# Garmin Edge 500 and GSC 10 for Trail Riding



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

Hey there. This past weekend I did some testing and determined that a Garmin Edge 500 alone is insufficient for logging distances on a trail ride, but coupled with the GSC 10 wheel/cadence sensor it's as accurate as a traditional computer (but with all the extra logging features).

If you'd like to read what I wrote on this the article can be seen here: Garmin Edge 500 Distance Aliasing Issues Alleviated By GSC 10 Sensor.


----------



## Aushiker (Sep 27, 2007)

Hi

I suspect, well from what I see with my own tracks, that using every second makes quite a difference to the accuracy and hence I have my doubts about your conclusions. Interesting posting but.

Andrew


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

Aushiker said:


> Hi
> 
> I suspect, well from what I see with my own tracks, that using every second makes quite a difference to the accuracy and hence I have my doubts about your conclusions. Interesting posting but.
> 
> Andrew


Andrew,

I intend to do a separate test of Smart Recording vs. Every Second, but I strongly suspect that it'll still not be as good as adding a wheel sensor.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

Trek Bikes

Bontrager makes an ant+ speed only sensor for $29. Fork mount. (not pictured on their website but here is one http://www.thisisant.com/modules/mod_product-directory.php?t=prodSelect&prod=17 ) It works very well and is very durable. I do not trust the cadence version with the adjustable swing arm and found it very difficult to mount to a full suspension bike.

the sensor does seem to help out.


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

chiplikestoridehisbike said:


> Trek Bikes
> 
> Bontrager makes an ant+ speed only sensor for $29. Fork mount. (not pictured on their website but here is one http://www.thisisant.com/modules/mod_product-directory.php?t=prodSelect&prod=17 ) It works very well and is very durable. I do not trust the cadence version with the adjustable swing arm and found it very difficult to mount to a full suspension bike.
> 
> the sensor does seem to help out.


Interesting to note from that list, the Nite Rider Rebel wireless computers (and wheel sensor which have been showing up on Chainlove lately) are ANT+.


----------



## jn35646 (Mar 3, 2011)

c0nsumer said:


> Interesting to note from that list, the Nite Rider Rebel wireless computers (and wheel sensor which have been showing up on Chainlove lately) are ANT+.


Yep, $10 too, I've been waiting on it to pop up again to snag one for the wife and myself.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

This from another thread, but for the benefit of the 500 buyers who come looking for help.



c0nsumer said:


> What I found was that it's so much better that I'd personally consider the Edge 500 unusable for trail riding without the wheel sensor.


I've posted the press releases and all the information I can find from Garmin.. 
http://forums.mtbr.com/7658826-post7.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/7857353-post16.html

They are all about the design, riders, and introduction event were all road races or racers. No where do they explicitly mention mountain bikes, though as one person pointed out, they do not exclude mountain bikes either.

If you do a browser search on the page, you will find:

The Garmin Edge 500 page DOES NOT mention mountain biking.
The Garmin Edge 800 page DOES mention mountain biking.

It all comes down to Buyer Beware and Shop Wisely. If you fail that, then blame Garmin for misleading you and ruining your life, like a few continually remind us with posts here.


----------



## jn35646 (Mar 3, 2011)

That was an interesting read. When you talk about aliasing, do you know, or have you tested, whether or not the Garmin gps data uses the speed/cadence sensor to smooth the curves? In my experience the GPS alone does not even show tight switchbacks, only longer curves because as you said, they just happen to fast. I did just install the GSC 10 on my bike last night and will ride the same route I did last week at the local trail to compare the mapping. I am mostly curious if the overlays become accurate.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jn35646 said:


> That was an interesting read. When you talk about aliasing, do you know, or have you tested, whether or not the Garmin gps data uses the speed/cadence sensor to smooth the curves? In my experience the GPS alone does not even show tight switchbacks, only longer curves because as you said, they just happen to fast. I did just install the GSC 10 on my bike last night and will ride the same route I did last week at the local trail to compare the mapping. I am mostly curious if the overlays become accurate.


The GSC 10 does not provide position data to smooth the curves on the map. The only things that will help with that are to increase sampling frequency and slow down. This is the reason why when I am mapping a trail for serious purposes, I set the sampling interval at 1sec and I WALK the trail.

What it does is provide data to the GPS that overrides the speed and distance calculations the GPS makes based on the positions.

I have not seen this addressed, but I'm not even sure if GSC 10 data is used outside of the GPS by any programs. It certainly gets saved with the track data (otherwise how could the GPS keep track of GSC 10 data over the course of a ride?), but I suspect that many programs ignore those tags in the output file. Garmin's own programs/Garmin Connect probably read those fields, though. SportTracks might...if the program doesn't do it natively there may well be a plugin for that.


----------



## jaxson (Mar 7, 2006)

I am just using the Edge 500 without the speed/cadence sensor on the mtn bike. Was curious as to why a 24 + mile trail I ride showed up as 21.3 on the 500. 

I thought about the idea of a satellite "looking down" or perpendicular to the Unit as opposed to a wheel sensor that is measuring the terrain parallel.

Thanks for a great article. Now to look into a wheel sensor.


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

jaxson said:


> I am just using the Edge 500 without the speed/cadence sensor on the mtn bike. Was curious as to why a 24 + mile trail I ride showed up as 21.3 on the 500.
> 
> I thought about the idea of a satellite "looking down" or perpendicular to the Unit as opposed to a wheel sensor that is measuring the terrain parallel.
> 
> Thanks for a great article. Now to look into a wheel sensor.


Your problem is basically exactly what I've described. The inaccuracies of GPS coupled with aliasing issues likely compounded into this underrecording. And yes, a wheel sensor (GSC 10) will do what you need. I'd suggest getting one, setting it up, putting the wheel size to Auto, riding roughly a half-mile straight line (find a quiet residential road or rail trail or something), let it autocalculate your wheel size, and go ride.


----------



## jaxson (Mar 7, 2006)

Thanks c0nsumer. PM sent.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The Edge 500 seems particularly prone to aliasing errors. The extra sensor would be worthwhile, I think.

Also important is your recording frequency. You didn't mention which setting you used, but the more frequent the recording interval, the better for mountain biking. 1sec recording is generally regarded as the best for mtb. I cannot disagree with that. I get significant underreporting and map accuracy issues using Auto on the bike.


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

How do you change recording interval?


----------



## jaxson (Mar 7, 2006)

NateHawk, 

I had my Edge 500 set on "Smart Recording" and "Custom" for wheel size for both road & mtn bike. I haven't looked into what Smart Recording does, but I have since changed my road / cross bike settings to "Every Second" recording and "Auto" for wheel size.

When I get a sensor for my mtn bike, I'll give the new settings a try.


----------



## jaxson (Mar 7, 2006)

chiplikestoridehisbike said:


> Trek Bikes
> 
> Bontrager makes an ant+ speed only sensor for $29. Fork mount. (not pictured on their website but here is one http://www.thisisant.com/modules/mod_product-directory.php?t=prodSelect&prod=17 ) It works very well and is very durable. I do not trust the cadence version with the adjustable swing arm and found it very difficult to mount to a full suspension bike.
> 
> the sensor does seem to help out.


You've had experience with this Bontrager sensor? My _3rd_ GSC 10 since Feb. of this year has just stopped working. Not concerned about cadence on the mtn bike ... just need the speed reading.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

"It works very well and is very durable" Yes, I have been running it for over a year now. It has survived some bad spills, and extremely nasty conditions. Look up Fool's Gold 2010, it survived that and is still going strong.


----------



## equalme (Sep 8, 2010)

Sucks that the GSC10 won't conveniently work on a full-suspension. Garmin needs to come out with a fork mount sensor for trail riding...all I care to log is distance and speed when I mtb.


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

anthonylokrn said:


> Sucks that the GSC10 won't conveniently work on a full-suspension. Garmin needs to come out with a fork mount sensor for trail riding...all I care to log is distance and speed when I mtb.


I don't think your statement is universally true. I've seen a GSC10 installed on a bunch of FS bikes, including my Titus Racer X and a bunch of Specializeds. I think what matters most is the chainstay design.

If you're only concerned with speed, are you sure there isn't some place you could put it? I'm sure it could be used as a fork-mount sensor for speed and no cadence.

If it's of any help, this is what I did to fit one on my Mukluk, as the cranks are too close to the chainstays for the stock magnet to work. Since I wasn't concerned with cadence on that bike I just put the unit somewhere that would work nicely. Being closer to the hub I suspect it'll also do a better job staying out of the snow.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

I just have so much trouble understanding why people are hell bent on buying a GPS that is clearly designed for road bikes (Google and search my posts on that in this forum). 

Then they want to put a road bike device on, designed for pseudo and real racers (indoor trainers / cadence training / power meters, are what it is designed to provide), to try and make it better! Gah! Ugh!


----------



## D-Town (Oct 20, 2005)

slocaus said:


> I just have so much trouble understanding why people are hell bent on buying a GPS that is clearly designed for road bikes (Google and search my posts on that in this forum).
> 
> Then they want to put a road bike device on, designed for pseudo and real racers (indoor trainers / cadence training / power meters, are what it is designed to provide), to try and make it better! Gah! Ugh!


For me it really came down to simplicity and price. I liked how easy and SMALL the 500 was compared to the 800. I really don't have a need for the 800 since I have not found myself in too many situations where I needed to make an unknown turn somewhere in the middle of the woods. I can easily see where a device like the 800 would come into play for such times.

I'm curious to see how the 500 and 800 stack up side by side when ridden on the same trail in the woods on REPEATED occasions. While I do have the GSC 10 on my FS, it has not given me one bit of problems because I kept my expectations in check. While I am interested in where I went and how far I went, I really don't care if it cuts a corner or smooths out a S turn just as long as it's consistently do this. As of now, I have two years with the 500 and GSC 10 and it still lives up to my expectations.

I guess all I am saying is that I see both sides of the 500 vs. 800 debate but it all comes down to choice and what you want to get out of the unit.


----------



## equalme (Sep 8, 2010)

slocaus said:


> I just have so much trouble understanding why people are hell bent on buying a GPS that is clearly designed for road bikes (Google and search my posts on that in this forum).
> 
> Then they want to put a road bike device on, designed for pseudo and real racers (indoor trainers / cadence training / power meters, are what it is designed to provide), to try and make it better! Gah! Ugh!


Because I road bike as well...

I had the edge 800 initially but did not need the crappy navigation nor was I impressed with the size or touchscreen. Purchased the edge 500 and it works great on the road bike with the gsc10.


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

c0nsumer said:


> I don't think your statement is universally true. I've seen a GSC10 installed on a bunch of FS bikes, including my Titus Racer X and a bunch of Specializeds. I think what matters most is the chainstay design.
> 
> If you're only concerned with speed, are you sure there isn't some place you could put it? I'm sure it could be used as a fork-mount sensor for speed and no cadence.
> 
> If it's of any help, this is what I did to fit one on my Mukluk, as the cranks are too close to the chainstays for the stock magnet to work. Since I wasn't concerned with cadence on that bike I just put the unit somewhere that would work nicely. Being closer to the hub I suspect it'll also do a better job staying out of the snow.


Yes, there are fork mount ANT+ sensors.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

D-Town said:


> While I do have the GSC 10 on my FS, it has not given me one bit of problems because I kept my expectations in check.





anthonylokrn said:


> Because I road bike as well...


Both of those are good, valid reasons. My comment was those that buy the 500 with no research, buy it on price and size, and are then unhappy when they cannot find trails downloaded from sites, and say it is a crap device. It is a great GPS, when used for it's intended purpose, or research has been done (more than posting a question in an online forum), and the functions (or lack of) are understood.


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

slocaus said:


> I just have so much trouble understanding why people are hell bent on buying a GPS that is clearly designed for road bikes (Google and search my posts on that in this forum).
> 
> Then they want to put a road bike device on, designed for pseudo and real racers (indoor trainers / cadence training / power meters, are what it is designed to provide), to try and make it better! Gah! Ugh!





slocaus said:


> Both of those are good, valid reasons. My comment was those that buy the 500 with no research, buy it on price and size, and are then unhappy when they cannot find trails downloaded from sites, and say it is a crap device. It is a great GPS, when used for it's intended purpose, or research has been done (more than posting a question in an online forum), and the functions (or lack of) are understood.


So, despite first complaining that the device is not appropriate for MTBs you're actually not meaning that at all and are instead complaining that people buy products without sufficient research? Got it.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

c0nsumer said:


> So, despite first complaining that the device is not appropriate for MTBs you're actually not meaning that at all and are instead complaining that people buy products without sufficient research? Got it.


Nope, saying that some accept the limitations of a road GPS used on a mountain bike.


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

slocaus said:


> Nope, saying that some accept the limitations of a road GPS used on a mountain bike.


So, what makes it road-specifc vs. mountain? I, myself, think that with a wheel sensor (to overcome limitations inherent in all GPS') it's quite capable for MTB.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

c0nsumer said:


> So, what makes it road-specifc vs. mountain? I, myself, think that with a wheel sensor (to overcome limitations inherent in all GPS') it's quite capable for MTB.


Slower sampling algoritym, assumes you are riding more straight lines (roads) and not continually twisty curvy ones (trails).

Read post 7.
http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike...0-gsc-10-trail-riding-734357.html#post8396438

Read post 13
http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike-computer/garmin-800-gsc10-question-733084.html#post8392512

Read post 33
http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike...00-accuracy-need-help-619718.html#post7147354

Read post 7
http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike...accuracy-not-improved-677170.html#post7658826

I spend more time on the Garmin forums and the Groundspeak forums than I do here. Owned a 305, now use a 705 to ride and a 60CSx for trail design and layout. My GPS geekdom for the last 7 years has taught me a few things.


----------



## michael1 (Nov 17, 2011)

Reading all this makes me think that the edge 200 will be completely inaccurate since it is 100% GPS based. Also, I think that Garmin should make an edge GPS device geared towards mountain bikers that has the mapping capabilities of their hiking units such as the Oregon.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

michael1 said:


> Reading all this makes me think that the edge 200 will be completely inaccurate since it is 100% GPS based. Also, I think that Garmin should make an edge GPS device geared towards mountain bikers that has the mapping capabilities of their hiking units such as the Oregon.


Great idea! and name them the Edge 705 and Edge 800.

Too bad they will be so bad, being "100% GPS based". 

























You shooting for more red chicklets?


----------



## Johnny K (Mar 14, 2005)

slocaus. do the 705 and 800 have the same sampling rate?

I know the 305/705 etc are fairly accurate in the woods and the 500 not as much so. Does the 800 fall somewhere in between these two?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm, not sure. I still have my 705 since it is accurate enough and does all I need for rides (satisfying my trail rat/geek addiction as I ride). I _think_ they are essentially the same now with the firmware updates that brought the 800 up the the same settings for recording interval. The big unknown is the effect of difference in hardware, especially the GPS chip, and the firmware. Garmin does seem to be dumbing down the hardware and firmware with each release, sadly.

My old 60CSx had the original Sirf Star III chip and gets me 8 freakin' foot accuracy! I have read that the 62 does not do nearly as well. My 305 locked onto signal like a bulldog and just hung on and hung on and hung on. My 705 works great for me, will loose signal in really deep steep canyons, but I know I have excellent GPS triangulation overall in CA, and we have almost no tree cover on most rides, so again, based on my experience and research, it works well.

The Edge 800 seems to be a mixed bag, some, like Shiggy, have had issues, others seem to get good results. That is one reason I have stayed with the 705.


----------



## michael1 (Nov 17, 2011)

slocaus said:


> Great idea! and name them the Edge 705 and Edge 800.
> 
> Too bad they will be so bad, being "100% GPS based".
> 
> ...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

michael1 said:


> slocaus said:
> 
> 
> > Great idea! and name them the Edge 705 and Edge 800.
> ...


The Edge 705 shows maps just as well as the 60CSx, and the Edge 800 shows maps just as well as an Oregon 450. They essentially have the same operating systems. Some of the "hiking" devices are really truly multi-purpose devices. I can pair a HRM and a speed/cadence sensor with my Oregon 450 and several handheld models can do the same.

What you gain with a larger device is a larger antenna, which boosts reception. To put a larger antenna in an Edge 800, you essentially are going to turn it into a Dakota or an Oregon since they use basically the same operating system, anyway. Determining which chipset is better than another is difficult when they are close in capabilities, but especially because firmware can really affect this so one firmware version can be different than another WRT accuracy.

I have not had the opportunity to do a direct comparison between my Oregon 450 and a 60CSx or 62. I would like to, but not many people here ride with a GPS - and most of them use Edges or Forerunners. My impressions are that my Oregon is close, but I have no idea how close it is to the performance of the older tried and true 60CSx. I would suspect that it's less accurate because it still uses a patch antenna rather than a quad helix.


----------



## D-Town (Oct 20, 2005)

An issue that I never really see mentioned that much are the atmospheric conditions and lack of internal settings on all “recreational” grade GPS units. Unlike a mapping or survey grade unit, recreational grade units have little to no settings for filtering out multipath, canyoning, or DOP. The unit takes every available satellite it can see and uses it for your position. Never laying my hands on any mentioned GPS units outside of the 500, do those units have a setting for averaging? Just curious since this would improve accuracy (to a certain extent). Another thing to consider is that not all satellites are available every minute of every day. Sometimes there are only 4 while others there maybe 9, it just depends. Finally, cloud cover and canopy affect accuracy as well. Spent many days in the rain with a ProXR dreaming of acquiring the last position to get out of the woods and into dry clothes.

I agree with slocaus and NateHawk how antenna size and algorithms greatly affect the accuracy of the GPS unit. I’m not defending any one unit just bringing to light that other factors are in play.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

D-Town said:


> An issue that I never really see mentioned that much are the atmospheric conditions and lack of internal settings on all "recreational" grade GPS units. Unlike a mapping or survey grade unit, recreational grade units have little to no settings for filtering out multipath, canyoning, or DOP. The unit takes every available satellite it can see and uses it for your position. Never laying my hands on any mentioned GPS units outside of the 500, do those units have a setting for averaging? Just curious since this would improve accuracy (to a certain extent). Another thing to consider is that not all satellites are available every minute of every day. Sometimes there are only 4 while others there maybe 9, it just depends. Finally, cloud cover and canopy affect accuracy as well. Spent many days in the rain with a ProXR dreaming of acquiring the last position to get out of the woods and into dry clothes.
> 
> I agree with slocaus and NateHawk how antenna size and algorithms greatly affect the accuracy of the GPS unit. I'm not defending any one unit just bringing to light that other factors are in play.


All of the Garmin handhelds for many years have offered waypoint averaging. Averaging does no good for collecting linear data - and to be honest from what I've seen from some Trimbles (Juno, Nomad), my consumer level Garmin handles linear data collection far better.


----------



## D-Town (Oct 20, 2005)

Should have been more specific in my statement. I've used the Garmin 3s, 5s and so on but does the 705 or 800 have averaging capability? Just curious. If you are acquiring linear features while biking, averaging does not improve the accuracy at all. If you are capturing static points, i.e. vertices, along a line then it can significantly improve the accuracy. Of course you have the added ability of postprocessing with some units which opens another pandora's box if we are talking WAAS and CORS.

Just curiousity. That's all.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

D-Town said:


> Should have been more specific in my statement. I've used the Garmin 3s, 5s and so on but does the 705 or 800 have averaging capability? Just curious. If you are acquiring linear features while biking, averaging does not improve the accuracy at all. If you are capturing static points, i.e. vertices, along a line then it can significantly improve the accuracy. Of course you have the added ability of postprocessing with some units which opens another pandora's box if we are talking WAAS and CORS.
> 
> Just curiousity. That's all.


newer handhelds average ONLY individual waypoints. I do not believe you can average even vertices on a line (a Route by Garmin's terminology). I do not recall on older handhelds like the 60/76 series.

The Edge 705 does not have waypoint averaging capability. not sure about the 800.

also no post-processing with Garmins that I'm aware of. the best you get is WAAS.


----------



## AnotherTimbo (May 28, 2012)

Hey all, was just browsing the interwebs to see if people were having issues using a Garmin GSC 10 on MTBs. I've got one on my road bike (used with 310xt) and wondering about durability issues associated with dirt, mud, etc before adding one to my MTB.....
Looks like like people are successfully using them, so all is good...
Thanks Tim


----------



## nov0798 (Nov 27, 2005)

Ive been using one for about a year or so now on my mtb, and its been good so far. Its been wet, muddy, etc,and stil works fine.


----------



## AnotherTimbo (May 28, 2012)

nov0798 said:


> Ive been using one for about a year or so now on my mtb, and its been good so far. Its been wet, muddy, etc,and stil works fine.


Cheers for that, time to order another...


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

I've a GSC-10 in everything from sub-freezing and icy to 95F+ and in hot rain and it's been just fine. They seem to be well sealed little units.


----------



## bikeriderguy (May 2, 2006)

i got a 500 with speed sensor this season. All I can say - awesome - works great on my mountainbike. best cycle computer i've ever owned and the Garmin Connect stuff is sweet. Couldn't be easier to use.


----------



## AnotherTimbo (May 28, 2012)

Thanks all, exactly what i was hoping to hear.


----------



## boomvader (Nov 27, 2006)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have an Edge 800 and a GSC-10 on both of my MTBs. They seem to work great! They have been dirty/wet/washed/repeat many times. No signs of any issues. I am very, very happy with this gear. I also have the premium heart rate monitor and the flexible rubber band quarter turn mounts. I had an issue with the heart monitor and Garmin shipped me another no questions asked!

Love the fact that I can use the Edge under different bike profiles and upload the data to Garmin Connect.


----------



## AnotherTimbo (May 28, 2012)

Cheers, any issues with the Edge identifying which GSC-10 it's reading?


----------



## boomvader (Nov 27, 2006)

AnotherTimbo said:


> Cheers, any issues with the Edge identifying which GSC-10 it's reading?


That was my concern, too. But, after realizing the GSC-10 is assigned to each bike profile, it was not an issue. If I am changing bikes, I merely need to go into the Bike Profiles, select my bike, and the device pairs with the correct cadence/speed sensor and my heart monitor.


----------



## AnotherTimbo (May 28, 2012)

Thanks, looks like i'm going to have to read the 310xt instructions and see if i can do similar.


----------



## llamma (Apr 28, 2012)

So I had always wondered why my Garmin 500 had given me strange results, and now I know. For example, I'll be barreling down a doubletrack in my smallest cog, and it'll say I'm going 7, then 5, then 14, then 8, now 4mph. There have been a couple of times I've forgotten my Garmin at home and used My Tracks on my phone, and I've been so surprised at how different the total distance and average speed were on the same exact routes I've done with the Garmin. 

For those of you that are using the GSC-10 on FS bikes, where exactly do you put the sensor? Non-drive-side chain stay? 

For those of you using the Bontrager speed sensor, are you actually mounting it on suspension forks? I would think that would cause problems when the fork compresses and the magnet and sensor no longer align.


----------



## c0nsumer (Mar 17, 2008)

llamma said:


> Non-drive-side chain stay?


Yes, I'm not sure where else you'd want to put it.



llamma said:


> For those of you using the Bontrager speed sensor, are you actually mounting it on suspension forks? I would think that would cause problems when the fork compresses and the magnet and sensor no longer align.


Except for some inverted-type forks your fork lowers don't really move in relation to the wheel.


----------



## llamma (Apr 28, 2012)

c0nsumer said:


> Yes, I'm not sure where else you'd want to put it.


Wasn't quite sure if anyone had experience with it being a little safer on a seat stay



c0nsumer said:


> Except for some inverted-type forks your fork lowers don't really move in relation to the wheel.


Dang, I always seem to ask the dumbest questions when responding to posts at work. They're sucking my brain dry. Thanks.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

llamma said:


> Wasn't quite sure if anyone had experience with it being a little safer on a seat stay
> 
> Dang, I always seem to ask the dumbest questions when responding to posts at work. They're sucking my brain dry. Thanks.


Most seat stays are way too far from the spokes to be usable, unless you want to fabricate a tall mount, and it will likely twist from the bouncing of the bike. Back to the off drive chain stay.


----------



## pagey (Sep 26, 2006)

I put mine on my fork lower


----------



## Eckstream1 (Jul 27, 2011)

I run a Garmin 800 and a Bontrager Ant+ Wheel Sensor... Everything works fine for me.

I tried to use the GSC-10 but it wasn't compatible with my Santa Cruz Nickel frame geo...


----------

