RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


GPS instead of a computer?(4 posts)

GPS instead of a computer?revdre
Jul 8, 2003 10:26 AM
Has anyone tried using a gps unit instead of a traditional computer? I just broke my vetta and have a small gps that I could use. Any experiences with loss of signal, durability, etc.??
Here's a few...Fez
Jul 8, 2003 10:52 AM
Most cyclocomputers start up instantly. The GPS takes anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or more to start up and link to satellite

GPS doesn't work that well under bridges, tunnels, trees and other obstructions to the sky.

The GPS is a handy tool if you need to navigate, but not the best choice for simple speed and distance. A computer is a lot better for that.
If you must, the Timex is good...Fez
Jul 8, 2003 11:52 AM
Although it is pricey. Watch battery should last quite a while, but the GPS unit needs to be velcro-strapped around your arm. Its bulky - about the size of a pack of cigarettes. Uses AA batteries. You probably should invest in rechargeables.
Makes a very good speedo ... limited otherwise.Humma Hah
Jul 8, 2003 11:26 AM
Since they removed the dithering a couple of years ago, handheld GPSs give speed and direction at cycling speeds pretty well, and typically give position withing about 8 meters.

However, if used under trees or in other poor reception conditions, they can be off by miles. I've tried to use one to track a route and had very poor results. During dropouts, the thing would drift off by miles, even if sitting still.

They're very poor at altitude. My altimeter cyclocomputer does a better job of recording total climb, and its far from perfect.

They're usually power-hungry. Mine will go thru 4 AA cells in less time than I like to spend on a good ride. Wouldn't last out a typical 50-mile ride for me.