# Garmin 800 - Is It worth it?



## muddy horseshoes (Dec 18, 2005)

Hi,

I've had a garmin edge 305 going on 4 years but I've also replaced it 4 times due to the battery leads losing strength and turning off after a jarring bump on the mountain bike... and road bike. This was probably due to running it on a rigid bike off-road. Garmin to their credit warrantied it out those 4 times. Now, if it does it again, I've found a tutorial to permanently wire the leads to the battery.

Other than that minor major issue, it's been great. I've used it to track proposed trail routes using the 'record every second' mode.

Now, I'm thinking the 800 might be nice to have for backcountry exploring, gravel road adventures, and out of state general hand-holding. The ability to load custom (free) maps via gpsfiledepot is a nice benefit. For instance, I'm headed to New Mexico soon and the New Mexico topo map on the site is quite nice.

However, I have a few questions;

1. Being a touch screen, can you put it in your pocket without worry of turning features off/on?

2. I have a cadence/HR monitor from the 305 and I plan on buying an SDcard to put free topo maps on the 800. So, I assume the base model is sufficient?

2a - Is the resolution/zoom ability sufficient to make out contours/trail or is it just a pretty mess?

3. I've heard horror stories about failures/glitches. I don't doubt them from my own past experience with the 305 BUT are they few/far between or do most owners have some sort of issue?


Thanks for any insight.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

reply to wrong thread, too many windows open, nevermind


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

muddy horseshoes said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've had a garmin edge 305 going on 4 years but I've also replaced it 4 times due to the battery leads losing strength and turning off after a jarring bump on the mountain bike... and road bike. This was probably due to running it on a rigid bike off-road. Garmin to their credit warrantied it out those 4 times. Now, if it does it again, I've found a tutorial to permanently wire the leads to the battery.
> 
> ...


1. You do not want to put the 800 in your pocket when on or try it use it in a pocket.
Its reception is not nearly as good as the 305 and will drop the satellites if it does not have a totally clear view of the sky.

2. The base model is fine.

3. I have had only reception issues. and that the 800 track is not as precise as the 305 or records as much climb/descent. On last night's ride with the 800 on the stem top and 305 is pack strap pocket the latter shows 2200' vs 2000' in 11 miles, plus track wander for the 800 on the out and back section with none for the 305.

I can send you both GPX files if you would like to compare (PM me your email).


----------



## htjunkie (Jul 23, 2011)

I'm thinking of getting the 800, but the local bike store doesn't accept return if I don't like the performance of it. I'm new to mountain biking and I really enjoy it and riding with a few friends once or twice a week in the trails.

Reason I'm looking for a GPS unit so I can see how long of a trail, as well I don't get lost if I was going by myself or new to the trail. Having information gathered about heart rates and stuff would be nice to have as well.

I understand one model comes with everything including City Navigator NT map, does it mean I can use the unit in the car? I have a built-in GPS in the car, but if I'm travelling I'd like to use the portable for rental cars.

Thanks for your advise.


----------



## 13pumps (Jun 16, 2006)

shiggy said:


> 1. You do not want to put the 800 in your pocket when on or try it use it in a pocket.
> Its reception is not nearly as good as the 305 and will drop the satellites if it does not have a totally clear view of the sky.
> 
> 2. The base model is fine.
> ...


Shiggy, how do you know that the 305 alt is correct and the 800 wrong?


----------



## 3034 (Apr 12, 2006)

accuracy is not as important as precision. the edge 305 could make 3 laps around a wooded lake and the tracks would be right on top of each other when viewing on a computer the newer gamins don't have this precision. I think garmin tried to save money on the hardware and sacrificed precision


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

13pumps said:


> Shiggy, how do you know that the 305 alt is correct and the 800 wrong?


As 3034 says, precision (repeatability) of the data, even if it is not totally accurate, is still more accurate than data that varies wildly.
The 305 tracks are nearly on top of each other for sections repeated on the same ride, and ON the road or trail when overlaid on the sat-photos.

The 800 tracks for the same ride are all over the place. The repeated sections off by 100' from each other and the sat-photo.

Also I was at a usgs elevation marker where the 305 elev was within 15' and the 800 was off by 100'+.


----------



## nov0798 (Nov 27, 2005)

htjunkie said:


> I'm thinking of getting the 800, but the local bike store doesn't accept return if I don't like the performance of it.


Buy it from REI, and you can return it if you dont like it!


----------



## 13pumps (Jun 16, 2006)

Makes sens thanks for explaining


----------



## htjunkie (Jul 23, 2011)

I'm in Canada so I'm hoping to avoid duties. One question, the unit comes with a cadence sensor, would there be any issue mounting to a Specialized StumpJumper bike?

Much appreciate your help.


----------



## rcdenn01 (Jun 16, 2011)

Don't get the 800 unless you are going to be on the road. It is just "too much" for trail use. It's main appeal is that you can navigate with it, but I would not depend on a GPS for trail navigation. Essentially it gives you turn by turn directions, something I would not need/use on the trail. Heck, most trails in my area you just follow the dirt strip. There is no navigation to it.

I have one, and it really shines on the road. All its features are used and it is pretty darn cool. But when on my mountain bike I am tempted to use my old Forerunner. The only reason I don't is because of lack of HRM.

But, with that said, the screen is clear, the touch screen is nice, it picks up a decent signal for me, and it accepts any ANT+ equipment. I have not had any issues with it. I purchased it after it was out for 6 months to a year. I think the firmware was updated by the time I got it and most issues were resolved. It is a really nice unit, but I still think you are paying for features that will not be fully utilized on the trail.


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

I completely disagree with not using it on a trail. I use the HELL out of it on my mountain bike and I bought it especially for mountain biking. 

I love being able to go hit a trail and go "that way" and be aware of my area, other possible trails (use OSM maps which have most MTB trails on them) and when I do get lost, being able to see my breadcrumb and find my way back to the car/start. 

I also love being able to download a GPX of a course and see everything about it, including it's map and relation to streets, trails, etc so I can either follow it or go off route and find my way back. 

Lastly, I love it during races as it allows me to see where I am compared my previous time, or a goal time I downloaded from connect.garmin.com and also seeing elevation and what I have coming up. 

The touch screen works great, even with gloves on, and I've gotten torrential downpours on mine so it's nice and water resistant. 

Best bike purchase ever for me. 

-Tom


----------



## rcdenn01 (Jun 16, 2011)

Tom,

Don't get me wrong, I love mine. I was just warning that unless you use the navigation feature, there is no real reason to get the 800. I have only found the navigation feature useful on the road, but based on your post it appears I haven't tapped into the potential of mine on the trails. How do you get the OSM maps on the Garmin, particularly for the trails? It would be nice to have trail info stored on mine. And can you put both Garmin and OSM maps on it at the same time or can you only put one at a time? I am not a tech geek, just sharing what I experienced with the 800. 

Also, all the trails around me are pretty urban. I am never really at risk of getting lost.


----------



## canonshooter (May 10, 2009)

I am not sure about the 800, but the 705 works great on and off road. I have alo used the free topos from gpsfiledepot and they work well. I also have cadence and hrm. One thing about elevation.... I dont use the garmin software but instead use SportTracks. There is a plugin that will correct all of your elevations using the SRTM 1" elevation data. Its a pretty nice setup.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

rcdenn01 said:


> Tom,
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love mine. I was just warning that unless you use the navigation feature, there is no real reason to get the 800. I have only found the navigation feature useful on the road, but based on your post it appears I haven't tapped into the potential of mine on the trails. How do you get the OSM maps on the Garmin, particularly for the trails? It would be nice to have trail info stored on mine. And can you put both Garmin and OSM maps on it at the same time or can you only put one at a time? I am not a tech geek, just sharing what I experienced with the 800.
> 
> Also, all the trails around me are pretty urban. I am never really at risk of getting lost.


First you will need Mapsource to load maps. Here is how to get it if you do not have it.

At the same site, GPS File Depot, there are many free excellent maps, many far better than Garmins'.

There are many sources for OSM maps, I like this site, since it installs easily into Mapsource for upload. It has almost all the trails where I am in central coastal CA. :thumbsup:


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

As far as OSM, check out http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download and http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/

From the first link, you can download the whole country and from the 2nd certain tiles to make a smaller file. You can have multiple .img's on a SD card and inside the Garmin settings select which one you want to show.

I also download GPX files from connect.garmin.com or other sources a lot. I use the Garmin on things that are very anti urban and also areas that I've never been to.

For example, going to Colorado next week. I'll be riding and exploring trails that I've never even heard of, not only on the bike, but also when we go hiking, and it's awesome having not only just where I am, but the whole map of the area, including Topo if I want it.

-Tom


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

rcdenn01 said:


> Tom,
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love mine. I was just warning that unless you use the navigation feature, there is no real reason to get the 800. I have only found the navigation feature useful on the road, but based on your post it appears I haven't tapped into the potential of mine on the trails. How do you get the OSM maps on the Garmin, particularly for the trails? It would be nice to have trail info stored on mine. And can you put both Garmin and OSM maps on it at the same time or can you only put one at a time? I am not a tech geek, just sharing what I experienced with the 800.
> 
> Also, all the trails around me are pretty urban. I am never really at risk of getting lost.


Navigation functions (I assume you mean autorouting) are not the reason you get a mapping GPS for mountain biking. It's true that autorouting is really only much good on the road. In theory, having a trail network with routable trails can be a good use for having the GPS navigate you back to your car (via the shortest route) if you NEED to get back to the car due to a mechanical or injury, but in practice it doesn't work out that way because no map has routable trail coverage that good yet. Maybe someday.

No, the reason you get a mapping GPS for mountain biking is so you can see your location on a MAP (go figure, huh?). When good paper maps showing all of the mtb trails are available, it's not such a big deal. But when you ride places where such maps don't exist, it can really help out a lot.


----------



## Aushiker (Sep 27, 2007)

3034 said:


> accuracy is not as important as precision. the edge 305 could make 3 laps around a wooded lake and the tracks would be right on top of each other when viewing on a computer the newer gamins don't have this precision. I think garmin tried to save money on the hardware and sacrificed precision


Have you tested it with the latest firmware and 1 second recording? One second recording should have improved the accuracy from early versions of the firmware.

Andrew


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Aushiker said:


> Have you tested it with the latest firmware and 1 second recording? One second recording should have improved the accuracy from early versions of the firmware.
> 
> Andrew


while 1sec recording may improve accuracy of speed/distance measurements, it has no bearing on positional accuracy of an individual point.


----------



## 3034 (Apr 12, 2006)

Aushiker said:


> Have you tested it with the latest firmware and 1 second recording? One second recording should have improved the accuracy from early versions of the firmware.
> 
> Andrew


yes. I have latest firmwAre and 1 sec recording. no improvement


----------



## cavi (Apr 1, 2010)

I had a 605, and skipped the 800 in favor of a oregon 550, it is a bit larger, but more ruged, more functions, more versatility and has a built in camera for those photo ops. Until today I was perfectly content when I found out that they now offer a Montana which is light years better, it is just larger due to a larger screen which I would welcome. Either way considr a Oregon. I have a 550, and my son has a 200 which is available used or refurbished for less than 200 dollars


----------



## Aushiker (Sep 27, 2007)

NateHawk said:


> while 1sec recording may improve accuracy of speed/distance measurements, it has no bearing on positional accuracy of an individual point.


Interesting because my tracks appear to be more accurate than before, e.g, show me on the right side of the road etc.

Andrew


----------



## DirtRoadie (Sep 15, 2009)

cavi said:


> I had a 605, and skipped the 800 in favor of a oregon 550, it is a bit larger, but more ruged, more functions, more versatility and has a built in camera for those photo ops. Until today I was perfectly content when I found out that they now offer a Montana which is light years better, it is just larger due to a larger screen which I would welcome. Either way considr a Oregon. I have a 550, and my son has a 200 which is available used or refurbished for less than 200 dollars


My Oregon is a great device, but it is large - too large for me for typical bike use.
The Montana is a step up - a fulfilled wish list of everything that the Oregon could have been. 
But the Montana is *monstrous * 
But when Garmin comes out with a Dakota sized device with Montana-ish features I will be _*very*_ interested.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Aushiker said:


> Interesting because my tracks appear to be more accurate than before, e.g, show me on the right side of the road etc.
> 
> Andrew


You are simply seeing what a difference more frequent recording does.

I switch back and forth between auto recording frequency and 1sec, and sometimes forget to change it back to 1sec recording for mtb rides (Oregon 450). What I see is that each individual point falls pretty close to the actual track location using either method. But because auto puts points less frequently, it doesn't follow curves very well when you're moving fast. Hence the overall less accurate track.

But for each individual point, the accuracy really doesn't change simply from changing the recording method.


----------



## cavi (Apr 1, 2010)

The size does not bug me I still have a edge 605. But I prefer my Oregon and I will love the Montana when I get it. I use it to track my local trails and I use the camera for pictures. Then I also use it in the car and hiking so it works well just having one unit to deal with. With the Montana I will mount it horizontally and it will not be too bad on the handlebars


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

NateHawk said:


> You are simply seeing what a difference more frequent recording does.
> 
> I switch back and forth between auto recording frequency and 1sec, and sometimes forget to change it back to 1sec recording for mtb rides (Oregon 450). What I see is that each individual point falls pretty close to the actual track location using either method. But because auto puts points less frequently, it doesn't follow curves very well when you're moving fast. Hence the overall less accurate track.
> 
> But for each individual point, the accuracy really doesn't change simply from changing the recording method.


I switched my 800 to 1sec for last night's ride. The track is more consistent.


----------



## rallyrcr (May 5, 2010)

I just picked one up. first ride will be later today. but initial response from my 11 year old is positive.... he is scheming a way to get one for his bikes.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

I finally got fed up with the poor satellite reception of my 800 and contacted Garmin.

They say there is something wrong with my unit and are replacing it. An exchange of a few emails and I have a RA number and a promise of 14 day or less door to door turnaround.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

shiggy said:


> I finally got fed up with the poor satellite reception of my 800 and contacted Garmin.
> 
> They say there is something wrong with my unit and are replacing it. An exchange of a few emails and I have a RA number and a promise of 14 day or less door to door turnaround.


hopefully a new receiver solves your problems.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

NateHawk said:


> hopefully a new receiver solves your problems.


They claim it will.

Last weekend the 800 lost signal entirely for the Super D. Connected for only part of the ride to the race start so the 305 recorded 14.5mi and the 800 2.9mi. That was the last straw.


----------



## .40AET (Jun 7, 2007)

Can the 800 give you turn by turn directions? When it's wet out, I'd like to be able to program a ride into it with my PC and let it tell me where to go while I'm on the bike. I don't care to carry a map with me on the road. This feature would be a good reason to trade my 305 in.

Thanks,


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

.40AET said:


> Can the 800 give you turn by turn directions? When it's wet out, I'd like to be able to program a ride into it with my PC and let it tell me where to go while I'm on the bike. I don't care to carry a map with me on the road. This feature would be a good reason to trade my 305 in.
> 
> Thanks,


Yes, if the map has routing data coded in it, but they are not audible directions, you have to read the screen after it beeps..

Most city maps do have route data, but most trail maps do not. You will have a tough to impossible search finding topo maps that have the trails you ride on them that have the routing data coded into the map. Here is a source for free Garmin routeable maps, and I use them for paved road navigation. Some of the trails in California where I ride are on the map, but they are not routeable.

So, in theory yes, but in reality very, very unlikely.


----------



## JimInSF (Oct 30, 2010)

Anyone played with the Rino 655t yet? (Are they actually shipping?) The older Rino units were not ANT+ enabled but looks like the new ones are, and the GMRS capability paired with GPS and HRM/cadence would be really nice...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JimInSF said:


> Anyone played with the Rino 655t yet? (Are they actually shipping?) The older Rino units were not ANT+ enabled but looks like the new ones are, and the GMRS capability paired with GPS and HRM/cadence would be really nice...


I have an old Rino 120 and I thought the radio+GPS would be a great combination but I found the radio to be sorely underpowered even considering that the GPS had 3 AA's (instead of 2) to make sure it was powered. If the radios on them these days actually have some transmit power, then they very well could be a useful gadget in some cases. Even so, I really don't find myself needing a radio that often. And when I do, I have a couple motorolas that work great.


----------



## JimInSF (Oct 30, 2010)

NateHawk said:


> I have an old Rino 120 and I thought the radio+GPS would be a great combination but I found the radio to be sorely underpowered even considering that the GPS had 3 AA's (instead of 2) to make sure it was powered. If the radios on them these days actually have some transmit power, then they very well could be a useful gadget in some cases. Even so, I really don't find myself needing a radio that often. And when I do, I have a couple motorolas that work great.


The Rino 120 has a 1 watt transmitter for GMRS, the new ones up to 5 watts - at 5x power, I'd guess it probably works a mite better for this purpose.  But my real hope is to integrate it with cadence and HRM functions - if I have to use a separate bike computer anyway, I'll just use my phone...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JimInSF said:


> The Rino 120 has a 1 watt transmitter for GMRS, the new ones up to 5 watts - at 5x power, I'd guess it probably works a mite better for this purpose.  But my real hope is to integrate it with cadence and HRM functions - if I have to use a separate bike computer anyway, I'll just use my phone...


My motorolas are also 1watt transmitters, and my Rino can't even hold its own in comparison to them. That was my point. I'm sure the newer ones work better than my old Rino, but the question is whether they work as well as a dedicated 5watt radio.


----------



## JimInSF (Oct 30, 2010)

Got it. I'm not going to carry a separate radio if possible - hoping to cut down devices here!


----------



## 2FewDaysOnTrail (Mar 1, 2011)

*Two Words "Custom Maps"*



rcdenn01 said:


> Don't get the 800 unless you are going to be on the road. It is just "too much" for trail use. It's main appeal is that you can navigate with it, but I would not depend on a GPS for trail navigation. Essentially it gives you turn by turn directions, something I would not need/use on the trail. Heck, most trails in my area you just follow the dirt strip. There is no navigation to it.


Undoubtably the best feature for me is creating custom maps for the 800. Our local Moutain Biking Society here in St. Louis - Gateway Off Road Cyclists (GORC) has some great PDF maps of all the trails in the area. With the custom maps feature I can take the PDF, save it as a JPEG in Photoshop, drop the JPEG into Google Maps, stretch it so that the roads around the trails match, and export a KMZ file that I put in the 800. When I'm on the trail, I am litterally cruising along the dotted line of the GORC trail map in the 800. Freakin' Awesome. We have a lot of trails here in St. Louis that have a ton of intersections and optional routes as well as shortcuts and fire-road cutoffs. Its great to look down at the 800 and see the intersection coming at a glance, especially on a new trail. I can also mark waypoints on the trail for obstacles like drops and other features to remind me of them. If you set the draw order low enough, the topo lines are above the map so you can see the elevation changes as well. I love this feature!


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

shiggy said:


> They claim it will.
> 
> Last weekend the 800 lost signal entirely for the Super D. Connected for only part of the ride to the race start so the 305 recorded 14.5mi and the 800 2.9mi. That was the last straw.


I have my replacement 800 (10day turnaround door to door). Just a couple of rides but it is working MUCH better so far.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

shiggy said:


> I have my replacement 800 (10day turnaround door to door). Just a couple of rides but it is working MUCH better so far.


That's good to hear.


----------



## unkosama (Jun 26, 2006)

For Utah trails I use "skidmap" maps for the Garmin 800. They use a custom theme that makes all the roads different shades of gray, and paints the trails by difficulty level (green-easy, yellow-intermediate, orange-hard, red-DH), so they really stand out from just regular streets. They use the garmin residential and secondary street codes for the green and yellow trails, so that navigation works. They also include all the trailheads, so you can navigate to them. In very complex trail systems like Park City and other ski resorts, it makes it easy to see where a brightly colored trail starts from off of a light brown dirt access road.


----------



## JimInSF (Oct 30, 2010)

Sounds interesting - too bad it's only for Utah!


----------

