Computer? Cadence Sensor? Power meter? Are they worth it?

[philipgonzales3]

Been road cycling a few months and recently got a bike fit. During my bike fit I found the idea of seeing my cadence pretty neat. Seeing the power split was also neat. TBH I didn't look at my power but the fitter did say it was pretty low. My speed showed 12-13mph. I'm in IT but I don't honestly know much about bike computers and the sensors etc.

Last week I rode a little over 70 miles total in a little over 6 hours over the course of 5 rides. In June I rode 256 miles in 22 hours over the 19 rides. Just mentioning for reference. To me that sounds like a lot of riding haha.

For now, I record my heart rate, GPS, speed with my Amazfit watch and the few times I have used a planned route I've used my phone on a quad lock mount with komoot loaded up on the phone.

I'm thinking with a cadence sensor, it would help me make sure I'm in the correct range as I can't easily tell my cadence freehand (free footed?) LOL. And the power meter data would just be cool to see.

Any real benefit to getting a computer and the accompanying sensors. I'm not even familiar with how these things work. Ie how they are installed, how much they cost, how they work, etc.

Good idea or not needed? Need some advice. If it's a good idea any recommendations?

 

[cyberknight]

I find a cadence sensor handy when i started using one to help gauge a better pedal speed as by default i am a big gear grinder , linking to a compatible device is easy as connecting a bluetooth .
Power meter are very handy if your doing structured training and are interested in repeatable training over a long period then it might help but it just one way to measure your fitness but needs to be combined with other tools like a pulse meter to get your current fitness level .Training with a heart rate monitor can also give you a good measure of fitness and you can calculate training zones .
https://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/do-you-really-need-a-power-meter.html
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitne...t-effective-and-accurate-heres-how-to-benefit
Dedicated cycle computers do have advantages over using a phone as it designed for the job being more robustly designed for weather and potential damage plus they have a lot bigger battery capacity saving your phone for emergencies .There are the 2 big boys in cycling in garmin and wahoo both of which have their supporters offering slightly different ways of doing the same job but at the end of the day its preference and both have various models aimed at different price point and functionality .You can add in hammerhead karoo and others like bryton etc .
I personally use a garmin explore as i wanted a bit bigger screen and good mapping as i need reading glasses off the bike and i get lost at the end of our road .The new explore has connectivity for HRM, cadence and power meters etc and a 20 hour (ish) battery life.
Heres a link to the various models
https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/bu...bike-computers-buyers-guide-to-all-the-models

TBH as your still getting into it i would just ride and enjoy it and not worry about power

 

[Punkawallah]

If I want to know my cadence, I sing ‘Nellie the Elephant’ - that’s about 100 beats per minute.

 

[EckyH]

Good idea or not needed?

How many Watts do you need to have fun on your bike?
Imho for non-racers power is in the same class as speed: it's just a number. But numbers can be helpful.

At the moment my favourite "measurement" is the rating of perceived exertion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_of_perceived_exertion
That has five advantages for me: it's always with me, it's relative to my actual condition, it teaches me to listen to my body, it's independent of any kind of computer and it's free.
Similar situation is with cadence. I know my gearing fairly well and with a tool like the Bicycle Gear Calculator I know in which cadence range I am if I know my actual speed and gearing.
Now a bicycle computer comes in handy. If you can afford it, I'd go for a model which has features as navigation, cadence, heart rate, power, free upgradable maps, independence from proprietary apps or software and frequent security updates over a long time. Admittedly - the last two points are more a rant, because I know that it's in the same class for the manufacturers as good documentation. But as a former Unix admin who is now in technical documentation I think that I know what I'm talking about in that department.

Even my old Garmin Edge 800 has got the first five features. A first check showed that a "lower" actual model from Garmin (Edge 530) has the ability to display cadence, heart rate and power - with additional sensors.
So my conclusion is: a dedicated bike computer would make sense for you, especially if it's a model with an upgrade path for additional features.

E.

 

[Alex321]

Like you, when I got back in to cycling, I started by using my phone as a bike computer, which I did for about the first 15 months or so.

Then I got a bike computer (Wahoo Elemnt Roam), and the difference is immense. Because the bike computer is designed for the job, it is much easier to see, even though the screen is smaller, and it has somewhere in the region of 20 hours runtime from one charge, whereas the phone would only last 2-3 hours at most if fully on.

I did find the cadence meter useful at first, becoming less so as I get more experienced and am better able to judge roughly what sort of cadence I am riding at. I also have a heart rate monitor, but no power meter. The only time I have had a power meter is when using the indoor turbo trainer, which has one built in. Unless you are seriously training for improved performance, I don't think a power meter is important.

The amount of cycling you are doing is indeed quite a lot for somebody who has only been cycling a few months, and doesn't have unlimited time to ride. I manage more than that (436 miles over 29 hours in June), but I have been riding regularly for over 4 years now and used to ride regularly quite a lot 30 years ago. And the last time I did over 400 miles in a month was last October.

 

[All uphill]

The fewer distractions I have on the bike the more I enjoy cycling. I know myself, if I have numbers in front of me I will focus on them, rather than on the countryside, the people I meet and the wildlife I see.

To answer your question, it depends on what you want from your cycling.

 

[Dogtrousers]

To answer your question, it depends on what you want from your cycling.

Very much this ^

But here are my opinions, for what they are worth.

Bike computer: Robust, great for navigation and recording rides. Enables you to keep your phone safe and out of the way and save its battery. Purpose designed for the job, not a jack of all trades like a phone. But expensive. Worth it? IMO absolutely yes.

Cadence sensor. Little gizmo containing a CR3032 battery in a rubber case that clips to your crank and connects to a bike computer (or maybe phone?). To my mind cadence is the least interesting metric. Anyone who tells you there is a "correct range" is, IMO, talking through their hat. Just let your legs decide. I have one, naturally, because I love gadgets, but I ignore it. Worth it? IMO not really, but they are cheap so worth a shot if you are curious. Who knows, maybe you will find it useful.

Speed sensor. Little gizmo in a rubber case containing a CR2032 battery that clips to your hub. Given that your phone/computer GPS already knows your speed, this is pointless unless you plan to do a lot of riding in tunnels. But cheap. Worth it? IMO, no. (But of course I have one).

Heart Rate Monitor. Chest strap. Also could configure a HRM watch to transmit to a computer. Good if you know your heart rate zones. Also a lot of software uses HRM data to estimate other metrics. Worth it? Maybe. Depends how much you use heart rate zones.

Power Meter. There are various types, all very expensive. Useful if you are doing a lot of turbo training, and are familiar with your power zones. Did I mention that they are expensive? Worth it? If you have to ask, then probably not.

All in my opinion, and it depends what you want from your cycling.

 

[a.twiddler]

I remember the excitement as a kid when I bought my Lucas "King of the Road" cyclometer with my pocket money, which I attached to my front wheel. My first mile, my first five miles, my first ten miles. You had to remember to note the mileage when you started out, and subtract it from the mileage when you finished. I rode many a happy mile accompanied by its tink tink tink as I went along. It was simple, it needed no batteries,
you could ignore it unless you wanted to record a particular ride. You could even decide if you were doing a satisfactory speed as the frequency changed as you went up and down hills.

When I got back into cycling in the 70s there were still no electronic bike computers so naturally I fitted something similar. Apart from being mostly plastic, the design was the same, attached to the wheel spindle, with a striker attached to a spoke which moved a star shaped wheel on the cyclometer at each wheel revolution.

A phone was a telephonic communication device in those days, plugged into a wall socket. The Post Office had a monopoly and more or less decided what type of phone you could have, originally black, but you could have a few colours by then, green or beige, perhaps. A rotary dialler, of course. I remember the controversy when the trimphone came out with a range of colours and dialling with actual buttons. A bit academic for a lot of people as many didn't have a house phone in those days. There would be a phone box nearby, of course. The phone revolution was a few years away then, when you could buy a wide range of phones in Woolworths, or anywhere.

A different phone revolution has occurred since, and we are all in the thrall of the smartphone manufacturers now.

Wandering back on topic, when simple electronic bike computers became affordable it was marvellous. Speed, average speed, max speed, distance, was all I needed. Battery life wasn't great, but that improved over the years. The need to reset everything if the battery died was a pain though more expensive brands have overcome that. With GPS you don't even have to set it to a particular bike or wheel size, and can swap from bike to bike.

I had a smart watch for a while with heart rate readings but it was unreliable and gave some alarming results, and the gps would lose contact sometimes and my ride data would be lost. Battery life wasn't great either. Would a more expensive unit be better? I wasn't all that bothered, but it does seem that a heart rate monitor with a chest strap gives more reliable readings.

There comes a point where all this gadgetry starts to detract from your enjoyment of the ride and I'd reached that point. I'm quite happy to use a map when I'm out, but I bought a used Garmin Etrex 20 just for the ability to be able to use its GPS bike computer facility and swap it from bike to bike without resetting anything. It runs on two AA batteries, which last about 25 hours, and if you have to change them during a ride it doesn't lose data. It's not cutting edge or state-of-the-art but it seems tough and reliable. It's also a rather nice burnt orange colour. It's possible that given time I'll use its other facilities too but it strikes a happy medium for me, for now.

 

[Dogtrousers]

attached to the wheel spindle, with a striker attached to a spoke which moved a star shaped wheel on the cyclometer at each wheel revolution.

I had a very advanced setup in the 70s. For some reason my dad had a box of old wrist watches. So I mounted a tatty Ingersoll on my handlebars and zeroed it at the start of each ride, when I also memorised the starting reading on my cyclometer.

This meant that, with a bit of mental arithmetic, I had a constant reading of my average speed.

 

[All uphill]

It's also a rather nice burnt orange colour.

Ohhh!

Now I want one!

Off to ebay....

 

[Sterlo]

attached to the wheel spindle, with a striker attached to a spoke which moved a star shaped wheel on the cyclometer at each wheel revolution.

My god, that takes me back, having to make sure it was positioned perfectly to within a nano-millimetre otherwise it would either miss the thing altogether or jam up.

 

[fossyant]

I just use my Garmin for logging rides and navigation occasionally. It's fit, forget. You can spend way too much time looking at numbers on a screen and not just letting it get on with recording whilst you enjoy the ride. I've been using bike computers for my whole life. I just leave them to do the job and upload to strava when finished.

 

[Drago]

At the level you're likely at, no. Doesn't mean it wouldnt be interesting.

 

[figbat]

Very much this ^

But here are my opinions, for what they are worth.

Bike computer: Robust, great for navigation and recording rides. Enables you to keep your phone safe and out of the way and save its battery. Purpose designed for the job, not a jack of all trades like a phone. But expensive. Worth it? IMO absolutely yes.

Cadence sensor. Little gizmo containing a CR3032 battery in a rubber case that clips to your crank and connects to a bike computer (or maybe phone?). To my mind cadence is the least interesting metric. Anyone who tells you there is a "correct range" is, IMO, talking through their hat. Just let your legs decide. I have one, naturally, because I love gadgets, but I ignore it. Worth it? IMO not really, but they are cheap so worth a shot if you are curious. Who knows, maybe you will find it useful.

Speed sensor. Little gizmo in a rubber case containing a CR2032 battery that clips to your hub. Given that your phone/computer GPS already knows your speed, this is pointless unless you plan to do a lot of riding in tunnels. But cheap. Worth it? IMO, no. (But of course I have one).

Heart Rate Monitor. Chest strap. Also could configure a HRM watch to transmit to a computer. Good if you know your heart rate zones. Also a lot of software uses HRM data to estimate other metrics. Worth it? Maybe. Depends how much you use heart rate zones.

Power Meter. There are various types, all very expensive. Useful if you are doing a lot of turbo training, and are familiar with your power zones. Did I mention that they are expensive? Worth it? If you have to ask, then probably not.

All in my opinion, and it depends what you want from your cycling.

I was going to type out my own opinion but this is exactly it, to the letter. So, what he said!

 

[presta]

I'm thinking with a cadence sensor, it would help me make sure I'm in the correct range as I can't easily tell my cadence freehand (free footed?)

A cadence sensor can't tell you if your cadence is correct, but your HRM will. I quickly stopped bothering about cadence once I found that my gear selection was finding the optimum naturally without any conscious thought.