thanks…I’ll check this one out!
$40, wireless, cadence, reliable, and does a nice job of recording long-term data.
I was rather flippantly suggesting that you really don’t need a bike computer 
It’s a general engineering adage (though mostly associated with race cars and aircraft in my experience) that any unnecessary part should be removed from a system with extreme prejudice.
If the challenge is to go faster and longer, then absolutely, any cheap computer will do the trick and you can make a game out of it to keep motivation high.
Next question: how do you plan on teaching them to ride more “efficiently” by logging their cadence? And what do you mean by efficiently as well?
Note: I might sound snarky (and perhaps given my sleep level, I am) but it appears to me you’re trying to buy a solution to a problem you don’t have. It’s not my role to argue whether that 50-75 should be spent on a cyclocomputer or something else, but allow me to suggest that I don’t see any point to buying a bike computer for your kids.
Snarky…perhaps If you’re suggesting measuring something and improvement don’t go hand in hand…I will win that argument. If you’re suggesting kids don’t need computers than you’re generalizing…I will win that argument. Teaching a beginner cyclist to ride at an “efficient” cadence is a cycling ABC…I don’t have time to ride behind them telling them they are too high or too low, and I’d like to help them learn it out the gates, not by error, injury, etc.
The Point: So the point of a computer would be two-fold. One, to fuel their desire to improve through measuring performance. Two, to help them learn to stay in an efficient cadence window.
Have a won your approval and worthy now for an answer to my question??
Yeah, I’ve been looking at that one, but the reviews are makin’ me a bit nervous. I suppose that will be the case with any computer in that price range though. Thanks!
I’ve been repeatedly going wired. The unit is smaller, the pickup is smaller, it’s cheaper and it’s lighter.
It’s easy to run the wire inconspicuously. At one point I bought a wireless thinking how great it would be to put the sender on the rear wheel for trainer use, but it has a range of about 22" and wouldn’t work. Got disillusioned and never went back.
Jyeager, thanks for the advice. I’ve been feeling the same. As I read reviews for these less expensive wireless products I keep seeing a common dissatisfaction in the reception. I think I’ll go that route. What do you use?
The point is you want to buy a bike computer for your kids and you’re looking for recommendations 
You, and your money, will win that argument every day of the week and twice on Sunday. An argument that your kids will have fun with said object will also render you the winner. These, I do not object to
I’m still feeling snarky, so bear with me:
If the measurement object (namely cadence, for this argument) is shown to have little correlation to performance (I’ll generalize to nominal bike fitness for this case), then I see you losing that argument rather quickly. The “efficient” window of cadence is a country mile wide, and as long as the boys know how to shift gears, I’d trust their ability to self select a fairly optimal cadence. It’s not rocket surgery. If anything, trying to indoctrinate a certain cadence is counter-intuitive: the less we THINK about what cadence we’re riding at, and the more we let our subconscious do the shifting, the more likely we are to be at “optimum” cadence.
I’m not suggesting “kids” don’t need a cyclocomputer, I’m suggesting NO ONE needs a cyclocomputer As such, it’s a religion I practice. Sold my flightdeck from years past with the bike in 2006. Haven’t even missed it a bit since as the most salient utility was the max speed for downhill heroics. I wear a watch.
Were I to get a computer, it would be for power, since there’s a good body of academic and practical knowledge on the correlation between performance and one’s ability to generate power. Measuring that would be nice.
So no, you don’t have my blessing, but carry on all the same
Well, I did throw away my only cyclocomputer with cadence last year…however I do find them useful to document my distance, speed (for curiousity’s sake), and avg. speed…this just because I like to know.
And wired, these things are about $19.99.
Giving them to my kids for their bikes increased their excitement about riding for a while. My 9 year old put 50 miles on his new mtn bike the first 3 days he had it! He had blisters on his hands!
cateye strada cadence <25$
.
Yeah, pretty much everything I wrote up there was a tirade against “efficient cadence”.
A cheap cyclocomputer that makes the kids happy is a good thing. You got a great deal out of those $20