2

Why not use FRS?

Cpsmith835

February 19, 2012 17:10

None

Follow

It would completely get around the need to sync and also would give the ability to have multiple users on one channel.  If there was a lot of chatter on that channel, we could just change the channel with the jog button or something

Example:  We were on a trip,  I have a radar detector.  When it went off, I said "radar" into the mic of a competitor's system and we all slowed down, the cop passed and away we go.  Or "Watch that car on the left" and everybody does. 

As it is, I have cycle through 3 other riders and ride at the same time. Not a very functional multi-rider system.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn

3 comments

• 0
  
  Sena February 26, 2012 11:35

  Thanks for your feedback. Sena is supposed to study the possibilities.

• 0
  
  J M H February 27, 2012 09:49

  Problem with using a radio for comms is that it's a simplex communication. Not useful for quick communications, especially if someone is chatting away when you need to warn about the car, etc. Bluetooth on the other-hand is full duplex.

• 0
  
  Fred December 17, 2017 15:23

  I've used FRS radios for bike-to-bike communication since about 1999, and they work perfectly.  A PTT switch on the handlebar is all you need.  If you want to say something, you hold the button.  I don't need full duplex for bike to bike communication, it is overkill.  FRS radios don't need to be paired, any brand will work with any other brand, and they get more than enough range. They run on batteries and are very reliable.

  In my opinion, FRS is the only way to go for bike-to-bike comm.  Bluetooth is fine for rider to passenger intercom, but trying to make it work bike-to-bike is an exercise in frustration.

  Instead of trying to use the "mesh" network, Sena should just integrate an FRS radio somehow.  Motorola used to make an FRS radio with Bluetooth in it that could be paired to a Sena.  Something like this would be the perfect solution.