Bicycle Alarm & Pager

[flecc]

OK, that's enough, debate over

In the spirit of the pantomime season, "Oh no it's not!"

Thank you Garry and Tillson for your reasoned evaluation of my post.

Clearly those who post and/or like highly technical content have selectively chosen to be offended at portions of what was meant to be a helpful explanation, ignoring the qualifications I included and the further clarifications which accepted the right of existence of the technical content.

Reading into what I posted that technical content is in some way banned is perverse in the extreme, since what I made clear to anyone who can read simple English is that a simple answer can be more appropriate when the question is simple. That in no way excludes a technical answer when that is desirable.

To Jeremy: In my post which started this furore, I included this in the sixth paragraph:

"the highly technical answer can be viewed in this light by those made to feel in some way inferior by the superiority implicit in such complex answers"

That was code Jeremy, in the hope that your undoubted intelligence would enable you to see what Nick (themutiny) was getting at since you hadn't understood his post. I could have been much clearer, but to do so might seem that I was being offensive. Since offence has now been taken anyway, I will now use the simple way to explain what I believe Nick meant, using a common comment:

"Nobody likes a smart-****".

That is not my sentiment, nor do I think it's justified since Nicks implication that you were showing off with your complex answers is very far from the truth.

I hope now that you and others can now understand that my post was just trying to explain what can lead to such as Nick's post and the absence of most e-bikers from this forum. In no way was it censorial.
.

 

[Jeremy]

In the spirit of the pantomime season, "Oh no it's not!"

Thank you Garry and Tillson for your reasoned evaluation of my post.

Clearly those who post and/or like highly technical content have selectively chosen to be offended at portions of what was meant to be a helpful explanation, ignoring the qualifications I included and the further clarifications which accepted the right of existence of the technical content.

Reading into what I posted that technical content is in some way banned is perverse in the extreme, since what I made clear to anyone who can read simple English is that a simple answer can be more appropriate when the question is simple. That in no way excludes a technical answer when that is desirable.

To Jeremy: In my post which started this furore, I included this in the sixth paragraph:

"the highly technical answer can be viewed in this light by those made to feel in some way inferior by the superiority implicit in such complex answers"

That was code Jeremy, in the hope that your undoubted intelligence would enable you to see what Nick (themutiny) was getting at since you hadn't understood his post. I could have been much clearer, but to do so might seem that I was being offensive. Since offence has now been taken anyway, I will now use the simple way to explain what I believe Nick meant, using a common comment:

"Nobody likes a smart-****".

That is not my sentiment, nor do I think it's justified since Nicks implication that you were showing off with your complex answers is very far from the truth.

I hope now that you and others can now understand that my post was just trying to explain what can lead to such as Nick's post and the absence of most e-bikers from this forum. In no way was it censorial.
.

FWIW I wasn't being a smart**se, in any way, shape or form.

This is one case where I think the comment by you supporting the (publicly unstated, AFAICS) view of the member that went off in a huff actually caused this trivial issue to get blown out of all proportion.

 

[103Alex1]

FWIW I value greatly the techy posts on here, am looking forward to bending my little head around Speedict and its potential (as I finally yielded and bought a SmartPhone when faced with the crazy prices of GPS devices for basic functionality ... plus it's nice to have a music system mounted on your bike handlebars when you fancy a bit of Elgar, Rolling Stones, Techno Tantrums or whatever takes your fancy).

Sarah Bernhardt departures are not going to impact my opinions one bit about how helpful recent content on this forum has been to me. As has been implied already here, everything evolves and it's up to those who want content of the nature that interests them to continue to encourage that by starting relevant topics rather than pointing fingers and criticizing the threads (such as self-build ones from which you can actually learn the most about eBikes generally) which are keeping the forum active.

If you want to have more variety then dilute it with content rather than seeking to eliminate it. That way everyone can have a bit of what they want. Does that not make more sense ?

 

[barclay]

You're not the only one. Here's Flaecc's explanation if you can make any sense of it: post #28. I can't understand at all why he picks on my post as I would say that it's less technical than his, His one has mathematical ratios in it that many wouldn't understand.
http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/electric-bicycles/13465-can-someone-explain-how-350w-motor-can-limited-250w-3.html

As the OP who asked the question I found both answers very useful. End of debate.

 

[barrycoll]

.....and there I was , reading the whole of this war-and-peace saga, hoping to find out just how good (or bad ) was the bike alarm and pager....

...I want my money back.....but 2013 looks to be spicey

 

[Scimitar]

There's always a danger, when things get too technical, that some may think they're being lectured to. If they'd just ignore the deeply techy bits or ask for clarification, that would be fine.
It's not so much 'nobody likes a smartarse', it's an element in the British psyche of not liking know-alls, but here is the wrong place to come into with attitude, for there are some here who do know rather a lot about some things and a whole lot about some other things. I doubt very much if there's a total know-it-all on here.
The fear of, leading to derision of 'know-it-alls' is more a reflection of the individual's own lack of knowledge and it becomes a kind of knee-jerk reaction to a perceived superior stance by another, which wasn't meant at all.
Technical is as technical does - it's neutral, unflavoured and entirely impersonal. Nobody should take the slightest offence at it - it has nothing within it to cause offence.

 

[danielrlee]

Sorry to dig up an 18-month old thread (especially such a controversial one), but I noticed that there's an updated version of this alarm available ( http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Two-Way-Bike-Guard-Anti-Theft-Steal-Alarm-Audible-Sound-Security-Lock-Bicycle-/281113340193).

Does anybody have any real-world experience with this, or any of the previous iterations? IMO it seems a little overpriced, but if it's effective, I may give it a punt. I have read that the alarm isn't very loud, but is that even an issue with the two-way functionality? Also, where I have seen video demonstrations, the vibration sensor doesn't appear very sensitive.

I used to use a 'dumb' vibration alarm, but stopped using it once I realised you could effectively silence it by covering the alarm with your thumb. Any similar issues here?

 

[Deleted member 4366]

The original alarm didn't last 5 minutes. I can't remember what went wrong - something to do with rhe syncing between the device and pager IIRC.

 

[danielrlee]

Hmmm, not the glowing recommendation I was hoping for :-/

I've been thinking about implementing a two-way alarm for a while and this seems that this would be the simplest way of doing so. It certainly appears to be the only purpose made bike alarm within a reasonable price bracket.

The other option I'm considering is a two-way motorcycle alarm. The install would be more involved, but opens up further possibilities such as remote power switching, anti-highjacking, loud horn etc.

 

[danielrlee]

I just stumbled across this whilst looking for alternative solutions:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mini-GSM-GPRS-GPS-Tracker-GPS-Motor-Bike-Car-Tracking-system-Alarm-Device-GT02A-/390806184927

It can be powered by up to 75v and features an auxiliary battery, vibration sensor, GPS positioning and communicates via GSM. It features no alarm per se, but I imagine one could be easily added via the included relay. Anyone tried one (or something similar) before?

 

[pdarnett]

I'm not seeing a way of connecting an alarm to this or any included relay on that listing. Still wouldn't mind trying one though.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

The flat bit sits under your bottle holder. It has it's own battery. When you move the bike, it transmits to the key fob, which bleeps.

 

[pdarnett]

Sorry I meant the new one that daniel posted, the gps/gsm one.

 

[danielrlee]

Apologies, I posted the wrong link, although I now can't find the one with the relay AND works at 75v.

Anyway, I have since come across this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vehicle-GSM-GPS-Tracker-GPS303E-Waterproof-IP66-9-80V-Drive-Without-Key-2-Remote-/191187452319

Works up to 80v, comes with a couple of remotes, a relay and also does audio monitoring, as well as everything else you'd expect from a GSM GPS tracker and all for around 30 quid. I've gone ahead and placed an order, so I'll give an update once it arrives and I've had a chance to test it out.