recumbent computer recommendations

[Carl Ranford]

I am riding an EZ-! Super Cruzer. It's a CLWB, and I am looking for
bike computer recommendations for units that have long enough
harnesses and will let you select the smaller wheel sizes, etc. Cheap
and available at nashbar is also good. Thank you very much.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:03:03 -0700
Carl Ranford <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am riding an EZ-! Super Cruzer. It's a CLWB, and I am looking for
> bike computer recommendations for units that have long enough
> harnesses and will let you select the smaller wheel sizes, etc. Cheap
> and available at nashbar is also good. Thank you very much.

Sigma do a "rear wheel kit" which will fit any of their speedos.
SHould be plenty long enough to fit your bike. Then you just pick the
speedo you want. They do a couple of cheapies.

No idea if nashbar has Sigma gear, if they do and the kit isn't listed
email them - I bought mine from Phantom who didn't advertise it on the
site but had no problem getting it for me.

Zebee

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Carl Ranford wrote:
> I am riding an EZ-! Super Cruzer. It's a CLWB, and I am looking for
> bike computer recommendations for units that have long enough
> harnesses and will let you select the smaller wheel sizes, etc. Cheap
> and available at nashbar is also good. Thank you very much.

Any cyclometer that is listed as having a "rear wheel" sensor kit should
work on your EZ-1 SC. I have used CatEye computers with their rear wheel
kits on a RANS Rocket and Tailwind, and the cyclometer "head" unit could
be mounted in the center of the handlebars and the sensor on the front
wheel.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Just A User]

Carl Ranford wrote:
> I am riding an EZ-! Super Cruzer. It's a CLWB, and I am looking for
> bike computer recommendations for units that have long enough
> harnesses and will let you select the smaller wheel sizes, etc. Cheap
> and available at nashbar is also good. Thank you very much.
>
I used a standard Cateye Enduro 8 on my EZ-1 Super Cruiser for a while.
It worked just fine. I still have the computer going on two years now
and it hasn't missed a beat in the 4000 to 5000 miles on various bikes
it's been on.

 

[Dart70ca]

I have Sun EZ Sport and I got a Nextech cheapo from Circuit City
that fits on there. Didn't need the long wire for that one.
Recently tried mounting a Sigma on my mother's Sun EZTad trike and
for that you can order a long harness. It's not listed in their
recumbent accessories section on the website, though. You have to go
to the 'joggers and strollers' section to get the kit with 5 ft. wire.
Biggest problem I have is finding extender brackets so that you can
get the pickup close to the wheel when mounting on the rear wheel. The
trike has a massive triangulated rear dropout assembly in which the
wheel is not closer than 2 in. away at any point. Anyone have a fix
for that?
Sigma was really great to deal with and their stuff is cheap. I
don't think the computer and extender kit broke $30.


Keith

 

[Jon]

"Carl Ranford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am riding an EZ-! Super Cruzer. It's a CLWB, and I am looking for
> bike computer recommendations for units that have long enough
> harnesses and will let you select the smaller wheel sizes, etc. Cheap
> and available at nashbar is also good. Thank you very much.
>

For the EZ1, if you plan to mount the cyclometer at the bottom
"U" of the handlebars, probably any cyclometer wire will be long
to reach with standard wiring kit. On my Tour Easy, I'm using a
Topeak Panorama purchased at W*lM*rt. The wire that came
with the Topeak is long enough to reach the bottom of the handlebar
on the TE and the wire run for the EZ1 looks to be similar length.

NOTE: Almost any cyclometer wire can be spliced to insert an
"extension". Some may be easier than others, due to size and type
of wires used on the original harness. Only basic tools ane skills
are required. Heat shrink tubing can make the result prettier.

Jon Meinecke

 

[Roger Zoul]

Carl Ranford wrote:
:: I am riding an EZ-! Super Cruzer. It's a CLWB, and I am looking for
:: bike computer recommendations for units that have long enough
:: harnesses and will let you select the smaller wheel sizes, etc.
:: Cheap and available at nashbar is also good. Thank you very much.

I use a Cateye Astrale 8 on my Rans Stratus XP. It's a monster 'bent with
long handlebars. The speed sensor and cadance sensor had plenty of reach
without any need for rear mount or extra kits. It is inexpensive and has a
good display.

 

[Arnold Ligtvoet]

Carl Ranford wrote:
> I am riding an EZ-! Super Cruzer. It's a CLWB, and I am looking for
> bike computer recommendations for units that have long enough
> harnesses and will let you select the smaller wheel sizes, etc. Cheap
> and available at nashbar is also good. Thank you very much.

I recently started using a Garmin Edge 205. Does not fit the category
cheap, though they can be purchased at Ebay for reasonable prices. The
nice thing is that this is a GPS computer. No more hassle with magnets,
cables and wheel sizes. Just fix the computer to the bike a go. You can
even ride different bikes with the same computer...

Arnold.

 

[Jon]

"Arnold Ligtvoet" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I recently started using a Garmin Edge 205. Does not fit the category
> cheap, though they can be purchased at Ebay for reasonable prices. The
> nice thing is that this is a GPS computer. No more hassle with magnets,
> cables and wheel sizes. Just fix the computer to the bike a go. You can
> even ride different bikes with the same computer...

For instantaneous speed read-out, the GPS is quite good. But, if it
matters, the odometer of a well-calibrated cyclometer is implicitly
much more accurate and less subject to error than a GPS.

I sometimes carry my mapping GPS with me while biking, particularly
when touring or riding someplace new where the maps can help show
route options. When moving, the GPS generally shows speed and
distance quite close to the cyclometer. But when stopped, even with
good satellite fixes, the error in location can add up. When I download
the saved tracks to a computer, I can definitely see where I stopped.

After installing and calibrating, I haven't found most cyclometers
to present much hassle factor... Cyclometer batteries last for years,
unlike the batteries in my GPS which last for hours (days at most)
before they must be changed/recharged. For me, the GPS serves
a different purpose than the cyclometer even if they overlap in function
somewhat.

Jon

 

[Mike Fox]

However, the GPS is marvelous for calibrating a bike computer. Over a
30 mile ride, the difference between my GPS and computer is a couple
of hundreths consistently. Within the rest of the group, everybody's
readout is a couple of tenths different from everyone else's.
Mike

>I sometimes carry my mapping GPS with me while biking, particularly
>when touring or riding someplace new where the maps can help show
>route options. When moving, the GPS generally shows speed and
>distance quite close to the cyclometer. But when stopped, even with
>good satellite fixes, the error in location can add up. When I download
>the saved tracks to a computer, I can definitely see where I stopped.
>
>After installing and calibrating, I haven't found most cyclometers
>to present much hassle factor... Cyclometer batteries last for years,
>unlike the batteries in my GPS which last for hours (days at most)
>before they must be changed/recharged. For me, the GPS serves
>a different purpose than the cyclometer even if they overlap in function
>somewhat.
>
>Jon
>
>

 

[Jon]

"Mike Fox" <[email protected]> wrote
> However, the GPS is marvelous for calibrating a bike computer. Over a
> 30 mile ride, the difference between my GPS and computer is a couple
> of hundreths consistently.

Under many circumstances, I find this to be true, too.

But there are a number of factors that make the GPS "odometer"
inherently less reliably accurate, e.g.:
- absolute position fix accurcy (+/- feet under best case)
- position sampling frequency
- inherent position "wandering" vs. "stopped time"

On the other hand, cyclometers simply count wheel rotations.
Get the calibration correct for your wheel and tire, and they are
quite reliably accurate. Plug in the numbers for your wheel size from
the table in cyclometer instruction book and 95% accurracy
may be doing good! %^)

[ Anyone else notice that those tables seem to invariably overstate
the wheel circumference thus making the displayed speed higher
than actual? ]

In my experience, the best way to check cyclometer calibration is to
ride a known accurately surveyed distance several times and average
the odometer readings. Some people use a running track. In
someplaces state highway departments have special surveyed
"speedometer check" mile posts.

>Within the rest of the group, everybody's
> readout is a couple of tenths different from everyone else's.

Only a 1% difference may be better than par for the course! %^)

Jon

 

[Dart70ca]

I never find those charts to be very accurate. On a smooth floor,
I set my wheel with the valve stem at the bottom, mark a spot on the
floor, roll the bike until the stem comes around again. Make another
mark. Distance between the marks is your wheel circumference.


Keith

On Aug 15, 9:25 am, "Jon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Fox" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > However, the GPS is marvelous for calibrating a bike computer. Over a
> > 30 mile ride, the difference between my GPS and computer is a couple
> > of hundreths consistently.
>
> Under many circumstances, I find this to be true, too.
>
> But there are a number of factors that make the GPS "odometer"
> inherently less reliably accurate, e.g.:
> - absolute position fix accurcy (+/- feet under best case)
> - position sampling frequency
> - inherent position "wandering" vs. "stopped time"
>
> On the other hand, cyclometers simply count wheel rotations.
> Get the calibration correct for your wheel and tire, and they are
> quite reliably accurate. Plug in the numbers for your wheel size from
> the table in cyclometer instruction book and 95% accurracy
> may be doing good! %^)
>
> [ Anyone else notice that those tables seem to invariably overstate
> the wheel circumference thus making the displayed speed higher
> than actual? ]
>
> In my experience, the best way to check cyclometer calibration is to
> ride a known accurately surveyed distance several times and average
> the odometer readings. Some people use a running track. In
> someplaces state highway departments have special surveyed
> "speedometer check" mile posts.
>
> >Within the rest of the group, everybody's
> > readout is a couple of tenths different from everyone else's.
>
> Only a 1% difference may be better than par for the course! %^)
>
> Jon

 

[Jon]

"gotbent" <[email protected]> wrote
> Since no consumer GPS or bike computer is accurate enough for land
> surveying or land mapping [...]

True.

> What difference does a couple of tenths make?

Not much.

But a cyclometer can be generally quite accurate. Plus or minus 2%
accuracy is reasonably obtainable with a simple roll-out measurement.
That's better than a couple of tenths, for rides of less than 100 miles.

In my experience, a GPS "odometer" *can be* off significantly more
than "a couple of tenths" over much shorter distances. On a day hike,
of 12 miles known trail length, my GPS odometer recorded more than
13 miles "travelled". Post-processing the track log, to eliminate the
"wandering position" at places we stopped for a minute (or less),
gave a more accurate track length.

Jon

 

[gotbent]

"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "gotbent" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Since no consumer GPS or bike computer is accurate enough for land
>> surveying or land mapping [...]
>
> True.
>
>> What difference does a couple of tenths make?
>
> Not much.
>
> But a cyclometer can be generally quite accurate. Plus or minus 2%
> accuracy is reasonably obtainable with a simple roll-out measurement.
> That's better than a couple of tenths, for rides of less than 100 miles.
>
> In my experience, a GPS "odometer" *can be* off significantly more
> than "a couple of tenths" over much shorter distances. On a day hike,
> of 12 miles known trail length, my GPS odometer recorded more than
> 13 miles "travelled". Post-processing the track log, to eliminate the
> "wandering position" at places we stopped for a minute (or less),
> gave a more accurate track length.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
2% at ten miles is almost a quarter mile( a couple tenths BTW). That's about
2 miles in a century. Not so very accurate after all. Fine enough for me
though. How about for you?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Jon]

"gotbent" <[email protected]> wrote
> 2% at ten miles is almost a quarter mile( a couple tenths BTW). That's
> about 2 miles in a century. Not so very accurate after all.

It's the same accuracy, of course, 98%. As "accurate" at 10 miles as at
100.

My point, perhaps not well made, was with a group of "non-compulsive
cyclometer calibrating cyclists", a difference of 2% is not unreasonable.
I've
seen much larger variations, but generally there's someone who just used the
calibration number from the cyclometer book....

Riding with a friend, our odometer readings are consistently within
a couple of tenths over 25-35 miles. That's a difference of less
than 1%.

> [98% accuraccy] Fine enough for me though. How about for you?

Except for a measured course, how would I know the difference? %^)

I don't consider myself obsessive about cyclometer calibration. I calibrate
my cyclometers with a simple one-rotation roll-out measurement. If I
change tire sizes or brand, I will (eventually) repeat the roll-out, but it
may take weeks...

Only once have I used a condiment for unnatural purposes. %^P I
put down a line of mustard on the driveway, rode through it and
measured the distance of three rotations. If I recall correctly, I didn't
change the cyclometer calibration number as a result.

I did happen to ride through a surveyed five mile "speedometer check"
section on a road a few years ago. My cyclometer read 5.02 miles.
That's less than one-half percent error...

Again, my point: cyclometers as simple wheel rotation counter devices
are quite consistent. If a cyclometer registers 102 miles on a 100 mile
course one day, it will likely read very near 102 miles on the same
course again (assuming tire size, pressure, etc... are the same). Knowing
this error rate, the calibration number can be adjusted to make the
reported distance more closely match the actual. (But who knows
the exact distance?)

GPS receivers are not-so-simple devices with inherent limitations that
can make their real-time trip odometer readings less consistent and
accurate. Their accumulated error in this reading, can be much larger
than their nominal position fix accuracy.

However, if you told me to ride 100 miles and then turn left on one of
a number of .25 mile spaced unmarked roads, I would much prefer to
have a GPS waypoint than simply a cyclometer/odometer!

Jon