Alphawolf Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Here's a link to see a bit about them: "Never take a sunset for granted. Stop what you are doing and enjoy it. You never know when it may be your last" Quote Link to comment
Alphawolf Posted June 26, 2003 Author Share Posted June 26, 2003 Sorry...it didn't work(the link) I'll try again....Cobra GPS units "Never take a sunset for granted. Stop what you are doing and enjoy it. You never know when it may be your last" Quote Link to comment
OuttaHand Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Hmm -- the specs on the most expensive one at $209.95 -- presumably the most feature-rich of the lot -- say that it has a patch antenna, can only hold 10 track logs, etc. It says it can use an SD memory card -- but for what? It does not say that it can receive maps from a mapping program. I'm sorry -- but I'm not terribly impressed with the unit -- at least not based on what I see on THIS site. For the same money I can (and do) have a Garmin Rino 120 with mapping, radio, quad-helix antenna, etc. etc. etc. Quote Link to comment
+zoltig Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 ... but it has a wrist strap! My hockey Mom beat up your soccer Mom. http://coloradogeocaching.com/ Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 That would be 10 saved track logs. I'm not sure about the SD Card it doesn't say if you can use maps with it. Quote Link to comment
+niskibum Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by zoltig:... but it has a wrist strap! My hockey Mom beat up your soccer Mom. http://coloradogeocaching.com/ The Rino comes with a wrist strap as well! It just doesn't have any place to put it. Quote Link to comment
+Searching_ut Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I see at least one individual has already written off these new units because of the Patch/quad helix antenna. I’ve got to ask what it is that makes people think the quad helix is a better antenna for GPS usage? Quote Link to comment
OuttaHand Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I was the one who wrote off the patch antenna. Based upon what? -- Recommendations of those who have used both types for geocaching, many posts in the boards here and on our state's geocaching boards, personal experience with both types. In each of those cases, the quad-helix has proven to be better in conditions where the patch antenna has had poor reception (tree cover, cloudy skies, etc.). Quote Link to comment
peter Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I have GPS receivers with both types of antenna and have had slightly better results with the one having a patch antenna but the difference is not large. I find it interesting that even those who claim the quad-helix to be far superior still suggest that if you want really good reception you should use a separate external antenna - and then recommend models of those using a patch design. Quote Link to comment
+Searching_ut Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 quote: OuttaHand said: I was the one who wrote off the patch antenna. Based upon what? -- Recommendations of those who have used both types for geocaching, many posts in the boards here and on our state's geocaching boards, personal experience with both types. In each of those cases, the quad-helix has proven to be better in conditions where the patch antenna has had poor reception (tree cover, cloudy skies, etc.). You didn't mention which receivers you were comparing. I'll make the assumption that for patch antenna units, you're referring to the eTrex, and not say a survey grade receiver such as a Trimble. Whichever, you’re comparing receiver packages. How you can determine which component in the package accounts for the difference you see is what I disagree with. It could be antenna related, but it could also be a lot of other things. Secondly, I don’t know that I’d say the eTrex is representative of the patch antenna either. Last time I know of that Magellan made comparable units electronically, with different antennas, the patch antenna units were more accurate in tree cover on every test I ever saw. See this test for an example: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/gps/mtdc/gps2000/Nav_3-2001.htm Notice the 2000 with the patch antenna was quite a bit more accurate in the trees than the newer blazer with a quad helix. Shortly thereafter, Magellan started using autoaveraging. Whether this was a way to enable them to stick to the helix antenna or not is anyone’s guess. Regarding using the observations of others, I’m not sure how much faith I’d put in those. The fact that you mention “cloud cover”, is one of those reasons. The effects of weather on the GPS signal has been closely measured and quantified many times. It’s basically negligible, and isn’t what people are seeing on those days when they say they had poor reception because of cloud cover. This is just one of many examples of where people appear to see what they expect to see. Quote Link to comment
+Dan_Edwards Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 Ok, I went to the Cobra GPS web page and read the manual and as far as I can tell the 100 looks really good for a sub-$100 unit. But as far as I can tell it can't talk to a computer. I found the GPS 500 available in the store, and it talks about a PC interface for that model, but I can't find the manual for it to see if you can upload maps. Sounds like they are just releasing these things. I sure do love the SD card on my meridian, but I want something with a sharper screen. A = A Quote Link to comment
+quakemap Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 We have a duplicate Cobra thread here: http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=7116058331&m=49860158 I tried to contact them and asked for protocol specs, but haven't got any reply in a week. http://www.quakemap.com - redefining Easy... Quote Link to comment
+Johnnie Stalkers Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 I just started Geocahing this week, so i have no frame of reference here but I bought the Cobra GPS500. I like Cobra and really didn't do much research, just bought the unit. Never used a GPS device before and I was finding caches my first day. Some loss of signal in heavy tree cover, but will reallign after 20 seconds or so back in the sunlight. Has literally walked me to within 10 feet of my target cache 4 times in a row now without a problem. It does have an 'optional' cord and software. Again I have nothing to compare this to and I may very well be a fool, but so far it has been a great experince. I would like to hear some personal experience from veteren Cachers on this unit. Quote Link to comment
+quakemap Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 You might be better off with the 18-channel receiver than most of us, so "may well be a fool" doesn't apply here :-) This seems to be confirmed by your first experiences. You mentioned the "optional" cable and software - did you get it with the unit? Tried it? Have you tried something like EasyGPS to load tracks/caches/waypoints? what protocol does it use to communicate to the PC? Please keep us all posted, Happy trails! http://www.quakemap.com - redefining Easy... Quote Link to comment
+Johnnie Stalkers Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 I did not buy the software or cable. To be honest i haven't felt the need but it seems like it is a big concern to most of you on the forums. So far we have only ventured a few miles away, I can see the maps being usefull in unfamiliar territory. Will keep ya posted. Thanks! Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.