Talk:Cyclocomputer

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cycling This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

From User talk:Christopherlin#Removed links:

FYI: I removed the selected list of company names in Cyclocomputer as it may be considered spam. Users may use search engines to find their preferred suppliers. JohJak2 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am not aware of any prohibition of listing company names in related articles. Why is it not fair to say that Shimano makes Flight Deck for STI, or Campagnolo makes Ergo Brain for Ergopower? Polar was linked because they make the heart-rate type. Removing Cat Eye makes some sense, as it doesn't have any other mention in the article.

I looked through WP:SPAM and WP:EL and didn't see any clear indication against mentioning companies. I noticed you asked RexNL about it. For future reference, the Wikipedia:Help Desk has a helpful and knowledgeable bunch. Let me know your thoughts. Christopherlin 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing wrong with mentioning relevant company names. Leaving out Shimano and Campagnolo from a discussion of bicycle components is kind of like leaving out Apple and Microsoft from a discussion of operating systems. Shimano and Campagnolo aren't two random companies. Together, they account for most of the component market. Rhobite 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

@Christopherlin: I noticed you have been around wikipedia quite a while. Then you must know its neutrality point of view. How can you then not understand my objection to these names. I object to having company names mentioned because by allowing these names it advertises their products. The article is about cyclocomputers, what they are, how they work. Not about who makes or sells them. By using a search engine one may find suppliers. Or by reading advertisements in a bicyle magazine, or by going to a bicycle shop. Withe the knowledge of the wikipedia article as basis. Mentioning one or two manufacturers excludes other companies. Wikipedia has to be neutral to be believable. Wikipedia can only stay neutral if it would mention all and every manufacturer in this article. That is impossible to achieve since the market continually changes. I also do not see any added value in the content of this article when these company names are added. It does not give more insight about the product.

@Rhobite: your statement: they account for most of the component market illustrates my point: you make a selection, and therefore are not neutral. And we are not talking operating systems here. --JohJak2 07:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This change I made on the basis of Links to normally avoid: In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose. as is found in WP:EL. "...detecting the gearing... and ...measurement of cadence..." (as in the paragraph): how does it work? That could turn into a good article. Referring to a company does not explain how it works. JohJak2 11:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's perfectly OK to mention the most notable companies making a product. This is exactly the same as leaving out MS and Apple from a computer discussion, leaving out McDonalds and Burger King from a fast food discussion, etc. There is no policy that states we should remove company names from articles. Simply mentioning a company's name, in context, is not "spam" nor is it an NPOV violation. And do you really think Shimano and Campagnolo are hunting around for Wikipedia articles to spam? Do you think that people who are interested in integrated shifters won't have already heard of these two companies? Rhobite 11:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've been around Wikipedia a while. I don't see how it's POV to say a company offers something that extends another product of theirs. NPOV is one of the trickiest ideas to grok. I personally think that going out of one's way to avoid mentioning companies is unreasonable. It's not meant as an advertisement, and I certainly don't mean to spam, despite implications in your earlier edit summary and comment on an admin's talk page.

I don't know how it works exactly, but for Shimano STI shifters, the cutaway diagram seems to indicate there's an electronic switch that's read by the Flight Deck computer. But for Campagnolo's Ergopower levers and Ergobrain computer, I imagine it's similar. There are resources out there, which can be found with a web search. --Christopherlin 16:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

@Rhobite: you apparently are under the erroneous impression that only contributions produced from within a company could be spam. While in reality the occurrence of spam is totally independent from the person or institution who contributes it. It is the end result that is to be considered.
However, this last change you made has less to do with spam as with quality. As I stated above, the paragraph, where you keep replacing the company names, is of bad quality. Adding the company names does not raise its quality. It does not give any useful information on how information is detected, measured, or processed. Best thing is thus to remove that paragraph altogether.
You also keep trying to draw into this discussion information about companies that make computers (other than cyclocomputers), and now fast food discussions. I do not think those subjects are germane to discussing the quality of the information in a paragraph about cyclocomputers. When discussing those subjects we can consider the relevant information at that time.
JohJak2 14:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to ask directly, then: Are you or are you not accusing me of of spamming the cyclocomputer article by mentioning company names?

I disagree that the best thing is to remove the paragraph altogether. What I've found to work in the past is to bring a paragraph to Talk: and discuss it. How does that sound to you? I'll bring it over momentarily. Eventually, a discussion of how the gear-detection systems work should be somewhere on Wikipedia, whether it be in cyclocomputer, shifter (bicycle part), Shimano Total Integration, or Ergo Shifting. --Christopherlin 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to draw analogies to other identical situations, to show you how absurd it is for you to state that it's spam for us to simply mention the top two companies who make a certain product. Rhobite 23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

@Christopherlin: I do not see intentional "spamming" happening here. (@Rhobite: maybe the term 'spam' is badly chosen by me. It is about indirect advertising.) What bothers me is that the impression is created that only Shimano en Campagnolo make these products. Maybe that is the case. Then it should be stated as such. But when there are other manufacturers and one choses not to mention them, then these two big ones should not be mentioned either. Otherwise wikipedia, for the most part unintentionally, is advertising the names and therefore the products of the big companies. I also do not see the added value of mentioning the company names (as I stated before). They do not make it clear how the product works. And that is what a n article here is for. --JohJak2 07:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Picking up again the old topic: while reading the article I noticed some promotion of some velocomputer, claiming that the rest all use old technology and that using phones with accelerometers is the new way. I undid all of the changes that were done for promotion (they were done around 28/08/09 by Vladisa), but that person also did a few more changes around 21/10/08 and I not sure whether they have any scientific merit or are just pure rubbish. Would somebody with knowledge of the sensors check them out please? Thanks Mdemenok (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The sensor of a cyclocomputer, mostly on the forefork, is NOT a Halleffect sensor as indicated in the article, which would be too costly and complicated. It is simply a switch, called Reed-relay, that closes when the magnet comes nearby it. The Reed-relay is nothing else than a small narrow glass container with inside two iron electrodes (plated with copper). When the magnet comes nearby the normally open contacts close, which is detected by the cyclocomputer. -from Benjamin: 79.6.236.172 07:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

A reference either way would be handy -AndrewDressel 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! This may sound really trivial and petty... scratch "may sound", it is really trivial and petty, but...
The caption for Image:Cyclocomputer_sensor.JPG reads "A wired Hall effect sensor with spoke mounted magnet." Me, I'd much rather have computer which works by interesting Hall effect than by a boring old reed switch. Tesla and Edison pretty much irrelevant to this, but as famous engineers go, who's the more interesting?
Naturally enough, instead of looking for reliable, verifiable and peer-reviewed reference info, I did some good old fashioned Original Research. The sensor in the pic is the sensor unit for a Cateye cyclocomputer. Got similar Cateye sensors on my bikes. Waved a fridge magnet at them (sensors, not the bicycles) and could hear a teeny "pink, pink, pink" of what I guess is a reed switch, as the cadence read-out displayed 199.99 and my maximum trip speed went up from 35kmh to 92kmh.
Admittedly, my sensor kits (like my bikes, and myself) are all pretty ancient. Going by the forks' paintwork, the forks (Reynolds tubing? Columbus?) and their dropout pattern, and the QR skewer's cam lever and retaining nut, the bike in the pic looks like an oldie-but-goodie. The sensor unit looks newer. However, I don't think Cateye would have more latterly changed from reed switch to Hall effect sensors - Hall effect sensors apparently have magnitudes larger current drain on head unit batteries. Do you think the pic caption should be altered?
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
ps: Is that an old Avocet hub-mounted sensor magnet in the pic? Now, they used Hall effect - and this comment may be even more completely wrong-headed than it is already...

I can find nothing either way. I've sent a message to Planet Bike to see if they can shed some light on this topic. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please add a section with the history of the computer including a section or link to the analog devices used previously on bicycles to determine distance. such as the first bike odometer eximo 02:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

While a brief history section has been added, it is very brief. We essential skip from the first distance measuring device to modern cyclo computers. The first device may well have been cable actuated, as were mant speedometer units sold to kids in the 1950s, but there were also cycolmeters driven by a spoke mounted striker which contacted a star-shaped wheel on the cyclometer. I remember having several such devices in the 1960s. Then there was the Huret Multito (sp?), which used a pulley on the wheel and drive belt instead of the striker arrangement, and also had a resettable trip odometer in addition to the cumulative readout. Wschart (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

here is one of the links you may add it later.User talk:Yousaf465

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclocomputer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518133818/http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/topicalsurveys/inventors.htm to http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/topicalsurveys/inventors.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I felt the lede was somewhat outdated and potentially harmful in that the main photos is primarily really old cycling computers and then it shows a smartphone being used as a cycling computer despite that's not recommended long term. Using a smartphone as a cycling computer ultimately messes up your smartphone. Unlike a cycling computer, virtually all modern smartphone nowadays typically have autofocus camera components like (optical image stabilization) and closed loop autofocus - which are fairly sensitive equipment that can be permanently damaged by prolonged vibrations. If you mount the phone on the handlebar, it receives every transmitted bump esp on gravel trails. A cycling computer on the other hand is designed for vibration or more specifically, it doesn't have any sensitive autofocus camera gear to be vulnerable to such vibrations. It's fine to use a smartphone occasionally or at the very beginning but you are just risking your camera phone over time. I created a section for - "Smartphones vs. dedicated cycling computers" and a dedicated section on vibrations to help explain why dedicated cycling computers remain relevant despite smartphones. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply