Restarting and a question

Well, I just bought a new wired computer, with manual. My bicycle had a
16 inch wheel and the smallest size in the manual was 20 inch. This
setting was 1502. I rode the bicycle on a strech of country road,
straight, almost flat, 1.00 miles between intersections. Computer read
1.6 miles, reset computer to 1100, rode the other direction, computer
read 0.94, reset computer to 1160, rode the stretch, read 1.00, rode
back, 2.00. Calibrated. I had done this with another computer that
came on a bicycle I bought used then had to replace the battery and had
no manual. Kept pressing the buttons until the display started
flashing. Have done the same thing with several friends watches, press
and hold or poke small recessed button until display starts changing.

Now you just have to find a straight, level stretch of road 1 mile long
and ride several times adjusting like I did.

Eric Ferguson said:

I just restarted riding (again), but this time, going to keep it up. Sick of
the diabetes, and need to get in shape. Only doing 7-10 miles a day at the
moment, but HEY, it's a start. Riding an old UniVega Mountain bike.

Friend of mine gave me a Bell BikeStation Wireless Bike Computer. He
couldn't find the manual for setting the thing and semi-guessed at the
setting. I tried Googling for the manufacturer and *think* I found the site,
but it just sits there and doesn't load. Does anyone know where(or have) a
copy of the manual. Be glad to pay for a photocopy.

Thanks, Eric

--
Tune Out .KBHR to reply me

Quoted message said:

Eric Ferguson said:

Friend of mine gave me a Bell BikeStation Wireless Bike Computer. He
couldn't find the manual for setting the thing and semi-guessed at the
setting. I tried Googling for the manufacturer and *think* I found the site,
but it just sits there and doesn't load. Does anyone know where(or have) a
copy of the manual. Be glad to pay for a photocopy.

Mike Schwab said:

16 inch wheel and the smallest size in the manual was 20 inch. This
setting was 1502. I rode the bicycle on a strech of country road,
straight, almost flat, 1.00 miles between intersections. Computer read
1.6 miles, reset computer to 1100, rode the other direction, computer
read 0.94, reset computer to 1160, rode the stretch, read 1.00, rode

....

Quoted message said:

Now you just have to find a straight, level stretch of road 1 mile long
and ride several times adjusting like I did.

That method is great for checking the accuracy; however, you missed
the easy way to find the right setting in one try. That number (the
1160 you used, for example) is the circumference of your tire in
millimeters (for most computers). Here's how I measure:
1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire
2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure
4. Feed my inches measurement into

http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDirectory/Technical/ConvertI.htm
to get millimeters.
--
Rick Onanian

On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:48:54 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That method is great for checking the accuracy; however, you missed
the easy way to find the right setting in one try. That number (the
1160 you used, for example) is the circumference of your tire in
millimeters (for most computers). Here's how I measure:
1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire
2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure
4. Feed my inches measurement into

http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDirectory/Technical/ConvertI.htm
to get millimeters.

See above for anal retentive method. Funny thing, I just now (like 20
minutes ago) changed a pair of Michelin 700x20s for a set of
Hutchinson 700x23s. To get the new cyclocomputer setting I did what
I've done for years and years. I measured the overall diameter in
milllimeters (64) and multiplied by 3.14159 (pi). Funny thing, the
Hutchinsons measured almost exactly the same as the old Michelins. I
didn't have to change the settings. :-)

This method has measured 1.01 miles over a "measured mile" as erected
by the New Jersey DOT. I figured that was close enough and
rationalized away the .01 because we actually can't ride a straight
line. ;-)

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

In article <[email hidden]>, jeverett3
@earthlink.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:48:54 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That method is great for checking the accuracy; however, you missed
the easy way to find the right setting in one try. That number (the
1160 you used, for example) is the circumference of your tire in
millimeters (for most computers). Here's how I measure:
1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire
2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure
4. Feed my inches measurement into

http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDirectory/Technical/ConvertI.htm
to get millimeters.

See above for anal retentive method. Funny thing, I just now (like 20
minutes ago) changed a pair of Michelin 700x20s for a set of
Hutchinson 700x23s. To get the new cyclocomputer setting I did what
I've done for years and years. I measured the overall diameter in
milllimeters (64) and multiplied by 3.14159 (pi). Funny thing, the
Hutchinsons measured almost exactly the same as the old Michelins. I
didn't have to change the settings. :-)

This method has measured 1.01 miles over a "measured mile" as erected
by the New Jersey DOT. I figured that was close enough and
rationalized away the .01 because we actually can't ride a straight
line. ;-)

Or maybe they squish down more when you put weight on them, causing a
few extra revolutions to register on the computer.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

John Everett said:

See above for anal retentive method.

Okay, I admit, the method I described is a bit anal retentive, but
it's a whole lot faster and easier than the previous suggestion
(guess, ride a known distance and adjust, repeat as necessary).

Quoted message said:

To get the new cyclocomputer setting I did what
I've done for years and years. I measured the overall diameter in
milllimeters (64) and multiplied by 3.14159 (pi).

I've considered doing this, but how do you get an accurate diameter?
The tire stretches with proper pressure (and deflects under the
rider's weight, but that's another issue), so you can't measure it
off the rim; and on the rim, the spokes and hub get in the way of
laying a ruler/tape measure flat on it. Huge caliper, maybe?
--
Rick Onanian

John Everett said:

Quoted message said:

1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire
2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure
4. Feed my inches measurement into

http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDirectory/Technical/ConvertI.htm
to get millimeters.

See above for anal retentive method.

No. The anal retentive method would required that it be along a
straight line, unweighted. Riding the bike will almost defintely,
between deflection and non-linear movement, give an incorrect
measurement. Whether it amounts to a hill of beans probably depends on
rider weight, tire pressure and Kentucky windage.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire
2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure

See above for anal retentive method.

No. The anal retentive method would required that it be along a
straight line, unweighted. Riding the bike will almost defintely,
between deflection and non-linear movement, give an incorrect
measurement. Whether it amounts to a hill of beans probably depends on
rider weight, tire pressure and Kentucky windage.

Straight line I understand, but doesn't it make sense to measure
_with_ the deflection that's caused by your weight being on it?
That's how you're going to ride it when you want the computer to
give you accurate results.
--
Rick Onanian

Actually, the first cyclometer I tried setting without the manual, not
even knowing what buttons to push, I began with the millimeter reading
and got 1.58. I found out later you have different setting numbers for
miles or kilometers. I just kept adjusting the numbers until I got 1.00
for a 1 mile distance. Blind guess for initial value, then
set-try-adjust until satisfied the reading is close enough to the
measured distance.

Rick Onanian said:

That method is great for checking the accuracy; however, you missed
the easy way to find the right setting in one try. That number (the
1160 you used, for example) is the circumference of your tire in
millimeters (for most computers). Here's how I measure:
1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire
2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure
4. Feed my inches measurement into

http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDirectory/Technical/ConvertI.htm
to get millimeters.
--
Rick Onanian

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:36:47 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Everett said:

To get the new cyclocomputer setting I did what
I've done for years and years. I measured the overall diameter in
milllimeters (64) and multiplied by 3.14159 (pi).

I've considered doing this, but how do you get an accurate diameter?
The tire stretches with proper pressure (and deflects under the
rider's weight, but that's another issue), so you can't measure it
off the rim; and on the rim, the spokes and hub get in the way of
laying a ruler/tape measure flat on it. Huge caliper, maybe?

Okay, here's the method I've used for years and years. I lay the wheel
horizontally on top of my kitchen waste paper basket, centering the
hub. I slide the basket over until the tire is firmly against a wall,
with either the stem or rim joint adjacent to the wall. I lay a metric
yardstick (oxymoron?) over the skewer end, the zero end of the
yardstick touching the wall and passing over both the stem and joint.
I hold a carpenter's level vertically against the tire at the point
furthest from the wall and adjust until the bubble shows it's
perfectly vertical. Where the level edge crosses the yardstick is the
outside diameter.

In the case of my new Hutchinson Carbon Comp 700x23s, this was 64mm.
Times pi is 201.06. My cyclocomputers were already set at 201 and 2010
respectively, set years ago for Michelin 700x20s. Lucky me. :-)

BTW, the Hutchinsons, regularly $45(US) are currently on sale at
Performance for $21.97. I picked up a pair just yesterday. The "Spring
Fever" sale lasts until May 23.

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

I have heard meterstick

John Everett wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

... metric yardstick (oxymoron?) ...

<snip>

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

....

Quoted message said:

That method is great for checking the accuracy; however, you missed
the easy way to find the right setting in one try. That number (the
1160 you used, for example) is the circumference of your tire in
millimeters (for most computers). Here's how I measure:
1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire

That's a good idea! I've always just rolled the bike alongside a tape
measure, trying to put an appropriate amount of weight on the front
tire.

Quoted message said:

2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure
4. Feed my inches measurement into

Or just mutiply inches by 25.4

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Everett said:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:48:54 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That method is great for checking the accuracy; however, you missed
the easy way to find the right setting in one try. That number (the
1160 you used, for example) is the circumference of your tire in
millimeters (for most computers). Here's how I measure:
1. Put glob of "liquid paper" or "white out" or paint on tire
2. Ride a few feet on hard surface
3. Measure the marks it left with a tape measure
4. Feed my inches measurement into

http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDirectory/Technical/ConvertI.htm
to get millimeters.

See above for anal retentive method.

Actually the anal rententive method is to measure the
wheel's diameter in SI micrometers with laser beams, think
about significant digits, rounding error, multiplication error,
false precision, binary->decimal rational number conversion
issues within the computer, wheel true-ness, tire pressures,
walking the bike out to where you actually mount it and start
riding, adding a second magnet to click past the sensor and
adjusting input numbers accordingly, tring to figure out an
acceptable range of +/- output error to shoot for, etc.

Computers can drive ya nutz. Or take away time better spent
riding. If ya let 'em.

Stupid cycloputers. :-) :-) :-)

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca