Training & Nutrition - ciclosport hac-4

Well I just got my new hac-4 and installed it right away. It took roughly 15 mins to install and 2 hours to learn how to set and use it. Afterwards I went out and did a 40 mile hill ride. I have to say I was really blown away by how well it works and all the tools it gives me for measuring my training. It measures gradiant of hills as well as your rate of climbing. Like an odometer, it actually stores your total vertical feet climbed over time...very neat. It also has a wattage feature for measuring power. I liked that as well, although it was kind of a let down to know I am REALLY weaker than the pros LOL. It does all the standard heartrate stuff really well and of course all the bike features along with cadence. For cycling, I have to say that it seems the best total measuring tool available. If anyone is interested I will let you know how it performs over time. I have a friend that is an elite triathlete and does Ironman length races who also uses it for everything and he loves it too.

I wonder how the wattage feature works. Possibly an estimate based on your weight, speed, and gradient?

Originally posted by Chasbo
It measures gradiant of hills as well as your rate of climbing. Like an odometer, it actually stores your total vertical feet climbed over time...very neat.

How fast/well does the gradient feature work? Do the figures quoted seem about right to you? The reason I ask is that I use a Polar S710i, and it does not show gradient on the bike - and I would really like to know this. In fact, I am thinking of getting a HAC4 just to show me the gradient...but I am concerned that the readings update too slowly to be of much use.

Can you display cadence and gradient at the same time?



cadence. For cycling, I have to say that it seems the best total measuring tool available. If anyone is interested I will let you know how it performs over time.

I for one would be VERY interested in seeing how it works out. There are a LOT of people out there with the Polar units - very few seem to have the HAC4, so any feedback at all is very welcome.

You say it seems the best tool for cyclists - this is one of the obvious handicaps of the Polar units - it is obvious to anyone that they were not designed for cyclists - they are simply general HR monitors with a few cycling functions added as a sort of after thought.

I have tried to read the HAC4 manual, but actually gave it up as a bad joke. How did you find actually using the thing on the bike - could you read all the displays ok, and could you change modes easily enough? This in fact is one of the problems with the S7xx units - all the cycling functions are on the top line only, and they are extremely hard to read on the bike.

Keep us all informed...

The gradient feature relies of course on a base altitude measurement and cross references that with the change in atmosperic pressure. Having used a couple different Garmin GPS devices for my mountain biking, I would have to say that the Hac-4 works as well as they do. That meaning that in general, the gradient updates itself in such a way that you tend to know what the grade of the road was 10 feet behind you. What makes the feature useful, cause knowing what the grade was 10 feet ago isn't very useful, is that it is telling you what your climbing rate is. That along with total feet climbed per day and over time make the unit very useful on a climbing day. At the end of a ride you can see how many vertical feet of climbing you put in.

You can indeed put gradiant and cadence on at the same time, as we as gradiant and HR. I tend to do the former as I want to make sure I am spinning as much as possible.

One feature I haven't figured out how to use, but am very interested in doing so, is the ride comparison mode. That is where the unit will compare you measurements on the same course from 2 different days. A cool way to test your fitness over time.

I used a polar for a long time until I couldnt stand its lack of cycling functions. Even the current s710 is lacking imo. You have to buy the wattage meter seperately and it still doesn't track gradient. That's what makes the Hac-4 such a great deal for cycling.

As for the manuel, all I can say is they need better translators. It makes very little sense to me. After reading it 4 times I got the gist of everything, and was able to teach myself the rest. I thought I would need to carry the little quick refence sheet around with me on my 1st few rides to keep track of how to use the darn thing (its number of features is so long, it can be a bit daunting to use), but once on the bike I found the unit to be pretty simple to use and was able to cycle thru all the various functions with no problem on the ride.

I will keep you aprised of how it works over time and any other tidbits of info you may want.

Chuck

Originally posted by Chasbo
I used a polar for a long time until I couldnt stand its lack of cycling functions. Even the current s710 is lacking imo. You have to buy the wattage meter seperately and it still doesn't track gradient. That's what makes the Hac-4 such a great deal for cycling.


What is lacking on the S710 that you miss? I know that there is no gradient - but you can work that out from the graphs after the ride. Not that good, I know. But what else is missing?

Actually, what you said about the thing tracking the gradient 10 feet behind you is what I felt to be true of all these type of units. This was one reason I did not worry about it too much. The ONLY unit that I know of that does it properly is the Clino 301 http://www.clino.it/en/index.htm
The problem with this unit is that the other cycling functions are very poor. It is also fairly expensive.

The Power function on the Polar is a lot better than the "estimate" provided by the HAC4 (or the Clino 301). Actually, I never use the power function at all - the only reason I bought it was to hardwire in the speed and cadence sensors.

One thing I did not really like about the HAC4 was the software. In fact, it was this alone that turned me off the unit. I presume that you find it ok?

The gradiant issues that so turn you off dont matter to me. I care less about knowing the exact grade of the road section I am on and more about how well I am climbing, say in feet per minute. That way I can compare my climbing over the same route day after day. Plus I can follow my total climbing over time. On hill days, thats what is important to me.

As far as how accurate the power meter is, I don't compare myself to other cyclists, only myself. I am going to use the power meter to guage my relative strength gain over time, which makes it more than equal to the task. Lets say on my intervals day I can use it over time to see how much more power I am generating. The other nice thing about the wattage meter is that I didnt have to pay extra to get it, unlike the polar which treats it as an upgrade. So as far as exact lab worthy wattage data goes, I don't really care.

As far as the total package goes, I didnt get the software. I got the Hac-4 and the cadence upgrade. I am going to buy the download kit next month when cash flow is better. Is it better or worse than polar's version? I can't say till I use it, but I have seen it and checked out its format and think it does everything I need to well enough.

The cost of the polar with both the download kit and the power kit was more expensive than the Hac-4 was for me. Plus the local rep for the company lives in the same town as the shop I work at, so I get any help I need straight off. No waiting like with polar.

Last year I, my polar's display went haywire and stopped working properly. It took 3 arguements and 2 months before polar got around to fixing the problem. That caused no small dissatisfaction on my part and I decided to try something else.

In terms of my 1st impressions, and keep in mind I only have 2 rides on it so far, I am really impressed with the Hac-4 so far. It does everything it claims to do quite well. I will withhold my final judgement once I have a couple months and at least a thousand miles worth of data collected.

Till then, I will answer any questions you may have about it. Smile and keep the rubber side down...

Chuck

How does the HAC-4 measure power?

I know the Polar measures the tension in the chain via a chain mount and a reciever on the chianstay. This is suppose to be fairly accurate but I have my doubts.

Has anyone seen a comparison report between the two units?

Originally posted by kneighbour
The Power function on the Polar is a lot better than the "estimate" provided by the HAC4 (or the Clino 301). Actually, I never use the power function at all - the only reason I bought it was to hardwire in the speed and cadence sensors.
Hmmm. I thought the jury was still out on the Polar watt measurement, but then I haven't been following it very closely. Do you know of any reviews or comparisons with the SRM and/or Power Tap?

Originally posted by roadbuzz
Hmmm. I thought the jury was still out on the Polar watt measurement, but then I haven't been following it very closely. Do you know of any reviews or comparisons with the SRM and/or Power Tap?

Well, whatever Polar does, it has to be a lot better than what the HAC4 does. Estimating off bike weight and speed seems a very error prone way to do it to me. It is a bit like the "virtual cadence" system of the FlightDeck computers.

The results from the Polar are pretty good - within 10% or so I think. If you want a real detailed comparison, have a look at this site... http://www.pdqcleveland.org/power.htm

The biggest problem with the Polar system is that it depends to a large extent on the distance from the chain to the sensor - so it can alter simply by changing chainring gears. This is not so much a problem on bikes with double chainrings, but with triples, you can get readings changing simply by changing gears. Polar knows about this, and advises users on better ways to mount the sensors, etc. But it is still a problem. The strain guage way is better (like with SRM), but the cost is a LOT more than Polar. Polar is by far the cheapest power measuring system around, although you might not believe it.

The Polar system works by measuring the frequency of oscillation of the chain - the sensor is placed under the chain and acts just like a fancy guitar pickup. This is rather clever of Polar, I have to say. The problem is the chain distance to the sensor changes due to changes in gearing...so at the extremes you start getting perceived power changes when all that is happening is that you are in the wrong gear.

But like you, I care little what the REAL power is I am generating. I really have very little interest in it at all, to be totally honest. If I do look at it, it is only to see if power is increasing from one ride to the next. The problem with the "calculated power" system is that total bike weight is changing all the time. So I could be getting a higher power reading because I have lost a bit of weight...which is just what I am riding a bike for.

Originally posted by Chasbo
[B]The gradiant issues that so turn you off dont matter to me. I care less about knowing the exact grade of the road section I am on and more about how well I am climbing, say in feet per minute.

Well, it does not overly concern me. At least the HAC4 does try to show you gradient - which the Polar does not even atempt! I am jealous. Actually, the fett/minute clinb rate sounds like a good thing to know. The Polar does not tell me that either - only the total amount climbed in meters. Rather a useless bit of information in my book. Does the HAC4 show you this?



As far as the total package goes, I didnt get the software. I got the Hac-4 and the cadence upgrade. I am going to buy the download kit next month when cash flow is better. Is it better or worse than polar's version? I can't say till I use it, but I have seen it and checked out its format and think it does everything I need to well enough.

Well, I have a (demo) copy here, and I can tell you it is very poor. It is nothing at all like the Polar stuff - which is included free with the Polar units. But that could depend on what you want from it. I wanted a system that I could track things over time - ie my weight. The Polar stuff does it beautifully. The HAC4 software barely shows you enough information on each ride, although I have to admit it mike just be adequate. I say this more as a software programmer myself than a serious sports data analyst!




The cost of the polar with both the download kit and the power kit was more expensive than the Hac-4 was for me.

True. The HAC4 is still fairly expensive here in Australia - but then so is the Polar. The full Polar system cost me around $1600 australia dollars - more than a lot of bikes cost! I think the HAc4 is around $600. It is hard to tell - I am not too sure what is included with the HAC4 - the software, for example? Is that included?



Plus the local rep for the company lives in the same town as the shop I work at, so I get any help I need straight off. No waiting like with polar.

Actually, I have the opposite problem. Polar is well supported here - very well, in fact. The local agent is brilliant. No one sells the HAC4 at all. No support. So I would have to do it all from the USA, I guess. The is a local agent here in Australia, but they have not even replied to any of my pre-sales emails - they might not even be selling them any more.



In terms of my 1st impressions, and keep in mind I only have 2 rides on it so far, I am really impressed with the Hac-4 so far. It does everything it claims to do quite well. I will withhold my final judgement once I have a couple months and at least a thousand miles worth of data collected.

I find that first imprssions are rarely wrong. And I am very pleased to get your feedback. I looked very hard at the HAC4. I had used a S710 for some time, but was not happy with it. So I have had some experience with these types of units. The HAC4 did look good, I have to admit - and the fact that the US Postal Team is using them this year is impressive.

I am still thinking of getting one, as well as the Polar S710i I now have. I think the gradient features alone make the HAC4 useful. Plus the S710i is pretty hard to use as a cycle computer, so I am thinking of getting the HAC4 simply as a cycle computer (ie for use on the bike), and I will keep the S710i simply to record the ride for later analysis.

It is a bit like the "virtual cadence" system of the FlightDeck computers.

I have a Polar S710 and the flight deck. The Polar is actual and the FD is "virtual". When I run them against one another they are dead on!

I have been using the S710 for about 8 months now and love it. If people want to know the grade of a climb, I believe you can get this from the Polar. You won't get it on the bike but when you get home you can see it on your computer.

You can set the graph to distance vs. altitude. Then you can visual see how high a climb is over a certain distance. You would then have to calculate to get the grade. Not convienent, but it can be done.

If the Polar people who lurk this site want improvements, this would be a good one!

To be fair I have not used the HAC-4.

Sorry I haven't posted sooner, but I have been spending many hours on my bike and have been too beat too LOL.

1st, let me say that the power output on the Hac-4 is its weakest feature, but is still within 10-15 percent of what an SRM will read. I have a friend with an SRM and sections I was reading 140 watts he was reading 147 watts. It is a virtual reading, but seems to work well enough. Plus as I stated before, I am mostly interested in using it to guage my fitness improvments and don't need a real world reading.

2nd, the gradient feature works alot better than I previously stated. It lags like I said initially, but the lag isn't horrible. I would say the reading you see on the monitor is 1-2 secs off at most. Plus, it is super helpful on the ride. I found out that some of those nagging little nothing hills I have been riding were actually 10-11 percent, and suddenly I felt a bit better on being slower on them.

The HR funtions are spot on as well, I relly like having that simply to keep my easy days easy.

So as far as I am concerned, after 12 total rides on the system I am sold. No problems, everything works really well and is super easy to use.

Chuck