# Is everyone else's Garmin Edge 200 as big of a POS as mine?



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

This thing is damn near useless for mountain biking. I almost just threw it into the woods after my last ride comparing my old, crappy (but properly calibrated) cycle computer vs. this $125 piece of crap. 

At least 15% short on a "relatively smooth/few switchbacks" trail and as high as 25% off on a very curvy trail. 

I have the newest firmware, I check weekly for updates hoping they will give us the option to sample more frequently. I know it isn't going to be 100% accurate, but I can just guess the mileage I have ridden better than this thing can "calculate" it. 

A big buyer beware for me. I have waited too long for an update to return it, so I am stuck with it. It is basically a F-ing egg timer on my bars as far as usefulness goes. 

Sorry...I am grumpy today. But this thing is pretty inexcusable.

EDIT: I have emailed Garmin and they gave me a BS answer with no hint at updating sampling frequency. I have also posted in the Garmin forums with no response from anyone except other users who hate this thing as much as I do.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

That is what you get for using a road GPS that uses a simple straight line algorithm. Roads try to go from point A to point B as straight as possible with few curves

A very minimal amount of pre-purchase research would have shown that the 810 is a far better choice with higher sampling rate and an logarithm tuned for frequent changes of direction, i.e., switchbacks. The shortcomings of this GPS have been posted in this forum many times.

So you are the one to blame, since you did not do your homework first. You went with cheap prices as your primary feature, right? So now it is every ones fault but yours that you bought the wrong item for your needs. If you used the internet before to research and make a smart buying choice, you would not have to use it now to whine in every forum you can find.


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

slocaus said:


> That is what you get for using a road GPS that uses a simple straight line algorithm. Roads try to go from point A to point B as straight as possible with few curves
> 
> A very minimal amount of pre-purchase research would have shown that the 810 is a far better choice with higher sampling rate and an logarithm tuned for frequent changes of direction, i.e., switchbacks. The shortcomings of this GPS have been posted in this forum many times.
> 
> So you are the one to blame, since you did not do your homework first. You went with cheap prices as your primary feature, right? So now it is every ones fault but yours that you bought the wrong item for your needs. If you used the internet before to research and make a smart buying choice, you would not have to use it now to whine in every forum you can find.


I'm sorry, but show me on the Garmin website where it says it is a "ROAD GPS." It doesn't. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/cycling/edge-200/prod90675.html

And of course the 810 would have been a better choice...that's like saying a $2k bike would of been a better choice than a $200 bike. NO ****. But I don't need/want anything but something to keep track of my time/mileage...so I didn't want a 810.

Basically, my pre-purchase research lead me to believe that it would be pretty accurate, with the exception of having to calculate altitude instead of measure it. No big deal, considering I ride in some pretty insanely flat areas. So that was my calculated risk, but that clearly isn't the only issue giving my results 15-25% loss of mileage.

The simple fact of the matter is that Garmin could fix the issue WITH the current EDGE 200 hardware...but simply allowing us to choose our sampling frequency (would just require a simple firmware update).

This device isn't so crippled it can never work as it should, it just requires enough folks to make a stink and get Garmin to drop a sampling frequency update. They did it with the 500, they can do it with the 200.

SO your condescending post can bite me. I did my research, this thing performs significantly worse than advertised, and significantly worse then it could if Garmin put in a bit of work. Should I just roll over and take it? Or should I attempt to bring attention to the issue so Garmin maybe gives us some help?


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

y0bailey said:


> This thing is damn near useless for mountain biking. I almost just threw it into the woods after my last ride comparing my old, crappy (but properly calibrated) cycle computer vs. this $125 piece of crap.
> 
> At least 15% short on a "relatively smooth/few switchbacks" trail and as high as 25% off on a very curvy trail.
> 
> ...


Yup, the 200 is OK (just OK) on the road. The satellite reception is poor and the sampling to infrequent (and not changeable AFAIK). Nearly useless on trails.
I found the Edge 800 to be just as bad. Garmin replaced it twice with no improvement. The 810/510 are supposedly better, maybe because of my complaints. The 200 is older than the 800 IIRC.
Reverted to my old Edge 305 for "important" and mtb rides (and bought several used for the future) because it is vastly better in reception and tracking.

I also hate that the 200 can not display something as simple as time of day when it is running.


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

shiggy said:


> I also hate that the 200 can not display something as simple as time of day when it is running.


That little jewel is hidden, but you can hold the PAGE (bottom left) button for 2 seconds and it will go back to the "home" screen and show you time, while continuing to record.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

y0bailey said:


> That little jewel ( afterthought) is hidden, but you can hold the PAGE (bottom left) button for 2 seconds and it will go back to the "home" screen and show you time, while continuing to record.


It should be in the info scroll display rather than (or at least in addition to) the useless calories used.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I emphasize HEAVILY (and others do also) here that the Edge 200 is crap for mtb riding because it can't do 1 sec sampling. 1 sec sampling minimum is essential.

still people buy it and ***** here about it. shocker.


----------



## steeeze (Aug 26, 2013)

Very glad I read this post as I was minutes away from purchasing the 200. Might save my pennies for the 510 classic now.

Thank you guys.


----------



## Pedalfaraway (Jan 19, 2004)

Mountain Bike Ride Profile | Columbus street to city Creek BST Loop near Salt Lake City | Times and Records | Strava

The first one was recoreded with my edge 305.

Mountain Bike Ride Profile | Columbus street to city creek near Salt Lake City | Times and Records | Strava

The second one with an edge 200.

You can see that both devices put me either right on or very close to the trail. They are also pretty close when it comes to distance and elevation change. My point is the edge 200 is likely accurate enough. Its not as accurate as a 500 but its a good device. Personally I think its one of the best cycling computers avalible, just takes a beating on this forum because its not a true GPS


----------



## deadcowboy (Jun 25, 2008)

y0bailey said:


> I'm sorry, but show me on the Garmin website where it says it is a "ROAD GPS." It doesn't. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/cycling/edge-200/prod90675.html


Correct me if I'm wrong but considering the gps is under "cycling", at least to me, tells you it's for road use.


----------



## Tystevens (Nov 2, 2011)

Garmin doesn't have a line of GPS units for mtb and one for road -- they are all 'cycling.' And anyway, if they do, the salespeople don't know the difference.

I had my 200 for 5 weeks or so last year, and wanted to like it, but the recording interval was just dismal. It wasn't even good for some of my road routes, honestly. Fortunately I bought at REI and they were happy to let me return it. I'm happy enough w/ my 510 now, although the bluetooth features are unreliable.

And yeah, you can get the clock on the 200 by holding the button, but that is just ridiculous for such a basic feature.


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

Just an update here: I posted this in another thread I started, but I figure the more eyes that see how bad the Garmin Edge 200 is the more likely they will update the firmware for 1s recording intervals.

Any I ran my Cateye Stealth 10 vs. Garmin Edge 200 experiment (plus phones) today. The Garmin is a flaming pile of ****.

GPS experiment, trial 1: Tight local singletrack ridden at a medium pace. 

New GPS = Cateye Stealth 10. 
Old GPS = Garmin Edge 200.
Phone GPS on mine = Android Nexus 4
Phone GPS on buddy = Iphone 4S

Results
Cateye = 9.2miles
Garmin = 7.7miles (LOL)
My Phone = 8.8 miles
buddy's Phone = 8.3miles

In conclusion,

Garmin = HORRIBLE pile of useless crap
Cateye = Cheaper and 100x better
Phones = still not Garmin level of terribleness. 


The Garmin is ~19% less accurate than the Cateye Stealth 10 (and the Stealth 10 is cheaper by $30).

Garmin, get your heads out of your assess and give the Edge 200 a 1s recording option. Your "smart" recording is clearly not very smart.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

y0bailey said:


> Just an update here: I posted this in another thread I started, but I figure the more eyes that see how bad the Garmin Edge 200 is the more likely they will update the firmware for 1s recording intervals.
> 
> Any I ran my Cateye Stealth 10 vs. Garmin Edge 200 experiment (plus phones) today. The Garmin is a flaming pile of ****.
> 
> ...


Garmin does not read the Garmin forums, what makes you think they will see this?


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

slocaus said:


> Garmin does not read the Garmin forums, what makes you think they will see this?


I posted this in the Garmin forums as well. I am sure they give zero cares. But if I stop even 3 people from buying a Garmin Edge 200 I consider my work here done.


----------



## Tystevens (Nov 2, 2011)

y0bailey said:


> Garmin, get your heads out of your assess and give the Edge 200 a 1s recording option. Your "smart" recording is clearly not very smart.


Well, their strategy worked -- I returned my 200 and spent over twice as much on a 510!

But how do you know that the Cateye's reading was the accurate one?


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

Tystevens said:


> Well, their strategy worked -- I returned my 200 and spent over twice as much on a 510!
> 
> But how do you know that the Cateye's reading was the accurate one?


Just by looking at the Strava segments and knowing the trail, I know it is the most accurate of the GPS options sans-cadence/distance sensor.


----------



## steeeze (Aug 26, 2013)

y0bailey said:


> I posted this in the Garmin forums as well. I am sure they give zero cares. But if I stop even 3 people from buying a Garmin Edge 200 I consider my work here done.


you stopped me from making a $159 blunder so I thank you for that sir. now I just need to decide on which gps\computer to buy.


----------



## Jack Frost (Nov 7, 2013)

If you buy a Garmin 200 and use it with trail riding buddies and "compete" with them in off road sections you are almost certainly going to get a lot of aggravation. About 20 of us ride local sections in my area regularly and we have 3 riders one in particular who's readings are way out . All of them are using Garmin 200's . 

The interval gaps between readings are at best 4 seconds and can often be 20 to 30 seconds. We have had cases just in the last couple of weeks of 25 seconds knocked off a 3 minute section and 12 seconds knocked off a 40 second uphill section because the timing gaps are so huge when the segment is ending. 

Obviously there is some variation in everyones gps , but every other rider using mostly phones , a few garmin 800's and 500's etc has no where near the errors that the Garmin 200 is showing . Garmin need to stop the results of the 200 appearing on any leaderboards . They are just not accurate enough and are one of the reasons why a lot of people say Strava is totally inaccurate and that Segments are a complete waste of time.


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

I would flag the ride. Strava could interpolate the data or use the nearest points outside the segment not inside the segment. Strava needs an incentive to change such as loss of members. First they spoil climbing stats with phone apps and now spoil timing stats with Garmin 200's.


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

pacman said:


> I would flag the ride. Strava could interpolate the data or use the nearest points outside the segment not inside the segment. Strava needs an incentive to change such as loss of members. First they spoil climbing stats with phone apps and now spoil timing stats with Garmin 200's.


This is 100% not Strava's fault. Garbage into Strava, garbage out of Strava.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Yeah, I fail to see how this is Strava's problem. You don't like "competing" against people with crappy devices, then stay off the site. Log your own stuff in a spreadsheet. Or, get your panties out of your a$$ and take it easy.


----------



## pacman (Jan 16, 2004)

y0bailey said:


> This is 100% not Strava's fault. Garbage into Strava, garbage out of Strava.


But Strava makes the garbage stink worse. I would prefer that Strava wave the checkered flag N seconds after the 200 crosses the finish line not N seconds before the 200 crosses the finish line. (Similarly the 200 can get a N second head start)
*where N is the recording interval.

It would be an incentive for competitors to buy decent equipment.

It is Strava's fault. The file is a series of GPS points. Strava chooses a point and then accepts the time logged for that point. Strava chooses the wrong point.


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

pacman said:


> But Strava makes the garbage stink worse. I would prefer that Strava wave the checkered flag N seconds after the 200 crosses the finish line not N seconds before the 200 crosses the finish line. (Similarly the 200 can get a N second head start)
> *where N is the recording interval.
> 
> It would be an incentive for competitors to buy decent equipment.
> ...


Going to go with a big giant "who cares" on that one...people who want to cheat to win are going to figure it out no matter what.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

If everyone is taking leaderboards too seriously, then why is strava themselves banning guys on recumbents?

If they're going to officially regulate the types of bikes that can be used, it seems like they should at least get their timing system to work consistently. They need to decide if they are trying to make it accurate or not and stick with the decision.

All of that said, I have yet to see a low-sample rate device create a false KOM on a segment I actually care about. Or maybe someone flagged it before I noticed.


----------

