# bike computer to compliment Garmin watch



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I wear a Garmin Vivoactive 3 watch that works well for most of my needs, but it has some shortcomings and I need a few things:

navigation: this is my main reason for wanting something different to use WITH the watch. I can ride with just the watch and not worry about navigation for most of my riding because I know my local trails very, very well. but when I want to try something new, it's nice to have some cues to keep from getting lost and repeating trail. (sometimes getting lost is half the fun! but only when I have time for that.) I use a third-party app called Dynamic Watch that allows me to upload a route and displays it as a line on my watch. It's just a line, nothing else. Dynamic Watch tracks my ride data well but the line is only useful for routes on roads. even then, it's kind of dangerous to look at my wrist rather than the trail/road in front of me to anticipate a turn. something with a slightly larger display on my stem/bar would be better for that.
battery life: I think I could push the watch to five hours, which covers most of my riding. I'd like something that doesn't need to be charged in the middle of a long ride.
compatibility: I am finally using heart rate data to determine my effort on longer, harder rides. a computer that will sync with my watch HR monitor would be important. How readily compatible are non-Garmin products with my watch?
I'm not racing or riding any ultra-long distances, so I don't need all the bells and whistles. I am thinking about sticking with Garmin products because I already have the watch. Is there anything that an Edge 130 doesn't do that would meet my requirements? what else is in the $200 range that might suit my needs?

edit: no, I am not strapping a smart phone to my bike.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Unfortunately, I think your main want pushes the price point higher than what you're hoping for. The E130's navigation capability isn't going to be much different than what you've got on the watch. The biggest difference being that the device is on the bars instead of your wrist.

A 530 will get you real basemaps, but it also gets you an interface that doesn't let you pan/zoom easily. For my purposes, that's fine. But others hate that. All I use the device screen for is quick reference, so I'm not going to fuss with pan/zoom even if it's available.

You have to move up to an 830 for the touchscreen and easier pan/zoom, but the price jump to that from the 130 is pretty big. For my purposes, if I need to navigate around the map like that, I want to see a bigger picture all at once, anyway, and honestly no digital device I'm willing to carry really gives me enough in that regard. At this point, I move to a paper map for my navigation. I also have my phone in a pocket already, and I have a couple different map apps installed on it.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I don't want to go anywhere near something with a touch screen. occasionally referencing my smart phone is enough of a PITA already. I want real buttons or nothing. if I really need a good map, I can pull out my phone.

It looks like a lot of the current computers will pair with a lot of other items. the Wahoo Elemnt Bolt supposedly pairs with other things.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

You already likely have the device you need - your smartphone. Or buy an unlocked used smartphone on eBay, get a decent case and a bar mount. It will be FAR superior to any of the current breed of GPS devices because you'll have a ton of more options for apps. You don't need a SIM or a phone plan - just use it as a Wifi device. I use GPS Tracks and Trailforks primarily, and of course the Garmin apps and Strava.

I bought a used iPhone 8, an Otterbox, and a RAM mount. I use it for long rides on my MTB and dirt bike. Short rides the Apple Watch is fine for me. I sold my Garmin Watch - just hated it. I also own an Edge 830 which will be the display device on my Orbea Rise eMTB.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

blech. mounting a phone on the bars is the absolute last thing I'd ever do. they're just too damn big. hard no.



mack_turtle said:


> I don't want to go anywhere near something with a touch screen. occasionally referencing my smart phone is enough of a PITA already. I want real buttons or nothing. if I really need a good map, I can pull out my phone.
> 
> It looks like a lot of the current computers will pair with a lot of other items. the Wahoo Elemnt Bolt supposedly pairs with other things.


I guess this begs the question about exactly what you want navigation wise. Your other items are pretty clear. Are you good with just seeing a line on the screen and only want to put the display on the bars? Or are you looking for more detailed maps, or at least some control over extra map data so you can see terrain and/or trail intersections along with the line for what you're riding? Do you want nav prompts?


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

If you're not interested in the training functions, for less than 200 you can buy an Etrex Touch 35t. It does 99% of what an Edge does (and some things an Edge can't do) and it costs half the money. It supports cadence, HR, power meter... whatever.

It also runs on a couple of AA batteries that you can change mid ride if needed which provide it a realistic 12h of riding.

Downsides? it weights more than an Edge unit, and the handlebar mount is not as safe as it should. If you buy it, attach it with a lanyard just in case. I wrap the lanyard around stem so it keeps the unit tight and so far had zero issues.

I've been using one for a year and previously used a Dakota 20 for 7 years and IMHO, they're great units and far more stable than Edge software. They rarely crash, and if it happens, they never lose data like it happens on Edge units.

I mainly use it instead of an Edge because avoiding data loss and battery endurance were the most important things to me.

As far as compatibility with yout vivofit, you can use it to cast your HR to any Garmin or non Garmin ANT+ compatible computer. However, I happen to also have a Vivofit 3 and, if realistic HR data is important to you, I'd recommend you to buy a chest strap. My Vivofit tends to report a slower HR sometimes, and also tends to lag behind. You can use any ANT+ compatible strap even if it's not from garmin.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Harold said:


> blech. mounting a phone on the bars is the absolute last thing I'd ever do. they're just too damn big. hard no.


exactly! the last thing I want to do is put my $800, 6x4" lifeline on my bike while riding technical trails. hell no! besides that, my smart phone, fancy as it is, gets really, really bad GPS tracking results. I doubt the phone will pair with the HR monitor on my watch, but it's possible. I don't want to deal with touch screens. older phones are cheap and easy to find, but there's a hard line where they current apps available are no longer compatible. I have an old iPhone 4 that I could use for this purpose, but it does almost nothing useful.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Harold said:


> blech. mounting a phone on the bars is the absolute last thing I'd ever do. they're just too damn big. hard no.
> 
> I guess this begs the question about exactly what you want navigation wise. Your other items are pretty clear. Are you good with just seeing a line on the screen and only want to put the display on the bars? Or are you looking for more detailed maps, or at least some control over extra map data so you can see terrain and/or trail intersections along with the line for what you're riding? Do you want nav prompts?


good questions that I'll need to consider more deeply. I think just a line is good enough for most of my nav needs. I have that on my watch now, but it's on my wrist. so yes, getting that display somewhere that's easier to spot a turn in a spaghetti bowl maze of trails is the idea. however, if I am going buy something like this, I should consider something that has some sort of layers and additional detail to it.

I plan to ride a lot more gravel races when the pandemic situation is better, so that might justify the purchase moreso than my trail navigation misadventures.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

mack_turtle said:


> good questions that I'll need to consider more deeply. I think just a line is good enough for most of my nav needs. I have that on my watch now, but it's on my wrist. so yes, getting that display somewhere that's easier to spot a turn in a spaghetti bowl maze of trails is the idea. however, if I am going buy something like this, I should consider something that has some sort of layers and additional detail to it.
> 
> I plan to ride a lot more gravel races when the pandemic situation is better, so that might justify the purchase moreso than my trail navigation misadventures.


I also thought a line was enough... until I used a unit with maps. It makes exploring so much better that I wouldn't consider going back.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Amt0571 said:


> However, I happen to also have a Vivofit 3 and, if realistic HR data is important to you, I'd recommend you to buy a chest strap. My Vivofit tends to report a slower HR sometimes, and also tends to lag behind. You can use any ANT+ compatible strap even if it's not from garmin.


HR data accuracy is not vital. it seems accurate enough to tell me if I rode hard or took it easy. I am trying to learn to monitor my effort for longer rides so I don't burn myself out too quickly. if the HR monitor can at least give me a range, that's sufficient for my needs.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

mack_turtle said:


> exactly! the last thing I want to do is put my $800, 6x4" lifeline on my bike while riding technical trails. hell no! besides that, my smart phone, fancy as it is, gets really, really bad GPS tracking results.


I'm guessing you didn't actually read my comment.

a) I got a $150 older used and unlocked iPhone, not an $800 new phone, and it's in a rubberized case. I've hit trees and rocky terrain HARD with this setup on my dirt bike without incident
b) Actually, Apple devices have proven to outperform Garmin devices in accuracy in real world tests
c) What good is _any_ device if the software and applications suck?
d) I use an Apple watch exclusively for 90% of my rides, since I don't need navigation but it is convenient to be able to handle a phone call or text message without having to dig out my phone (Garmin can't)
e) I use a Garmin 830 when I need "light" navigational capabilities (recording tracks, following a route, etc) versus when I need readable, searchable maps, satellite imagery, etc...sometimes satellite views are extremely important in the backcountry. That's where a smartphone shines.
f) Smartphone battery life can be an issue though. I'll sometimes take a supplemental battery on an epic day.

Do whatever works best for you - but don't summarily dismiss alternatives without considering real world data.

Cheers.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Zooming the map is very easy on a Garmin 530.
From the map screen, press the upper right button (aka the “3 vertical dots” button). 
“Pan/Zoom” is the first option. Select it, then use the up/down buttons to zoom in or out. 
Easy & takes just a couple of seconds to switch the map up however you like. 
=sParty


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Sparticus said:


> Zooming the map is very easy on a Garmin 530.
> From the map screen, press the upper right button (aka the "3 vertical dots" button).
> "Pan/Zoom" is the first option. Select it, then use the up/down buttons to zoom in or out.
> Easy & takes just a couple of seconds to switch the map up however you like.
> =sParty


LOL. Do that while riding through a rock garden and video it for us. ;-)


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RickBullottaPA said:


> b) Actually, Apple devices have proven to outperform Garmin devices in accuracy in real world tests


I call complete and utter bullshit on this one.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Do whatever works best for you - but don't summarily dismiss alternatives without considering real world data.


please take my word when I say that I have seriously considered this option in the past, and reconsidered it multiple times. I appreciate your input, but I decided long ago that I have no interest in using a smart phone in place of a bike computer. end of story. I'm glad to hear that it's working for you.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

RickBullottaPA said:


> LOL. Do that while riding through a rock garden and video it for us. ;-)


why would anyone do this with any sort of computer? can you do this with your iphone? why even make such an ignorant comment?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Sparticus said:


> Zooming the map is very easy on a Garmin 530.
> From the map screen, press the upper right button (aka the "3 vertical dots" button).
> "Pan/Zoom" is the first option. Select it, then use the up/down buttons to zoom in or out.
> Easy & takes just a couple of seconds to switch the map up however you like.
> =sParty


Sure, the controls are there, but I wouldn't call that "easy". I call it a pain in the ass. Handhelds with buttons have specific buttons for those functions. Touchscreen models use the touchscreen for those functions so they're not buried in menus. The added layers of inconvenience mean that I never ever use pan/zoom on my Edge 520.

Don't get me wrong. I strongly prefer computers with physical buttons. And I understand why on the 520/530 models that the pan/zoom functions are buried in menus. I have adjusted my use of the device to account for that, so I just don't use those functions.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Harold said:


> I call complete and utter bullshit on this one.


Ha. Pretty much every comparison test out there of iPhone vs Garmin supports this. Less so with the Apple Watch, but those studies/tests have given the nod to both options at different times (Apple Watch vs Garmin Watch).

This one is a bit dated, but fairly thorough. Another difference I've found is that a "cold start" on a Garmin device in a new location can take quite a while to get an initial GPS fix. I've also found Garmin units a bit more subject to interference in seasons and topography with lots of tree cover.

I used to buy into the "Garmin only does GPS so it must be better" mythology. Until I tried alternatives and looked at the results.

GPS Accuracy Test: GPS vs. Smartphone vs. Cyclocomputer (Round 2) - Singletracks Mountain Bike News


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Ha. Pretty much every comparison test out there of iPhone vs Garmin supports this. Less so with the Apple Watch, but those studies/tests have given the nod to both options at different times (Apple Watch vs Garmin Watch).
> 
> This one is a bit dated, but fairly thorough. Another difference I've found is that a "cold start" on a Garmin device in a new location can take quite a while to get an initial GPS fix. I've also found Garmin units a bit more subject to interference in seasons and topography with lots of tree cover.
> 
> ...


lol. I saw that when it came out. It's trash. I draw completely different conclusions from the author when examining the raw data.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

sorry this has turned into a debate over smart phones/ bike computers. I'd like it to suffice that my choice is not to use a smart phone. can we respect that and start your own thread if you want to debate that?


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Harold said:


> lol. I saw that when it came out. It's trash. I draw completely different conclusions from the author when examining the raw data.


Whatever works for you. I was mostly just responding to the dismissive and misinformed reaction to my suggestion. I have tried MANY Garmin devices (watches, handhelds, vehicle GPS), and on balance, they all have fallen short in capability. The software available in the broader iOS/Android ecosystem is far superior to what is available in the relatively constrained Garmin ecosystem. And some of those apps have saved my a$$ when I really needed it.

I'll put this thread on mute.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

RickBullottaPA said:


> I'll put this thread on mute.


good idea. adding you to my ignore list should help in the future.


----------



## OttaCee (Jul 24, 2013)

Run Forerunner 935 and Wahoo ELEMNT BOLT at the same time - Forerunner for data capture, ELEMNT BOLT for mapping, live segments, live tracking (and backup when Garmin crashes, cannot upload)


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Maybe I missed something, but what's the issue with the Edge 520? I have been using one for years and find it to be a nice, no frills option that actually does quite a lot. The navigation is not the greatest of any device out there, but it works. It looks like it ticks all of your boxes, and doesn't have an annoying touch screen (I wouldn't want a touchscreen either).


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Maybe I missed something, but what's the issue with the Edge 520? I have been using one for years and find it to be a nice, no frills option that actually does quite a lot. The navigation is not the greatest of any device out there, but it works. It looks like it ticks all of your boxes, and doesn't have an annoying touch screen (I wouldn't want a touchscreen either).


I might do just that. I am used to buying the cheapest option on the market. I might have an extra $250 or so from flipping a bike this month to justify it. I'll have to compare that to the Karoo and Wahoo alternatives.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

mack_turtle said:


> I might do just that. I am used to buying the cheapest option on the market. I might have an extra $250 or so from flipping a bike this month to justify it. I'll have to compare that to the Karoo and Wahoo alternatives.


If you're like me and not a huge data nerd, I don't see any reason to buy up from the 520. It does everything I want it to do, which is track my mileage, average speed and how much I climbed. I use the navigation function for bikepacking and longer routes, but that's not that often.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> If you're like me and not a huge data nerd, I don't see any reason to buy up from the 520. It does everything I want it to do, which is track my mileage, average speed and how much I climbed. I use the navigation function for bikepacking and longer routes, but that's not that often.


I mean, the 520 does enough for data nerds, too. But it's also simple enough that if you're not a data nerd, it doesn't really feel like the extra stuff bogs things down, either. I feel like it's got a reasonably good balance of simplicity along with capability to do more if your use scenario changes once you have extra features to play with.

I have topo maps of my local area loaded onto mine, as well as some trail maps for a larger area. It's not exactly easy or intuitive to put your own maps on the device, but it's possible. IIRC, the 520+ DOES make that process easier if that's of interest.

I've been using an Edge 520 for quite some time. I'm actually on my 2nd one. I got a crash replacement for my first one from Garmin.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Amt0571 said:


> If you're not interested in the training functions, for less than 200 you can buy an Etrex Touch 35t. It does 99% of what an Edge does (and some things an Edge can't do) and it costs half the money. It supports cadence, HR, power meter... whatever.


I see it does support Ant+ HR and Cadence, but Power?

Over here, it's only about $70us cheaper than a 530.

Of the Garmins, the 530 is probably the cheapest mapping capable device.
Or find an old 810. That will work quite nicely too.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I was using a 520+ for a while, then I got a Fenix 5 and liked everything about it better. Even better than that, you can use the 520+ in mirror mode so the data from the Fenix displays on the 520+, but the battery last forever since the GPS is not being used, just the screen. I eventually replaced the F5 with an F6 Pro with base maps, I like it even better. I decided to get a new head unit though for various reasons, and agonized over the 530/830/1030. I wanted the 1030, didn't want to pay more than the 530 price. I compromised with the 830 and am surprisingly happier than I expected. Great battery life, Trailforks is baked in, touch screen works WAY better than I expected (WAY WAY better than a smart phone) though I hardly have to ever touch it more than just swiping screens anyway.



RickBullottaPA said:


> LOL. Do that while riding through a rock garden and video it for us. ;-)


Wait, what?



RickBullottaPA said:


> Another difference I've found is that a "cold start" on a Garmin device in a new location can take quite a while to get an initial GPS fix.


I don't have a lot of iPhone experience, but the Garmins take seconds to get a lock. I walk out of my GF's apartment for my commute, the Garmin has a lock BEFORE I ride from the front door to the parking lot 20' away. Half the time it has a lock before I have finished locking the front door. If I am in a "new location" (going to Utah from California or something), it might take 10 seconds? I am having a tough time believing an iPhone with no data plan is going to be any faster. If you need faster than 10 seconds, then I can't help you.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I'm reading in comparisons between the Edge 520 and the Wahoo Bolt that the Garmin's battery life if problematic. is that old news?


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> I was using a 520+ for a while, then I got a Fenix 5 and liked everything about it better. Even better than that, you can use the 520+ in mirror mode so the data from the Fenix displays on the 520+, but the battery last forever since the GPS is not being used, just the screen. I eventually replaced the F5 with an F6 Pro with base maps, I like it even better. I decided to get a new head unit though for various reasons, and agonized over the 530/830/1030. I wanted the 1030, didn't want to pay more than the 530 price. I compromised with the 830 and am surprisingly happier than I expected. Great battery life, Trailforks is baked in, touch screen works WAY better than I expected (WAY WAY better than a smart phone) though I hardly have to ever touch it more than just swiping screens anyway.
> 
> Wait, what?
> 
> I don't have a lot of iPhone experience, but the Garmins take seconds to get a lock. I walk out of my GF's apartment for my commute, the Garmin has a lock BEFORE I ride from the front door to the parking lot 20' away. Half the time it has a lock before I have finished locking the front door. If I am in a "new location" (going to Utah from California or something), it might take 10 seconds? I am having a tough time believing an iPhone with no data plan is going to be any faster. If you need faster than 10 seconds, then I can't help you.


Yup. Leaving home the Garmin is quick to grab a GPS lock. When I turn it on at a new location, it usually takes about 60 seconds for my Fenix 6S to get its initial GPS location. Haven't tested the 830.

I agree with you that the 830 is a great compromise between the two. That's what I ended up getting for use with my Orbea Rise and for gravel rides. The touch screen is decent, though with gloves on it can be a bit awkward.

I use the old iPhone for dirt bike rides and for longer MTB rides on trails I haven't been on previously.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> I'm reading in comparisons between the Edge 520 and the Wahoo Bolt that the Garmin's battery life if problematic. is that old news?


How do they define problematic in that regard in the stuff you're reading?

It's never been problematic for me. my use scenario doesn't put extreme demands on the battery, but also not the lightest demands. Mine usually stays on the data fields screen. It's uncommon that I leave it on the map screen (map redraws use a good bit more processor power, and therefore would use more battery, especially with lots of map detail that makes redraws take longer). I also leave Bluetooth off unless I specifically want it (bluetooth is power hungry compared to ANT+) for something, which for me is usually data uploads. I also have GPS + GLONASS birds enabled. Enabling extra satellites increases battery usage, too. With those needs, I can ride 3 days, realistically, without needing to charge. That's not 3 full days. Rather, it means I can do rides on 3 days without needing to recharge. I could probably do more, but I start getting into territory where I'm not comfortable without a recharge. Given that it's rare that I sleep anywhere I don't have the ability to recharge, I usually recharge after every day, anyway. I have no problem with running the Edge 520 all day long with plenty of extra.


----------



## nOOky (May 13, 2008)

I have a Forerunner 945 watch and an Edge 1030. Honestly neither are very good for actually navigating. I can't imagine using any sort of navigation while mountain biking unless it's using audible cues. Even for road riding 99% of the time I stop and pinch and zoom on my cell phone, looking down at my bike computer too long is always a recipe for trouble, at least for me.

I don't think navigating trails on the fly has a decent solution out yet, unless I'm missing some app that uses audible and easy to see cues? The touchscreen on my 1030 is annoying AF...


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Harold said:


> How do they define problematic in that regard in the stuff you're reading?


several reviews I read said the Garmin dies after 4-5 hours no matter how hard the users have tried to conserve battery life by shutting off features. the same independent reviewers said their Wahoo was only half-dead at that point.

I also just realized that the Garmin 5_30 _is a newer unit than the 520. I'll have to look into that.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> several reviews I read said the Garmin dies after 4-5 hours no matter how hard the users have tried to conserve battery life by shutting off features. the same independent reviewers said their Wahoo was only half-dead at that point.
> 
> I also just realized that the Garmin 5_30 _is a newer unit than the 520. I'll have to look into that.


I've never had that behavior out of mine. And like I said, I've had 2 different ones. My wife has one, too.

I wouldn't discount the chances of bad firmware at some point, so the dates on those reviews absolutely matter. That happens from time to time (from more than just Garmin). I had an Edge 705 get bricked from a firmware update once. Benefit with the Edge 520 vs. the Edge 530 is that the 520 no longer gets firmware updates, as it's been discontinued. The firmware is quite stable at this point.

Garmin has a bit of a history where devices have become most desirable after Garmin stops issuing firmware updates, as those devices are usually at their most stable. The Edge 305 was like this for a really long time after it was discontinued, as its replacement, the Edge 500, had really flaky firmware until the very end of its lifespan. At which point it became more desirable. I think the Edge 520 is at that point now, and Garmin's newest devices still aren't there yet as they're still getting tweaked with updates.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

nOOky said:


> I don't think navigating trails on the fly has a decent solution out yet, unless I'm missing some app that uses audible and easy to see cues? The touchscreen on my 1030 is annoying AF...


I have found it useful with my watch and a simple line on a blank screen so far. my main concern is that it's a tiny, round screen on my wrist. it looks like the Garmin 520/530 and the Wahoo bolt allow you to view more detailed maps, but the amount of detail varies.

where I ride, the trails can be a spaghetti bowl of possible routes and if you're not given some direction, you might end up riding in circles. I often stop and dig my cell phone out of a pocket to consult Trailforks or a Google satellite image when I get really lost (I draw the line at putting a f-ing _phone_ on my handlebar). being able to view something that's more than a thin line where I can see it more easily is my goal. I don't expect to be pedaling at full speed and following hairpin turns while staring at a screen in the woods; minimizing the amount of time I spend fooling around with navigation is my goal.

I can't say that my experience matches everyone elses' in their own local terrain. I have have proven to myself that my confidence in my "sense of direction" becomes a liability in these situations, so I need all the help I can get within a budget.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> where I ride, the trails can be a spaghetti bowl of possible routes and if you're not given some direction, you might end up riding in circles.


These are the cases where I like having something with more mapping capability that lets me load at least just the trail network on its own into the basemaps. And I don't necessarily want to be completely beholden to a single map database, either, as they're all missing data somewhere.

This way, I can at least see my own location as a dot on the trail network. And potentially overlay the route I'm intending to ride on top of that.


----------



## minimusprime (May 26, 2009)

Not meaning to stoke the fires of the garmin vs cell phone debate. I have an edge 520 and a vivoactive 3 ironically. I have loaded gps traces for route guidance on my 520 a few times and it's been pretty painful to use for navigation. The zoom and panning features as mentioned above, are very, very clunky on the 520 and the guidance/mapping works great for, "we should have turned 1/4 mile ago" and not great for "we should turn left here". I now use orux maps on my android device for actual turn by turn navigation as well as trail forks for finger in the wind route guidance. Orux maps works nicely as it can make audible navigation instructions and stays silent if you are on the right path. Typically, I'll put my planned route in there, start up the route following and then put it in my pocket or in the top of my pack. I forget I have it running usually, right up until I take a wrong turn and it says to go back and make a course correction. 

So... my recommendation would be to look elsewhere then the 520 for actual mapping, routing and navigation. I do like the suggestion of using the 520 in mirror mode and using a better device to cast the data screen to it.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I just realized that Garmin updated the 520 as the 530. I wonder if the issues people have had with the 520 were fully addressed in the 530.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Not sure what people are running on their 520 that's draining battery life, but I consistently get 8-10 hours if not more out of mine. The only time I've ever had mine die on me was in Colorado, and that was after 2.5 days of riding and leaving it in the cold truck overnight. If you run maps constantly, track your ride, have monitors hooked up and crank the backlight I suppose you could run it out in a few hours? I don't know, 3 or 4 hours seems insanely fast from what I've experienced. Like I said earlier though, I don't run a lot on it.

As for the GPS signal, I've been on bikepacking trips where I haven't had service on my phone or smart watch for long periods of time being in the backcountry, and when I turn my 520 on in the morning it gets GPS signal within 30 seconds.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

minimusprime said:


> Not meaning to stoke the fires of the garmin vs cell phone debate. I have an edge 520 and a vivoactive 3 ironically. I have loaded gps traces for route guidance on my 520 a few times and it's been pretty painful to use for navigation. The zoom and panning features as mentioned above, are very, very clunky on the 520 and the guidance/mapping works great for, "we should have turned 1/4 mile ago" and not great for "we should turn left here". I now use orux maps on my android device for actual turn by turn navigation as well as trail forks for finger in the wind route guidance. Orux maps works nicely as it can make audible navigation instructions and stays silent if you are on the right path. Typically, I'll put my planned route in there, start up the route following and then put it in my pocket or in the top of my pack. I forget I have it running usually, right up until I take a wrong turn and it says to go back and make a course correction.
> 
> So... my recommendation would be to look elsewhere then the 520 for actual mapping, routing and navigation. I do like the suggestion of using the 520 in mirror mode and using a better device to cast the data screen to it.


to get proper turn notifications prior to the turn on trails, you need to make sure that turn notifications get programmed into the course file. I've done that with ridewithgps. that function works awesome, with the caveat that the maps you're planning off of need to show the full network, including the turns, so that you can make sure they get programmed in correctly. that can be a challenge. but that isn't Garmin's fault. it's kindof inherent with the way trails are mapped as compared to roads.



mack_turtle said:


> I just realized that Garmin updated the 520 as the 530. I wonder if the issues people have had with the 520 were fully addressed in the 530.


some are. some aren't.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

My wife got me an Apple watch a few years ago and I love it, but it's really made it confusing to consider how to move into the gps/power meter ecosystem in a cost-conscious way. I'd _think _a Garmin watch and a Garmin head unit should talk to each other so it can display your HR... then it's just a matter of choosing one. You'd think. Right? And then if you ever get that power meter it will slot right in.



Sidewalk said:


> I was using a 520+ for a while, then I got a Fenix 5 and liked everything about it better. Even better than that, you can use the 520+ in mirror mode so the data from the Fenix displays on the 520+, but the battery last forever since the GPS is not being used, just the screen.


yeah, something like that. See? I should have kept reading


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Darth Lefty said:


> My wife got me an Apple watch a few years ago and I love it, but it's really made it confusing to consider how to move into the gps/power meter ecosystem in a cost-conscious way. I'd _think _a Garmin watch and a Garmin head unit should talk to each other so it can display your HR... then it's just a matter of choosing one. You'd think. Right? And then if you ever get that power meter it will slot right in.
> 
> yeah, something like that. See? I should have kept reading


THe Fenix line (and I am certain others) can broadcast your wrist HR. I have compared my wrist HR to my chest strap while using a trainer (using Trainer Road app) and was really surprised how close it is. I am actually going for a run tonight with two watches, one to record wrist and the other to record the strap to see how close they are. Because, well, I am have OCD issues.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I love touch screen so I use the 510 on the MTB and 1030 Plus on the road/gravel bikes. I'll prob just do the 1030 and get rid of the 510. I think the 830 is touchscreen or that is the one I'd recommend. The 820 prob was not, so you may find that one around still. I really am not sure which other ones are not touch screen. I know they have a couple. The nice thing is that with a Garmin chest strap, your HR and other stats are displayed on the unit. I especially watch the HR. Without a chest strap, my Garmin 945 (and my Apple Watch) is notoriously low on the HR after 100-120 BPM and I'm always higher than that on a ride. 

I never put my phone on the bar and rely completely on the Garmin for my stats. The 1030+ and 830 have excellent (well, excellent for me) navigation though I rarely am on totally unfamiliar routes. The 1030+ has phenomenal battery life as well.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Flyer said:


> I think the 830 is touchscreen or that is the one I'd recommend. The 820 prob was not, so you may find that one around still. I really am not sure which other ones are not touch screen.


The 5xx series are not touch.
The 8xx series are touch.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Trust me- my 510 is touch. I returned the 520 since it wasn’t touch and got the older 510 at the time.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Flyer said:


> Trust me- my 510 is touch.


it's the only one.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

Sidewalk said:


> THe Fenix line (and I am certain others) can broadcast your wrist HR. I have compared my wrist HR to my chest strap while using a trainer (using Trainer Road app) and was really surprised how close it is. I am actually going for a run tonight with two watches, one to record wrist and the other to record the strap to see how close they are. Because, well, I am have OCD issues.


My vivosmart 3 can also broadcast HR. It gives a decent HR reading, but it's nowhere as precise as my chest straps. Sometimes it gives a lower reading, and it mostly seems to have some delay.

Not an issue if you're at a constant HR, but really easy to notice when HR is changes.

In any case, optical HR sensor precission can vary from person to person, which doesn't happen with chest straps that work well with anyone (well, If you have lots of hair in your chest, it's possible that you need to shave).


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I've been weighing options among the Garmin 530, 520 plus, and the Wahoo Elemnt Bolt. I know there's endless blather about all these options but I have some specific, personal concerns.

All three of these seem quite gigantic to me, like I might as well strap a phone to my bike. these units seem designed to stick out in front of the bike. (Yes, thank you for pointing out that there are mounting options.) the screens seem large and distracting. I don't give a rat's ass if it's "aero." all these are knee-jerk, emotional responses with some aesthetic concerns, but I want to feel confident about buying something like this. I ride a simple bike. I just want to pedal and mitigate most of my chances of getting totally lost on a new trail or a road route. 100+1 features for racers seems a bit overkill if it means strapping a brick to my handlebar ever time. hyperbolic? perhaps. but the idea of these bulky units doesn't sit all that well with me.

in the spirit of simplicity, I am leaning toward the Garmin product since I have already been using Garmin products for several years. I know the Garmin interface is not as simple as Wahoo's phone app-based one, but I imagine tying everything together should be closer to seamless. is that accurate?

this has been scaling back to the *Garmin Edge 130*. it's small and simple, but I think the _lack of true navigation_ other than a breadcrumb trail might be frustrating. i might regret it. I with there was a middle ground.

unrelated: I have an old iPhone 4S that I just turned back on. there are virtually NO apps for it now because the iOS is so old and not upgradable any more. I'll have to find another use for it.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

mack_turtle said:


> I've been weighing options among the Garmin 530, 520 plus, and the Wahoo Elemnt Bolt. I know there's endless blather about all these options but I have some specific, personal concerns.
> 
> All three of these seem quite gigantic to me, like I might as well strap a phone to my bike. these units seem to like to stick out in front of the bike. they screens seem large and distracting. I don't give a rat's ass if it's "aero." all these are knee-jerk, emotional responses with some aesthetic concerns, but I want to feel confident about buying something like this. I ride a simple bike. I just want to pedal and mitigate most of my chances of getting totally lost on a new trail or a road route. 100+1 features for racers seems a bit overkill if it means strapping a brick to my handlebar ever time. hyperbolic? perhaps. but the idea of these bulky units doesn't sit all that well with me.
> 
> ...


The 530 (and 830) are actually pretty tiny. Only a hair bigger than the 130, and a lot smaller than a phone. Also, with the proper mount (MTB mount), the 530 tucks in nicely rather than being out in front of the bars.

Navigation is an interesting topic - the only navigation that really works well on any of these devices is road navigation, but I assume that's not your intent. For trail navigation, turn-by-turn doesn't work well at all. It is important to have a big, bright screen that clearly shows your intended route/track vs your current location. It is also helpful to have a color display to help the desired route/track stand out clearly.


----------



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

mack_turtle said:


> All three of these seem quite gigantic to me, like I might as well strap a phone to my bike.


My 520 is maybe 1/4 the size of my phone.

I saw a DC rainmaker review on the 530 awhile back and he said the processing speed of the 530 unit was much faster than the 520 which made it a lot better for navigation. Maybe something to consider.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> My 520 is maybe 1/4 the size of my phone.
> 
> I saw a DC rainmaker review on the 530 awhile back and he said the processing speed of the 530 unit was much faster than the 520 which made it a lot better for navigation. Maybe something to consider.


thank you. I have not seen one in person. in photos, it looks huge. for my dollars, I'd rather buy something that won't let me down, even if it has some features I find frivolous. thank god Garmin will keep me up to date on my "grit score"! [/sarcasm] by that, I mean that the E130 will probably leave me wishing I had coughed up more dollars on something with more detailed maps. thank you for the perspective as that sends me back to the E530 or the Wahoo Bolt. with that, the question is: does using a Wahoo product in a Garmin ecosystem cause enough drama that I'll wish I didn't have all these different programs and apps tracking and planning rides? (Garmin, Wahoo, Strava, RWGPS, Trailforks, etc.) it seems like a lot of tech that could get in the way of just riding. most likely, sticking with a Garmin product will not make much difference and if I am serious about getting simple, I should just leave all that at home and navigate by the stars.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

mack_turtle said:


> thank you. I have not seen one in person. in photos, it looks huge. for my dollars, I'd rather buy something that won't let me down, even if it has some features I find frivolous. thank god Garmin will keep me up to date on my "grit score"! [/sarcasm] by that, I mean that the E130 will probably leave me wishing I had coughed up more dollars on something with more detailed maps. thank you for the perspective as that sends me back to the E530 or the Wahoo Bolt. with that, the question is: does using a Wahoo product in a Garmin ecosystem cause enough drama that I'll wish I didn't have all these different programs and apps tracking and planning rides? (Garmin, Wahoo, Strava, RWGPS, Trailforks, etc.) it seems like a lot of tech that could get in the way of just riding. most likely, sticking with a Garmin product will not make much difference and if I am serious about getting simple, I should just leave all that at home and navigate by the stars.


The short answer here is: if you want to use the device for serious navigation, a bigger screen is better. I understand that you don't want to hang a phone off your bike - totally understand that - but too small is also a bad idea.


----------



## So Cal RX (Oct 1, 2005)

mack_turtle said:


> where I ride, the trails can be a spaghetti bowl of possible routes and if you're not given some direction, you might end up riding in circles. I often stop and dig my cell phone out of a pocket to consult Trailforks or a Google satellite image when I get really lost (I draw the line at putting a f-ing _phone_ on my handlebar). being able to view something that's more than a thin line where I can see it more easily is my goal. I don't expect to be pedaling at full speed and following hairpin turns while staring at a screen in the woods; minimizing the amount of time I spend fooling around with navigation is my goal.
> 
> I can't say that my experience matches everyone elses' in their own local terrain. I have have proven to myself that my confidence in my "sense of direction" becomes a liability in these situations, so I need all the help I can get within a budget.


This is basically what I do. I have a Garmin 520, and only keep my phone in my pocket when I know I'll need to navigate the trails with Trailforks or MTB Project. I've used turn by turn on the 520, but I've only found it effective on road and gravel routes, and when the turns have been programmed into the route. I can't imagine any head unit being able to efficiently navigate me through a spaghetti bowl of trails.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

RickBullottaPA said:


> The short answer here is: if you want to use the device for serious navigation, a bigger screen is better. I understand that you don't want to hang a phone off your bike - totally understand that - but too small is also a bad idea.


yes, that's exactly the point that I made while thinking aloud there. at a certain point, a larger screen might be silly. if I really want a large screen, I could just find a way to mount my MacBook on my handlebar, but that would be impractical.

"serious navigation" is a big nebulous. I don't expect laser-accurate turn-by-turn nav to work in the woods on any device, including my phone. I just want to minimize the amount of time I spend getting lost and fooling around with a touch screen that I tuck away for safe-keeping while riding. I've ruled out touch screen bike computers as well. too much hassle with gloves and sweat-drenched fingers.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

RickBullottaPA said:


> The 530 (and 830) are actually pretty tiny. Only a hair bigger than the 130, and a lot smaller than a phone.


They are nice and small, but the 130 is quite a bit smaller.
The 130 screen is the same size as the old Edge 500, but the case is a lot smaller.
Fantastically clear screen, but no mapping.









With a 4.3" Galaxy S3 phone.
For me, the 530 is colour, larger fonts, proper workouts and the mapping is secondary.
Size wise, it's still a small device. The 810 was bigger and worked even on out-front mounts.









And then there's the 25 
Tiny, cheap, displays 3 lines (HR, Cad, Time) but doesn't support power and the GPS is not very accurate (no worries if recording on the watch).


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I find the sizing of the 5xx series devices to be about right. I mount mine in different places depending on the bike. My road bike it goes out front. My current mtb it's on the bars. On a previous mtb, on top of the stem worked well.

I know some folks choose larger models simply for the ability to scale up the text more to easier-to-read sizes.

Not sure how much data screen flexibility the 130 provides, but I like on the 520 how I can display all the fields I want to see on a single screen. I could spread them out onto multiple screens for larger text, but then I'd have to switch between them more often to see what I want. If you show fewer items on the screen, you get them in larger text, which might be handy. My vision isn't at that point yet, so I like the "less messing" method of showing the fields I want on a single screen.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

^yeah I'd agree with Harold, having had a 1000, 530, 830 and 1030. For on the mtb, the 5/8 series size is great.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

I've somehow gone through a 500 (cracked), 520 (lost), 520+ (battery), and 530 (in-use).

I was pretty happy with my 520 and pissed when I lost it, but that might have been in comparison to the other technology of the day (2015). All I really remember was that Livetrack actually worked (in 2015!) and Strava segments barely worked at all.

The 520+ got on my bad side right away, partly because I was buying it to replace something I lost and partly because, since it cost more than the 520, I was expecting it to work better. It was (very slightly) worse. Eventually Garmin firmware updates solved most of the issues that annoyed me the most, but by then battery life was fading badly and I couldn't muster the effort to do glued-in battery replacement surgery in a device I still didn't like all that much. It's on my kid's bike (who does short rides).

The 530 started off with a good impression as the 3 or 4 most annoying things that the 520+ still did were fixed. Since then my impression has gone downhill a bit, as firmware updates have _introduced_ some minor annoyances. I'm not mad at it. Yet.

The 520+ and the 530 allegedly have some kind of shared display mode with the Vivoactive3 I use for running. I've never attempted to use it.

This post makes me sound like some kind of anti-fanboy for Garmin devices... and maybe that's exactly what I am?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

ghettocruiser said:


> This post makes me sound like some kind of anti-fanboy for Garmin devices... and maybe that's exactly what I am?


Sounds like the term "glutton for punishment" is the term that applies here.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Current units...








Stages Dash L50 & L10.
Garmin Oregon 650.
Garmin Edge 530, 130, 25.

and the Forerunner 935 of course...


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Well there you go, I learnt stuff 
Thanks to this thread I have learnt to broadcast my HR from my Garmin Vivoactive 3 watch to my Garmin 830 GPS. I wondered for ages whether it was possible......
A quick play seems to show me that I must turn on the broadcasting manually everytime.......not ideal, or am I missing something?

Going for a ride very soon, so will be interested to see how it goes

as a side note, how impressed are we with the 830 battery life, buggers me what Garmin did but battery life is bloody good on my 830.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

not sure about the vivo, but on my 645 and 945, while technically have to turn on the HR broadcast, i generally record a ride on both my watch and edge (just because, in case one does something wacky). If I do that the HR broadcasts automatically.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

mik_git said:


> not sure about the vivo, but on my 645 and 945, while technically have to turn on the HR broadcast, i generally record a ride on both my watch and edge (just because, in case one does something wacky). If I do that the HR broadcasts automatically.


On the 935:
Settings, Sensors, Wrist Heart Rate, Broadcast during activity.
Then it'll automatically broadcast HR if there's no external HR device.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Yes, that is how it works on my 645 and 945, I assume it will do the same on the Vivoactive...but don't know for sure.

There is also the Extended display option, but that has limited use, OK in a multisport event, but probably not generally, but depends on what you want ot display


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

mik_git said:


> Yes, that is how it works on my 645 and 945, I assume it will do the same on the Vivoactive...but don't know for sure.


It appears to be so, my Vivo has "Broadcast" & "Broadcast during activity", would be nice if when I started the 830 my Vivo would Broadcast automatically though.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

after reading way too much DC Rainmaker and YouTube reviews, I ordered a Wahoo Bolt. it was a tough choice between that and a Garmin Edge 530 but I think the Wahoo product will suite my needs better.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> after reading way too much DC Rainmaker and YouTube reviews, I ordered a Wahoo Bolt. it was a tough choice between that and a Garmin Edge 530 but I think the Wahoo product will suite my needs better.


I've been curious about Wahoo the next time I need/want to get a new device. It'll be hard for me to split from Garmin because I like and am comfortable with the way Garmin handles maps on its devices.


----------



## OttaCee (Jul 24, 2013)

mack_turtle said:


> after reading way too much DC Rainmaker and YouTube reviews, I ordered a Wahoo Bolt. it was a tough choice between that and a Garmin Edge 530 but I think the Wahoo product will suite my needs better.


Top Tip - If you want turn by turn (even when riding singletrack) directions, download Komoot app and pay the $20 for worldwide region license. You can use Komoot (desktop site) to build routes or import GPX file and it will generate all the turn by turn. Then when you open the Wahoo app, will load the route plus turn-by-turn, its amazing.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I have no personal experience with Wahoo. I have heard some pros/cons on them where I can see the appeal. But what I do like is they forced Garmin to take competition serious. Garmin units have really improved recently because Wahoo showed up and made something good that works.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Sidewalk said:


> I have no personal experience with Wahoo. I have heard some pros/cons on them where I can see the appeal. But what I do like is they forced Garmin to take competition serious. Garmin units have really improved recently because Wahoo showed up and made something good that works.


Yeah, this industry definitely needs some healthy competition. And not simply from phone apps. Other dedicated devices that take newer approaches to doing things that push Garmin to improve on things that they've become complacent with.

Wahoo's coordination between its dedicated devices and the app to set them up is definitely one of the more compelling things that those devices offer.

Garmin has beat out other competition over the years less because Garmin made better products and more because the other companies failed in the basics of offering customer service and failing to address inevitable bugs in the software.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

mik_git said:


> not sure about the vivo, but on my 645 and 945, while technically have to turn on the HR broadcast, i generally record a ride on both my watch and edge (just because, in case one does something wacky). If I do that the HR broadcasts automatically.


For HRM broadcast from the Vivoactive3 without draining the watch battery with the GPS, I added "yoga" to the short list of activities. This mode gives HRM broadcast with two clicks instead of digging deep into the menus.

I used this mode for actual yoga one time, and collected no useful data of any kind.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Oh thats a good idea, never thought of that, about an activity without the GPS.
Honestly I always double record a ride, just in case... yesterday did a quick road ride, the edge on appeared in garmin, but not strava (which happens, appears after a while)... but not this time, so I saved the watch rider...same deal. After an hour I freaked too much and downloaded/imported to strava... gotta have it on strava!


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

ghettocruiser said:


> This mode gives HRM broadcast with two clicks instead of digging deep into the menus.


Damn good idea, and l guess at the end you dont save the activity (cant have Yoga on my Strava)


----------

