Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Matthew Rothma » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Has anybody used both HRM or tried the Cardiosport. I have heard a lot
about the Polar's but close to next to nothing about Cardiosport. Before
I plunked down near $200 for one, I was wondering if anyone out there
uses this brand and has any remarks or comments. Or should I stick with
the much more tried and true Polar? I was thinking about the getting
Accura Night model.

Thanks

Matthew Rothman

 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by HITEKRA » Wed, 02 Aug 1995 04:00:00

I sell and train with POLAR models.  I haven't experimented with the
Cardiosport myself, but the feedback I have heard is that the POLAR is a
better made unit.  This may or may not be true.  I do know that the POLAR
is a quality unit, and has set the standard in the industry.  I
personnally use the Nightvision, and love it.  POLAR also has been very
good with repairs and exchanges on clients units in the rare instances
when there has been a problem.   All in all, based upon my experience, I
would stay with the tried and true POLAR. if your interested in more
information on any units, let me know.

Thomas Kulhawik
HITEK Racing


 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Rob Ridley » Thu, 03 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

> Has anybody used both HRM or tried the Cardiosport. I have heard a lot
> about the Polar's but close to next to nothing about Cardiosport. Before

I haven't used either, but I am (like you) about to buy my first.  I like
a few things about the Cardiosport.  Feature for feature, it is BIGTIME
cheaper than the Polar models.  Also, the cheststrap on the polar has to
be replaced when the battery goes dead at a cost of about $90 (Cdn.)  The
Cardiosport battery is $6.00 cdn.  I respect the tried and true, but I'm
beginning to lean toward the Cardiosport.  If anyone has information on
the Vetta, I'd also be interested to hear.
TIA

Rob Ridley, Cochrane, Alberta    

***** Support your right to Arm Bears *****  

 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Raymond Masc » Thu, 03 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> > Has anybody used both HRM or tried the Cardiosport. I have heard a lot
> > about the Polar's but close to next to nothing about Cardiosport. Before

> I haven't used either, but I am (like you) about to buy my first.  I like
> a few things about the Cardiosport.  Feature for feature, it is BIGTIME
> cheaper than the Polar models.  Also, the cheststrap on the polar has to
> be replaced when the battery goes dead at a cost of about $90 (Cdn.)  The
> Cardiosport battery is $6.00 cdn.  I respect the tried and true, but I'm
> beginning to lean toward the Cardiosport.  If anyone has information on
> the Vetta, I'd also be interested to hear.
> TIA

> Rob Ridley, Cochrane, Alberta    

> ***** Support your right to Arm Bears *****  

I've used Polar Accurex 2 and Cardiosport 2000.

The ability to follow my HR is approximately the same.

The 2000 maybe more difficult to program, because there are many features.

As to usefullness, the Polar doesn't give average heart rate except for
the entire time the watch is timing. The 2000 gives average HR under
within and over target zone. The 2000 also stores 2 hours of 1/2 min
samples of HR. Helpful for intervals, recovery.

The 2000 timer is 1 hour. The HR beeper cannot be turned off. (I disconnected
mine). The HR storage is a little over 2 hours, a problem for marathons,
long bike rides.

I prefer the 2000 at $189 compared to $200 for Polar.

The above is from memory and may have minor(?) errors.

Ray Mascia

 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Kevin Cavanau » Thu, 03 Aug 1995 04:00:00

I've got the Cardiosport 2000 and I love it! I had tried the Polar Pacer
for about a week, and it was great, but it's just so expensive if you
want any additional features.   For the price of the Polar Edge, I got
the top of the line, with a warm-up zone and a training zone, Chronometer,
  recorded pulse rate at 30 second intervals for 2 hours, and amount of
time and average heart rate below, in and above the appropriate zone!  
You can get a detailed description of just about every heart rate monitor
made from a company called Creative Health Products, in Plymouth, MI.  1-
800-742-4478.  (They also stock and sell all of them).  One disadvantage
of the Cardiosport is there is no illumination -- but with the audio
alarms that's not too bad.

-


 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Mike Van Met » Sat, 05 Aug 1995 04:00:00

: Has anybody used both HRM or tried the Cardiosport. I have heard a lot
: about the Polar's but close to next to nothing about Cardiosport. Before

Polar's definitely the tried and true, but Cardiosport has received good
reviews from those who've tried them. Most of my customers are still
buying Polar, though.

I sell the Cardiosport transmitter and chest strap separately for those who
are sick to death of having to send in an entire unit and $39 just for
fresh batteries; if I were personally buying an HRM, I'd buy the Cardiosport
for the ease of replacing batteries and the value. If I had limitless
resources, I'd buy the Polar.

--
=* Perpetual Motion ....... Bend, Oregon ....... Mike Van Meter *=

=* Running & fitness consulting, tips, new & used HRMs, writing *=

 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Enter Your Name He » Sat, 05 Aug 1995 04:00:00

I have a Vetta Alpha HRM.  Considering that I paid 20% off the retail price
of $75 I'd say I'm pretty happy with it (20% off of $75 comes to $60 + 7.75%
tax, I guess).

It has the one function I really want in a HRM, the HR function.  I thought
about buying the Polar Accurex II at Performance (on sale) for around
$160, but it didn't seem worth the extra $100 for a bunch of functions
that I would
probably never use or already had on my bicycle computer (Avocet 40).

The Alpha has time of day and stop watch functions too, which have come
in handy when I go for a jog.  The time of day is also nice since I don't
have to cycle through the functions on my Avocet to see what time it is.

As far as the performance of the HRM goes, I think the Polar is probably
better (I've used one briefly while trying to decide which to buy).  
I've heard that the Vetta's Chest strap transmitter emits a weaker signal
than other HRMs to avoid interference (I understand this is a problem with
the Polar when you are within 10 feet or so of other Polar HRMs).  This
turns out to be a double edged sword though, since the Vetta will stop
functioning when you get further than about 3 feet away or the line of
sight between the transmitter and display unit is obscured.

Also, I wonder about the Vetta's reliability.  Sometimes I will be riding along
and the HRM displays something insanely high like 235 BPM.  When I do a
double take, it usually will settle down to about 165 in a few seconds
(I'm assuming here, that my brain isn't so O2 deprived that I'm seeing
things).
I wish I could get my HR that high and recover to 165 in a few seconds (geez,
I'd try out for the US Olympic squad!), but being the mere mortal that I am,
I think we can rule this out too.  I think the problem is with the electrode
strips on the transmitter.  When I first bought the HRM, it wouldn't even
work unless I put some saline on the electrode contacts (they're ***, not
metal).  I think there are enough salt deposits on the contacts now that I
don't have to put anything on them.  But the reason the HR display goes so
high (I'm guessing) is that while riding, the transmitter will move against
my skin.  In addition to the electric pulses from my heart, the instantaneous
making and breaking of electrical connections from the transmitter sliding
on my chest causes erroneous (high) readings.  And of course, the HRM shows
a 0 HR for no particular reason (I guess the contact is broken for a while
in this case).

The sporadic readings don't bother me a great deal (I just ignore readings
above 195, and obviously those around 0).  I just won't be doing any max
HR tests with this HRM I guess.

Oh yeah, this unit has a replaceable battery in the transmitter too.

I heard the other two new Vetta HRM/Cyclocomputer/Wris***ch units work pretty
well (I've never tried them, but I have two friends who have them).  I think
they both have the nightvision feature too.  These units seem to be a good
value since you get both training tools in a single package for less than
what you'd probably pay for separate ones.

I've never tried them, but Vetta still sells some older HRM/Cyclocomputers.
I heard they are VERY unreliable (if you can even get one to work).  I bought
a Vetta C-20 cyclocomputer a few years back and ended up returning it because
it wouldn't work.  The new HRM/computers should be over the $100 range.  The
unreliable ones I've seen for as little as $45 (don't be tempted).

In retrospect, I probably should've shelled out a few more buck$ and gotten
a Polar.  Like the Edge or one of those for around $150.  Oh well, live and
learn.

Boy, this was kinda long, huh?

David.

------

 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Mike D. Ka » Sun, 06 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Quote:


> I haven't used either, but I am (like you) about to buy my first.  I like
> a few things about the Cardiosport.  Feature for feature, it is BIGTIME
> cheaper than the Polar models.  Also, the cheststrap on the polar has to
> be replaced when the battery goes dead at a cost of about $90 (Cdn.)  The
> Cardiosport battery is $6.00 cdn.  I respect the tried and true, but I'm

NOTE:  to US citizens, this is _very_ misleading.  It costs only about
10-14 dollars to replace the battery in the chest strap (no, the entire
unit does _not_ have to be replaced)

Quote:
> beginning to lean toward the Cardiosport.  If anyone has information on
> the Vetta, I'd also be interested to hear.
> TIA

The Vetta is for bikes, so if you want to use it on the run you have to
carry the receiving unit.

FWIW, I use the Polar NightVision and have been extremely happy with it.
--
========================================================

+ Software Engineer               Premenos Corporation +
========================================================

 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Bruce Weddi » Sun, 06 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
>>NOTE:  to US citizens, this is _very_ misleading.  It costs only about
>>10-14 dollars to replace the battery in the chest strap (no, the entire
>>unit does _not_ have to be replaced)

Please elaborate on this.  My Polar unit is sealed. I would have to
break it open to get to the battery and then I would lose the
water-proof seal.  If you know something I don't, please let me know
as I'm doing without right now.

Bruce
/**************************************************************************\
 * Bruce Wedding               | The mark of your ignorance is the depth   *

 * Have Compiler, will travel.| Argue for your limitations and            *
 *                                      |   sure enough, they are yours             *
\**************************************************************************/

 
 
 

Cardiosport vs Polar HRM

Post by Rob Ridley » Mon, 07 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
> > beginning to lean toward the Cardiosport.  If anyone has information on
> > the Vetta, I'd also be interested to hear.
> > TIA

> The Vetta is for bikes, so if you want to use it on the run you have to
> carry the receiving unit.

Not so any more.  Vetta has come out with a wrist version, which like the
cardiosport comes with a bike mount as well.  No mileage functions though
cause it doesn't really hook up to the bike.  It is feature rich and
dollar cheap.  If it was only features I was after, the Vetta would be
near the top of my list, but I've received too many negative comments
about them.

Quote:

> FWIW, I use the Polar NightVision and have been extremely happy with it.

Thanks.  Except for cost, I haven't heard a negative coment about Polar yet.

Rob Ridley, Cochrane, Alberta    

***** Support your right to Arm Bears *****