I am using currently a Sigma HRM 2006.

has Altitude, HRM, thermometer, 2 bike setup

It is great when it works, but many times fail to work, when it is cold, or randomly. my 10 CHF computer on my commuter works under °0 and never fails ( but alas is a basic cabled computer ).

So I am in the market for a real good cycling computer with Altimeter, HRM, Cadence.

What are you using and what would you advice.

Polar 625X / 725X. A bit outdated but you can pick them up very cheaply compared to a few years ago. As it is also a watch can be used for all other sports. It has HRM, cadence (optional sensor), Power (optional sensor), speed, temperature and so on. Do you really need altitude though?

Only problem is interference from High Voltage. (eg train power lines). Tend to drop your speed and heart rate to 0, ore rais it to 100km/h 225 bpm respectively. This can be corrected in the software, uploaded from the watch using IrData port.

The standard software is excellent, producing very nice graphs.

I found it here new for $279 încluding the cadence set.

http://cgi.ebay.com/POLAR-S725X-HEAR...3A1%7C294%3A50

Looks good, has cadence, speed, HRM, ( altitude ? ) . and can also work with a running pod.

Does it work when it is cold ?, my Sigma doesn't work under 10°C

the other option would be the Garmin 305 probably, what are your experiences with it ?

dakman, you have a Garmin isn't it ?

I have a CicloSport HAC4. distance/speed,cadence,HR,altitude. It logs a datapoint every 20 sec and has enough storage for probably 100 hrs of riding.

Actually, I have two CicloSport HAC4's. Neither one worked properly independently, but I was able to combine the unbroken components to get a working computer. It worked nicely for about 2 years, but recently the HR stopped working again. Functionally I would look for the same features (distance/speed, cadence, HR, altitude, and data logging), but I wouldn't buy a CicloSport product again. For me, all these measurements are critical, if I had to do without one it would be the HR, then the cadence. The altitude and speed are what I'm most interested in. Interestingly, the two I opened up were the same circuitry, but there was clearly a factory problem with the product because one of them had modifications.

Also, the software that came with the product was lousy and programmed by someone who clearly still likes to use Windows 3.1.

I use the S625X too. My thoughts are the same as Litespeeds. I have been toying with the idea of changing for the RS800CX but that is still a little too pricey in my book.

The Polar watches are much more then a bike computer though. They do all the usual bike functions (except auto stop/start) you can add cadence sensors and power sensors (power is hard to come by now).

The Polar also does fitness tests prediction of VO2max (poor, but will show individual improvements) and a training/overtraining state test.

I have thought about changing to the Garmins, but in my opinion they seem to lack some of the training based functionality of the polars, and can give iffy distance readings under tree cover. In my opinion the Garmins are high end bike computers which will also give you HR data (if you choose to have it), while the polars are Heart Rate Monitors which give you bike computer functionality.

What could also be considered if you want a pure bike computer are the Polar CS range. They do various ones depending on budget and features you want. They all work on the newer WIND wireless signals so should not get interference from Power or Train lines and the higher level ones have all the functionality of the S625x/S725x just they can't be used as a wristwatch or for running.

If money was no object at the moment, I think I would go for the RS800CX Multi. But thats just me, and that is a silly price at the moment. after that probably the CS600x.

To answer Salsa's question. Yes the 625/725 works when cold. They are exactly the same watch one comes with the running pod and the other with the S-Series bike speed sensor.

I am using a Garmin Edge 705 with the HR & cadence but have only just started getting used to it all, so cannot report too much back at this point.

The Garmin can be used for walking, cycling and car modes so that is an upside. The Garmin software is pretty poor but plenty of third party software to help get the most out of it.

The virtual training partner seems to always get home about an hour before me at the moment

Pretty much it is going to be able to do everything I need plus some. The price has come down on these and managed to get a great deal on eBay.

I've been looking around and there is the CS600 for $285 ( speed only sensor, but the additional sensors are avaliable for ~ $60 each )

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Polar-CS600-...3A1%7C294%3A50




Another that looks really good is the Sigma ROX 9.0 but I don't know If I should get another Sigma ...

it looks good, Altimeter ( incline, ascend und descent), Cadence, Speed, HRM, Waypoints, PC interface for only $199 including the speed and cadence sensors, and the PC docking station

http://cgi.ebay.com/SIGMA-ROX-9-0-DT...3A1%7C294%3A50



In fact the one I have is not bad, just fails to work when cold, and have randomly reception problems, so the speed sensor ceases to work but the HRM still does, then after just come back.... and it is not a battery problem, maybe is just interference from train lines as you say, and then would have problems with any other, and it doesn't have pc interface though.

Do this "winds" technology eliminate the problem ?

the WIND technology is supposed to eliminate electro magnetic interference, so it should fix the problem. I have never used it so can't comment. I can live with the interference on the non WND transmitters so if there is any improvement that's a good thing.

I've been using the CicloMaster 4.3A for the past year (made by CicloSport). It does everything you asked for except heart-rate. This year's version of mine is called the 4.4A, and the versions that are the same but add heart rate measurements are the 8.3A and 8.3AM.

My CM 4.3A has been far more reliable than the VDO wireless unit that I used before. I gave up on the VDO due to the unreliable connection and its constant hunger for batteries, and I've had neither problem with the CicloMaster.

The CM is occasionally affected by electrical interference - when I ride past some fields with electrical fences, my speed will sometimes increase by 5-10 kph, but not always. I've never had problems with train lines. This is a very minor inconvenience as it happens for a couple hundred meters out of every 100 or 200 km that I ride.

The CM does pretty well in the cold. I was riding in temperatures down to -6 celsius over the winter. The computer kept going, although the digits on the display were taking an extra second to change - you could see some bars fading in and out instead of switching immediately. Aside from that, it worked fine, and I only noticed this slow-change symptom once it was below about -4.

The CM gives one of the most accurate gradient measurements I've seen. Other computers that use a barometer to compute gradient can be quite sporadic. The CM seems to sample for a longer distance before updating the gradient measure, making it less instantaneous but more accurate than some other models, which I prefer.

I still can't see the point of a heart rate monitor. I can feel how hard I'm riding and how my body is coping with it (i.e., I listen to my body), so why would knowing my heart rate give me any information that my perceived exertion rate and physiological response doesn't give me? I tried a friend's heart-rate monitor for the first time this winter for a 10 minute full-on session on his indoor trainer. My heart rate was quite high all the time. Well, duh, I was working hard the whole time, I already knew that! So, what's the point of knowing your heart rate?

I know many people who ride without, and I know of athletes who train without too. To each their own.

But, you speak of perceived exertion, which is exactly that (perceived). A HRM gives you a better idea of what you are really doing. An example is if you feel good it is quite possible to talk to someone get caught up in a ride and have a relatively low RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion), but still be working over threshold. Fine if you go riding for a few hours, but will put you in the red if its an all day ride. I have had times when I am feeling great with HR between 180 and 190, then I get to the second climb of the day and my legs just don't have it. With a HRM I can say, right its a long day today, I'm keeping my heartrate under Xbpm and have a better chance of getting through the day.

The converse is also true, and somedays you feel like your RPE is sky high and your Heartrate is quite low. This is an indicator that something is not right. Maybe overtraining, maybe not eaten enough, not enough sleep etc. Many people use RPE and there is nothing wrong with it, but it is percieved.

Heartrate on a ride is also affected by other things such as diet, hydration level, fatigue, motivation etc so taking both RPE and HR can give you a better idea of how you are really doing. Of course to get real use out of this you do need to know what heartrate your individual thresholds or zones etc are at.

I use a HRM, its not 100% neccesary, but I find it a usefull tool. (Partially because I am a bit of a geek on these things though! )

I started using a heart rate monitor just about a month back and I must say that I am liking it so far. The bottom line being I can tag the amount of exertion I am doing to a number which take the subjective perception out of the equation. For e.g if I am riding a hill up on 170 then I have kind of figured out that I can climb at this rate for a long time, its hard but I can maintain a good rythm. However if its lingering between 182-190 then its too high and I need to either slow down, change my gears etc. because its very difficult for me to keep that going consistently for longer period of time.
The same info sounded trivial to me a year back but now is making more sense.

Thanks Eire, I see what you're saying. Perceived exertion is a measure that contains some error and heart-rate is a different measure that also contains some error. Therefore, by combining the two you can get a more accurate measure (signal) and reduce the error (noise).

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people who get hear-rate monitors stop listening to their bodies, or never learn how to. They rely purely on the heart rate measure. They therefore trade one error-prone measure for another, equally error-prone one, and do not combine the two [EDIT: Rahul's post above, which appeared while I was writing this, appears to be a perfect example of this]. Because one of these requires expense, technology, and is more fancy, then people seem to think that it's better. However, I'm far from convinced by this. I don't think your average rider can gain much by using a heart rate monitor.

As Eire mentioned, it is also debatable whether even pro cyclists need a heart rate monitor. Graeme O'bree was one of those people who Eire referred to who never trained with a heart-rate monitor even when most of his peers were using one, and he was the best in the world at his specialty for a while. However, there were many ways in which his training and life were different from most other pro' cyclists (read his book, The Flying Scotsman, it's great).

So, in conclusion, get the CM 4.4A - it will tell you everything that you need to know, and nothing that you don't need to know. Furthermore, not having a HRM will make you listen to your body more instead of looking at a number on the screen, which is a good thing. Plus it's only about 150 CHF from Veloplus or about 60 euros from bike-components.de the last time I looked (both without the cadence sensor).

Something along those lines

I disagree. I have often seen people who try to improve fitness and go about it in a hap hazard way. By doing some simple tests a coach or sports scientist can give someone very objective training goals by using a HRM. These training sessions and goals are not as easily measured by RPE alone, but in combination with a HRM a lot of very usefull information can be gathered to make training sessions even for amateur sports people more effective.

I was actually refering to a group of Scandinavian orienteers who used to train solely on RPE. The thing is, this group used HRM's to teach themselves how to more accurately get a grip on RPE. There are cyclists who don't use monitors, but they are quite few and far between. The majority of riders even at lower levels are quite scientific about their training these days.

I would rephrase this. to something like decide what you want, weigh up the pro's and cons and then get a bike computer suitable. Some people may want to use a HRM, some don't. I wouldn't tell you that you should use one, thats your choice. Same for anyone else. Do the research and decide what is best for you. HRM's can be usefull for all levels of sports enthusiast, but are not essential.

I am using a Garmin Edge 705. Very happy with it, never had it fail on me.

Don't use a HRM, and can't complain!

My main complain is there is nothing for Mac users.

How about:

http://www.montebellosoftware.com/

I use Garmin Edge 705 and I am using Apple Mac only to plan my rides etc.

Did not bother to look into this too much, but if I ever buy such an expensive toy (Garmin 705 or Polar CS600), I want the full data browsable and analysable on Mac, not just the ascents and descents. So far, I manage very well with "listening" to my breath and legs.

This is where the 625X/725X shows its weakness. On Sunday I rode from Bern to Luzern (against a nasty headwind mind you). This route runs parallel to a railway /tramline much of the time, and this is an example of the annoying interference, to the extent I'm not going to bother correcting it!:

I have found the Sigma ROX 9.0 locally at 290.-

I'm very tempted to give it a try, it has a newly developed STS wireless technology.

Has anybody had any experience with it. ?