Which computer?
Discussion
The barometer equipped ones are better than those without, however they are effected by atmospheric pressure. Therefore if a pressure system passes over you whilst riding on a flat road you could easily gain or loose elevation. Hence the elevation correction button on Strava.
I have a Garmin Edge 1000, which has on the whole been pretty good. In retrospect if I didn't need the mapping I would probably try a 520 simply due to the better battery life.
What sensors do you run on MTB? Just speed and HR, or the full cadence and power (if you have PM)?
I have a Garmin Edge 1000, which has on the whole been pretty good. In retrospect if I didn't need the mapping I would probably try a 520 simply due to the better battery life.
What sensors do you run on MTB? Just speed and HR, or the full cadence and power (if you have PM)?
I haven't cycled for a long time so really just want distance,time and elevation.
I will be cycling in the Pyrenees so I would like it to be as reliable and accurate as possible,at this stage that is about it.
Do I really need more than that as I am not that bothered about wattage,cadence or is it better to have more functions.
I will be cycling in the Pyrenees so I would like it to be as reliable and accurate as possible,at this stage that is about it.
Do I really need more than that as I am not that bothered about wattage,cadence or is it better to have more functions.
Having been given a 520 for Christmas I'm horrified by the whole 1990s-level s
tness of it and am pretty much of the opinion that as simple a ride computer as possible (£20 thing to give elapsed time, distance etc.) on the bike and a barometric phone in the pocket for recording is just as good, if not better.
tness of it and am pretty much of the opinion that as simple a ride computer as possible (£20 thing to give elapsed time, distance etc.) on the bike and a barometric phone in the pocket for recording is just as good, if not better.I have a Garmin 520, having previously owned an 800. The 800 was almost comically rubbish - poor screen resolution, unusable mapping and impossible to use in the rain due to the touchscreen interpreting raindrops as finger presses. The 520, while supposedly less advanced, is actually a much more usable computer - no touchscreen means you can use it in the rain or while wearing gloves, the screen resolution is better and it is just all round more responsive. It's still not great though.
However, as others have alluded to, it still isn't a patch on a smartphone. To me, it seems Garmin is resting on its laurels and it really wouldn't take much for someone to come along and devour its lunch. I'm at a loss as to why nobody has come along with an Android-based bike computer that's basically a waterproof smartphone with a bigger battery. You could even install your favourite apps on it rather than be stuck with the, frankly, sub-par software that runs every bike computer I've ever used.
So, to the OP, not much help I'm afraid, other than "don't get an Edge 800/810 or a 520".
However, as others have alluded to, it still isn't a patch on a smartphone. To me, it seems Garmin is resting on its laurels and it really wouldn't take much for someone to come along and devour its lunch. I'm at a loss as to why nobody has come along with an Android-based bike computer that's basically a waterproof smartphone with a bigger battery. You could even install your favourite apps on it rather than be stuck with the, frankly, sub-par software that runs every bike computer I've ever used.
So, to the OP, not much help I'm afraid, other than "don't get an Edge 800/810 or a 520".
I've got a Polar V650 coupled with their HRM and a Wahoo cadence/speed sensor. I have found the Polar to be ideal for getting stats whilst riding and afterwards as well. Polar now sync with Strava so take a look at their offerings as well as they are always updating their functionality.
broster said:
I have a 520, I love it. Had an 800 prior to that and it had the live tracking function I'd have kept it.
What do people expect from the 520 which makes them so disappointing? It's a bike computer not a smart phone.
A £60 Android phone has:What do people expect from the 520 which makes them so disappointing? It's a bike computer not a smart phone.
A much better/bigger screen
A much faster processor
Much more storage
Greater connectivity
Garmin charge £200+ for a device that should cost £80-100. Their software is a disaster; no effective maps pre-installed, poorly architected (it requires two apps (PC & mobile) and an online account just to work, and after that you still have to drag and drop maps into the device's file structure!) and with an atrocious UI. The last time I used software that bad was with a no-name Chinese MP3 player in about 1999. The number of issues with some devices is shocking (lost rides etc.) considering that is ALL they are meant to do.
The market is ripe for disruption, Garmin don't really deserve our money.
smifffymoto said:
Back in the day it was Sigma or Cateye.Have they lost it compared to Garmin and others.
Yes.I had a Cateye Strada Cadence for 5 years. Was OK, albeit Cadence was pointless. And due to the shape of my chainstays it wasn't useable for deep Carbons.
That eventually died. So I bought a cheaper Cateye Strada slimline. Maybe I've got a dud one, but it's s
t! Go above 30K and it stops working. Loses signal far too easily so you're riding along with it saying 0km/h. Don't want a Garmin, so as mentioned above. Just do Strava on the phone and it's all good. Though last weeks ride got all buggered up (first time it's done that) on the map and it gave me an average of 77km/h
Strava is ok to record a basic ride but no good for structured training.
I use a garmin 310xt multisport watch with a quick release mount for the bike.
Interval and heart rate zone training are easy to setup.
The 310 with heart rate monitor is only £100. The 930 will likely be released this year, so the 910 and 920 should reduce in price.
I use a garmin 310xt multisport watch with a quick release mount for the bike.
Interval and heart rate zone training are easy to setup.
The 310 with heart rate monitor is only £100. The 930 will likely be released this year, so the 910 and 920 should reduce in price.
broster said:
What do people expect from the 520 which makes them so disappointing? It's a bike computer not a smart phone.
loudlashadjuster said:
Garmin charge £200+ for a device that should cost £80-100. Their software is a disaster; no effective maps pre-installed, poorly architected ... atrocious UI
This, this and all this.wemorgan said:
Strava is ok to record a basic ride but no good for structured training.
I use a garmin 310xt multisport watch with a quick release mount for the bike.
Interval and heart rate zone training are easy to setup.
The 310 with heart rate monitor is only £100. The 930 will likely be released this year, so the 910 and 920 should reduce in price.
True enough.I use a garmin 310xt multisport watch with a quick release mount for the bike.
Interval and heart rate zone training are easy to setup.
The 310 with heart rate monitor is only £100. The 930 will likely be released this year, so the 910 and 920 should reduce in price.
Though when I was training last year for an Ironman. My training plan for my various Turbo sessions and even my Weekend Long rides was all about time, not distance. I didn't use a HR monitor and I didn't train to Zones either. RPE was what I was asked to use.
I could have gotten away with a £3 Casio watch taped to the bars.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff