# I'm torn, 520, 25, m450 or 310-330



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

So I'm torn. Quick background on myself. Somewhat new to road but have been a mtb'r for years. I do about 50/50 lately as i'm 39 and don't have the time for all out trail rides and its easier to leave the house on a road bike with a new baby in the house. I want a clean readout of the basics (speed, cadence, distance, HR, time) and accurate GPS and elevation.

I've been using my iPhones w/ Strava for a while now but looking for a good dedicated GPS unit as the iPhone 7 plus is just too big for the handlebars. Here's what I've narrowed down:

*Edge 520*- I want but the whole money thing.

*Polar m450* - I love everything about it including cost and DC rainmaker recommends it in his "budget" category but it does not have GLONASS... is GLONASS worth it?

*Edge 25* - It gets good reviews, but it seems the mtbr crowd hates it since it doesn't do 1 second recording. Also doesn't have a barometer. If not for those things I would buy this one for size and cost.

*Lezyne Super GPS-* I was about to buy this as it seems to have it all, but under their support list for Ant+/BT it doesn't mention my speed / cadence sensor which is a Bontrager Duotrap.

*Bryton 310 or 330* - The 310 gets good reviews but one really bad singletracks review on the 330 turned me off. I see some (Harold?) on this site use it so if it is actually accurate this might be an option.

Anyways, thats all I got. I'm getting flustered with the options as the only one that seems to have it all is the 520, but the cost is hard to swallow. Any insights or help appreciated!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I'll just add to the confusion, Lezyne Super gps. Lots of stuff and pretty cheap.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'll just add to the confusion, Lezyne Super gps. Lots of stuff and pretty cheap.


I should have put that in my original. I forgot. Will add with notes now.


----------



## 6thElement (Jul 17, 2006)

GLONASS isn't essential, we've all coped fine without it for years.

I'm still happily on my non-GLONASS or smartphone connected Garmin 800, my wife loves her 520 which replaced her 500. It only cost about $200 from evans and we recouped a chunk of that selling the 500.


----------



## scooterman (Aug 10, 2004)

Wait a week or two before you buy something . Something new is coming out.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Like???


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

If you like the sound of the Edge 25 you might want to check out the Lezyne micro, cheaper with more features including GLONASS and barometric altimeter. I'd contact them about the compatibility issue with your sensor, they might just not have it listed.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The Bryton Rider 310 was promising, but had a few fatal bugs that so far, Bryton has not fixed (distance somehow would be doubled or tripled for certain rides on some websites, errors in the .fit file caused Strava to toss wheel sensor data - they may be the same problem, but they're fatal, IMO). The positional recording accuracy of the device was pretty good for a budget non-GLONASS model, so it's a damn shame they haven't fixed the major problems.

It also had a couple irritating interface issues, too. Like switching bike profiles took WAY TOO MANY button presses.

I still have the Bryton and occasionally check for firmware updates. I've only downloaded one since I got it and it didn't address the problems I found and reported to the company. I use a Garmin Edge 520 now and it's very good.

And yes, 1sec recording is that important on the mtb. Folks in western states with more open country that results in straighter trails may not notice lower recording frequency, but I absolutely do on the trails I ride, which tend to be very twisty. A wheel sensor can fix the distance reporting in these cases, but it won't fix the loss in GPS accuracy you'll get. If you care about that (say, you are considering doing strava segments, or recording local trails for mapping purposes), you definitely ought to have a device that will record more frequently than "whenever".


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Thanks. So it sounds like the 520 might just be worth the 300 bucks. And lezyne being a close less attractive option.


----------



## bloaker (Feb 13, 2015)

6thElement said:


> GLONASS isn't essential, we've all coped fine without it for years.
> 
> I'm still happily on my non-GLONASS or smartphone connected Garmin 800...


I also use an 800 on the road and there is no feature I have seen coming out new that I can't live without.

I will use the 800 on an MTB when trying out new routes. I do like being able to grab a GPX from a buddy or some other resource, copy it into my 800 and have a continuous reference to the route while riding. Keeps my "lost" time to a minimum.

I use a Fenix watch for rides I know the route or don't care if I get lost exploring off road. I only bike with my phone for emergencies or the occasional picture when I find something I want to share with my wife when I get home.


----------



## scoobie (Dec 25, 2011)

I'm on a budget so I bought the Lezyne Micro C. From the specs, it looks like it should have the majority of the capabilities of the Garmin 520, which was on my short list.

For $240 I was able to get the entire gamut of sensors (Speed/Cadence, HRM) along with GPS/GLONASS, and barometric altimeter, temperature.... for a new Garmin 520 that's at least $200 more when you include separate sensors.

For the OP, I'm not 100% sure if the Bontrager Duotrap is compatible, but in the menus it does appear Speed/Cadence dual sensors are selectable. Some retailer websites also list the DuoTrap as compatible with the Lezyne device as well. I would lean towards yes, being that it is an Ant+ device. Bang for the buck it's hands down the Lezyne. If you use the link from DCRainmaker you can get an additional discount.


----------



## gckless (Aug 25, 2016)

I have a 520, and I like it. Haven't had any real issues with it. Have the speed sensor with it, which I think is necessary if you want to track speed. GPS is good for somewhat flat land, but once you have a lot of ups and downs it tends to lag behind and get wonky.

I don't have any experience with the other options here, sorry.



scoobie said:


> For $240 I was able to get the entire gamut of sensors (Speed/Cadence, HRM) along with GPS/GLONASS, and barometric altimeter, temperature.... for a new Garmin 520 that's at least $200 more when you include separate sensors.


If you're talking only the HRM, speed and cadence sensors, it's right around $120 for the sensors. Garmin brand too. Not sure if you're tacking on the altimeter and thermometer and all that, but those are onboard the 520.


----------



## OttaCee (Jul 24, 2013)

[EDITED: Not educated enough to recommend the Bryton 330]


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

OttaCee said:


> No issues on GPS tracking (not using wheel sensor) so maybe the 330 is fixed and not the 310.


You need to do more research. Without using a wheel sensor, you will never know if your device has the same problems as the 310. The wheel sensor is the kicker that exposes the problem.

On my 310, without a wheel sensor, everything works as you'd expect. GPS-based distance is short on twisty trails when compared to devices using wheel sensors, but is about right when compared with other devices that are not using wheel sensors. First hint of trouble is that Strava tosses wheel sensor distance data. Consistently. Every time. Digging into the .fit file, it's easy to see that there are entries given with the same time. Strava sees this, scraps the distance data in the file, and recalculates based on the GPS positions. Which is more or less what the GPS-only distance reports, anyway. Second problem only appears on RideWithGPS (that I've seen). I have no idea what causes it. It may be RWGPS' unique response to the same problem in the .fit file. It may be something else that only RWGPS has problems with. Beats me. I could never track it down.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

scoobie said:


> I'm on a budget so I bought the Lezyne Micro C. From the specs, it looks like it should have the majority of the capabilities of the Garmin 520, which was on my short list.
> 
> For $240 I was able to get the entire gamut of sensors (Speed/Cadence, HRM) along with GPS/GLONASS, and barometric altimeter, temperature.... for a new Garmin 520 that's at least $200 more when you include separate sensors.
> 
> For the OP, I'm not 100% sure if the Bontrager Duotrap is compatible, but in the menus it does appear Speed/Cadence dual sensors are selectable. Some retailer websites also list the DuoTrap as compatible with the Lezyne device as well. I would lean towards yes, being that it is an Ant+ device. Bang for the buck it's hands down the Lezyne. If you use the link from DCRainmaker you can get an additional discount.


From all the reports I've read, Lezyne has nailed it on their affordable GPS computers. If budget is a major concern, it's where I'd be headed. If specific features of the Edge 520 are that important, then I'd spend the extra on it. I will say this, I really like the UI on the Edge 520. I used touchscreens for awhile on the bike, and don't like them. I like physical buttons (which Lezyne offers, but Garmin doesn't have as much of on its better models). I also like that the things I need to access are easy. As soon as I start the device, it's easy to set the profile I want for the given ride. Important for me, since I do lots of different rides. On volume, I commute (on a different bike) far more often than I mtb, so I switch profiles often. I like that the profiles are not tied to a specific bike, and that relevant details about wheel size are associated with the sensors. So the device doesn't care which bike I ride. If I forget to change profiles, it doesn't screw up the way the data gets recorded (like with the Bryton), it just displays it differently.

I do not know how Lezyne handles those things, but users seem to like it.

As for sensors, it's important to note that the way ANT+ sensors are handled is differently than BT sensors. With BT, support for each sensor has to be specifically written into the software. This is why phone apps are so specific about which sensors they support. ANT+ is not like that. If a sensor is ANT+ and your computer supports ANT+ sensors, then they'll work (if the computer is made to support that TYPE of sensor). The ONLY exception I know of is with the newer separate speed and cad sensors and older ANT+ computers (say, like the Garmin Edge 305). Old computers like that were written to support ONLY combo speed/cad sensors (like the GSC-10 and the Duotrap and others). Nobody did separate speed and cad sensors for ANT+ yet. IIRC, they can support individual sensors, but only one of them at a time. The list of computers and sensors is pretty huge, and manufacturers are often lazy with their product pages. So they omit stuff.

www.thisisant.com runs a pretty comprehensive product directory with compatibilities. Here is the entry for Lezyne GPSes and compatible sensors. The Bontrager Duotrap sensors are on there.

https://www.thisisant.com/directory/lezyne-gps/



gckless said:


> I have a 520, and I like it. Haven't had any real issues with it. Have the speed sensor with it, which I think is necessary if you want to track speed. GPS is good for somewhat flat land, but once you have a lot of ups and downs it tends to lag behind and get wonky.


Speed tracking is kinda useless for much of anything, but yes, a wheel sensor does track speed better (especially with better resolution for changes in speed) than GPS-based calculations. IMO, distance is the more important metric that's improved with a wheel sensor, since that one actually means something. And while changes in elevation will affect the reported speed and distance of a GPS-based calculation vs a wheel sensor based measurement, IMO, it's FAR less of an effect than twisty trails. I see it when comparing my Edge 520 to my wife's Forerunner. When we do a road ride or ride on straighter trails, her distance measurement is usually within 0.1-0.2mi of mine regardless of how far we rode (with hers usually reporting the longer distance). Sometimes they're dead on exact. But when we ride twisty mtb trails, the difference in reported distance gets much greater. Usually around 10% less than my 520. I may wind up getting her an Edge 520, too....but probably at least get her a wheel sensor or two for her bikes.


----------

