# Garmin EDGE 500 vs. EDGE 705



## dadtorbn (Sep 6, 2009)

Has anyone chosen between these two? Likes/dislikes?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I chose the 705.

I wanted to be able to see a map screen


----------



## Wherewolf (Jan 17, 2004)

*I like my 705*



dadtorbn said:


> Has anyone chosen between these two? Likes/dislikes?


I like my 705.


----------



## santacruzer (Nov 30, 2004)

I chose the 500 because I have no need for a map screen; I like to see where I have been after I’m there. The 705 was too clunky for me, I love the small size and weight of the 500 plus it has a real mount. Most 705's I see have a ziptie around them for insurance from them falling off


----------



## EBrider (Aug 3, 2004)

It comes down to if you want navigation or not. The 500 is smaller and gives you all the data you could possibly want, but it doesn't have a map. I have the 500 and use it on my road and mountain bikes. Although there are a few occasions that a map would be nice, I don't have a real need for it.


----------



## dadtorbn (Sep 6, 2009)

Thank you all for your feedback... I think I'm going to go with the 500. The 705 is $300 and santacruzer's input probably helped me crystalize my thoughts. I think the "need" for a map for me is minimal. It would be nice... The only other advantage that I've found is that you can set up the 705 with warnings and intervals which can not be programed into the 500. Also, the 500 cycles through screens during a ride which seems like a nice feature. I may regret not having maps. If I do I'll be certain to append my thoughts on that to this thread...

Once again, thank you all for your valuable input.


----------



## rtcage (Aug 20, 2007)

I have the 705 and have had no problems with it. I've used it to track amlost 300 rides over the last couple of years. Having said that, if I had to buy another one I would go with the 500. 95% of my rides are on familiar trails and I have literally used the map twice. The calorie meter on the 705 is useless. I understand that the calorie meter on the 500 is supposed to me more accurate but don't know any more than that. I also hate buying stuff late in the product cycle and the 705 has been out for quite a while.


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

705 for me. The mapping was the key feature. It allows me to explore trails and areas ive never been to and not worry about getting lost somewhere in a national park.


----------



## bigdrunk (Feb 21, 2004)

Were did you find the 705 for $300?



dadtorbn said:


> Thank you all for your feedback... I think I'm going to go with the 500. The 705 is $300 and santacruzer's input probably helped me crystalize my thoughts. I think the "need" for a map for me is minimal. It would be nice... The only other advantage that I've found is that you can set up the 705 with warnings and intervals which can not be programed into the 500. Also, the 500 cycles through screens during a ride which seems like a nice feature. I may regret not having maps. If I do I'll be certain to append my thoughts on that to this thread...
> 
> Once again, thank you all for your valuable input.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Feb 18, 2004)

705, mapping is nice for road rides in unknown areas, useless for mountain biking, at least where I live... but I also use the advanced trainings you can program on the 705 a lot, you can't do it on the 500.


----------



## DukeNeverwinter (May 6, 2006)

Edge 700 all over ebay Refurbed for 300ish


----------



## tshulthise (Apr 23, 2010)

I have an Edge 500 and find its typically 10-20% low on mileage when used in the woods. Makes keeping mileage almost useless.


----------



## santacruzer (Nov 30, 2004)

tshulthise said:


> I have an Edge 500 and find its typically 10-20% low on mileage when used in the woods. Makes keeping mileage almost useless.


All GPS's are like that, they miss all the small turns and hills on a trail, I still use a bike computer to keep up with miles and the gps for everything else


----------



## kazowie (Mar 17, 2010)

santacruzer said:


> Most 705's I see have a ziptie around them for insurance from them falling off


Classic - I resemble that comment from another post. Another rapid excursion from my seat to the ground (via a tree) this morning. I average this kind of event every 1.5 rides, and the 705 has never moved. That said the mount is commonly raised as a problem, so you think there must be something to it.

I chose the 705 for the mapping, but finding map data with the trails you will ride can be tricky. You can also download routes (ie. GPX files) to follow, but then the GPS constantly blips instructions at you, changing your preferred display and generally being annoying. Without the trail loaded onto the map, and with the GPS just tracking your position, most of the time the map is a triangle (your position) in the middle of a brown screen.

I don't profess to be an expert and I need to spend some more time on the whole mapping thing. There are many other valuable functions, but this issue was not one I expected. You may want to consider how often you will you use the mapping to make the 705 worth it.


----------



## dadtorbn (Sep 6, 2009)

Update:

First off the $300 I quoted was the retail difference between the 705 (with HRM/Cad/Spd & maps) vs. the 500 (with HRM/Cad/Spd). Basically I would have to pay $300 for maps + a few features. Additionally, since the 705 is a bit older I feared the firmware updates would be slower in coming. Thus the feature set was mature and would not grow at all. The 500 has no mapping capability, is much smaller and has a longer battery life.

I chose the 500 which for me I think was the right choice. I both road ride and trail ride. Although laterly I've been focusing on raod riding because I really want to finish dropping the excess weight I've had for years. However, that's for another post... For the road I carry a bicycling coalition map which has quite a bit of information on it. Also, as I ride locally my additional awareness of the roads, loops, road conditions, etc increase which makes the map function less needed. My house backs up to one of the best mountain biking areas in Northern CA. My life is so busy that I have never driven to another location for mountaqin biking. Thus I pretty much know where all the trails go at this point and don't really need the mapping function for the park I ride in.

A quick review:

I've had it on 5 road rides now. I really like the customizable screens! You can have up to 3 with as many as 8 pieces of data per screen. You can set the unit to Autoscroll between the 3 screen at 1 of three speeds. Since my near vision isn't what it was when I was younger I can not read the field type easily while riding. Thus I need to know where the specific data is while riding to give me the appropriate feedback. Thus for riding I set the first scree up with four field. The first two are BIG and easily readable and are HR and Cadence. Two bottom two are speed and grade. The other two displays aren't as criticle to in the saddle feedback for me.

I like the Auto start feature. I dislike the auto pause feature because while riding (it's pretty damn hilly where I ride) the auto pause will start and stop with an annoying beep while I'm riding, even if I'm going at a moderate pace. I don't know if they use the speed sensor on the spokes or the GPS to pause and restart. If it's the spoke sensor it could be my fault. I have a carbon road bike and the chain stay (?) is pretty darn close to the spokes so I had to put the slug on the spoke next to the sensor rather than crossing in front of it. The integration into GTC and GC is seamless and the feedback is helpful. I would like better analysis capability to help me understand how to ride better. However, that is not a function of the GPS unit. It's a function of the free software from Garmin... If anyone knows of software is able to look at your performance and give specific helpful feedback to improve one's riding ability in in terms of cardio/cadence etc. I'd really like to learn more.

Bottom Line:
I really like the 500 and wish I'd purchased it earlier. I have no previous cycling GPS experience for a reference for comparison though.


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

I made the choice when upgrading from my broken 305. I went with the 500 because I didn't need/want the navigational features of the 705 and because the 500 is so much cheaper. I'm happier with the 500 over my 305 but one frustration I have that doesn't exist with the 705 is the format Garmin uses on the 500 to save the tracks. The reason it's an issue for ME is because I use SportTracks to log my rides, and the .fit (or .fitlog I can't remember) on the 500 isn't supported by SportTracks. The 705 uses a format that IS supported.

The workaround is downloading the ride to Garmin Training Center, exporting it to .tcx and importing it to SportTracks. It's not a HUGE deal, but a bit of a PITA and an extra step I didn't have with the 305 and wouldn't with the 705. But, for $300 I'll keep spending the extra 30 seconds.


----------



## dadtorbn (Sep 6, 2009)

nachomc said:


> I made the choice when upgrading from my broken 305. I went with the 500 because I didn't need/want the navigational features of the 705 and because the 500 is so much cheaper. I'm happier with the 500 over my 305 but one frustration I have that doesn't exist with the 705 is the format Garmin uses on the 500 to save the tracks. The reason it's an issue for ME is because I use SportTracks to log my rides, and the .fit (or .fitlog I can't remember) on the 500 isn't supported by SportTracks. The 705 uses a format that IS supported.
> 
> The workaround is downloading the ride to Garmin Training Center, exporting it to .tcx and importing it to SportTracks. It's not a HUGE deal, but a bit of a PITA and an extra step I didn't have with the 305 and wouldn't with the 705. But, for $300 I'll keep spending the extra 30 seconds.


Is SportTracks that much better than GC or GTC? I don't really like either for much other than rudimentary analysis...


----------



## Dropout33 (Apr 9, 2007)

dadtorbn said:


> I dislike the auto pause feature because while riding (it's pretty damn hilly where I ride) the auto pause will start and stop with an annoying beep while I'm riding, even if I'm going at a moderate pace. I don't know if they use the speed sensor on the spokes or the GPS to pause and restart.


I think it is possible to change the default speed that the pause happens. Not sure how but maybe someone will chime in.


----------



## tshulthise (Apr 23, 2010)

Dropout33 said:


> I think it is possible to change the default speed that the pause happens. Not sure how but maybe someone will chime in.


For the Edge 500 under "Settings", "Bike Settings", "Auto Pause" choose "Custom Speed" and you can set the speed (in x.x MPH) at which the computer considers you stopped and will pause.

If you choose "When Stopped" then it will only pause when you are actually stopped.


----------



## IAmtnbikr (May 17, 2008)

500 here as well. Mounts on both bikes and cadence on both too. Love it.


----------



## scoutcat (Mar 30, 2008)

i lost my 705... it came off on a trail. i didnt want to spend big bucks again so i got the 500 and like it very much. never used the maps much anyway.


----------



## dutchman59 (Sep 27, 2011)

ya, the 705 mount is weak. Issues with spring loaded mount. The 500 uses a twist mount. Never had a mounting issue.


----------



## dutchman59 (Sep 27, 2011)

So if both the 500 and 705 are equal in price (new) at $350.00 for either one, which one would you buy? I had a 500 and really liked it. The maps on the 705 are nice but don't see using them much on the MTB.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

dutchman59 said:


> So if both the 500 and 705 are equal in price (new) at $350.00 for either one, which one would you buy? I had a 500 and really liked it. The maps on the 705 are nice but don't see using them much on the MTB.


I primarily use a GPS on my mtb for maps. I don't see why I would put a GPS that won't display them on my bike. maps may not be all that useful for me on the trails I ride weekly and know by heart...but those maps have helped multiple visitors out, and they have helped me when I've been the visitor and don't have any better maps.


----------



## dutchman59 (Sep 27, 2011)

One thing I guess is good for the 705 is you can take it on your hikes into the park and use it to track your hike. Get the trail micro sd card from Garmin.


----------



## Mumbles720 (Oct 10, 2011)

Nice.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

dutchman59 said:


> One thing I guess is good for the 705 is you can take it on your hikes into the park and use it to track your hike. Get the trail micro sd card from Garmin.


The battery on it wouldn't work well for a lot of my hikes. A short hike, it'd be fine, but when I hike at minimum I'm out for at least a whole day, maybe more. There are better GPS receivers for hiking purposes.

There are plenty of situations where being able to see a map of mountain bike trails is beneficial, or when needing turn-by-turn street directions is beneficial. If you'd never use it that way, then why are you even thinking about this model for a bunch of features you'll never use in the first place?


----------



## estabro (Oct 9, 2009)

EBrider said:


> It comes down to if you want navigation or not. The 500 is smaller and gives you all the data you could possibly want, but it doesn't have a map. I have the 500 and use it on my road and mountain bikes. Although there are a few occasions that a map would be nice, I don't have a real need for it.


+1 exactly.


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

EBrider said:


> It comes down to if you want navigation or not. The 500 is smaller and gives you all the data you could possibly want, but it doesn't have a map. I have the 500 and use it on my road and mountain bikes. Although there are a few occasions that a map would be nice, I don't have a real need for it.


+2

For the very few times I need a map, I whip out my phone. I used to have a 305 and not once did I use the map feature of it.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Toff said:


> +2
> 
> For the very few times I need a map, I whip out my phone. I used to have a 305 and not once did I use the map feature of it.


You would have had a hard time, since the 305 is like the 500 with no map display, just a breadcrumb track on screen.


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

Good thing I never needed it then.


----------



## Wherewolf (Jan 17, 2004)

*Garmin 800*



Wherewolf said:


> I like my 705.


I like my Garmin 800 much better than my 705 :thumbsup:


----------



## KINBOY (May 23, 2004)

Those of you that are having issues with the 705/305 mount. contact garmin. There are newer ones that are a lot beefier and stiffer. I had ordered 2 to replace mine for the 305 I have on a bike and have since ordered 6 more for others that have the older ones. You can feel and see the difference. The older ones a flimsy!
KIN


----------



## wfoacman (May 5, 2009)

I have no need for a map. Most of my most memorable rides have been the type where you don't know exactly where you are. Finding your way is a big part of the fun. Having a map to me would take a lot of the adventure out of being in the middle of nowhere. The Edge 500 is perfect for me.


----------

