# Are cycling computers dead?



## BurkC (Sep 15, 2008)

I got a sweet eBay deal on a Cateye Padrone and thought I was the tits, then I realized, why do I even have a cycling computer anymore. I use Strava for all my rides.

Are cycling computers dead?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BurkC said:


> Are cycling computers dead?


Not at all. I have one on my penny-farthing.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Yeah, you can do it all with a phone and app, but hasn't happened yet. You can upload to Strava or virtually any other activity site from most Garmins and other GPS cycling computers. And there are many phone apps beside the Strava app that will do the same. Size, battery life, robustness, usability while riding are all factors to consider when deciding on a cycling computer.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

They will probably never die completely, but it'll probably be impossible to find one for more than $50 or so without a GPS and data recording capabilities. And most of the ones sold will probably not exceed $25.


----------



## BurkC (Sep 15, 2008)

Lone Rager said:


> Yeah, you can do it all with a phone and app, but hasn't happened yet.


What hasn't?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

I can see some utility to instantly readable speed, mileage, cadence information while your phone sits safely in your pocket recording the more detailed information.

I don't find the mapping ability of cell phones, using any of the various apps, to be particularly helpful, as the "snapshots" you get are hard to interpret (as opposed to an ongoing display). Then again, I wouldn't expect most cycle computers with GPS to be a whole lot better because of the tiny screens.

I actually lost a cell phone recently after digging it out of a sweaty pocket in the middle of a ride and apparently having it stick in the top of the pocket and come out.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

TwiceHorn said:


> I actually lost a cell phone recently after digging it out of a sweaty pocket in the middle of a ride and apparently having it stick in the top of the pocket and come out.


A couple years ago, I found one on the trail. Never would have been able to reunite it with its owner unless its owner hadn't called his own phone. With the screen locked, the only thing I could do was answer an incoming call.

For true wayfinding, I agree that pretty much all device screens are of fairly limited utility. For quick reference purposes, they're generally not too bad. But mostly, I navigate with a paper map when I can...when a decent one is available.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

BurkC said:


> I got a sweet eBay deal on a Cateye Padrone and thought I was the tits, then I realized, why do I even have a cycling computer anymore. I use Strava for all my rides.
> 
> Are cycling computers dead?


I'll bet sales of them are way off if comparing bike sales and or bike accessory sales numbers over the years , but DEAD, no I don't think so. 
I use a basic app at times but the simple display of speed, miles and outside air temp is somehow pleasing to me on a Planet Bike $45 gizmo from years ago.
I'm not intuitive about many things and my mind wanders constantly so maybe it's these traits that make the computer nicer for me.

Hard for me to explain the value or relevance of a bike computer because any ride is a nice ride and rarely is any one thing the highlight, yet knowing the typical speed I ride, how far I went or am going and the temp outside make it more of an adventure.
Doing so with these basics and not running down my phone battery or having to mount the phone on the bike to see it all time is really handy in my world.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Harold said:


> A couple years ago, I found one on the trail. Never would have been able to reunite it with its owner unless its owner hadn't called his own phone. With the screen locked, the only thing I could do was answer an incoming call.


This happened to my daughter a couple of years ago. Lost her phone in St Andrews, thought it was gone forever. I called it a few times and the manager of the supermarket answered. Few days later a box with the phone arrived.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

BurkC said:


> What hasn't?


The supplanting of cycling GPS units by the Strava or similar phone apps.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

Dead dead.

I've used Cyclemeter on the iPhone since 3gs days (and never lost a phone). I refused to buy a Garmin all this time and have no regrets. I can't see the screen on anything below a Garmin 1000 without glasses and the damn thinks lockup with regularity (at least for some of my friends who have them).

I have a Wahoo Rflkt+ that goes on my bars to mirror stats or post directions from my tucked-away iPhone if I really need it... rare occurrence.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Is there a difference between a cycling computer and a Garmin or Wahoo? They're certainly not dead.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

edubfromktown said:


> Dead dead.
> 
> I've used Cyclemeter on the iPhone since 3gs days (and never lost a phone). I refused to buy a Garmin all this time and have no regrets. I can't see the screen on anything below a Garmin 1000 without glasses and the damn thinks lockup with regularity (at least for some of my friends who have them).
> 
> I have a Wahoo Rflkt+ that goes on my bars to mirror stats or post directions from my tucked-away iPhone if I really need it... rare occurrence.


How can you see the screen on your Wahoo, then?



J.B. Weld said:


> Is there a difference between a cycling computer and a Garmin or Wahoo? They're certainly not dead.


In reality, they're all bike computers. But OP is referencing old fashioned cyclocomputers that function on a wheel sensor only. No GPS.

Non-GPS cyclocomputers aren't dead just because they no longer dominate the market in that segment. They still exist, and people still buy a lot of them, because they are significantly cheaper than GPS-based computers. Not everyone has a smart phone, or wants to use it as a bike computer.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I have no interest in strapping my iPhone to my handlebars.

Nor do I have any interest in pulling it out of my pocket while riding to look at data.

So, no, at least for me, the phone will never supplant the cycling computer for some purposes.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Harold said:


> In reality, they're all bike computers. But OP is referencing old fashioned cyclocomputers that function on a wheel sensor only. No GPS.
> 
> Non-GPS cyclocomputers aren't dead just because they no longer dominate the market in that segment. They still exist, and people still buy a lot of them, because they are significantly cheaper than GPS-based computers.


It's sort of like flip phones vs. smart phones, they're both phones but fewer and fewer people are using flip phones, mostly due to the fact that smart phones have a ton more features and the price gap is steadily narrowing. Same with cycle computers, gps ones are under $100 now and it probably won't be long before they're $50. RIP flip phones/non-gps computers.

So my answer is that cycle computers are more popular than ever.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

I believe what the OP was getting at was the Strava app on his phone does everything a Garmin would. That's true. But it's the physical aspects and the dedicated nature of a cycling GPS computer that sways people in that direction. So yeah, you can use for phone instead of a Garmin, but quite a few still prefer a Garmin, and Garmin continues to rake in the dough.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I think a phone is great if you just put it away until the end of the ride but I don't think I'd want to mount one on my handlebars, especially if you want to use power, cadence, heart rate, etc. while riding it seems like a Garmin or whatever gps is the only way to go.


----------



## BurkC (Sep 15, 2008)

I was talking about these. I don't really know why I have one anymore









Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Dave Mac (Jan 9, 2017)

for one you do not have to worry about loosing gps or satellite signal with a basic bike computer is the biggest advantage I see


----------



## BurkC (Sep 15, 2008)

Dave Mac said:


> for one you do not have to worry about loosing gps or satellite signal with a basic bike computer is the biggest advantage I see


Good point

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Dave Mac said:


> for one you do not have to worry about loosing gps or satellite signal with a basic bike computer is the biggest advantage I see


If you have a wheel sensor you'd still get speed and distance with a gps computer. I think.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Dave Mac said:


> for one you do not have to worry about loosing gps or satellite signal with a basic bike computer is the biggest advantage I see





J.B. Weld said:


> If you have a wheel sensor you'd still get speed and distance with a gps computer. I think.


I haven't lost gps reception on a ride in over 10yrs. And yes, if you have a wheel sensor, you still record speed and distance.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

BurkC said:


> I was talking about these (simple cyclometer). I don't really know why I have one anymore...


You may not need or want one, and I don't either, but many riders like having a simple dedicated speed, distance and odometer readout on their bike. It's something they're used to in their cars or motorcycles. They don't want to fumble with a phone or expose it to the hazards of being mounted on the bars, and they're not interesting in recording and uploading detailed ride data. And, it'll run for years on a coin cell so you're bothering with charging it. A simple cyclometer meets their needs.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

BurkC said:


> I was talking about these. I don't really know why I have one anymore
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see what you are getting at. Just mount that somewhere where you can't see it, then you won't even know you have it ! 
At least put some tape over the lens so people aren't watching you.


----------



## Dave Mac (Jan 9, 2017)

Harold said:


> I haven't lost gps reception on a ride in over 10yrs. And yes, if you have a wheel sensor, you still record speed and distance.
> 
> Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


that is good to here because for me it looks like a basic gps is a tad more simple then a basic computer one needing a wheel sensor and the other not needing anything.

I am only after the basics average speed and odometer trip mileage timer


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Dave Mac said:


> that is good to here because for me it looks like a basic gps is a tad more simple then a basic computer one needing a wheel sensor and the other not needing anything.
> 
> I am only after the basics average speed and odometer trip mileage timer


I absolutely cannot recommend a GPS computer on a bicycle without at least a wheel sensor. You can probably get away with it on a road bike, but it makes a significant difference on a mtb. For what you want, your trip meter will be short by 10-20% or so, depending on how twisty your trails are. Your average speed will also be off (higher than it should be, because shorter distance in the same amt of time will make for a higher speed).

Further, the absolute cheapest of GPS computers frequently have data recording intervals at unacceptably low rates for the speeds you are likely to attain on a bicycle. Those low rates are fine for hiking or for the speeds most people jog, but it will result in the error of your measured distance being at the high end of the scale, so closer to 20% short.

You are better off with a $25 cyclocomputer, IMO, and a phone app if you want to record your rides for Strava or whatever (a phone app likely won't give you any worse recorded GPS data than a bottom-of-the-barrel GPS computer, and it will probably be a little better).


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Harold said:


> I absolutely cannot recommend a GPS computer on a bicycle without at least a wheel sensor. You can probably get away with it on a road bike, but it makes a significant difference on a mtb.


I think that depends where you are, in my area gps seems to work well. I know that it's very accurate on the road and it seems reasonably accurate on trails. I would recommend one here no problem.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think that depends where you are, in my area gps seems to work well. I know that it's very accurate on the road and it seems reasonably accurate on trails. I would recommend one here no problem.


I covered that in my post. Geography doesn't matter so much as the configuration of the trail. A fast, twisty downhill is going to be heavily shorted with a GPS-only computer with a poor recording interval.

Trails in deep valleys will also be worse than trails on exposed ridgetops, but that's not a necessity. A twisty ridgetop trail will still be significantly worse than a straight ridgetop trail.

Rides where I live encompass both sorts of arrangements most of the time. I can see the GPS error increase on every twisty section, and I can see the accuracy improve on the straights.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Harold said:


> I covered that in my post. Geography doesn't matter so much as the configuration of the trail. A fast, twisty downhill is going to be heavily shorted with a GPS-only computer with a poor recording interval.


I was only giving an alternate opinion based on my experience, I guess trails around here aren't twisty enough to adversely affect data to any meaningful degree and our trails seem fairly typical for the region. Anyway, again I'd recommend a gps without a sensor and a lot of people I ride with would too. Not saying you're wrong Harold, just a different view from a different place.

I do realize a sensor would be most accurate and that people seeking the highest accuracy should get one.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> I do realize a sensor would be most accurate and that people seeking the highest accuracy should get one.


That's where my opinion comes from. I didn't always hold that opinion, but I changed it after people repeatedly whined (in this forum) about how GPS is less accurate than their $25 cyclocomputer. GPS got placed on a lofty pedestal as being "the best" for a period of time, with no real discussion about the inherent error and limitations of the tech. So people started getting a lot of unrealistic expectations about how accurate it would be.

I state my opinion the way I do to make sure that people are hearing that the best accuracy is going to come from using a computer with a wheel sensor ALWAYS, and to minimize the number of people who go into it with unrealistic and inaccurate expectations of the results they will get from it. Because buying a GPS computer is still a fairly expensive endeavor. Plenty of people blame the manufacturer for it for any loss of accuracy for making a terrible product, when it was really their own lack of understanding (which is in part due to marketing departments not telling the whole story) that created the disappointment. It's not an inferior product. Rather, it's that people buy the marketing hook, line, and sinker, and don't continue to research and ask questions.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Put my Galaxy Note on the handlebars of a mountain bike? Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope, no effing way!
It would come off and get broken.
Besides, there is almost no cellular coverage on our trails.

I don't do Strava.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

andytiedye said:


> Put my Galaxy Note on the handlebars of a mountain bike? Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope, no effing way!


Me neither but it's relatively safe in my jersey pocket, or camelbak if I used one. I do use strava but personally I don't care much to see my speed or distance while riding. If I had a power meter, heart rate or cadence sensor then I'd definitely want an onboard display.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

andytiedye said:


> Put my Galaxy Note on the handlebars of a mountain bike? Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope, no effing way!
> It would come off and get broken.
> Besides, there is almost no cellular coverage on our trails.
> 
> ...


That's why I have a cheap phone, and its been on my handlebar for over a year on 3 different bikes.

I only use that phone for riding, and honestly never look at it, except occasionally my speed on the road.

To take pictures its very handy, and for as much as I fall the phone has held up pretty well.


----------



## 2therock (Jun 14, 2010)

I like my phone but like to get away from it every chance I get.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

2therock said:


> I like my phone but like to get away from it every chance I get.
> 
> Heh,
> I just was searching the classifieds here for a no frills budget used bike computer with heart monitor (no luck) and stumbled into here.. So if any of you guys?
> ...


might as well start your own thread with your question so it will get its own attention


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

BurkC said:


> I got a sweet eBay deal on a Cateye Padrone and thought I was the tits, then I realized, why do I even have a cycling computer anymore. I use Strava for all my rides.
> 
> Are cycling computers dead?


They will be when I grow a 3rd arm to hold my phone as I'm looking where I need to turn next for "that ride"

I have used my phone when I forgot my garmin 800 here and there.

The strava phone app does not do a good job on any trail where you are moving fast and turning a lot.


----------



## Dave Mac (Jan 9, 2017)

Harold said:


> That's where my opinion comes from. I didn't always hold that opinion, but I changed it after people repeatedly whined (in this forum) about how GPS is less accurate than their $25 cyclocomputer. GPS got placed on a lofty pedestal as being "the best" for a period of time, with no real discussion about the inherent error and limitations of the tech. So people started getting a lot of unrealistic expectations about how accurate it would be.
> 
> I state my opinion the way I do to make sure that people are hearing that the best accuracy is going to come from using a computer with a wheel sensor ALWAYS, and to minimize the number of people who go into it with unrealistic and inaccurate expectations of the results they will get from it. Because buying a GPS computer is still a fairly expensive endeavor. Plenty of people blame the manufacturer for it for any loss of accuracy for making a terrible product, when it was really their own lack of understanding (which is in part due to marketing departments not telling the whole story) that created the disappointment. It's not an inferior product. Rather, it's that people buy the marketing hook, line, and sinker, and don't continue to research and ask questions.


Harold

many thanks for sharing it is greatly appreciated


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

Harold said:


> That's where my opinion comes from. I didn't always hold that opinion, but I changed it after people repeatedly whined (in this forum) about how GPS is less accurate than their $25 cyclocomputer. GPS got placed on a lofty pedestal as being "the best" for a period of time, with no real discussion about the inherent error and limitations of the tech. So people started getting a lot of unrealistic expectations about how accurate it would be.
> 
> I state my opinion the way I do to make sure that people are hearing that the best accuracy is going to come from using a computer with a wheel sensor ALWAYS, and to minimize the number of people who go into it with unrealistic and inaccurate expectations of the results they will get from it. Because buying a GPS computer is still a fairly expensive endeavor. Plenty of people blame the manufacturer for it for any loss of accuracy for making a terrible product, when it was really their own lack of understanding (which is in part due to marketing departments not telling the whole story) that created the disappointment. It's not an inferior product. Rather, it's that people buy the marketing hook, line, and sinker, and don't continue to research and ask questions.


 Is that a load of bs. GPS units should always use a speed sensor for accuracy. GPS helps you from being lost and plots your ride very nicely. Some give you turn info, eta and other useful data for some. If the product is bad, do not buy it. My old Garmin 1000 does all I need and in fact is quite accurate. Remember these are not military grade devices. I know a lot of riders and none of them complain about accuracy. GPS has limitations, like all technology. Know how and when to use it.


----------



## JBarn (Jan 7, 2010)

Not going away. My commute bike uses a good old fashion hard wired computer. I don't need all of my data for my daily commute rides and I LOVE not worrying about my battery life or did I remember to start Srava. No batter for my sensor either as It's hard wired....

Now on my road, MTB and cyclocross bikes it's a different story.....love my Wahoo...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Pedalon2018 said:


> Is that a load of bs. GPS units should always use a speed sensor for accuracy. GPS helps you from being lost and plots your ride very nicely. Some give you turn info, eta and other useful data for some. If the product is bad, do not buy it. My old Garmin 1000 does all I need and in fact is quite accurate. Remember these are not military grade devices. I know a lot of riders and none of them complain about accuracy. GPS has limitations, like all technology. Know how and when to use it.


what's a load of bs?

my position has come from spending years on here answering people's questions and helping them out. And yes, some people come in here royally PISSED that their Garmin reports distances 10-20% less than their cheap computer and upset that it cost so much more than their cheap computer and blah blah blah. It doesn't happen more often because I have been doing damage control/prevention in here for years. It happened a lot in the beginning.

If you're happy not using a wheel sensor, with the results you get, then that's great. You had the right expectations going into it. But the people who get pissed have the wrong expectations going in, and they wind up being pissed that the product failed to meet their unrealistic expectations. They blame the manufacturer for making an poor, inferior product. It's not the manufacturer's fault. As you mentioned, GPS technology has its limitations, and it's important before you buy anything with a GPS, to at least vaguely be aware of them. My advice here helps to set expectations.

It is absolutely true that if you care about getting the best accuracy out of reported distance, that you should be using a wheel sensor. It also means you should pay attention to the calibration of that sensor. Because a GPS-only distance calculation will ALWAYS under-report distance traveled if the computer is accurately calculating your position. Doesn't mean the computer is bad. The wheel sensor simply accounts for certain limitations of GPS technology.

For my own use, a wheel sensor measures distance, and the GPS records where I've been. A wheel sensor is a pretty unobtrusive part that I can ignore until the Garmin tells me that the battery needs replacing, which seems to happen once a year or so.


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

Harold said:


> what's a load of bs?


...that he called your post BS, then proceeded to restate your talking points in his own words?

That guy must be a riot at a party...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I wish more people had a fundamental understanding of how GPS works, and how it calculates distance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BurkC (Sep 15, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> I wish more people had a fundamental understanding of how GPS works, and how it calculates distance.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Me too.

-surveyor

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## WillRideForBeer (Jan 12, 2004)

I use the wahoo rflkt+ with the wahoo rpm speed sensor. Most rides show a max speed of 200 or 400 mph. Anyone else experience this?
I emailed the wahoo folks, the first thing he said was to avoid pot holes and big jolts....he could see from the screen shot I sent that I was mountain biking and could only say that the software was supposed to filter those outliers but obviously wasn’t foolproof. 

WRFB


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

I use a Garmin Edge 520 only on my road bike. It will upload to Strava for me once I am done with my ride. I find it handy to use a bike computer rather than eat up my battery power running Strava on my phone for hours on end. I also use it to display my heart rate, track my watts, and watch my speed. I also installed a Bontrager DuoTrap (linked to my Edge) to give me accurate speed and cadence measurements. 

I thought about using my Edge on my mountain bike, but I find having 2 bike profiles in my Edge computer to be too cumbersome. I just use Strava for mountain biking instead!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Battery said:


> I use a Garmin Edge 520 only on my road bike. It will upload to Strava for me once I am done with my ride. I find it handy to use a bike computer rather than eat up my battery power running Strava on my phone for hours on end. I also use it to display my heart rate, track my watts, and watch my speed. I also installed a Bontrager DuoTrap (linked to my Edge) to give me accurate speed and cadence measurements.
> 
> I thought about using my Edge on my mountain bike, but I find having 2 bike profiles in my Edge computer to be too cumbersome. I just use Strava for mountain biking instead!


You don't need to have different profiles.

For that matter, Garmin changed the profiles, so in the Edge 520, and many other recent models, all the profiles do is change the way data is displayed. This is different from older models that DID use bike profiles.

For example, my Edge 520 keeps track of sensors on 1 mtb and 1 road bike (soon to be 2 mtbs) entirely separately from the activity profiles. For my mtb profiles, I have data screens for basic info, HR, elevation, and map. I have a commuting profile that's super stripped down. Just basic data and a map. I have a road profile that adds a screen for cadence, but does not show elevation (though, I may wind up adding elevation because I moved to a mountainous area).

I could just as easily set up the computer with a single profile and just use all the screens that I might ever use for any ride I do (and just ignore the ones that aren't relevant - so I could ignore the cadence screen when I'm on my mtb since I do not have a cadence sensor on my mtb, or I can ignore the HR screen whenever I'm not wearing a HRM, or ignore the map whenever I don't need it, etc).

When it comes to sensors, though, the computer automatically detects which sensor(s) are active. Wheel circumference, for example, is stored on the computer under the details for each sensor. So switching bikes with the Edge 520 is pretty seamless, especially if you only set up a single profile for data fields. You no longer need to tell the computer which sensors to look for by telling it which bike profile to use, as on older models.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Good info! Thanks! I will mess with my settings and give some of this a try. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Battery said:


> Good info! Thanks! I will mess with my settings and give some of this a try.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I really like how the Edge 520 handles it as opposed to other devices. I previously used a Forerunner 310xt, which used the older profile system. If I forgot to change between the two bike profiles or my running profile, my data would be totally jacked up. Or, on the Bryton I have, if I forgot to switch between the two bike profiles, the same thing would occur. Because both devices handled sensors more or less the same - the sensor settings would be tied to a specific profile. The Edge 520 doesn't work that way and I'm SO glad, because the older way just sucks. Especially on the Bryton, where changing profiles required half a dozen button pushes and was buried in the menus. At least the Forerunner 310xt had a shortcut to change profiles.

Further, if you DO decide to set up different profiles on the Edge 520, it's quick and easy to change between them. Just push the arrow buttons on the "home" screen, before you start your activity and it'll cycle through them. And you can assign colors to each profile to make it a little more obvious when one profile is selected instead of another.

Only downside is that setup can take some time if you play around with how many data fields to show per screen, and which information to show where, and all that. I do wish that Garmin would do what some other companies are doing, and allow you to use a phone app for quicker setup of your fitness GPS. That would probably allow the device's UI to be stripped down/simplified a bit.


----------



## nickm001 (Jan 10, 2019)

VegasSingleSpeed said:


> ...that he called your post BS, then proceeded to restate your talking points in his own words?
> 
> That guy must be a riot at a party...


New poster here... In my experience phone apps +gps are almost like a random number generator ... Measurement varies on the same trail 10% and sometimes even more. This is on the same trail and approximately similar speed. So I have a question for you guys:
Is there any way to feed speed sensor data to phone app and ignore GPS info at least for distance/speed? If so which app would that be? I have asked Endomondo and Polar beat and neither one of them can use sensor data ( I am talking bluetooth sensor).


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

nickm001 said:


> New poster here... In my experience phone apps +gps are almost like a random number generator ... Measurement varies on the same trail 10% and sometimes even more. This is on the same trail and approximately similar speed. So I have a question for you guys:
> Is there any way to feed speed sensor data to phone app and ignore GPS info at least for distance/speed? If so which app would that be? I have asked Endomondo and Polar beat and neither one of them can use sensor data ( I am talking bluetooth sensor).


Some apps can use sensors, but I dunno all of which will. I do know this is one of the drawbacks of bt sensors and phones, because the apps that do use them frequently limit WHICH sensors they can use.

Look at Strava. Also look at Wahoo, since they are a major maker of sensors, they will probably give some indication of which apps will work with them.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## nickm001 (Jan 10, 2019)

thanks for quick reply. Will check Strava and Wahoo. I was using polar watches with old style speed/distance sensor and HR for ages, that was the reason I checked with them first.


----------



## Zomby Woof (MCM700) (May 23, 2004)

Not for me. I don't have a smartphone, just a dumb flip phone (free from work). So I continue using cycling computers. I like my Topeak Panoram just fine.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

I fall into the "better is the enemy of good enough" crowd. I have a new Samsung phone which consistently records trails as being the same length and vertical displacement over dozens of times riding them. My interest is in comparing my own times, distances and elevation changes. The only time I needed GPS directions on a trail was on Little Creek in Hurricane before they had any decent markers and an older phone worked fine. I suppose a wired sensor would be better if I also went to the trouble of measuring the exact wheel radius with weight on the bike at whatever pressure I was using that day, or for different tires/wheels if I decided to throw them on. But, honestly, the phone is good enough for me.

It's pretty accurate.
I can take pictures with it.
I can call for help if needed.
I can download porn on it.


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

So are stand alone devices better than better than all in one devises like cell smart phones? Of course they are. I have always used cycling computers. They are easier to use, are almost always water resistant and the battery life has no impact on your phone. As far as accuracy, my wireless sensors on the Garmin are quite good. The wheel sensor computes all the necessary data on the wheel size so it is always accurate. I now leave the phone in the car charging while I am out on the Garmin and cell watch. Plus there is data Garmin provides that are not possible with most smartphones. Mounting is almost always superior to phone mounts. If you leave the phone in your pocket or pack, you cannot view it. Yes you can save cash using your phone but imho, you give up a lot. Just my views. Your are just as valid. Safe Travels!


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

nickm001 said:


> New poster here... In my experience phone apps +gps are almost like a random number generator ... Measurement varies on the same trail 10% and sometimes even more. This is on the same trail and approximately similar speed. So I have a question for you guys:
> Is there any way to feed speed sensor data to phone app and ignore GPS info at least for distance/speed? If so which app would that be? I have asked Endomondo and Polar beat and neither one of them can use sensor data ( I am talking bluetooth sensor).


Using GPS is no where near as accurate as a properly calibrated wheel sensor. You can experience signal dropouts and continusely loses or gains satellites which affects accuracy. I had a wheel sensor die on a very long ride so it switches to gps automatically. The data recorded was not accurate when compared to the same ride in the past ridden numerous times. I believe there are some app and phones that can read ant+ But not positive.


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

Harold said:


> I really like how the Edge 520 handles it as opposed to other devices. I previously used a Forerunner 310xt, which used the older profile system. If I forgot to change between the two bike profiles or my running profile, my data would be totally jacked up. Or, on the Bryton I have, if I forgot to switch between the two bike profiles, the same thing would occur. Because both devices handled sensors more or less the same - the sensor settings would be tied to a specific profile. The Edge 520 doesn't work that way and I'm SO glad, because the older way just sucks. Especially on the Bryton, where changing profiles required half a dozen button pushes and was buried in the menus. At least the Forerunner 310xt had a shortcut to change profiles.
> 
> Further, if you DO decide to set up different profiles on the Edge 520, it's quick and easy to change between them. Just push the arrow buttons on the "home" screen, before you start your activity and it'll cycle through them. And you can assign colors to each profile to make it a little more obvious when one profile is selected instead of another.
> 
> Only downside is that setup can take some time if you play around with how many data fields to show per screen, and which information to show where, and all that. I do wish that Garmin would do what some other companies are doing, and allow you to use a phone app for quicker setup of your fitness GPS. That would probably allow the device's UI to be stripped down/simplified a bit.


It does take time to set up your data fields with up to ten data fields per page times 5 pages plus other possible pages on a Garmin 1000/1030. But that is the beauty of like devices. You can design it exactly like to want it and then change it very easily if you desire. Setting up these pager was fun for me. So easy to do. I have one page that only displays 3 fields to make the number BIG. Speed, cadence and grade. I use this page on big/long climbe. Page for eTap, Di2, navigation and fitness. All so programmable. It also has a remote it you desire one.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Pedalon2018 said:


> I believe there are some app and phones that can read ant+ But not positive.


For phones, this is relatively rare. But pretty much every phone does bluetooth, so you can find BT sensors. But because of how BT works, each sensor generally has a limited number of apps it'll work with. So when you get a sensor, you're locked into whatever app(s) are compatible.

I had an odd situation occur on a ride recently. My GPS dropped out in a spot where that's usually not an issue, and then a couple hundred yards down the trail it picked up again. The GPS did not continue to record distance (I have a wheel sensor, with a relatively fresh battery in it), as indicated by comparing to my wife's computer, which recorded that stretch of trail. It's almost as though the GPS paused for a time. There are some road rides that pass through tunnels around here, and the wheel sensor continues to accumulate distance when the GPS drops out in those spots, which is how I expect things to function if the GPS drops out.

I have auto-pause disabled, so I would have had to bump the start/pause button twice. Which I don't recall doing (the computer would have beeped at me if I did). Odd. But one of the benefits of the wheel sensor is that you're supposed to continue to track distance when/if the GPS signal drops out. Which is also important if you ever put your bike on a trainer and turn the GPS completely off.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Pedalon2018 said:


> It does take time to set up your data fields with up to ten data fields per page times 5 pages plus other possible pages on a Garmin 1000/1030. But that is the beauty of like devices. You can design it exactly like to want it and then change it very easily if you desire. Setting up these pager was fun for me. So easy to do. I have one page that only displays 3 fields to make the number BIG. Speed, cadence and grade. I use this page on big/long climbe. Page for eTap, Di2, navigation and fitness. All so programmable. It also has a remote it you desire one.


This is one area where better phone integration for setup would be nice, especially for the 520.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

I have a Garmin Edge 200 and it give me everything I need other than the time. 

I don't need the Strava....


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

Harold said:


> For phones, this is relatively rare. But pretty much every phone does bluetooth, so you can find BT sensors. But because of how BT works, each sensor generally has a limited number of apps it'll work with. So when you get a sensor, you're locked into whatever app(s) are compatible.
> 
> I had an odd situation occur on a ride recently. My GPS dropped out in a spot where that's usually not an issue, and then a couple hundred yards down the trail it picked up again. The GPS did not continue to record distance (I have a wheel sensor, with a relatively fresh battery in it), as indicated by comparing to my wife's computer, which recorded that stretch of trail. It's almost as though the GPS paused for a time. There are some road rides that pass through tunnels around here, and the wheel sensor continues to accumulate distance when the GPS drops out in those spots, which is how I expect things to function if the GPS drops out.
> 
> I have auto-pause disabled, so I would have had to bump the start/pause button twice. Which I don't recall doing (the computer would have beeped at me if I did). Odd. But one of the benefits of the wheel sensor is that you're supposed to continue to track distance when/if the GPS signal drops out. Which is also important if you ever put your bike on a trainer and turn the GPS completely off.


garmin setup with a wheel sensor will always use that data as line it receives a wireless signal. If it loses that, then it switches to GPS which is not as accurate. So if you are running a wheel sensor the GPS will plot you on a map and other actions but not speed/distance.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Pedalon2018 said:


> garmin setup with a wheel sensor will always use that data as line it receives a wireless signal. If it loses that, then it switches to GPS which is not as accurate. So if you are running a wheel sensor the GPS will plot you on a map and other actions but not speed/distance.


You're misreading what I said happened.

The GPS tracking was lost during my ride. The distance traveled DOES NOT CHANGE from the point immediately prior to the dropout to the point where the GPS tracking picks up again. I would expect this behavior under two scenarios. One, if I did not have a wheel sensor (or the wheel sensor battery was dead). Well, I DO have a wheel sensor, the battery is relatively fresh, I know it is working. The other scenario would be if the device paused and was restarted. Auto pause is disabled, but a manual pause is possible. It's just strange because I never heard the GPS beep at me for pausing it. I suppose a third scenario is possible - that the GPS reception was lost AND the sensor connection was lost at the same moment. But the section of trail where this occurred is nowhere near any sort of interference that might potentially cause this to happen.


----------



## rebayona (Jan 29, 2015)

I use both on a daily basis. With the wired old cyclometer you'll never lose an inch, but can't say the same with strava, you'll forget to start/stop it at least once every week. 
not to mention that you'll get crazy jumps due to crazy GPS, strava might be really accurate but will never be as accurate as your old wired cyclometer. Never.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Harold said:


> A couple years ago, I found one on the trail. Never would have been able to reunite it with its owner unless its owner hadn't called his own phone. With the screen locked, the only thing I could do was answer an incoming call.
> 
> For true wayfinding, I agree that pretty much all device screens are of fairly limited utility. For quick reference purposes, they're generally not too bad. But mostly, I navigate with a paper map when I can...when a decent one is available.


I also found one, not sure what to do with it we had something to eat after the ride when a text came in which I was able to respond to and since the person was local we agreed to for me just leave it at the restaurant.

Almost forgot, yes they are dead as disco!


----------



## mike_of_earth (Aug 1, 2016)

Nearly all new mobile devices do NOT have Glonass setup via firmware even though qualcomm added hardware support starting with the 845.

Glonass is more accurate, and is imperative here in the rocky mountains (IMHO). Many of the biking comps use GLONAS out of the box, including my element bolt. 

It's also a lot easier to manage, small enough to put on the bar, and I don't have to worry about signal scanning and other events killing the battery. 

I won't be switching to my mobile anytime soon.

EDIT: Spelling


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

My 3 year old Galaxy S8 had glonass out of the box. Still does. What specifically about the Rockies necessitates glonass compared to other locales? More systems/satellites should improve position accuracy but I've run GPS/Glonass and just GPS on my Garmin Edge units and haven't see a significant diff in position accuracy as far as my purposes go. My newest Garmins also have Galileo but I haven't experiment much with it.


----------



## mike_of_earth (Aug 1, 2016)

Lone Rager said:


> My 3 year old Galaxy S8 had glonass out of the box. Still does. What specifically about the Rockies necessitates glonass compared to other locales? More systems/satellites should improve position accuracy but I've run GPS/Glonass and just GPS on my Garmin Edge units and haven't see a significant diff in position accuracy as far as my purposes go. My newest Garmins also have Galileo but I haven't experiment much with it.


If you have an S8 that uses Glonass properly, I suggest you post that info on the following site... it would help a ton of people out (I am not affiliated with the site). https://medium.com/@sjbarbeau/dual-frequency-gnss-on-android-devices-152b8826e1c

Here's a list of the known supported devices (and no, this doesn't mean only firmware, it also has to mean the vendor enabled it via software). https://medium.com/@sjbarbeau/tl-dr-dual-frequency-gnss-on-android-table-of-devices-9be4bbb83a7b

I've had more than one occasion where my position was off enough that I rode the incorrect route, and on at least one occasion, had to hike a mile across private property to get back on trail. I do other things to make sure that doesn't happen again, but it happened.

Also, depending on where I am, I can get accurate location on my wahoo where the mobile is off or cannot locate.

Last I saw, they're still working on getting all the Galileo sats up, which will be sweet, and add another layer for hyper accurate location.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

Lone Rager said:


> My 3 year old Galaxy S8 had glonass out of the box. Still does. What specifically about the Rockies necessitates glonass compared to other locales? More systems/satellites should improve position accuracy but I've run GPS/Glonass and just GPS on my Garmin Edge units and haven't see a significant diff in position accuracy as far as my purposes go. My newest Garmins also have Galileo but I haven't experiment much with it.


More satellite data you get, the less chance for path errors, which are more common in hilly terrain as the already weak signals bounce around.

I too am not convinced that GLONASS is "better" then US GPS, if only as Russia does not update the systems as frequently, due to lack of financing. GLONASS though was designed to better support devices receiving in more northern latitudes (or so I've read), so maybe that's a factor.

I use speed sensors so generally don't enable anything other than GPS


----------



## mike_of_earth (Aug 1, 2016)

Catmandoo said:


> More satellite data you get, the less chance for path errors, which are more common in hilly terrain as the already weak signals bounce around.


 Thanks, you managed to capture what I couldn't in my response.



Catmandoo said:


> I too am not convinced that GLONASS is "better" then US GPS, if only as Russia does not update the systems as frequently, due to lack of financing. GLONASS though was designed to better support devices receiving in more northern latitudes (or so I've read), so maybe that's a factor.
> 
> I use speed sensors so generally don't enable anything other than GPS


Yeah, a good 'ol wheel based speed / distance sensor is the best if you're looking for the turn at 8.3 miles. I've considered getting one of those, but I've found the Bolt to be accurate to the point where I don't need it. A friend I ride with has one, and the Bolt is typically within .1 of the sensor.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

In this case hilly means how much of the sky is obscured by the hills. Hills don't need to be high, they just need to be steep and close by. Cities are the worst because the "hills" are building which are close and vertical so obscure large amounts of the sky. Most of my Rockies rides have pretty wide open skies despite being in the middle of the mountains. I get worse gps accuracy in hilly dense woods out East where the hills are 1/10 or less the relief of the Rockies. 

As for the S8, I use an app, GPS Status, that has a diagram of the GPS and Glonass satellites currently above the horizon and a bar graph showing the signal levels being received from both systems. It's very easy to turn, move around, move inside or next to objects and see how the received levels are affected and the error varies. So this app, at least, uses both. IDK how other apps might avail themselves GPS and Glonass data.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Catmandoo said:


> More satellite data you get, the less chance for path errors, which are more common in hilly terrain as the already weak signals bounce around.
> 
> I too am not convinced that GLONASS is "better" then US GPS, if only as Russia does not update the systems as frequently, due to lack of financing. GLONASS though was designed to better support devices receiving in more northern latitudes (or so I've read), so maybe that's a factor.
> 
> I use speed sensors so generally don't enable anything other than GPS


I was about to make these same comments in response to mike's post. I enable GLONASS if I can, because as far as I'm concerned, more birds = better. Even if it's only one or two extras where I live. I DO ride in the Appalachians, so lots of deep/steep hollows that block lots of sky. I've also read that GLONASS is a little faster with signal acquisition than GPS, though intentionally a little bit less accurate (different priorities, ya know). So again, if I pick up some GLONASS birds, get a signal lock a little faster, and the GPS birds come in a little later to refine my position, that's all good by me.

It'll be nice when we finally have some consumer receivers that can receive GPS/GLONASS/Galileo/Beidou and have a rather large constellation of satellites to choose from.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Some half-truths in this thread.

First, no, GLONASS by itself is not more accurate than GPS. GLONASS WITH GPS can POTENTIALLY be more accurate than GPS alone, depending on many factors, such as latitude, geography, etc. 

GLONASS has 18 birds in three orbits. It is designed to work best in far northern latitudes, like, for example, Russia. Shocker. 

All of this said, if/when you find yourself lost, get to a high point, sit your ass down and wait. Those birds are orbiting the earth in less than 12 hours, at about 20,000km out, so that means that they are scooting around pretty quickly.


----------



## mike_of_earth (Aug 1, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Some half-truths in this thread.
> 
> First, no, GLONASS by itself is not more accurate than GPS. GLONASS WITH GPS can POTENTIALLY be more accurate than GPS alone, depending on many factors, such as latitude, geography, etc.
> 
> ...


Thanks! I think I should have stated my case using L1 + L5 support and not GLONASS. Source

As mentioned by others and the article, its the combination of both AND the speed of L5 that improves geoloc.

Not saying its wrong to use a mobile, but my experience has been better with the bolt, despite mountain shadows and all that.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

Nice thread. My NOS Garmin 500 rides again!

For a time I only monitored heart rate. Then I got a phone based eBike system with handebar hard case for the old iPhone4 when the HR monitor died. When that phone went south, I got a new old stock Garmin 500 which had a battery swap out last year (2 years on the shelf and 7 on the bike?) 

I don't need Strava. I don't need a map. I do need heart rate. Speed and cadence are nice. I discovered sensor-less speed reading is pure crap with justr minor hills here when I mounted new 650B wheels. 

I had not been connecting it for route data uploads because I don't care about the history. It is all about the now and me. So I missed a needed software update or five. It would start then die when the satellite location stage began. Easy fix. It is still supported. Thought some here would like to know.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

^^^ There a many non-gps cyclometers that will do what you want; display real-time speed, distance, cadence, and HR. These things will run a year or two off a CR2032 coin cell.


----------



## NoCanSurf (Feb 19, 2021)

So… for my birthday I got an Apple Watch. It’s pretty fancy. At first, I was obsessed with it, and would spend far more time then reasonable with its EKG feature (my heart is normal and fine) and the O2 sensor. I watch my heart rate while doing everything in my life around my home. Washing dishes raised my heart rate by 2 bpm, having one of the kittens sit in my lap dropped it by about 5 bpms (these results are not scientific or verified).

So, today while I was tweaking a rear derailer, and needed to take the bike for a quick test ride around my block - I decided to test the Apple Watch “outdoor bicycling” mode. Not having the normal Heart rate strap, or bike computer, or even my phone (I did have a helmet) the watch was my only sensor suite. The data the watch collects is the basic but really the core stuff: heart rate, distance, elevation gains, time, speed and Calories. I understand some people want a LOT more data points, but I’m at the point in my life that these are fine.

I’ve been pricing out bike computers, and related sensors and it’s a comes to the price of an entry level bike in some cases. I’ve decided to use just the Apple Watch and forego the dedicated bike computer. Quad-lock my iPhone (an old iPhone 8 plus) to the handlebar and calling it done. I’m already carrying the iPhone with me…


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Every time I think I'm going stupid fast, I'm too terrified to look at my cyclocomputer. And going uphill is too discouragingly slow to look at. So it's pretty much useless.


----------

