Wireless Computers

VeloJon said:

Just got a new VDO MC 1+ wireless computer, installed it, and it seemed
to work OK for the first week or so. Now I notice that at faster
speeds (20+ mph) the displayed speed actually drops or even goes to
zero. So it looks like the sensor is missing wheel revolutions
somehow, but the alignment looks OK and within spec. Anyone else seen
this?

I had this problem repeatedly on my very first ride with a lower model
VDO wireless cyclometer, a C2D2. I suspect the signal was getting
corrupted by riding near high voltage power lines, but my buddies with
other brands of wireless computers never complain about this sort of
thing. I returned the unit and got a wired version of your computer,
the MC1.0. It works flawlessly. Recommend you do the same, if possible.

This has happened frequently to me as well on VDO 1.0+ . I've been pretty
disappointed with the VDOs that I have used. And their cadence sensor (on
the DS series) is just awful.

"Mike Krueger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

VeloJon said:

Just got a new VDO MC 1+ wireless computer, installed it, and it seemed
to work OK for the first week or so. Now I notice that at faster
speeds (20+ mph) the displayed speed actually drops or even goes to
zero. So it looks like the sensor is missing wheel revolutions
somehow, but the alignment looks OK and within spec. Anyone else seen
this?

I had this problem repeatedly on my very first ride with a lower model
VDO wireless cyclometer, a C2D2. I suspect the signal was getting
corrupted by riding near high voltage power lines, but my buddies with
other brands of wireless computers never complain about this sort of
thing. I returned the unit and got a wired version of your computer,
the MC1.0. It works flawlessly. Recommend you do the same, if possible.

VeloJon thought the world would like to know that...

Quoted message said:

Just got a new VDO MC 1+ wireless computer, installed it, and it seemed
to work OK for the first week or so. Now I notice that at faster
speeds (20+ mph) the displayed speed actually drops or even goes to
zero. So it looks like the sensor is missing wheel revolutions
somehow, but the alignment looks OK and within spec. Anyone else seen
this?

Never had that problem.

Check if the spoke magnet is real close to the pick-up reed-relay and
transmitter. (In line, not more than 2 mm distance).

Check for a full battery in the sensor-transmitter.

Glad to hear the results!

Martin
Netherlands

--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

VeloJon said:

Just got a new VDO MC 1+ wireless computer, installed it, and it seemed
to work OK for the first week or so. Now I notice that at faster
speeds (20+ mph) the displayed speed actually drops or even goes to
zero. So it looks like the sensor is missing wheel revolutions
somehow, but the alignment looks OK and within spec. Anyone else seen
this?

i just bought a nashbar wireless computer, and it works only very
sporadically--including sometimes just cutting out in the middle of a
ride (w/no high power lines anywhere remotely in the vicinity.) the
sensor is very close to magnet, and it's brand new. i'm probably going
back to my wired computer pretty soon--not pretty, but at least it
works.

In article <[email hidden]>,

VeloJon said:

Just got a new VDO MC 1+ wireless computer, installed it, and it seemed
to work OK for the first week or so. Now I notice that at faster
speeds (20+ mph) the displayed speed actually drops or even goes to
zero. So it looks like the sensor is missing wheel revolutions
somehow, but the alignment looks OK and within spec. Anyone else seen
this?

my experience with my MC1.0 (wireless) has been pretty much flawless,
though i see two people who haven't been as lucky.

HOWEVER, about 3 weeks ago, it started showing the same symptoms as
yours: at 20+mph (a frequent but short-lived phenomenon on my daily
rides) it would start reporting random, low speeds. i resolved to
check the alignment of the sensor/magnet, but never did.

then, last week, i got out to do my ride. as i prepared to set my
"home" altitude, it started flashing between -999ft and -1500ft.
as i rolled out, it continued to do that, and the display began
to randomly change contrast.

after replacing the battery, i've experienced no problems at all,
and the speedo stays accurate right up to 34mph (which happens
exactly once during my daily ride, and scares the CO2 out of me).

"VeloJon" wrote

Quoted message said:

Just got a new VDO MC 1+ wireless computer, installed it, and it seemed
to work OK for the first week or so. Now I notice that at faster
speeds (20+ mph) the displayed speed actually drops or even goes to
zero.

Mine (different brand) does that when the sensor battery gets old.
Maybe the battery supplied with the unit was cheap and nasty coz it should
last more than a couple of weeks.
Mind you, I'm getting fed up with how often I have to replace mine, they
aren't cheap.

VeloJon said:

Just got a new VDO MC 1+ wireless computer, installed it, and it seemed
to work OK for the first week or so. Now I notice that at faster
speeds (20+ mph) the displayed speed actually drops or even goes to
zero. So it looks like the sensor is missing wheel revolutions
somehow, but the alignment looks OK and within spec. Anyone else seen
this?

I've been using Cateye WIRED bicycle computers since about 1992 and
been very happy. Only problematic one is the AT100 altimeter one. It
gives erratic readings when the battery gets slightly worn down. But
the cheap Mity and Enduro models are flawless. Never understood the
great love with unreliable wirelss models. Most bikes I see have
shifter and brake wires running all over the bike, yet a computer wire
going up the back side of the fork and around the front brake cable is
considered terrible.

Quoted message said:

I've been using Cateye WIRED bicycle computers since about 1992 and
been very happy. Only problematic one is the AT100 altimeter one. It
gives erratic readings when the battery gets slightly worn down. But
the cheap Mity and Enduro models are flawless. Never understood the
great love with unreliable wirelss models. Most bikes I see have
shifter and brake wires running all over the bike, yet a computer wire
going up the back side of the fork and around the front brake cable is
considered terrible.

I made sure to get a wired harness for my flightdeck because I
occasionally use my HID light/radio jammer on my race bike.
I mount the display in front/below the light so its easy to see at
night, but a wireless unit wouldn't cope at all.

Plus its one less battery to worry about.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Never understood the great love with unreliable wirelss models. Most
bikes I see have shifter and brake wires running all over the bike, yet a
computer wire going up the back side of the fork and around the front
brake cable is considered terrible.

Amen! I had two wireless mounts go bad on me before I switched back. I
realized that besides worrying about whether the transmitter worked or not,
I also had three batteries to change (computer, transmitter, receiver) AND
the whole setup probably weighed twice as much as the wired mount. Any
sleekness lost by the cable coiled up the brake cable is regained by having
a sensor that's a quarter the size.

Quoted message said:

I've been using Cateye WIRED bicycle computers since about 1992 and
been very happy. Only problematic one is the AT100 altimeter one. It
gives erratic readings when the battery gets slightly worn down. But
the cheap Mity and Enduro models are flawless. Never understood the
great love with unreliable wirelss models. Most bikes I see have
shifter and brake wires running all over the bike, yet a computer wire
going up the back side of the fork and around the front brake cable is
considered terrible.

My Cateye Enduro wireless is rock-solid reliable,
and since I have Campy it helps me preserve my
pristine handlebar environment. :-)

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Quoted message said:

Never understood the
great love with unreliable wirelss models.

Are you saying that you don't understand the great affection for
wirelss [sic] cyclocomputers that are unreliable (implying that some
aren't unreliable) or that all are unreliable and the affection for
same is unfathomable to you?

Here's my N of 3: I have had two different Vettas and a Cateye. The
first Vetta committed suicide off my bar on a rough road because it
wasn't fully in its mount but provided great service. Switched to the
Cateye Cordless II which has also given great service (except for its
susceptibility to cold) for four years. Recently got a Vetta HR100 for
the HR capability and that has been fine for 2 years. Still using the
Cateye. Get minor glitches by farms and invisible dog fences with any
wireless but overall, my post-ride stats compare well to those from
people with wired 'puters.

Buddy of mine just switched to wireless because he kept getting breaks
in the wires.

D'ohBoy

Yes. I had this problem with my very first computer way back in the
eighty's, before wireless even existed.

I solved it by placing the magnet and the pickup as close to the hub as
possible so at higher speeds the magnet doesn't pass the pickup too fast
for a good reading.

Had no problems since, even at speeds as high as 62MPH (100KPH), my
personal record.

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http "colon-slash-slash" geocities "dot" com "slash" czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

Had no problems since, even at speeds as high as 62MPH (100KPH), my
personal record.

Sounds like you need to recalibrate your speedometer.

(1) Where and how was this achieved? Give specifics with length of
straight descent and percent grade, and someone will give a fair
calculation of your terminal velocity. There are very few if any roads
anywhere in the USA even theoretically capable of giving this speed.

(2) How did you calibrate your speedometer?

41 said:

Chris Z The Wheelman said:

Had no problems since, even at speeds as high as 62MPH (100KPH), my
personal record.

Sounds like you need to recalibrate your speedometer.

(1) Where and how was this achieved? Give specifics with length of
straight descent and percent grade, and someone will give a fair
calculation of your terminal velocity. There are very few if any roads
anywhere in the USA even theoretically capable of giving this speed.

(2) How did you calibrate your speedometer?

Dear 41,

Despite the fuss that we make about it, speedometer calibration is
usually trivial. The factory default for many inexpensive (but
ridiculously accurate) speedometers is 2124mm for a 700c tire, which
some riders measure and adjust down as low as 2090mm for wider,
low-inflation, weighted tires.

This would reduce 62 mph to 61 mph.

In the U.S., it's not that unusual to hit the 62 mph that is often the
cut-off (100km) for bike speedometers.

Grade, weight, altitude, temperature, and tuck all help, but the real
trick is a modest tailwind.

My average high speed this year where my daily downhill flattens out
at the Arkansas River is 40.04 mph, but my highest speed is 51.9 mph.
It's just a short 65 mph curve on an unremarkable highway,
unfortunately well-shielded from tailwinds by a projecting spur. It's
only about a grade of about 7%, but it still isn't long enough to
reach terminal velocity (unless there's a headwind).

It's the obvious red road, the section between "south" and "4731":

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=11&Z=13&X=1313&Y=10586&W=1

You can see the little spur that makes it hard to catch a tailwind
heading east.

Out of curiosity, I once drove out to Rock Creek Hill, parked, and
went up and down twice on my bike, just to see what would happen. With
a slight headwind, I hit 48 and 50 mph. It's just a longer stretch of
similar 65 mph highway:

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=13&n=4221207&e=515437&s=25&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25

I should mention that both these descents are just Great Plains
highways dealing with bluffs and large gullies. The mountains are in
sight to the west, but these two prairie examples are emphatically not
Alpine descents.

Anyway, given a 73-inch 195 lb rider on a 25 lb bike (steel, seat bag,
frame bag) at 5,000 feet and 90 degrees (hot spring) and a 10% grade
with a coasting tuck as good as a triathlon bike . . .

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

The calculator predicts a terminal velocity of 61.5 mph.

Of course, 10% grades are scarce on the Great Plains (although Pueblo
County does include Greenhorn Mountain at 12,347 feet), so let's drop
to a 7% grade . . .

That drops me down to 50.8 mph, so let's add an 11 mph tailwind . . .

Ah, that puts me back up to 61.8 mph.

Thursday's newspaper makes an 11 mph tailwind and 90 degree
temperatures seem plausible:

"Record-setting temperatures and winds as high as 51 mph in the Pueblo
area likely aided the wildfires that broke out Wednesday east and west
of the city."

"The mercury soared to 102 degrees by late afternoon, according to
meteorologist Mark Wankowski of the National Weather Service station
at Pueblo Memorial Airport. That broke the old record of 101 degrees,
which was set in 1952."

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1150351200/2

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

41 said:

Chris Z The Wheelman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...speeds as high as 62MPH (100KPH)

....

Quoted message said:

...There are very few if any roads
anywhere in the USA even theoretically capable of giving this speed.

....

Where did you come up with this gem of knowledge? A
flatland-perpetuated myth? Have you ridden all the roads in the US? In
my area (Boulder/Larimer county, CO), exceeding 60mph seems to be a
common experience among those who ride the steeper climbs; a pretty
good choice of long steep, sometimes windy, descents available. What
does your theory say about several relatively straight miles of 15-20%
grade in full tuck?

Whether it's safe to descend at those speeds on bicycle hardware is a
question which suddenly occurs to me each time I do it...

Alan said:

several relatively straight miles of 15-20%
grade in full tuck?

Such a road, if it exists, is certainly extremely rare. Can you name
the stretch of road so someone with access to topographic information
can check your claim?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Alan said:

several relatively straight miles of 15-20%
grade in full tuck?

Such a road, if it exists, is certainly extremely rare. Can you name
the stretch of road so someone with access to topographic information
can check your claim?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Dear Alan & John,

Like John, I'm intrigued by the idea of several relatively straight
miles of 15-20% grade in Colorado.

Here's a starting place for browsing the Boulder area:

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=16&Z=13&X=36&Y=345&W=1&qs=%7cboulder%7cco%7c

Of course, you don't need 15-20% grades to reach 62 mph. A modest
tailwind and a 7-10% grade will do the trick.

Colorado riders can make wild mistakes when they calculate grades.

They look at a topo map and subtract the elevation at the bottom of a
ride from the elevation at the top. Then they draw a straight line
between the two points and calculate the grade according to an
implausible straight-line distance on winding mountain roads.

They end up thinking that a 3-mile 5% grade is a 1-mile 15% grade.

Here's a list of some Colorado grades:

http://www.rmccrides.com/ClimbDB/climb_frame.html

SuperFlagStaff near Boulder is listed at 6.9% grade. Colorado doesn't
have many of the terribly steep roads found in Europe and California
because it lacks the population and mining motives that drove roads up
silly places.

(We do have people and mines, but not enough to make it worth building
steep roads, since we can usually just drive around the long, easy
way. In Europe or even California, a mountain range like the Sangre de
Cristos would be crossed by numerous paved roads. In Colorado, we just
drive around the Sangres, either through Salida to the north or
Alamosa to the south.)

To waste time with more accuracy, here's a tool that tracks your
cursor as you run it along a winding road on a topo map:

http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Mouse_and_Keyboard_Utilities/Mouse_o_meter.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:32:28 -0700, "Hank Wirtz" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

[---]

Quoted message said:

Any
sleekness lost by the cable coiled up the brake cable is regained by having
a sensor that's a quarter the size.

And which doesn't get its knickers in a twist when in the vicinity of
power transmission lines, electrified railway catenaries, or
supermarket anti-theft barriers.

Alan said:

41 said:

Chris Z The Wheelman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...speeds as high as 62MPH (100KPH)

...

Quoted message said:

...There are very few if any roads
anywhere in the USA even theoretically capable of giving this speed.

...

Where did you come up with this gem of knowledge? A
flatland-perpetuated myth? Have you ridden all the roads in the US? In
my area (Boulder/Larimer county, CO), exceeding 60mph seems to be a
common experience among those who ride the steeper climbs; a pretty
good choice of long steep, sometimes windy, descents available. What
does your theory say about several relatively straight miles of 15-20%
grade in full tuck?

Whether it's safe to descend at those speeds on bicycle hardware is a
question which suddenly occurs to me each time I do it...

Dear Alan,

Here are few of the steep grades in the Boulder area:

http://www.ucar.edu/eac/bike/steep.html

Most of them seem to be short and 6% to 14%.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel