Was going to order a Edge 800 today but,

s1mon

Hi,

Not sure now :? I was going to just get a base unit and maybe buy a HR strap as I've already got a Ant+ cadence. I'll probably never need it if I get lost as I stay local but I wouldn't mind planning some routes to follow. I do like the Virtual Partner feature as most of my routes are the same ones each time. I've only got a 90mm stem, is it going to look huge on there ?

Is there something else out there that's cheaper but still got some sort of Virtual Partner feature ?

Thanks.

Grill

Your phone?

I honestly don't see the point of the 800. Save yourself the cash and get a 500 and just plan and eyeball routes with Strava or Garmin Connect.

clickshots

Grill wrote:

I honestly don't see the point of the 800. Save yourself the cash and get a 500 and just plan and eyeball routes with Strava or Garmin Connect.

+1

I got an Edge 800 but only because the 500 wasn't out at that time. If I was buying now I'd definately go for the 500. I guess if I was touring then the 800 would be better because of the maps.

daviesee

Grill wrote:

Your phone?

I honestly don't see the point of the 800. Save yourself the cash and get a 500 and just plan and eyeball routes with Strava or Garmin Connect.

An 800 is useful if you are doing 50+ miles on unknown country roads that have little, if any, signposts.
Smartphones do not always get a signal to guide you either.
Take it from someone who has been seriously lost before. I had to use the sun as a general compass and follow whatever road appeared to go in the right direction. Got in some good miles though. :P

On the other hand, if you are only riding in familiar areas then a 500 will suffice. I am thinking of getting one for general use and only use the 705 when I will be on unfamiliar and/or badly signed routes.

antlaff

s1mon wrote:

Is there something else out there that's cheaper but still got some sort of Virtual Partner feature ?

Thanks.

Yeah Garmin 500

brettjmcc

s1mon wrote:

I've only got a 90mm stem, is it going to look huge on there ?

I've only got a 90mm stem and it looks fine on my bike IMO

Chrisrebbeck

Get the 800!! I have it mounted on my 90mm specialized stem and it looks great. Also if you were concerned look up products made by k edge, quarq(not released just yet) and barfly that are small mounts that out the garmin just infront of the stem giving a cleaner cockpit. I had a 500 and loved it, but was so infuriated by having to stop and work out where I was, and how to get where on an iPhone that often didnt have signal. I love the fact anywhere I go now i can quickly go online draw a route and upload it to the 800 for satnav type turn by turn directions. I keep my front page loaded with speed/hr/cadence/time etc and then when I need to turn the 800 gives me a heads up. Once the turn is complete it goes back to the front page.

The device is endlessly customisable and has massive battery life (my brothers iphone massively suffers with battery and he tells me on a sunny day he can hardly see it. I also upload directly to strava with the garmin which is good.

I loaded mine with the OS mapping and this has revolutionised by mountain biking on Quantocks/Dartmoor/Exmoor etc. Have even thought about getting the wrist mount (ebay) to use it for walks. I would lower my bike budget by £300 to buy one if I didnt have one. The best thing I have bought for my bike.

Mike39496

With the 500 you can plot a route on bikeroutetoaster and then export it onto the Garmin. You have a visible map and turn by turn directions as long as you stay on the route. Personally that's all I need it for, the 800 is basically a sat nav but if you have a phone you could have a look on there if you ended up really far off the route.

rob13

I have a 500. I've plotted routes and followed them successfully using it without worrying about needing a map. The turn by turn direction is excellent and you know straight away if you're deviating from the route. I carry my phone so I can use Google maps if I need anything else.

rolf_f

clickshots wrote:

I got an Edge 800 but only because the 500 wasn't out at that time. If I was buying now I'd definitely go for the 500. I guess if I was touring then the 800 would be better because of the maps.

You do know that the 500 came out before the 800 don't you?

I have mapping and breadcrumb trail type GPS units (Bryton ones). Unless I am going into properly unfamiliar territory, I much prefer the smaller, neater non mapping units. The Bryton mapped unit (the 50) is a bit clumpy compared to the 800 to be fair but even so, I really wouldn't want something as bulky as an 800 mounted on my stem all the time. FWIW, the Bryton 40 is even smaller and neater than the Garmin 500 - barely larger than a conventional computer. I daresay Garmin may well soon release a smaller unit than the 500 too.

daviesee

Rob13 wrote:

I have a 500. I've plotted routes and followed them successfully using it without worrying about needing a map. The turn by turn direction is excellent and you know straight away if you're deviating from the route. I carry my phone so I can use Google maps if I need anything else.

I wouldn't rely on this outside the range of built up areas.
The Scottish Mountain Rescue have had to put a bulletin out because muppets are trying to use smart phones to navigate in the Highlands. They don't get a phone signal and get lost.
The implications may be less for cyclists but the principle is the same.

rob13

daviesee wrote:

Rob13 wrote:

I have a 500. I've plotted routes and followed them successfully using it without worrying about needing a map. The turn by turn direction is excellent and you know straight away if you're deviating from the route. I carry my phone so I can use Google maps if I need anything else.

I wouldn't rely on this outside the range of built up areas.
The Scottish Mountain Rescue have had to put a bulletin out because muppets are trying to use smart phones to navigate in the Highlands. They don't get a phone signal and get lost.
The implications may be less for cyclists but the principle is the same.

Yeah, I'm not that daft. For road cycling, its all I need. I generally familiarise myself with the route, and have a good sense of direction and location. For mountain biking/walking its a completely different ball game. I wouldn't leave home without a map and a good idea of how to use it.

There is however, more and more GPS apps coming onto phones which have pre-loaded maps into them. I wouldnt risk using one which loads direct from the internet due to signal issues.

fish156

For me the 800 is OTT. Occassionally getting lost is all part of the fun of cycling.

s1mon

If I get a 500 I like the red/black which is nearly the same price as the base 800 aprt from no HR or cadance.

Should you still use a wheel magnet for speed or does the gps do that, is it more accurate ?

Grill

With the speed/cadence sensor overall readings will be far more accurate and I find cadence absolutely invaluable.

springtide9

If you need navigation it's the 800 .. if not the 500.

As we all have different requirements, there is little point in discussing whether 'one' needs navigation or not.

rolf_f

s1mon wrote:

If I get a 500 I like the red/black which is nearly the same price as the base 800 aprt from no HR or cadance.

Should you still use a wheel magnet for speed or does the gps do that, is it more accurate ?

It's Garmins crap colour schemes that made me give up with them and buy a Bryton. The Blue and white looks terrible - the black and white less so (theough the fake carbon weave is pretty rank whatever colour it is in) but even that was stupid expensive since Handtec don't sell them. I spent ages waiting for a reasonably priced solution and it never came. As Garmin think it is clever to make ugly units and charge extra for less ugly, I just didn't bother. At least the 800 looks OK in all forms so far.

I wouldn't worry too much about speed sensors. It will be a little more accurate - both in terms of picking max and minimum speeds (the sensor will effectively sample speed more frequently than the GPS so you won't get so much of the top of the curve lopped off - it could mean the difference between a max speed of 49.9 and 50 mph!) and avoidance of signal loss but I'm not convinced it is worth spending extra money on. If I found a combined sensor cheaply enough I'd be tempted. Cadence is very handy.

springtide9 wrote:

If you need navigation it's the 800 .. if not the 500.

As we all have different requirements, there is little point in discussing whether 'one' needs navigation or not.

Apart from the fact that the 500 has navigation. It is only maps that it lacks. Therefore the issue is whether you need the extra flexibility of the maps which is less clear cut.

clickshots

Rolf F wrote:

You do know that the 500 came out before the 800 don't you?

Oh ok, well I didn't see it until after the 800 then I guess :-P

springtide9

Rolf F wrote:

Apart from the fact that the 500 has navigation. It is only maps that it lacks. Therefore the issue is whether you need the extra flexibility of the maps which is less clear cut.

I thought the 500 doesn't have navigation... only the ability to follow pre-planned routes/courses?

nferrar

The 500 is fine for following plotted routes on roads, I have a 705 as well (equiv to the 800) and it's only really need when following off-road routes when on the MTB. Mind you if you can afford the extra of the 800 over the 500 you may as well go for it - I was just really disappointed at how poor of an improvement the 800 is over the 705. Clearly Garmin have a monopoly in the bike navigation market otherwise they'd actually have to come up with a decent product.

loismustdie

I did a 130 mile ride to a friend's house last weekend, they live in a small village about 15 miles north of Peterborough, quite literally in the middle of nowhere. Used my Garmin 800 to navigate (uploaded a route from Basecamp) and didn't miss a single turn. Also, the navigation meant I completed the route only a little slower than if it had been a known route.

Yes, for 90% of the rides I do, the 500 would be perfectly adequate, but without the 800, there's no way I'd have found the number of routes I've had or taken on some of the 100 mile plus rides I've done.

rolf_f

springtide9 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Apart from the fact that the 500 has navigation. It is only maps that it lacks. Therefore the issue is whether you need the extra flexibility of the maps which is less clear cut.

I thought the 500 doesn't have navigation... only the ability to follow pre-planned routes/courses?

Yes, you can navigate pre-planned routes - I'd count following the breadcrumb trail as navigating (and I'm pretty sure so would Ferdinand Magellan and Christopher Columbus ). Really, you only lose out if you decide to change route on the way or get badly diverted - easy with maps, on your own without. I suppose it depends on how you ride - I just plan my route and go. If I use a unit with mapping, I'm less likely to overshoot a turning but broadly speaking, I'm just following the breadcrumbs whether or not I have a base map under the line.

If you commonly change your plans mid route, then clearly the mapping unit has more benefits. Also, if you are new to an area the mapping units would also be more useful. But for me, for the amount of use I get from a mapping unit, I'd rather buy a Bryton 40 and a Bryton 50 or older Garmin for less money than a single Garmin 800.

richh

You're right it really is a personal thing. For me the 800 is the best cycling related thing I've bought to date (bar the bike itself of course!). In fact I make a real point to find new routes every time I go out on the bike and far and away the best way of doing this is with a unit such as the 800 rather than taking paper maps or relying on a "get lost and find my way back somehow" method.

It encourages me to go further afield and out into unknown territory which I thoroughly enjoy, and that means that I go out more often and ride further than I otherwise would.

springtide9

richh wrote:

You're right it really is a personal thing. For me the 800 is the best cycling related thing I've bought to date (bar the bike itself of course!). In fact I make a real point to find new routes every time I go out on the bike and far and away the best way of doing this is with a unit such as the 800 rather than taking paper maps or relying on a "get lost and find my way back somehow" method.

It encourages me to go further afield and out into unknown territory which I thoroughly enjoy, and that means that I go out more often and ride further than I otherwise would.

Same here, I love the 800 (apart from a few minor flaws)

I don't really call following a pre-planned route as navigation, and neither did Christopher Columbus as I seem to remember he created his own maps on the fly

I will often create a pre planned route and generally follow it, but often find a better looking road going in a similar direction and follow that instead. Then it's a bit of a case of remembering roughly where I planned to go and keep setting new locations as the destinations on the fly. I will often find myself off with the fairies and miss a turning or two, but it really doesn't matter with the 800.
For me the mapping functions and the ability not to have to follow a specific pre-planned route works very well for me as it allows a lot of flexibility while on the go, but I do seem to end up cycling in new areas. I guess this is because I am not living in the same area as where I grew up. But obviously, I can see for others where they either know the area very well or only really need to follow a predefined route, that the 500 is enough. I used to use this type of functionality on my 310XT for MTBing offroad, where I would ride in random directions for 50% of my ride, and then follow my route back.