My Wahoo cadence sensor (crank stick-on, no wheel magnet) doesn’t capture cadence reliably above 130 RPM. I’m not sure any of the newer style cadence sensors do.
On my road-going track bike—OK, fixie—I easily hit 170 RPM during sprints and that number will only climb in the next few weeks if I can stay fit enough to ride the thing in the fast weekend group ride. I assume I’m hitting 170 RPM based on my speed after the fact (BikeCalc.com - Speed at all Cadences for any Gear and Wheel).
I go above 130 RPM quite often on these rides but also need the gear I use so I don’t burn up on the hills; it’s a balance.
It’s been so long since I’ve had a rear wheel, magnet-based cadence sensor that I don’t remember if they were better or not.
Will a magnet-based cadence sensor keep up with these high RPMs so I don’t have erroneous ride data?
If so, any reliable recommendations that don’t cost $60? e.g. Wahoo
I can’t swear to the accuracy since I’ve never checked with a separate sensor, but my ancient CycleOps magnet cadence sensor will show 180+ rpm based on my super-spin efforts. I’d expect the Wahoo magnet one you link will be better than the accelerometer version.
I wouldn’t go back to a magnet sensor; the ones I’ve had have been prone to spikes and interference and I couldn’t trust the data. The modern accelerometer types are much more stable suffering only from interference once every couple of years. Apart from my commuter bike however I get data off a powermeter and the commuter has only seen +130rpm 5 times in the last year. So I cant really say if my Garmin one is fast enough for you DC Rainmaker ( @dcrainmaker ) says he took it up steadily to 180rpm no issue but he also says I think it can overread on very short bursts Garmin Speed & Cadence Sensors V2 with ANT+/Bluetooth Smart: In-Depth Review | DC Rainmaker FWIW I had the Bontager version of the one you linked to above for turbo training (IIRC it was slightly cheaper) and if I’ve done my filtering of garmin data correctly it looks to have been more stable in that environment.
Thanks. I’m using a Wahoo RPM cadence sensor now (non-magnetic) on both my road and fixed gear bike and it doesn’t do well with bursts. I was only on a road bike when I used to have my Garmin accelerometer cadence sensor; it’s been years since I’ve had the old type.
I could try any magnet-based type and just see and return it if it’s no better.
It’s also low stakes and I can always see what a cadence was by the speed after the fact because it’s fixed. Would nice to see/know in an easier way, though. Just for kicks, so to speak.
Maybe a new battery? Or mount it to your shoe instead of the crank? I dunno if the orientation or motion makes a difference, but on my fixed gear bikes I have my cadence sensor (Wahoo non-magnetic also) on the shoe and it’s read 160+ on many descents and trainer sprints.
It’s a fresh battery and actually yeah, I mounted it the wrong orientation the first time. I only figured that out after looking at how the cover wanted to be zip tied, but I tape mine to the crank because there’s barely enough room even for that on this bike (Felt TK3 frame/DA 7710 crankset). It’s back on correctly now but still misses higher RPMs.
It starts to get them but then starts to show misses like 145, 95, 155, 78, 160, 0, 0, 0, 145 as I go up then down. It’s not a big deal. It used to be when I had a coach and did leg speed drills. You know they’re going to look at the file and it looked like I was all over the place.
I also have one on my road bike and that doesn’t like leg speed drills and has the same data drops. Although I defo don’t sprint at 160+ when I have gears. It feels oddly luxurious to have that extra click and be able to start a second stage to a sprint.
DC Rainmaker (