Why use cycle computer ?

joaop

I always trained using a cycle computer, when Strava doesnt exist, cycle computer was obligatory. After training I used to enter the informations on my computer and have it organized on excel.

My cycle computer (cateye velo 9) is bad right now, so I did 2 trainings without it, carrying just Strava with me. Then I realized somethings without the cycle computer:

I don't stay checking the speed all the time
I pay more attetion on the road
I'm more focused on my body (breath, strenght, legs)
I lost the speed notion, so I pay more attetion on the body signals
I can't do intervals trainings (without timer)
I lost track of time

I am both excited about the positive things not to use cycle computer and worried about the change.

I would like to know your opinion.

hypster

One of the best bits of kit I bought in 25 years of cycling was my Garmin 800 two years ago. It logs the whole ride and allows me to monitor the data when I get home. It also allows me to set up training rides such as 2x20s where I don't have to think about what I'm doing all the time, just follow the prompts.

markhewitt1978

I think you should do both from time to time. There is of course very much a place for all the data with speed, average, power, whatever. But at the same time you should do some rides now and again where you're just riding, no numbers, just you and the bike.

ugo.santalucia

I have given up on cycle computers a couple of years back, maybe three years... no longer see the point... they were recording numbers which were extremely reproducible week after week, hence pointless.
At a point I thought of buying a Garmin, but then there is a risk of ending up like all those folks who can only follow directions and haven't got a clue how to go from A to B, which is a skill I value... I don't even use a GPS in the car. In my opinion the drawbacks in terms of getting addicted to these things superseed the benefits of having access to a lot of information...
But then again, I wouldn't classify myself in the competitive bracket... I see myself as a leisure cyclist, a commuter and possibly a timid tourer

ForumNewbie

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I have given up on cycle computers a couple of years back, maybe three years... no longer see the point... they were recording numbers which were extremely reproducible week after week, hence pointless.
At a point I thought of buying a Garmin, but then there is a risk of ending up like all those folks who can only follow directions and haven't got a clue how to go from A to B, which is a skill I value...

I've used Garmins for years now but never used them to follow directions. The Edge 500 that I currently use doesn't have SatNav or full routing, just GPS, but I still find it really good for the stats it produces.

ugo.santalucia

ForumNewbie wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I have given up on cycle computers a couple of years back, maybe three years... no longer see the point... they were recording numbers which were extremely reproducible week after week, hence pointless.
At a point I thought of buying a Garmin, but then there is a risk of ending up like all those folks who can only follow directions and haven't got a clue how to go from A to B, which is a skill I value...

I've used Garmins for years now but never used them to follow directions. The Edge 500 that I currently use doesn't have SatNav or full routing, just GPS, but I still find it really good for the stats it produces.

That's because you find those stats useful. When I used a computer, the biggest discrepancies were over commutes in London, as a green or a red light would make the difference in the average speed and so did various bottlenecks of traffic. On good days with tail wind and no traffic, with a bit of luck with the lights I did manage 30 Kmh commutes, but what did that say about my fitness, given the following day the average was maybe 27 in view of the above?
As for longer, more rural rides, the average was always the same, within plus of minus half a Km. Other stats like calories, heart rate etc, if you have them, are only meaningful if you have done a proper assessment of your methabolic rate etc, otherwise they are meaningless numbers, often wrong

ForumNewbie

ugo.santalucia wrote:

ForumNewbie wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I have given up on cycle computers a couple of years back, maybe three years... no longer see the point... they were recording numbers which were extremely reproducible week after week, hence pointless.
At a point I thought of buying a Garmin, but then there is a risk of ending up like all those folks who can only follow directions and haven't got a clue how to go from A to B, which is a skill I value...

I've used Garmins for years now but never used them to follow directions. The Edge 500 that I currently use doesn't have SatNav or full routing, just GPS, but I still find it really good for the stats it produces.

That's because you find those stats useful. When I used a computer, the biggest discrepancies were over commutes in London, as a green or a red light would make the difference in the average speed and so did various bottlenecks of traffic. On good days with tail wind and no traffic, with a bit of luck with the lights I did manage 30 Kmh commutes, but what did that say about my fitness, given the following day the average was maybe 27 in view of the above?
As for longer, more rural rides, the average was always the same, within plus of minus half a Km. Other stats like calories, heart rate etc, if you have them, are only meaningful if you have done a proper assessment of your methabolic rate etc, otherwise they are meaningless numbers, often wrong

Fair enough ugo. I just find it interesting to see distance, my average speed (which is pretty slow), elevation climbed and profile of the route etc., especially when going on a different route from my usual ones.

I am just surprised that such a keen cyclist like you doesn't use a cycling computer at all, even just to see what speed you are currently doing on say a fast descent, like the descent down Fleet Moss that you describe on your website.

johnny25

I generally use a cycle computer for training, as I need to know my power output, HR and IF. Speed and distance aren't that relevant to me, however time is more so. If I'm out on a less strenuous ride / recovery ride, the only metric I really concentrate on is HR.

I can see the benefit of riding without a cycle computer, if all your doing is riding and enjoying the ride. Why ruin it with meaningless data?

ugo.santalucia

ForumNewbie wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

ForumNewbie wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I have given up on cycle computers a couple of years back, maybe three years... no longer see the point... they were recording numbers which were extremely reproducible week after week, hence pointless.
At a point I thought of buying a Garmin, but then there is a risk of ending up like all those folks who can only follow directions and haven't got a clue how to go from A to B, which is a skill I value...

I've used Garmins for years now but never used them to follow directions. The Edge 500 that I currently use doesn't have SatNav or full routing, just GPS, but I still find it really good for the stats it produces.

That's because you find those stats useful. When I used a computer, the biggest discrepancies were over commutes in London, as a green or a red light would make the difference in the average speed and so did various bottlenecks of traffic. On good days with tail wind and no traffic, with a bit of luck with the lights I did manage 30 Kmh commutes, but what did that say about my fitness, given the following day the average was maybe 27 in view of the above?
As for longer, more rural rides, the average was always the same, within plus of minus half a Km. Other stats like calories, heart rate etc, if you have them, are only meaningful if you have done a proper assessment of your methabolic rate etc, otherwise they are meaningless numbers, often wrong

Fair enough ugo. I just find it interesting to see distance, my average speed (which is pretty slow), elevation climbed and profile of the route etc., especially when going on a different route from my usual ones.

I am just surprised that such a keen cyclist like you doesn't use a cycling computer at all, even just to see what speed you are currently doing on say a fast descent, like the descent down Fleet Moss that you describe on your website.

The day we did Fleet Moss the side wind was so strong that we tried to get down alive, more than anything.
Mileage and elevation can be plotted on many softwares, including Strava or BikeHike, which is a bit more accurate. As a rule of thumb, you will do 500-1000 mt x 100 Km on flat/rolling part of the countries, 1000-1500 mt on hillier parts, like the Chilterns, or the Surrey hills and 1500-2000 on very hilly rides in the mountainous National parks

Descent top speed is the only number I occasionally miss, maybe a couple of times per year

simon_e

I'm with ugo. Plan a route beforehand, learn to navigate from the cues around you. Most of my rides are on roads I know but if I'm riding somewhere unfamiliar I study a map beforehand. I take a page from a road atlas (£3) in a polypocket stuffed in a jersey pocket.

Did getting lost on a bike ride really come close to spoiling a family holiday, oxoman? Blimey!

I have a basic cycle computer to record training rides but when the previous one stopped working I just noted what time it was when I left the house and again when I returned. That's accurate enough for my purposes. I can see a fancy schmancy computer might be a motivating for some people but I think it's more about 'boys and their toys'. IMHO a GPS is more hassle than it's worth and it's very easy to drown in meaningless data. Height climbed is the only stat that would interest me but most of them don't record altitude accurately. And I don't want to spend even more time on the computer at home than I do already.

markhewitt1978

I'm waiting for a Wahoo Elemnt to arrive and I can't be bothered mounting my phone to my stem so the last couple of rides I've gone out without anything. So don't know, speed, distance or even time. And it's been quite fun, pushing myself with no numbers in front of me. It helps of course it was all local roads, I knew exactly where I was going.