# Garmin GPSMAP 76CSx vs Edge 305



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

This is my first foray into the world of GPS and i'm considering these two models from Garmin, the GPSMAP 76CSx and the Edge 305.

Am i right in thinking that the Edge 305 will track where i've been but won't show me a map of where i am while i'm riding? That's the only thing stopping me from getting this model.

I'm hoping the GPSMAP 76CSx allows me to view maps of where i am while riding, but it's not bicycle specific, so has anyone tried this one on their bike and how does it work?

Has anyone been able to use both to compare them?

What are the general pro/cons of each?

Thanks for your time.


----------



## ahb (Apr 28, 2005)

Hi there - 

As far as I understand, the gpsmap 76 series is just a floating, marine-focused version of the gpsmap 60 series. the guts are the same. the edge/60csx debate has been covered pretty widely, do a search and you should find your answer. It comes down to differences in size and number of features, but both are good units.


----------



## ToddM (Feb 3, 2004)

You are basically correct, the 305 is not a mapping unit, while you can see your "Track" you can't view it as it relates to a basemap or a topo map. It's a good training aid for a bike, but it's not a navigational gps. By that I mean it's not going to route you to places, it may tell you the direction to a entered waypoint, but it won't show your course on a topo or basement.

Basically it's a good training aid for a road or mountain bike course you want to track your improvement on, and that's about it. You get more bike functions, and HR functions in the 305 and it's probably better for amount of information from riding a course. 

However, I would never take one out exploring or on say a trip to utah etc. where I might need to rely on it for navigation if something goes fubar. For those things the 76csx is definitely superior hands down. I also won't use a gps unit that only runs 8-10 hours and has to be recharged, that will not take a user replaceable battery. Again this is fine for training rides and such, but unacceptable for backcountry riding or trips where you won't have the ability to recharge it daily. 

The problem with the 76csx is it's a large unit to put on your handlebars, and the garmin mount is unreliable with such a large unit. I run a legend on my bars as it has mapping and is a compact unit, however the sirf chip in the 305 and 76csx is vastly superior for reception than the etrex series.

If it were me, if you want something for training to get a lot of ride information get the 305, but for backcountry or navigation use, get the 76csx. If you want both, you will probably end up with 2 units.


----------



## pinkheadedbug (Aug 16, 2006)

I have the 60csx. It is big but nowhere near too big for the handlebars. The garmin mount is actually very good. You will lose the unit in a hard crash, so remember to look for it. i very rarely ride without it. Great for mapping.


----------



## SSINGA (Dec 23, 2003)

I'm having fun with my 60csx. 

My $.02 - If you want a bike computer get one for $20 from Performance. If you want a GPS then get the 60Csx.


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

I did some exploring a little while ago wiht the Edge 305, a topo map, and a compass. If you consult the "experts" many will say using a map and compass is essential and not to rely on any GPS.

What the Edge can be good for is marking a location and being able to find it again. I found a singletrack on day out, and maked the location of it's start point, so next time I went out I was coming from another direction so it was easy to switch to the "map" mode and work toward my dot on the screen. I've done that to find many locations that I marked and wanted to find again later, and it helped to know where those locations where on the topo map as points of reference. If you've already gone a particulare route you can make it a course (which I've done), or a route (which I haven't done) and retrace your steps.

BM

Edit: I would still really dig getting an 60csx, just can't justify it.


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

I also recommend going for the 60Csx if you want more of a GPS than a bike computer... I use a Polar HR/computer that complements the 60Csx in that regard perfectly


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

I'll agree with what folks here have been saying. We've got a 76CSx at work....good unit, but it would be a bugger on the bars of a bike. The 60 CSx is smaller and fairly rugged, but it is a navigational GPS, not a cycling GPS like the Edge. The Edge, OTOH, is not for nav. Both will get excellent reception (SiRF chips rule) but it really does depend on how you will use the unit. Decide on what you want/need....nav aid or bike/training tool

Myself, for any time I need a nav capable GPS, I can use one from the office. For my bike, I want more info than I can get from my bike current computer and a small package. The Edge gives me info on grades and vertical profiles, integrated HR and cadence features and the ability to show folks where some of the trails are.

Sure, the 60 can do the GPS part, but for me locally, I'm looking at a lot more expense to get a 60 CSx ($100+ more than an Edge 305), a HRM ($95+) and bike computer with cadence ($40+) for what I want to do with the Edge.


----------



## pinkheadedbug (Aug 16, 2006)

The Edge does one thing very well. If you want to use a GPS for anything more than cycling, it is really horribly limited. The buzzkillers for me were no maps, the non-replaceable battery and non-expandable memory.

The 76/60csx, on the other hand, is massively flexible. It can be worn on a clip for hiking, mounted in-car for highway navigation, used on multi-day back-country trips and so on.

I use the 60 on the bars and it's fine unless you are racing.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

pinkheadedbug said:


> The Edge does one thing very well. If you want to use a GPS for anything more than cycling, it is really horribly limited. The buzzkillers for me were no maps, the non-replaceable battery and non-expandable memory.
> 
> The 76/60csx, on the other hand, is massively flexible. It can be worn on a clip for hiking, mounted in-car for highway navigation, used on multi-day back-country trips and so on.
> 
> I use the 60 on the bars and it's fine unless you are racing.


The Edge is a glorified replacement for the cyclecomputer and heart rate monitor combined. The downside of a mapping GPS is that a cyclecomputer is more accurate so, unfortunately if you care about accuracy, you need both.


----------



## ahb (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDee said:


> The Edge is a glorified replacement for the cyclecomputer and heart rate monitor combined. The downside of a mapping GPS is that a cyclecomputer is more accurate so, unfortunately if you care about accuracy, you need both.


why is a mapping unit less accurate than the edge, or a cyclecomputer? I'm unclear about this. If both those units use the same SiRF chip and both are recording data at the same rate (1/s max, as I understand) then what difference would there be between them? both should be more accurate than a computer since there's no chance of calibration errors, which are practically the norm with magnetic sensor computers. My feeling (still somewhat unsubstantiated since I haven't done rigorous testing and probably won't bother) is that the small position errors of the gps are far smaller at the end of the day than problems with calibration, starting and stopping, and sensor pickup that plagued my avocet computer (years ago). there's a reason almost all surveying and GIS information is gathered with GPS units these days....


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

Of course, there is the other issue of getting the sensor mounted....on some big clearance forks and frames, it's dang hard to get a magnet within 5mm of the sensor without having to modify the mount.

I fully understand the limits of something like an Edge....it is made for a certain purpose. If you need the mapping and navigation functions and are looking at an Edge, you'd looking at the wrong equipment...on the flip side, a full on GPS for navigation is going to be heavier, bigger, harder to securely mount on a bike and absolute overkill (both in price and functions) if all you need is a training aid / more powerful bike computer.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

ahb said:


> why is a mapping unit less accurate than the edge, or a cyclecomputer? I'm unclear about this. If both those units use the same SiRF chip and both are recording data at the same rate (1/s max, as I understand) then what difference would there be between them? both should be more accurate than a computer since there's no chance of calibration errors, which are practically the norm with magnetic sensor computers. My feeling (still somewhat unsubstantiated since I haven't done rigorous testing and probably won't bother) is that the small position errors of the gps are far smaller at the end of the day than problems with calibration, starting and stopping, and sensor pickup that plagued my avocet computer (years ago). there's a reason almost all surveying and GIS information is gathered with GPS units these days....


Position errors add up. GPS signal can be degraded or lost. Look at a track in Google Earth or Mapsource and you can see some of the errors. The Edge 305 uses a wheel sensor in addition to the GPS for more accuracy.

It doesn't take much to accurately calibrate a cyclecomputer (just a roll-out of the wheel on the garage floor).


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

I don't think I totally buy that argument. Your cycle computer (that works off of tire circumference) can be off if just your air pressure isn't the same as what you calibrated it to. Or what if you put on a 2.25 from a 2.1 you had before? You'd have to recalibrate it every time. And even a small inaccuracy in true tire circumference adds up over longer distances, being cumulative, where GPS works off of absolute position. Either way, I'd have think the difference is pretty much trivial. Neither will be off by miles. When I first got a Forerunner I rode with it in conjuction with my cateye HB100 and the distances were always identical, and considering the Edge is supposed to be more accuate it's probably not even an argument worth, uh, arguing over.

Even so, if you want to get all fancy, doesn't the full boogie woogie edge also have a wheel and cadence sensor too, giving redundant speed and distance measurements? If I recall right it has an auto calibrate wheel diameter function, or a manual input of your wheed circumference.

BM


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

pinkheadedbug said:


> The buzzkillers for me were no maps, the non-replaceable battery...


It's worth mentioning that there are homebrew extended battery kits posted on the internet for the Edge using a 9V battery and junk from Radio Shack to make an external 5V power source. I've looked it up in the past, but if you are realling into extended rides (longer than the 13hr battery life, if it really lasts 13hrs) it'd be worth looking in to. As much as I've been riding this winter, I only have to charge mine once or so a month .

BM


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks everyone for the info. I'm looking at he 60CSx more than the 76CSx now. Definitely not going to bother with the Edge 305 as i've already got a cycle computer.

As for the GPS inaccuracy comment, how far out is it compared to a regular cycle computr and what functions are affected?


----------



## ahb (Apr 28, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> As for the GPS inaccuracy comment, how far out is it compared to a regular cycle computr and what functions are affected?


if the GPS has good signal, it should agree very well with a properly calibrated computer. any differences are far too small to be concerned with. we're talking fractions of a percent here....although all this talk is making me curious to dig out the ol' avocet 45 and strap it onto the road bike for some comparison testing.

best of luck. I recently got a 60csx and am having a ball with it. great toy......


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

bmadau said:


> I don't think I totally buy that argument. Your cycle computer (that works off of tire circumference) can be off if just your air pressure isn't the same as what you calibrated it to. Or what if you put on a 2.25 from a 2.1 you had before? You'd have to recalibrate it every time. And even a small inaccuracy in true tire circumference adds up over longer distances, being cumulative, where GPS works off of absolute position. Either way, I'd have think the difference is pretty much trivial. Neither will be off by miles. When I first got a Forerunner I rode with it in conjuction with my cateye HB100 and the distances were always identical, and considering the Edge is supposed to be more accuate it's probably not even an argument worth, uh, arguing over.
> BM


Yes, I think you're right. My overall miles for the GPS is just .1 mi. less than with the cycling computer, and my wheel size is probably off because I switched tires. But what's bothering me is that the moving average speed of the GPS is showing .3 mph lower than the cyclocomputer. I suspect the GPS is wrong.


----------



## ahb (Apr 28, 2005)

I've noticed that the averages drop precipitously if you're stopped, but the GPS unit doesn't "think" you've quite stopped. say you've ridden exactly 12.00 miles in exactly 60.0 minutes. 12 mi/hr, right? well a drop to 11.7 miles per hour would take only 1 minute and 30 seconds of extra time - 12.00 miles covered in 61.5 minutes is 11.7 mph. three or four stops in the course of an hour where you've come to a stop but it takes the gps unit a few seconds to figure it out, maybe another 30 seconds while you click through buttons to observe the average, and there's a plausible explanation for the drop in average speed - my guess is that the GPS unit does its averages simply by total miles covered divided by total moving time. it's the very slow-speed movement that artificially drops the average. Doesn't the edge have basically a low-pass filter that doesn't track the data below a certain mph? that would seem to remedy this problem, if you can even call it a problem. 0.3 mph doesn't seem to be anything to be concerned about, in the scheme of things....


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

ahb said:


> I've noticed that the averages drop precipitously if you're stopped, but the GPS unit doesn't "think" you've quite stopped. say you've ridden exactly 12.00 miles in exactly 60.0 minutes. 12 mi/hr, right? well a drop to 11.7 miles per hour would take only 1 minute and 30 seconds of extra time - 12.00 miles covered in 61.5 minutes is 11.7 mph. three or four stops in the course of an hour where you've come to a stop but it takes the gps unit a few seconds to figure it out, maybe another 30 seconds while you click through buttons to observe the average, and there's a plausible explanation for the drop in average speed - my guess is that the GPS unit does its averages simply by total miles covered divided by total moving time. it's the very slow-speed movement that artificially drops the average. Doesn't the edge have basically a low-pass filter that doesn't track the data below a certain mph? that would seem to remedy this problem, if you can even call it a problem. 0.3 mph doesn't seem to be anything to be concerned about, in the scheme of things....


I wonder if you set the unit to track by miles instead of time on the Track Page Options, that might act as a filter. Mine is set to Auto which I don't know what that means and the manual is unclear. Or maybe the trip computer doesn't use the track log in computing its data.


----------



## ToddM (Feb 3, 2004)

The "wandering" is a problem with most gps's and it does mess with trip time/speed. The only way around that I think would be to manually stop it if possible when you stop. The reason is GPS accuracy is great, but it does fluctuate and so does your position. So lets say your GPS says it's accuracy is currently 12', which I assume to be a 12' diameter. Due to satellite signals and the differential calculations the gps is constantly making you "wander" around that area just due to error, so if the gps sees you go 8' to the left in X seconds it calculates the speed needed. 

In fact if you want to test this turn your gps on at home near a window and let it run all night, in the morning you will find out that magically your gps will probably have traveled a mile or more over the night. 

Also and the new units may be better at this than the old ones but it used to be gps had a harder time calculating a accurate land speed on non-horizontal surfaces, speed error was much higher when going up and down hill. Again this goes back to the compromises involved calculatingly a ellipsoid/geoid model and software error etc. I would say that a very accurately calculated bike computer is more accurate than a gps will be. That said, I've always had my gps on rides even with excessive elevation change be within say a tenth of a mile from my bike computer and I did not go to any great length to make sure my bike computer was extremely accurate. 

The bottom line is for distance traveled, and speed a bike computer if accurately calibrated will always be more accurate than a gps unit. This is simply because the gps unit has lots of error that has to be factored in. First the geoid and ellipsoid models that are used as baseline elevation and distance "standards" have error, they are not perfect. Second the calculations made by the gps units have some error built and and they get their reference data from these ellipsoid and geoid models that also have error in them. It's easy to forget that people are not out mapping the elevation of every square inch of land out there, and even if they did the dataset would be way too big to use. There is a good amount of possible error even in USGS topo maps etc. There is a lot of compromises in the standards we use for elevations, and any unit that relies on them for it's calculations is bound to have some error as well.

All a bike computer has to worry about is the circumference of your wheel, The only error factors are the accuracy at which you enter the wheel circumference, and the units internal time keeping unit, which my guess these days is accurate to a few seconds a month. 

I would not be surprised if the edge 305 uses the bike sensors for such things more than the gps data it gets because the bike wheel is the more accurate source of data. In fact I'd be surprised and disappointed if garmin didn't factor that in.


----------



## ahb (Apr 28, 2005)

so, we've come to the conclusion that handheld gps units are useless as surveying tools. For ride data, I think they're great, far more accurate than I'll ever need. They provide lots of information and do a darn good job, considering. We've thoroughly hijacked this thread. Anyways, enjoy whatever GPS unit you get, take it on lots of rides, and have fun. Don't stress if the data is erroneous by a few fractions of a percent.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

How long does siftware remain current on the Garmin GPS units? How old is the oldest model still getting software/firmware support or does it really all depend on the SiRF chip?


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

ahb said:


> We've thoroughly hijacked this thread.


Nah it's been a good learning exercise on some other GPS issues that i had no idea about. Everyone's input is greatly appreciated. :thumbsup:


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> How long does siftware remain current on the Garmin GPS units? How old is the oldest model still getting software/firmware support or does it really all depend on the SiRF chip?


This can give you an idea on the support

http://www.garmin.com/support/blosp.jsp

The improvemsnt ins signal are bacause of the Sirf chip mainly, of course updates are good... but the Sirf units' reception is a lot better than the previous ones (I owned a Legend C before my 60Csx)


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> This is my first foray into the world of GPS and i'm considering these two models from Garmin, the GPSMAP 76CSx and the Edge 305.
> 
> Am i right in thinking that the Edge 305 will track where i've been but won't show me a map of where i am while i'm riding? That's the only thing stopping me from getting this model.
> 
> ...


I use both.

The Edge will show you a course that you've downloaded on your screen. You won't see topographic data but you will see your position on the course and a compass heading, etc. You can load NAV files to your Edge that give you turn-by-turn directions, arguably better than interpreting a map.


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

*76 and 60 are the same*



[email protected] said:


> Thanks everyone for the info. I'm looking at he 60CSx more than the 76CSx now. Definitely not going to bother with the Edge 305 as i've already got a cycle computer.
> 
> As for the GPS inaccuracy comment, how far out is it compared to a regular cycle computr and what functions are affected?


The Edge is a GPS not a cycle computer. Heart rate and cadence are optional.

I choose the 76 over the 60 because it floats. If you've ever had children drop something into a river ...


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

I did an experiment. I plugged my GPS (Edge 305) into its charger and turned it on. Over 10hr, 50min, and 59sec, sitting my my windowsill, it traveld .13 miles. That's stationary. I figgure it'd be more insigifican't when you are moving because it'd float your position sometimes in front of you, sometimes in back of you, sometimes to the left or right of where you actually are, so I think it would net out to a very insignificant amount. How far can you go in 11 hrs, 100 miles or so? .13 of 100 is like, uhh, carry the one... 0.13% of your distance traveled? 

BM


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

I did the same thing overnight with the office's 76CSx...same thing...about 15 km (just shy of 10 miles).

GPS will drift...sure a bike computer's magnetic sensor on the wheel won't drift, but it sure misses out on a lot of other useful info.

I guess it is just like everyting else in life...there are tradeoffs.


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

You guys are forcing me to put my cat eye back on and do long term parallel comparisons...

10miles is a lot. a whole lot.

BM


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

bmadau said:


> I did an experiment. I plugged my GPS (Edge 305) into its charger and turned it on. Over 10hr, 50min, and 59sec, sitting my my windowsill, it traveld .13 miles. That's stationary. I figgure it'd be more insigifican't when you are moving because it'd float your position sometimes in front of you, sometimes in back of you, sometimes to the left or right of where you actually are, so I think it would net out to a very insignificant amount. How far can you go in 11 hrs, 100 miles or so? .13 of 100 is like, uhh, carry the one... 0.13% of your distance traveled?
> 
> BM


Any error in a stationary position adds a positve amount to the "distance" traveled. When moving the errors can cancel.

Errors along the direction of movement average out to zero. Errors perpendicular to the direction matter little, if the error is 1% of the path, then the extra length logged is 1% of 1% or .0001.


----------



## Photo-John (Aug 1, 2001)

Thanks for this great thread, guys. I was about to buy an Edge 305 but now I'm having second thoughts. I want some ride data but I'm not a racer and my training needs are minimal. I just want to know how far I've ridden, how long I rode for, what my altitude and accumulated elevation are, and have a map of my ride. I don't care about my heart rate, cadence, etc. So it's looking like the 76CSx might be a better, more flexible GPS for me. I would like something that I can also use in the car, for hiking and real exploring. And I don't care if it's mounted on the handlebars or not. I always ride with a pack because I usually also have a camera. So here's my real question - excuse me if it's a stupid one - can I carry the GPS in my backpack? Will it work? It uses a radio antenna, right? So it doesn't need line-of-site to a satellite, right?

Thanks!


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

Photo-John said:


> Thanks for this great thread, guys. I was about to buy an Edge 305 but now I'm having second thoughts. I want some ride data but I'm not a racer and my training needs are minimal. I just want to know how far I've ridden, how long I rode for, what my altitude and accumulated elevation are, and have a map of my ride. I don't care about my heart rate, cadence, etc. So it's looking like the 76CSx might be a better, more flexible GPS for me. I would like something that I can also use in the car, for hiking and real exploring. And I don't care if it's mounted on the handlebars or not. I always ride with a pack because I usually also have a camera. So here's my real question - excuse me if it's a stupid one - can I carry the GPS in my backpack? Will it work? It uses a radio antenna, right? So it doesn't need line-of-site to a satellite, right?
> 
> Thanks!


I would go for the 60Csx, it is a little more rugged.. the only diff with the 76 is that the 76 floats.. it is made for use on boats... about the backpack...I run mine on the external bag of my camelback without issues... and you can always attach an external antenna, if you want to leave it inside the bag....


----------



## ToddM (Feb 3, 2004)

If you get the 60csx or 76csx neither will have any problems in a camelbak or other pack with reception. In fact I can get a solid signal in my basement with one little window with my 76csx.

As for the differences between the 76csx and 60csx, basically they are identical, aside for the case. The 76 is a little bigger and floats, the 60 is more like a radio. I bought the 76 model because for me it was much easier to use one handed than the 60 model. With the 60 having all the buttons at the bottom of the unit I found it hard to use with one hand, the 76 is much easier to use one handed. 

While this is not a huge deal, there are times where you don't want both hands messing with a gps at one time. Functionally and such they are identical. I think the 76csx comes with a larger memory card, but you will want a larger card than either come with anyway, and they are cheap. I also liked the floating feature, I don't plan on dropping it in a river anytime soon but if I do I'll be happy it floats, unless of course I'm watching it float away downstream


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

Well i'm pretty well set on the 60CSx after this thread so thatnks heaps everyone for your help. :thumbsup: 

I'm keen to see how people have their 60CSx unit mounted to their handlebars, stem or frame. Is anyone ale to post pics here or should i start a new thread?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

I will try to post some pics of my 60Csx on the bars when I get home later tonight


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

crisillo said:


> I will try to post some pics of my 60Csx on the bars when I get home later tonight


You're a champion. Thanks mate. :thumbsup:


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

Photo-John said:


> Thanks for this great thread, guys. I was about to buy an Edge 305 but now I'm having second thoughts. I want some ride data but I'm not a racer and my training needs are minimal. I just want to know how far I've ridden, how long I rode for, what my altitude and accumulated elevation are, and have a map of my ride. I don't care about my heart rate, cadence, etc. So it's looking like the 76CSx might be a better, more flexible GPS for me. I would like something that I can also use in the car, for hiking and real exploring. And I don't care if it's mounted on the handlebars or not. I always ride with a pack because I usually also have a camera. So here's my real question - excuse me if it's a stupid one - can I carry the GPS in my backpack? Will it work? It uses a radio antenna, right? So it doesn't need line-of-site to a satellite, right?
> 
> Thanks!


I carry my 76CSx inside my pack, wrapped in extra clothes. I would never mount it on handlebars, too much shaking. Buy the right maps, a storage card, and The 76CSx has yellow pages for businesses (West Coast for me), can list based on distance from your location (e.g. show me Mexican Restaurants), and generate driving instructions.


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

pacman said:


> I carry my 76CSx inside my pack, wrapped in extra clothes. I would never mount it on handlebars, too much shaking. Buy the right maps, a storage card, and The 76CSx has yellow pages for businesses (West Coast for me), can list based on distance from your location (e.g. show me Mexican Restaurants), and generate driving instructions.


Yeah I carry my 60CSx inside the bag almost all the time with no reception problems, but I have the handle bar mount for a couple of types I have gone into unknown places and need to find a way out ... easier to see it on the bars...also for directions while on the road...


----------



## jpatkinson (Jan 15, 2007)

I am following this thread, and considering trading in my Forerunner 205 for either an Edge 305 or something else. I am not 'getting' how you guys are using the tracking devices to 'record' your rides, the way the FR or Edge will do it with the 'start' and 'stop' buttons. While MotionBased lists the tracking devices as 'compatible,' they specifically state in the 'cons' section that these units don't offer this 'start'/'stop' feature. So, how does this work?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

jpatkinson said:


> I am following this thread, and considering trading in my Forerunner 205 for either an Edge 305 or something else. I am not 'getting' how you guys are using the tracking devices to 'record' your rides, the way the FR or Edge will do it with the 'start' and 'stop' buttons. While MotionBased lists the tracking devices as 'compatible,' they specifically state in the 'cons' section that these units don't offer this 'start'/'stop' feature. So, how does this work?


The garmin GPS devices are tracking all the time, no need for start/stop, if needed you can edit the track and remove or split the sections as desired...


----------



## Photo-John (Aug 1, 2001)

crisillo said:


> The garmin GPS devices are tracking all the time, no need for start/stop, if needed you can edit the track and remove or split the sections as desired...


In other words, you just have to do the math yourself? But the data is there. Is that correct?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

Photo-John said:


> In other words, you just have to do the math yourself? But the data is there. Is that correct?


Yeah. all the data is there... on the PC you can see every point where a measurement was taken (on the map and the time at which it was taken), and then "copy and paste" points from one track into another... so you can create separate segments of any given ride.


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

jpatkinson said:


> I am following this thread, and considering trading in my Forerunner 205 for either an Edge 305 or something else. I am not 'getting' how you guys are using the tracking devices to 'record' your rides, the way the FR or Edge will do it with the 'start' and 'stop' buttons. While MotionBased lists the tracking devices as 'compatible,' they specifically state in the 'cons' section that these units don't offer this 'start'/'stop' feature. So, how does this work?


The Start/Stop is oriented to someone concerned about time over a particular course (racer?). With other units one has to step through menus to turn off/on tracking and lose vital milliseconds.  Or as crisillo said, process the data on your PC.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jan 15, 2007)

pacman said:


> The Start/Stop is oriented to someone concerned about time over a particular course (racer?). With other units one has to step through menus to turn off/on tracking and lose vital milliseconds.  Or as crisillo said, process the data on your PC.


Seems to me that I asked a legitimate question, as someone who has never seen or used one of these tracking devices. :shocked: Aren't we all racers, at heart: racing against our prior selves, at the very least? Isn't the whole point of using these devices as an alternative to the 205/305 to 'track' one's progress/speed along a route, like _during a specific ride/run?_

With the 205, I plug it into my computer, click the MotionBased icon, and in about one second I have everything 'done.' I don't think I want to spend my time manipulating data, when a computer can do it more effeciently and -- I suspect -- more effectively.

What's the advantage of the 76CSx?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> You're a champion. Thanks mate. :thumbsup:


Crank1979,

Here's a pic of the 60CSx on the handlebar of my SS...

Hope this helps,
Cris


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

jpatkinson said:


> Seems to me that I asked a legitimate question, as someone who has never seen or used one of these tracking devices. :shocked: Aren't we all racers, at heart: racing against our prior selves, at the very least? Isn't the whole point of using these devices as an alternative to the 205/305 to 'track' one's progress/speed along a route, like _during a specific ride/run?_
> 
> With the 205, I plug it into my computer, click the MotionBased icon, and in about one second I have everything 'done.' I don't think I want to spend my time manipulating data, when a computer can do it more effeciently and -- I suspect -- more effectively.
> 
> What's the advantage of the 76CSx?


I plug my 76CSx in and the MB agent does it all for me too.  Some people keep statistics on miles or feet climbed per day, per week, per year - seconds don't matter. A race day is an exception. I don't have to manipulate data, but can look at it in different ways. For instance - after a ride I might look at the time of a long climb, I don't have to make the decision to use a stopwatch on that day.

I just had a friend complain that he lost data (305) because he didn't push "start" after a "stop". There are disadvantages.

Definite advantage - your 205 is erratic on altitude (no altimeter correction like the 305 or 76CSx), are you using MB's gravity correction?


----------



## Destroy (Jan 12, 2004)

crisillo said:


> Yeah. all the data is there... on the PC you can see every point where a measurement was taken (on the map and the time at which it was taken), and then "copy and paste" points from one track into another... so you can create separate segments of any given ride.


What program do you use to edit your gps data?


----------



## ToddM (Feb 3, 2004)

It depends on what you want it for on the bike.

If you just want a training cycling computer the 205/305 has more features to accurately monitor your ride and your performance with less data manipulation. The motionbased software is very nice for looking at ride data. It is a very good cycling computer, that will allow you to compare your ride performance over the same trail from ride to ride very well. In this aspect it is superior to the 76/60. With the 305 and the HR info it is easier to monitor your training data. However, I disagree with you that everyone wants only that from their GPS on the bike.

If you want a GPS to give you general ride information AND the navigation features of a GPS , the edge series does not cut it. It won't take maps, it has no basemap to display your location. It will not route find or do turn by turn navigation, it won't tell you how far the nearest gas station is or the best route to a city on the way to the trail. The best it will do is point you to a waypoint you previously downloaded. The same way the 76/60 series is not as good of a cycling computer as the edge series, the edge series is a pathetic navigational gps. It's rechargeable non replaceable battery is useless in the backcountry unless you can get to a source of power to charge it every day. In addition the same complication of data manipulation can be said for the edge series, it's more complicated to get routes or trails out of the edge into say arcgis or another mapping program, or into it.

So it depends on what you want the unit for. Basically the edge 205/305 is a killer bike computer with very very limited navigational functions. The 76/60 has navigation functions up the wazoo, but is a more limited cycling computer, and has no HR data. So it depends on what your needs are. The fact that you bought the 205 and not the 305 proves this. A case could be made that if you wanted serious ride training data you'd have got the 305 model so you could also compare HR and cadence data for your rides. So different people have different desires and needs for what they want from their ride data.

In garmin's defense they don't market the edge series as a navigational aid, just as a training device and in that sole purpose it's a superior units. However, if you want navigation from it, and are not concerned with the extra features of the cycling data from the edge series, the 60/76 is a better unit. That and it does not require you to spend $100 a year to pay for the advanced features of motionbased and get rid of the download and view limits so you can see more than your last 10 rides.

Of course the Ideal solution is to buy them both 



jpatkinson said:


> Seems to me that I asked a legitimate question, as someone who has never seen or used one of these tracking devices. :shocked: Aren't we all racers, at heart: racing against our prior selves, at the very least? Isn't the whole point of using these devices as an alternative to the 205/305 to 'track' one's progress/speed along a route, like _during a specific ride/run?_
> 
> With the 205, I plug it into my computer, click the MotionBased icon, and in about one second I have everything 'done.' I don't think I want to spend my time manipulating data, when a computer can do it more effeciently and -- I suspect -- more effectively.
> 
> What's the advantage of the 76CSx?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

Destroy said:


> What program do you use to edit your gps data?


I use Garmin's MapSource... it comes included with the device...


----------



## jpatkinson (Jan 15, 2007)

ToddM said:


> I disagree with you that everyone wants only that from their GPS on the bike. . . . The fact that you bought the 205 and not the 305 proves this. A case could be made that if you wanted serious ride training data you'd have got the 305 model so you could also compare HR and cadence data for your rides.


First off, I didn't write that 'everyone wants only that.' And, this was a birthday gift, not something I went out and bought for myself. I swim, run, and cycle for fitness, don't like to monitor my heart rate during an event [I know my zones very well after 25 years of working out], and my partner figured that the Edge was only for cycling, and would thus be far less useful to me.

I have been frustrated a bit with the data coming out of the machine regarding altitude [for obvious reasons]. I live in SF, and my short run last night involved changes in elevation of several hundred feet. I most like to know my distance, time, pace, change in elevation, and compare pace/time from work-out to workout over the same course.

I really want to use my device for both cycling and running, so the Edge isn't looking like the right device -- even though I would love the barometric altitude features.

The 60CSx is beautiful, and I love the mapping functions -- but I don't see how I could use this while running, at least not comfortably. I will probably just stick with the FR205.


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

jpatkinson said:


> I really want to use my device for both cycling and running, so the Edge isn't looking like the right device -- even though I would love the barometric altitude features.
> 
> The 60CSx is beautiful, and I love the mapping functions -- but I don't see how I could use this while running, at least not comfortably. I will probably just stick with the FR205.


Yeah..maybe the Edge 305 would have been a better fit for both your activities... or the Forerunner 305 (the 305s have the barometer features)


----------



## jpatkinson (Jan 15, 2007)

crisillo said:


> Yeah..maybe the Edge 305 would have been a better fit for both your activities... or the Forerunner 305 (the 305s have the barometer features)


I have decided to stick with the FR205. Unlike the Edge, it has running/cycling functions built in, so I can use it for both. The FR305 doesn't have the barometric altimeter, like the Edge 305 [just confirmed this with a call to Garmin]. I have a sweet OEM navigation unit in my GTI, so I don't need another navigation unit to find the gas stations or give me directions to the next town.

Thanks for your help, guys!


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

jpatkinson said:


> I have decided to stick with the FR205. Unlike the Edge, it has running/cycling functions built in, so I can use it for both. The FR305 doesn't have the barometric altimeter, like the Edge 305 [just confirmed this with a call to Garmin]. I have a sweet OEM navigation unit in my GTI, so I don't need another navigation unit to find the gas stations or give me directions to the next town.
> 
> Thanks for your help, guys!


Oh... my bad on assuming that the FR 305 also had the baro features... glad you found the device that fits your needs :thumbsup:


----------



## jimbo (Jan 6, 2004)

I don't get the problem with wandering or start/stop on the Edge. You can set it to auto pause if traveling below a certain speed. I set this to 2mph. I have to press the start button when I begin the ride (sometimes I lose the first block or so), and then I forget about it. 

And as far as navigation goes, I've used mine to find my way loads of times. You can either set up a course to follow beforehand, and load it on the Edge, or you can look at your track and use that to decide about when to turn.

Sure you can use a GPS that actually has a map on it, but I love the adventure of a bit of uncertainty, but with the help that the Edge will always point the way home.

jimbo


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

crisillo said:


> Crank1979,
> 
> Here's a pic of the 60CSx on the handlebar of my SS...
> 
> ...


I'm only getting a red X, sorry.


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I'm only getting a red X, sorry.


Sorry..should be fixed now...


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

crisillo said:


> Sorry..should be fixed now...


Cool. Thanks for that. Have you had any problems with it coming off or loose during riding? Is that a standard Garmin mount that you're used?


----------



## Photo-John (Aug 1, 2001)

Thanks, everyone. This has been an interesting discussion. I'm not really training for anything and I'm not a racer. But it is fun to have some data in order to judge my fitness. Well - I guess I am training a bit. But not like most people. I want to be stronger, but have no need to be competitive. And I'm interested in having a tool that's also useful for hiking, driving, skiing, and general exploring. So it's looking like the 60CSx is probably the right thing for me to do.

I'm very glad I checked in here again. Or I might have just ordered the 305 

Thanks!


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Photo-John said:


> Thanks, everyone. This has been an interesting discussion. I'm not really training for anything and I'm not a racer. But it is fun to have some data in order to judge my fitness. Well - I guess I am training a bit. But not like most people. I want to be stronger, but have no need to be competitive. And I'm interested in having a tool that's also useful for hiking, driving, skiing, and general exploring. So it's looking like the 60CSx is probably the right thing for me to do.
> 
> I'm very glad I checked in here again. Or I might have just ordered the 305
> 
> Thanks!


Make sure you check with GeoMan. He usually has the best price, is an MTBR member, and has phenominal support. Two :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Cool. Thanks for that. Have you had any problems with it coming off or loose during riding? Is that a standard Garmin mount that you're used?


No prob!

I don't use it on the bars all the time... I usually have it on my Camelbak and put it in the bars when I need to see the screen... however I haven't had any issues with it ... yes, it's the Garmin std. mount.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks for all of your help everyone. I just ordered a 60CSx.:thumbsup:


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for all of your help everyone. I just ordered a 60CSx.:thumbsup:


Congrats!

You'll love it! :thumbsup:


----------



## jpatkinson (Jan 15, 2007)

So I went to REI tonight to check out the Garmin 60CSx. Solid, beautiful screen. I had decided to stick with my FR205 ... and then got the idea that it would be so nice to have a GPS unit with me while mtn biking so I could actually see the trail maps and figure out where I was, like in the Marin Headlands, north of SF. Turns out ... the only topo map I can upload into the unit is the one made by Garmin, which doesn't even show the trails in that area! The Nat Geo TOPO software is beautiful AND shows the trails I was hoping to see in the 60CSx. Apparently the unit wouldn't help me get around while out on my bike, anyway! Am I missing something here? How are you guys using this device to help you navigate, when I doesn't show all but a few trails?


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

jpatkinson said:


> So I went to REI tonight to check out the Garmin 60CSx. Solid, beautiful screen. I had decided to stick with my FR205 ... and then got the idea that it would be so nice to have a GPS unit with me while mtn biking so I could actually see the trail maps and figure out where I was, like in the Marin Headlands, north of SF. Turns out ... the only topo map I can upload into the unit is the one made by Garmin, which doesn't even show the trails in that area! The Nat Geo TOPO software is beautiful AND shows the trails I was hoping to see in the 60CSx. Apparently the unit wouldn't help me get around while out on my bike, anyway! Am I missing something here? How are you guys using this device to help you navigate, when I doesn't show all but a few trails?


(1) Look at the beautiful detailed Topo map and plan where you want to ride.
(2) Create a route or a minimal set of waypoints.
(3) Upload that data into the unit.

Once you have that in the 60CSx, the map is just background data, interesting but irrelevant. I never use the map to "navigate" because there are only two places you can be - on the trial or off the trail (and I always stay on the trail). The uploaded data tells me which trail to take.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jan 15, 2007)

*Clueless in San Francicso*



pacman said:


> Once you have that in the 60CSx, the map is just background data, interesting but irrelevant. I never use the map to "navigate" because there are only two places you can be - on the trial or off the trail (and I always stay on the trail). The uploaded data tells me which trail to take.


Forgive my cluelessness on this, please. I have never seen one of these devices in action, so I am relying totally on my imagination, here (I am very visual, and have trouble with words, sometimes).

When you are looking at the uploaded data -- for your planned ride, how do you know the name of the trail you want to take? One of my trailheads has four options for which trail to take, for example. Also, is there a way to specify turns -- like when you need to take a left or right at a fork, for example? That seems to be my biggest problem when I get out there: I get to a junction, and get clueless!

Finally, it looks like I can upload the same 'route' information to the Edge305 -- but I don't know how those routes would differ from routes in the 60CSx. I wish there were a way of actually seeing these devices in action, instead of just reading about them and holding them at the store!


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

jpatkinson said:


> Forgive my cluelessness on this, please. I have never seen one of these devices in action, so I am relying totally on my imagination, here (I am very visual, and have trouble with words, sometimes).
> 
> When you are looking at the uploaded data -- for your planned ride, how do you know the name of the trail you want to take? One of my trailheads has four options for which trail to take, for example. Also, is there a way to specify turns -- like when you need to take a left or right at a fork, for example? That seems to be my biggest problem when I get out there: I get to a junction, and get clueless!
> 
> Finally, it looks like I can upload the same 'route' information to the Edge305 -- but I don't know how those routes would differ from routes in the 60CSx. I wish there were a way of actually seeing these devices in action, instead of just reading about them and holding them at the store!


The GPS points you in the direction of the next "milestone". On the screen you can see the breadcrumbs of your current track on the map and its relationship to your planned route. Your waypoints in the GPS can have notes attached, such as "take 4N03 right", but it's up to you to plan.

Names of trails are interesting but --- signs can be vandalized or washed away, a GPS point is immutable.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

jpatkinson said:


> Forgive my cluelessness on this, please. I have never seen one of these devices in action, so I am relying totally on my imagination, here (I am very visual, and have trouble with words, sometimes).
> 
> When you are looking at the uploaded data -- for your planned ride, how do you know the name of the trail you want to take? One of my trailheads has four options for which trail to take, for example. Also, is there a way to specify turns -- like when you need to take a left or right at a fork, for example? That seems to be my biggest problem when I get out there: I get to a junction, and get clueless!
> 
> Finally, it looks like I can upload the same 'route' information to the Edge305 -- but I don't know how those routes would differ from routes in the 60CSx. I wish there were a way of actually seeing these devices in action, instead of just reading about them and holding them at the store!


Here is a page with some 60CSx video tutorials - http://www.gpscity.com/video/60csx3.htm

These are oriented to road navigation, but the way it works is similar for trails, difference being that you need to mark the waypoints for trailheads, turns, etc. (You can find many of these on the web, via MotionBased, MTBGuru, etc.)

Hope this helps.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

I got my GPSmap 60CSx today! Now to read the instructions and try some of the tutorials.:thumbsup: 

That handlebar mount won't work for me because it only comes in a 25.4mm clamp size. I'll have to rig something up. :thumbsup:


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I got my GPSmap 60CSx today! Now to read the instructions and try some of the tutorials.:thumbsup:
> 
> That handlebar mount won't work for me because it only comes in a 25.4mm clamp size. I'll have to rig something up. :thumbsup:


Congrats!

Search around... there is a 31.8 mm clamp, but it is sold separately from the "mount kit", it is only the clamp part.. I need to get one myself, because i changed to 31.8 in none of my bikes...

ah.. found it.. Garmin Part No: 010-10496-00

https://shop.garmin.com/accessory.jsp?sku=010-10496-00


----------

