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

isaedmonton.caConverOpen ↗
tI.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

isaedmonton.caConveOpen ↗
rtI.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
home.earthlink.net~jeverett3Open ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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

isaedmonton.caConOpen ↗
vertI.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

isaedmonton.caConvOpen ↗
ertI.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

isaedmonton.caConvOpen ↗
ertI.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
home.earthlink.net~jeverett3Open ↗

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:

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

isaedmonton.caConvOpen ↗
ertI.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