wheres_my_beard
Über Member
- Location
- Norwich
Maybe get a new puta? I got a cheapy one and it works wonderfully (gloat! gloat!) but it doesn't have a cadence-o-meter.
Cadence going nuts
- Thread starter Lizzy
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Jimmy-
I have a specalize Ariel bike which has big tires. "These tyres seem quite big for someone who trains at a level where this sort of data-logging would be useful."
I have no idea what you mean by that, I'm pretty sure all cyclist like to know their speed, calories burned, and distance travelled etc. Wheel size doens't denote how the cylist cycles surely? I didn't pick the bike for wheel size, I picked it for leg room, women do have different bike requirements to guys, shorter arms longer legs etc, Specalize suited my terrain need.
- what is a roll test and how did you perform it; is 2260 mm, inches, revolutions etc.; does "no weight" mean riderless.
I have a bike stand that lifts the back tier off the ground, I rapped a length of string around the circumference and then measured it with a measuring tape. my watch already has accurate weight loaded into it. Admittedly it's better with rider on the bike, but it wont my 20mps difference.
- what changed in Autumn? New bike, wheels, tyres, battery?
No idea, nothing as far as I know - possible there was a software update that I didn't spot because it does it automatically
- what exactly is wrong? Your post is titled "Cadence going nuts" but then write "The RPM is right...". You also write "...more than twice as fast as I am going and the distance is wrong..." but contradict this by writing "...but it is comparable to my normal cycle speed."
RPM has remained the same with minor differences depending on month but pretty constant at around 70-75 rpm, and that remains true.
In the summer my average speed was c. 13-15 mph for c.1 hour-2 hour cycle (which could be a mix of road, tow path and off road up hill/round the park bike trail). This has changed to and average speed of c.30 mps for cycles of c.1 hour on a mix of road and tow path. My fitness level if anything is slightly less than the summer when I was cycling about 5 days in 7 weather permitting and doing other activities too.
The battery on the speed/cadence unit should last years; that in the watch, about a year. You'll need to take it to a jeweler's to have it changed to ensure the watch remains waterproof.
Yes now changed the watch battery - still no change
You might find this page useful to double check that you have set up and calibrated everything correctly, the cycling section is about a quarter of the way down.
I checked this out yesterday - it doesn't give my wheel size but it gives the next one down. Hence I was pretty sure the 2260 was about right. Hence now thinking about plugging in the diameter might be more productive/resolve the issue - NO idea why its changed from circumference to diameter.
Lisa
I have a specalize Ariel bike which has big tires. "These tyres seem quite big for someone who trains at a level where this sort of data-logging would be useful."
I have no idea what you mean by that, I'm pretty sure all cyclist like to know their speed, calories burned, and distance travelled etc. Wheel size doens't denote how the cylist cycles surely? I didn't pick the bike for wheel size, I picked it for leg room, women do have different bike requirements to guys, shorter arms longer legs etc, Specalize suited my terrain need.
- what is a roll test and how did you perform it; is 2260 mm, inches, revolutions etc.; does "no weight" mean riderless.
I have a bike stand that lifts the back tier off the ground, I rapped a length of string around the circumference and then measured it with a measuring tape. my watch already has accurate weight loaded into it. Admittedly it's better with rider on the bike, but it wont my 20mps difference.
- what changed in Autumn? New bike, wheels, tyres, battery?
No idea, nothing as far as I know - possible there was a software update that I didn't spot because it does it automatically
- what exactly is wrong? Your post is titled "Cadence going nuts" but then write "The RPM is right...". You also write "...more than twice as fast as I am going and the distance is wrong..." but contradict this by writing "...but it is comparable to my normal cycle speed."
RPM has remained the same with minor differences depending on month but pretty constant at around 70-75 rpm, and that remains true.
In the summer my average speed was c. 13-15 mph for c.1 hour-2 hour cycle (which could be a mix of road, tow path and off road up hill/round the park bike trail). This has changed to and average speed of c.30 mps for cycles of c.1 hour on a mix of road and tow path. My fitness level if anything is slightly less than the summer when I was cycling about 5 days in 7 weather permitting and doing other activities too.
The battery on the speed/cadence unit should last years; that in the watch, about a year. You'll need to take it to a jeweler's to have it changed to ensure the watch remains waterproof.
Yes now changed the watch battery - still no change
You might find this page useful to double check that you have set up and calibrated everything correctly, the cycling section is about a quarter of the way down.
I checked this out yesterday - it doesn't give my wheel size but it gives the next one down. Hence I was pretty sure the 2260 was about right. Hence now thinking about plugging in the diameter might be more productive/resolve the issue - NO idea why its changed from circumference to diameter.
Lisa
Where my beard
Yes I agree, the product over claimed (or perhaps that was the website), its not good at following all the activities I do so I have to make do with what it cant do rather that comprehensively monitoring all my workouts, shame because all in it wasn't cheap, and I feel pretty cheated by it. I suspect I ought to have got a higher tec Polar or Suunto product although I'm not 100% the latter would do it, its really difficult at finding impartial reviews of products that tell you about different functions simply....
For my other bike I have a cheap as chips version which does distance and speed, but doesn't clock calories or do any other sports/activities.
Yes I agree, the product over claimed (or perhaps that was the website), its not good at following all the activities I do so I have to make do with what it cant do rather that comprehensively monitoring all my workouts, shame because all in it wasn't cheap, and I feel pretty cheated by it. I suspect I ought to have got a higher tec Polar or Suunto product although I'm not 100% the latter would do it, its really difficult at finding impartial reviews of products that tell you about different functions simply....
For my other bike I have a cheap as chips version which does distance and speed, but doesn't clock calories or do any other sports/activities.
Scilly Suffolk
Über Member
Hello Lisa,
I wasn't trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with your choice of wheel and tyre, it is just that 45mm is a fat tyre for a "fitness" rider to use.
I was also trying to politely query whether you had the size right, as the problem seems to be in the unit's calibration rather than an actual fault and correctly entering the right wheel/tyre size is crucial to this (check that you aren't using a combination of ISO and decimal measurements between the wheel and tyre).
I'm still not clear what is actually being misread: speed or cadence?
You say the cadence is wrong but also that the RPM is right: cadence and RPM are the same thing, the number of times the crank turns in a minute.
Your average speed was 13-15mph but is now "30 mps". Assuming that "mps" was a mistake and you meant "mph", then it does sound like the speed is not being accurately recorded. If it is actually 30 kmh, then it may well be accurate and you are just riding faster than you thought: 30 kmh is 18.5 mph.
Check that the two magnets (one on the crank and one one the spokes) are correctly located and within the recommended range of the sensor (on the chainstay).
It is easy to check that your cadence is being measured correctly: just count the number of times you turn the crank in a minute and compare to the Garmin.
Speed is a little more involved: knowing that the cadence is correct and using this page you can compare your calculated speed over a measured distance with what the Garmin records.
Failing that you have a choice: try it on someone else's bike or fit tyres that are in your manual.
If none of that works, how much do you want for it?
I wasn't trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with your choice of wheel and tyre, it is just that 45mm is a fat tyre for a "fitness" rider to use.
I was also trying to politely query whether you had the size right, as the problem seems to be in the unit's calibration rather than an actual fault and correctly entering the right wheel/tyre size is crucial to this (check that you aren't using a combination of ISO and decimal measurements between the wheel and tyre).
I'm still not clear what is actually being misread: speed or cadence?
You say the cadence is wrong but also that the RPM is right: cadence and RPM are the same thing, the number of times the crank turns in a minute.
Your average speed was 13-15mph but is now "30 mps". Assuming that "mps" was a mistake and you meant "mph", then it does sound like the speed is not being accurately recorded. If it is actually 30 kmh, then it may well be accurate and you are just riding faster than you thought: 30 kmh is 18.5 mph.
Check that the two magnets (one on the crank and one one the spokes) are correctly located and within the recommended range of the sensor (on the chainstay).
It is easy to check that your cadence is being measured correctly: just count the number of times you turn the crank in a minute and compare to the Garmin.
Speed is a little more involved: knowing that the cadence is correct and using this page you can compare your calculated speed over a measured distance with what the Garmin records.
Failing that you have a choice: try it on someone else's bike or fit tyres that are in your manual.
If none of that works, how much do you want for it?
Hi Jimmy
Thank you for your perseverance.....
I wasn't trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with your choice of wheel and tyre, it is just that 45mm is a fat tyre for a "fitness" rider to use.
As I said I bought to bike to use on multiple terrain, I was cycling a pashley which is fine pootelling along the road but rubbish on tow and way to heavy to do Richmond hll.
I was also trying to politely query whether you had the size right
its written on the tier itself which I photographed and brought in doors to check against the roll out test and various online sources, it does seem to be largely comparable. 2260 ish
I'm still not clear what is actually being misread: speed or cadence?
Speed and distance are malfunctioning, cadence is not.
You say the cadence is wrong but also that the RPM is right: cadence and RPM are the same thing, the number of times the crank turns in a minute.
Yes the cadence works and has remained largely comparable.
Your average speed was 13-15mph but is now "30 mps". Assuming that "mps" was a mistake and you meant "mph", then it does sound like the speed is not being accurately recorded. If it is actually 30 kmh, then it may well be accurate and you are just riding faster than you thought: 30 kmh is 18.5 mph.
> yes speed and distance I measure the distance using google distance map and it's vastly out. and my watch is set to metric as is the upload to my computer and the online programme
Check that the two magnets (one on the crank and one one the spokes) are correctly located and within the recommended range of the sensor (on the chainstay).
> yes this has been checked every time I've re-set the cadence unit, you need to reset the magnet on the wheel and the pedal shaft
It is easy to check that your cadence is being measured correctly: just count the number of times you turn the crank in a minute and compare to the Garmin.
> I've no issue with cadence as it seems about right, c.75 rpm
Speed is a little more involved: knowing that the cadence is correct and using this page you can compare your calculated speed over a measured distance with what the Garmin records.
> as I've said I am pretty sure its a speed distance thing, which MAY be something to do with using circumference not diameter, but why would anyone change it without telling their customers.
Yesterdays ride to Teddington: Very approx for both
Google map distance about 2.8 miles
Garmin watch distance 9.14 mles
Cadence 73 rpm
Speed 28.4 miles per hour
Time taken 19.8 mins
So calculating speed it ought to be c.8.48mph which is probably too slow but at least is more plausible than 30mph (given cycling through Christmas Pedestrians).
Failing that you have a choice: try it on someone else's bike or fit tyres that are in your manual.
Sorry I have no idea what " fit tyres that are in your manual." means. These tires came with the bike as standard.
If none of that works, how much do you want for it?
LOL oh bless you, I suspect I will try and mess with the wheel size and try diameter, also try their customer service, it was an expensive product, NEVER again.
Thanks for your help.
PS just checked on Amazon, its still within warranty, so if it doesn't resolve itself I can at least get a replacement/money back.
Thank you for your perseverance.....
I wasn't trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with your choice of wheel and tyre, it is just that 45mm is a fat tyre for a "fitness" rider to use.
As I said I bought to bike to use on multiple terrain, I was cycling a pashley which is fine pootelling along the road but rubbish on tow and way to heavy to do Richmond hll.
I was also trying to politely query whether you had the size right
its written on the tier itself which I photographed and brought in doors to check against the roll out test and various online sources, it does seem to be largely comparable. 2260 ish
I'm still not clear what is actually being misread: speed or cadence?
Speed and distance are malfunctioning, cadence is not.
You say the cadence is wrong but also that the RPM is right: cadence and RPM are the same thing, the number of times the crank turns in a minute.
Yes the cadence works and has remained largely comparable.
Your average speed was 13-15mph but is now "30 mps". Assuming that "mps" was a mistake and you meant "mph", then it does sound like the speed is not being accurately recorded. If it is actually 30 kmh, then it may well be accurate and you are just riding faster than you thought: 30 kmh is 18.5 mph.
> yes speed and distance I measure the distance using google distance map and it's vastly out. and my watch is set to metric as is the upload to my computer and the online programme
Check that the two magnets (one on the crank and one one the spokes) are correctly located and within the recommended range of the sensor (on the chainstay).
> yes this has been checked every time I've re-set the cadence unit, you need to reset the magnet on the wheel and the pedal shaft
It is easy to check that your cadence is being measured correctly: just count the number of times you turn the crank in a minute and compare to the Garmin.
> I've no issue with cadence as it seems about right, c.75 rpm
Speed is a little more involved: knowing that the cadence is correct and using this page you can compare your calculated speed over a measured distance with what the Garmin records.
> as I've said I am pretty sure its a speed distance thing, which MAY be something to do with using circumference not diameter, but why would anyone change it without telling their customers.
Yesterdays ride to Teddington: Very approx for both
Google map distance about 2.8 miles
Garmin watch distance 9.14 mles
Cadence 73 rpm
Speed 28.4 miles per hour
Time taken 19.8 mins
So calculating speed it ought to be c.8.48mph which is probably too slow but at least is more plausible than 30mph (given cycling through Christmas Pedestrians).
Failing that you have a choice: try it on someone else's bike or fit tyres that are in your manual.
Sorry I have no idea what " fit tyres that are in your manual." means. These tires came with the bike as standard.
If none of that works, how much do you want for it?
LOL oh bless you, I suspect I will try and mess with the wheel size and try diameter, also try their customer service, it was an expensive product, NEVER again.
Thanks for your help.
PS just checked on Amazon, its still within warranty, so if it doesn't resolve itself I can at least get a replacement/money back.
Scilly Suffolk
Über Member
From what you've written, it seems a good bet that the problem lies with the size of the wheel/tyre that is being entered (although it doesn't explain why it suddenly went wrong).
Two possibilities. Either the information you are entering is in some way "wrong": misread/mixing imperial and metric or something like that (something ridiculously obvious that will have you kicking yourself); or the unit cannot cope with 45mm tyres, which is why they aren't listed in the manual (this is what I meant by "fit tyres that are in your [Garmin] manual").
I assume that you don't have any cycling buddies who are up to speed on Garmin, or you wouldn't be here. It might be worth checking out local triathlon and cycling clubs: guys love to show off their knowledge of all things "tech". Even if they won't help trouble shooting, a Garmin stockist should be able to tell you of any software updates.
Seems a shame as from the reading up I've done on it, it seems like a decent bit of kit...
Two possibilities. Either the information you are entering is in some way "wrong": misread/mixing imperial and metric or something like that (something ridiculously obvious that will have you kicking yourself); or the unit cannot cope with 45mm tyres, which is why they aren't listed in the manual (this is what I meant by "fit tyres that are in your [Garmin] manual").
I assume that you don't have any cycling buddies who are up to speed on Garmin, or you wouldn't be here. It might be worth checking out local triathlon and cycling clubs: guys love to show off their knowledge of all things "tech". Even if they won't help trouble shooting, a Garmin stockist should be able to tell you of any software updates.
Seems a shame as from the reading up I've done on it, it seems like a decent bit of kit...
oldfatfool
Guru
Have you added anything else to your wheel spokes,eg lights/ reflectors etc that might be giving an additional 'speed' reading to the sensor
Oldfatfool - Nothing added
Jimmy
Just spoken to Amazon who will replace it if need be, might see if I can talk them into replacing with a Suunto product, alternatively if not they can replace it again with the same product and I can look forward to malfunction in 6 months time, for some reason it seems the shelf life for me with this product.
From what you've written, it seems a good bet that the problem lies with the size of the wheel/tyre that is being entered (although it doesn't explain why it suddenly went wrong).
> yes but as you rightly say no reason why this would suddenly change, when I've done nothing to the bike.
Two possibilities. Either the information you are entering is in some way "wrong": misread/mixing imperial and metric or something like that (something ridiculously obvious that will have you kicking yourself); or the unit cannot cope with 45mm tyres, which is why they aren't listed in the manual (this is what I meant by "fit tyres that are in your [Garmin] manual").
> my roll test seems largely comparable to the online tables I've read, so I don't think that is the issue, I can always try the bike shop and see if they can sort it out.
Seems a shame as from the reading up I've done on it, it seems like a decent bit of kit...
I seem to be plagued by this product. Originally it said I could monitor my Ice skating, which it can not, and I was pretty dissapointed with its monitoring of non running, the foot pod seems to be the underlying variable in product design rather than the bike cadence. Actually I have to say instructions for fitting the bike cadence were absolutely awful, I ended up on you tube searching for help. I eventually took it into a shop and plead help, which is ridiculous for a piece of kit that is simple, actually the first time I purchased it, it wouldn't work with a bike stand - which NOTHING warned me about. so basically I had spent £30 odd quid on something that couldn't work on my bike because of the stand. LOL I have had my drama's with this brand, never ever again!!!!!
Jimmy
Just spoken to Amazon who will replace it if need be, might see if I can talk them into replacing with a Suunto product, alternatively if not they can replace it again with the same product and I can look forward to malfunction in 6 months time, for some reason it seems the shelf life for me with this product.
From what you've written, it seems a good bet that the problem lies with the size of the wheel/tyre that is being entered (although it doesn't explain why it suddenly went wrong).
> yes but as you rightly say no reason why this would suddenly change, when I've done nothing to the bike.
Two possibilities. Either the information you are entering is in some way "wrong": misread/mixing imperial and metric or something like that (something ridiculously obvious that will have you kicking yourself); or the unit cannot cope with 45mm tyres, which is why they aren't listed in the manual (this is what I meant by "fit tyres that are in your [Garmin] manual").
> my roll test seems largely comparable to the online tables I've read, so I don't think that is the issue, I can always try the bike shop and see if they can sort it out.
Seems a shame as from the reading up I've done on it, it seems like a decent bit of kit...
I seem to be plagued by this product. Originally it said I could monitor my Ice skating, which it can not, and I was pretty dissapointed with its monitoring of non running, the foot pod seems to be the underlying variable in product design rather than the bike cadence. Actually I have to say instructions for fitting the bike cadence were absolutely awful, I ended up on you tube searching for help. I eventually took it into a shop and plead help, which is ridiculous for a piece of kit that is simple, actually the first time I purchased it, it wouldn't work with a bike stand - which NOTHING warned me about. so basically I had spent £30 odd quid on something that couldn't work on my bike because of the stand. LOL I have had my drama's with this brand, never ever again!!!!!
Scilly Suffolk
Über Member
Correct: it is primarily a runner's watch with added, "bonus" functionality.
The speed & cadence unit is common across the Garmin range, so I suppose adding compatibility to your watch was a cheap afterthought.
I'd check that it can actually handle 45mm tyres though, might save a lot of head scratching. Garmin might also be able to give you an "official" measurement for them.
I'm waiting for their customer service to get back to me, I am not holding out a lot of hope though.
yes it seems a definite afterthought, which in part is why I am so dissapointed with the product, it was marketed as a sports watch with HRM, and it really isn't a sports watch at all.
I guess I will live with what happens next and hopefully get a resolution at some point.
L
yes it seems a definite afterthought, which in part is why I am so dissapointed with the product, it was marketed as a sports watch with HRM, and it really isn't a sports watch at all.
I guess I will live with what happens next and hopefully get a resolution at some point.
L
Thought I would come back and let you know, Garmin customer service department basically just sent me the user manual, so the entire thing has gone back to Amazon for a refund.
I'm now looking into using my mobile to track training, after my next upgrade I will be able to add an ant+ hrm which out to do just the same thing as the garmin did... hopefuly.
Thanks for your help
L
I'm now looking into using my mobile to track training, after my next upgrade I will be able to add an ant+ hrm which out to do just the same thing as the garmin did... hopefuly.
Thanks for your help
L
