Garmin Edge 705 HR and/or Power meter ?!

must-tri-harder

Looking to take training to the next level, what do you think would allow me to make the best use of my training time and/or budget:

Buy a Garmin Edge 705 with cadence, HR etc right now and add a cycleops power meter later (when I've saved up the cash) or just keep saving and buy just the power meter only and forget the garmin ?

Will the garmin add any significant advantage over the head unit that comes with power meters ?

From reading through Joe Friel's 'The cyclists training bible' power meters are the way to go but with cadence and HR on the garmin until i can afford to add the power meter surely that would be a good compromise in the interim ? I havent trained with HR or any form of cadence measurement previously.

Would appreciate some comments/thoughts from anyone with some relevant experience?

Thanks BC.

APIII

Hello,
I use a Garmin 705/SRM setup. It has it's pros and cons like anything, so here's my opinion.
Pros
You get a head unit with all the normal GPS features and power display in one unit
The customisable display is very useful. You can have all your power data on screen 2 and all your speed, HR, etc on screen 1.
You can program intervals based on power
Cons
The garmin is still 'buggy'. I'm using version 2.6 of the firmware instead of the latest version as there are reports of lost data, etc with the latest release.
There is a lag of a couple of seconds between your effort and seeing it on the display.
Occasional data drops (that's wireless for you)
Not much else really bothers me about it.

Now, if you are thinking of going down the powertap route, then maybe consider the older versions as you can get some good deals on these at Chain reaction, etc. The newer versions are compatible with the garmin, but the older ones can be updated (cost of £60-£70). You could therefore, go ahead and start training with power and then upgrade it, if and when you decide to get a Garmin.

Sorry if this sounds a bit of a ramble!

Bronzie

The Garmin is a very useful bit of kit in it's own right, but I agree with the above comments that there are a few issues with data recording etc with the Garmin that are possibly avoided with the PowerTap head unit.

You could always buy the Garmin and hire the powermeter for 3 months and see how you get on with it. This is situation I am in. Cost is around £11/week.

Not sure I'll extend the powermeter hire when it ends in August as my racing season will be nearly over.........but I am pretty sure I'll hire it again for the start of next year (if I decide to race in 2010).

James_London

I've run SRM with 705 and PCV and PCVI (the SRM head unit).

If you've not paid attention to HR or cadence to date, there are probably quite a lot of training gains to be had before investing in a powermeter with Friel's book or Racing and Training with a Powermeter. I agree with everything above and would add:

Other Pros for 705 vs SRM PCV/PCVI

- Cost - just saw 705 for £249 at Pixmania whereas PCVI is £800 or so which is just ridiculous - Backlight! PCVI doesn't have one - pros don't train at night! - GPS allows you to get ,more accurate altitude data if you use WKO+ software which you can't do on the PCVI (though the barometric altimeter is more accurate than the 705)

Other Cons for 705 vs SRM PCV/PCVI

- It's quite a lot less reliable than the PCVI which is also wireless - many more data drops - Data download is less reliable than PCVI. I've lost a few files because of Garmin bugs

I haven't heard good things about the Powertap headunit but have very limited personal experience so can't really comment.

Before you choose I'd strongly recommend renting from Bob Tobin at www.cyclepowermeters.com

Alex_Simmons/RST

The Garmin will help you understand where you are located, where you've been and how to get somewhere without getting lost.

The power meter will help you understand where you are fitness wise, what your training has really been like and how to achieve your cycling goals.

Alex_Simmons/RST

James_London wrote:

I haven't heard good things about the Powertap headunit but have very limited personal experience so can't really comment.

It is the most reliable power meter head unit I know of anddoes exactly as advertised. It doesn't have the "features" (i.e. including all the bugs of a Garmin) but then it's not promoting itself as having all those fancy features either.

Not sure what's bad about it?

James_London

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

James_London wrote:

I haven't heard good things about the Powertap headunit but have very limited personal experience so can't really comment.

It is the most reliable power meter head unit I know of anddoes exactly as advertised. It doesn't have the "features" (i.e. including all the bugs of a Garmin) but then it's not promoting itself as having all those fancy features either.

Not sure what's bad about it?

As I understood it the headunit has a rather small screen, can only display a limited number of data fields at one time and is not very user configurable?

DaveyL

I would forget about the Garmin and go with the PowerTap straight off. The PT head unit displays 3 pieces of data - power (which you can cycle through current, max and average), speed (again you can cycle through current, max and average), and the third line displays one of distance, time, cadence, average cadence, kJ, hear rate, average hear rate and cumulative (for the year) mileage (there may be one other I've missed).

Compared to my old cycle computer, the Polar CS100, I was a bit disappointed with it at first, as that could display speed, distance and HR at the same time, but I've gotten used to it and it's really no big deal. It would be nice if you could customise the display to move things and I wonder if this new Cycleops "Joule" that I've heard murmurs about will do stuff like that, but bottom line - as Alex says - you get the ultimate training tool - everything else is secondary. In my opinion.

must-tri-harder

thanks for the input chaps.

so training by HR/cadence is not a viable budget option with just the garmin ? or is that a significant compromise (complete waste of time) compared to the power meter ?

i guess if i want to improve i'll have to make the financial commitment, i think i may just hire a powertap short term and see how it goes.

if i'm entirely honest i dont really like the look of the powertap CPU, its just plain nasty, as long as it does the job i can probably live with it though..

Alex_Simmons/RST

James_London wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

James_London wrote:

I haven't heard good things about the Powertap headunit but have very limited personal experience so can't really comment.

It is the most reliable power meter head unit I know of anddoes exactly as advertised. It doesn't have the "features" (i.e. including all the bugs of a Garmin) but then it's not promoting itself as having all those fancy features either.

Not sure what's bad about it?

As I understood it the headunit has a rather small screen, can only display a limited number of data fields at one time and is not very user configurable?

For some the smaller size of the PT would be considered a benefit over a Garmin brick.

Yes, the display options are limited but it displays what's most important for a power meter and the numbers on the power line are bigger than other PM displays I've seen.

There is some ability to configure what is displayed (e.g. the lower two lines the user can configure to display different things and the user can define the rolling average duration window for power number display, which is very useful - does the Garmin provide for a user defined rolling average power?)

The PT doesn't advertise itself as having all the functionality that you might find in a Garmin but then it's somewhat cheaper as well. Calling something bad because it does what it says it does is a bit rough. It is a good, reliable, proven, compact unit, and the least expensive power meter CPU that displays the important information for training with power.

I'm not knocking the Garmin - it's just a different set of functions - and no doubt useful for those may who need them.

But the PT CPU is not "bad". Just less feature rich.

Bronzie

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

does the Garmin provide for a user defined rolling average power?

Not that I'm aware of.

The one thing that is really bad about the Garmin is the instructions provided with it - I spent a lot of time trawling the internet to discover how best to use some of the functions correctly.

James_London

James_London wrote:

I haven't heard good things about the Powertap headunit but have very limited personal experience so can't really comment.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Calling something bad because it does what it says it does is a bit rough

I wasn't purporting to be any sort of a guru and didn't say it was bad at any point! Useful clarifications on the Powertap headunit, Alex. For track especially I can see the appeal.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

does the Garmin provide for a user defined rolling average power?

No it doesn't on the display whilst training. This is a bit of a weakness versus the PCVI. You just have to pay attention to your legs and not just watch the meter! I certainly found a little mental adjustment is needed switching between the two headunits because of this.

In what sorts of situations do you find this useful, Alex? I'm guessing requirements on the track may be different to the road so with my zero track experience it's not clear!

There is now an option of average or NZAP on the 705 and you can display interval average power.

Sorry to continue off topic - hopefully the OP is a little clearer in the process anyway...

APIII

must-tri-harder wrote:

so training by HR/cadence is not a viable budget option with just the garmin ? or is that a significant compromise (complete waste of time) compared to the power meter ?

I think the Garmin is a lot of money just for the HR/Cadence features. (I'm not really sure of the benefit of knowing your cadence unless it's in conjunction with power output, but maybe that's just me)
It's still primarily a GPS device, with some training features on top.
Hiring a PT seems to be the way to go

Bronzie

must-tri-harder wrote:

so training by HR/cadence is not a viable budget option with just the garmin? or is that a significant compromise (complete waste of time) compared to the power meter?

Plenty of people still train very sucessfully without power, but you need to know the limitations of training by heart rate or perceived exertion alone.

By the way, cadence tells you nothing more than how fast you are pedalling - it is irrelevant to all extents and purposes from a training point of view.

The Garmin is a pretty expensive HRM - you are really paying for the GPS functions and there are cheaper ways to measure and record HR than the Garmin. if you are unlikely to use the routing and navigation functions, I would look at a different unit.

With a powermeter, it is easier to know that you are training at the correct intensity and keep a track of your cumulative training load through the season. It takes away a lot of guess work (especially when training at higher intensities). But it does need you to spend a bit more time downloading, interpreting power data and reading up on the theory ("Training and Racing with a PowerMeter" by Allen and Coggan is pretty much an essential read).

Alex_Simmons/RST

James_London wrote:

James_London wrote:

I haven't heard good things about the Powertap headunit but have very limited personal experience so can't really comment.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Calling something bad because it does what it says it does is a bit rough

I wasn't purporting to be any sort of a guru and didn't say it was bad at any point! Useful clarifications on the Powertap headunit, Alex. For track especially I can see the appeal.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

does the Garmin provide for a user defined rolling average power?

No it doesn't on the display whilst training. This is a bit of a weakness versus the PCVI. You just have to pay attention to your legs and not just watch the meter! I certainly found a little mental adjustment is needed switching between the two headunits because of this.

In what sorts of situations do you find this useful, Alex? I'm guessing requirements on the track may be different to the road so with my zero track experience it's not clear!

There is now an option of average or NZAP on the 705 and you can display interval average power.

Sorry to continue off topic - hopefully the OP is a little clearer in the process anyway...

OK - you're right my bad - you said you hadn't heard good things.

Since power is naturally pretty jumpy, then it often helps to be able to display a rolling average which tends to damp down the jumpiness of the displayed power. When you are learning to pace yourself during efforts, a jumpy display can end up with you "chasing your power tail" so to speak. I can only imagine the Garmin's delayed power display would be even weirder.

NZAP is a pointless measure. The CPU should show average power. Sounds like Garmin have fixed that.