Accident & Spotty Reception While Cycling

I have a InReach Mini that I got for emergencies. At 70 yrs.old I ride a bike up a 6 mile canyon that goes from 200 ft to 1500 ft. If I have an accident there's no cell coverage on most of the road. Half of the canyon has intermittent trees, but every block has clear access to sky but you don't get "wide" open 360º views until you get near the top. Otherwise you're sky-access might be 15-20%.

After finding that "sending tests" in the first few miles (starting at the bottom) took many blocks or even a mile to get through successfully, I began to think: if I have an accident, even if I send an SOS, I'm out of luck until I get to a location where the "stored" SOS or message can be received by the satellite. Does this sound right to you? I've stopped on my bike for several minutes at various locations to see if that would improve reception, but I didn't notice any change.

Some added context: When travelling up the "mountain," I'm probably going about 3-7MPG, and on the way down, I can be travelling 20MPH. I have a thin jacket with a zipper pocket up by my shoulder where I keep the Mini. I've also travelled with the Mini in my hand with the antenna totally exposed for better communication and didn't see any improvement.

If I'm right, does the Garmin Explorer offer better reception than the Mini. If not, are their any other options here to give me the safety I seek?

Thank you!

0 twolpert over 4 years ago

Iridium communication requires a clear sky view. The satellite constellation is low-altitude and fast moving. Unlike the GPS constellation, the number of satellites overhead at any given time is limited. The satellites travel along a line running roughly SW to NE. Reception in narrow canyons is always poor. And is worse in canyons which run NW to SE. This is a limitation of the system, not the particular device. That said, it does seem that the Mini might be slightly less capable that othe iR devices.

You are already carrying the Mini high on your shoulder, which is optimal. You should keep the antenna pointed up. If that zipper is metal, might not be the best enclosure.

And yes, you will have better results when stationary. Take the unit out of the pocket and set it down away from your body and other obstructions. As close to the center of the canyon as possible. However, several minutes is not long enough. I’d suggest giving it at least 10 minutes and perhaps as much as 15, before giving up on a given location. If You try several different locations and it does not work anywhere, I doubt that a full-sized device will be any better in this locale.

Note: I am assuming that you have tested the unit in open-sky conditions and that messages go out promptly. If not, you may have a defective unit and you should call tech support.

0 TimBen over 4 years ago in reply to twolpert

Thank you for your detailed insights & generous time. I will try some of your suggestions. Certainly if I'm injured and stationary, I won't be going anywhere so that test sounds smart.

BTW, the canyon I'm referring to is Prefumo Canyon outside of San Luis Obispo, CA. The zipper is plastic, but maybe I can clip the device outside of the pocket.

Do you think devices like ACR ResQLink View or Rescueme PLB1 Personal Locator Beacon, which have more powerful outputs and use different satellites, but no two-way communications, are better options? Maybe try the InReach Explorer+?

And to answer your closing question, in open-sky it's quite responsive. And even in-doors a few feet from a window it generally sends out a message after 10-15 minutes.

0 twolpert over 4 years ago in reply to TimBen

I assume you're taking about the lower portion of Prefumo Canyon Road, up to the point where it climbs the ridge. It's always hard to tell without being on the ground, but in theory - I would expect that your best results would be the segment centered on N35.262953 W120.734107. Or the shorter segment near N35.264355, W120.723700. Those two align best with what I understand to be the plane of the constellation.

The Explorer+ and the Mini have virtually identical power output (1479mW vs 1430mW, respectively) according to FCC filings. Unless the antenna design is much better, I would not expect different results with the Explorer+. That said, my own experience (entirely anecdotal - no systematic testing) seems to favor the Explorer+ slightly.

I really don't know anything about PLBs. It is true that they typically transmit at much higher power levels (in the 5W range). However, the classic satellite-based PLB involves both low-earth orbit and geostationary satellites. Signal has a lot farther to travel to reach the geostationary orbit. My understanding is that this system is transitioning to a add PLB functionality using the newer generation GPS constellation. But that's about as far as my understanding goes.