Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

computer sensor placement

Search
Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

computer sensor placement

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-15-09 | 09:13 AM
  #1  
Daytrip's Avatar
Thread Starter
Medicinal Cyclist
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 0
From: Mohawk Valley/Adks, NYS

Bikes: 2003 Klein Q Carbon Race; 2009 Giant OCR-1

computer sensor placement

I'm a little confused, which isn't all that uncommon.

I just installed a Cateye wireless computer on one of our bikes, and couldn't find any mention in the documentation about placement of the magnet and sensor. Seems to me they should both be as close to the rim as possible, but this model has a sensor mount that puts it about 3 inches below the rim. Seems to me the closer both are to the hub, the more it's going to distort your speed, mileage, etc.

Is there a rule of thumb on the best place to mount these parts, like xx inches from the rim? And if it's in the wrong spot, will your numbers be appreciably affected?
Daytrip is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 09:20 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Every wired one I've ever used puts the sensor about three inches from the hub.
kgabike is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 09:21 AM
  #3  
lechat's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,245
Likes: 0
From: s.e. tn.
the speed is calculated by 1 rev x the programed wheel/tire size. placement doesn't matter.
lechat is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 10:28 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Yeah, lechat is right. I didn't even realize the full meaning (lack of understanding) of your question. The sensor doesn't count distance, it counts revolutions. Because every modern cyclocomputer has a place to input the circumference of your wheel, all it needs to do is count the number of revolutions and multiply by the known circumference to get the total distance traveled.
Since every part of the wheel undergoes the same number of revolutions the sensor can theoretically go anyhwere, even though the radial distance traveled by the sensor will vary depending how far out from the hub it is. It will still only cross the magnetic pickup once per revolution, giving the same set distance every time.

The circumference you program into the cyclocomputer is sometimes measured in inches, sometimes centimeters and sometimes millimeters. So even though your computer is displaying your distance in miles, behind the scenes it's actually counting total millimeters (or cms or ins) traveled and doing the appropriate math conversions.

The best thing to do to have your computer give you accurate readings is to make sure you get the circumference programmed in correctly. There are general numbers for different kinds of wheels/tires but the best way is to measure the actual wheel on your bike. For instance, put a mark on the ground and line it up with your valve stem. Roll it forward one entire revolution until the valve stem is again in the exact same position and mark it. Measure the distance between the marks. That's the number that goes into the computer. For even more accuracy, sit on the bicycle while you roll it so it takes into account your weight pressing down on the tire (which will change the effective circumference slightly).
kgabike is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 10:39 AM
  #5  
Daytrip's Avatar
Thread Starter
Medicinal Cyclist
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 0
From: Mohawk Valley/Adks, NYS

Bikes: 2003 Klein Q Carbon Race; 2009 Giant OCR-1

That makes sense, now. Very clever, even if I'm not.
Daytrip is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 10:42 AM
  #6  
cshell's Avatar
In the dark
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 0
From: VA
I've heard closer to the hub is SLIGHTLY better, in that it's not moving quite as fast as it passes the sensor, therefore, it has less change of error.

:shrug:
cshell is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 10:46 AM
  #7  
Siu Blue Wind's Avatar
Homey
Titanium Club Membership
Sheldon Brown Memorial - Mod
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,504
Likes: 1,470
You would think it closer to the rim would help avoid mis-communication between sensor and receiver. At least with a wireless.
__________________
Originally Posted by making
Please dont outsmart the censor. That is a very expensive censor and every time one of you guys outsmart it it makes someone at the home office feel bad. We dont wanna do that. So dont cleverly disguise bad words.
Siu Blue Wind is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 10:52 AM
  #8  
Flatballer's Avatar
No matches
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11,647
Likes: 444
From: Eastern PA

Bikes: two wheeled ones

I've always put it as close to the hub as possible, because that way you can get the sensor closer to the magnet.

The farther from the hub you get, the more flex you get and the sensor can get bumped by the magnet when climbing or sprinting. Close to the hub these deflections are very minor, so you can put it a lot closer.

Also, don't forget to put the sensor in FRONT of the fork leg, not behind. If you put it behind, and it gets pulled into the spokes, you can break things. In front it just gets bumped back out again if it hits the spokes, no harm, no foul.
Flatballer is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 12:35 PM
  #9  
thompsonpost
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Placement on the fork is really preferred over where on the wheel. Furthest from the ground, meaning less danger from twigs etc.
 
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 12:36 PM
  #10  
Daytrip's Avatar
Thread Starter
Medicinal Cyclist
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 0
From: Mohawk Valley/Adks, NYS

Bikes: 2003 Klein Q Carbon Race; 2009 Giant OCR-1

This one specifies that no more than 70 centimeters should separate the sensor and the computer. It also needs a gap of 5mm or less between the magnet and the sensor. The sensor swings on a horizontal axis, so you can make that adjustment pretty easily from just about anywhere on the wheel. I put it as high as possible because it's an mtb--less chance of crap building up on it.
Daytrip is offline  
Reply
Old 08-15-09 | 12:47 PM
  #11  
aggarcia's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Houston,TX

Bikes: 14 Ridely Noah RS, 09 Trek 2.1, 10 Trek 7.1 FX

I thought the same about sensor placement, but on my 7.2 FX the only way to get correct readings was to place the magnet close to the outer edge of the wheel away from the hub. The accuracy went from not even close to radar accurate. Check with customer support of your computer, they should know proper placement.
aggarcia is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.