Picking a GPS unit/Is a HRM necessary for training/racing?

Greer_

Hi all, after my first few races/club rides/phone GPS fails, I've decided I would quite like a proper GPS unit. I'm limited in budget however, as I'm a student, so I've been looking at the Garmin Edge 200 for £90ish. My main question, is how important would a heart rate monitor be for a newbie racer? I really can't see myself using it, but it seems like a bit of a necessity if the racing progresses as most club members seem to use them. It's not ANT+ so there's no possibility of adding a HRM to it later.

If I got the Edge 200, and decided in a few years I wanted a HRM, would it be better to buy a separate watch etc, or would the Garmin 500 be a better bet to start with? As I said, I want to keep costs down, and I'm really not sure I need a HRM, or the possibility of one, for double the price of the 200. I'd really just like to track/record my rides at the moment and watch my progress.

Another option I've seen is the Bryton 20 which is ANT+ compatible, but it doesn't get as many good reviews compared to Garmin.

I'm interested to hear your opinions, thanks,

Adam

camerauk

The Garmin units are really good, I have the 800
It really does depend on if you will want to add the Heart rate strap at some point
You could get the Garmin 200 and then if you want the HRM you could sell it on and get the 500 but
if it were me I would get the Garmin 500 and then add the HRM at a later date.

RandG

camerauk wrote:

if it were me I would get the Garmin 500 and then add the HRM at a later date.

What he said.

As for needing a hrm for racing, I suspect you're slightly confused by this. I would be of the opinion that those who have and use them, do so in regards their training as opposed to using them while racing, although, to counter that, depending on what type of racing, then they may well be using them, but I would suspect that would be marathon racing.

Greer_

Yeah it seems to be more for training, but they wear them racing anyway. I just don't know if I'd get the use out of it at this stage, its a lot of money, and I'd only just talked myself into buying the 200!

RandG

Once you start using one, you start to get a bit anal about wearing it all the time. I suspect they will be checking their data post race to check averages compared to training and maximum compared to training.

Greer_

How would something like this compare if it turns out I need one? I would like to try and keep the cost down for the time being, and its more important for me to work on technique than general fitness at the moment.

RandG

Get a polar, they are world leaders in the hrm world.

concorde

I'd get a Garmin Forerunner 410 for about thirty quid more.

cooldad

As long as my heart's still beating I'm happy.

batmo

Not all sensor units (the bit that goes on your chest) have replaceable batteries, something I only realised when a mate's unit stopped working.

Stu Coops

RandG wrote:

Once you start using one, you start to get a bit anal about wearing it all the time. I suspect they will be checking their data post race to check averages compared to training and maximum compared to training.

This

chrisw333

Concorde wrote:

I'd get a Garmin Forerunner 410 for about thirty quid more.

Yeah, I just bought one of these for my wife for about £130 from Amazon. It came with a HR strap and you can buy cadence sensors and bike mounts if you want in the future (just double check the package you order includes the HR, some are sold without at similar price). Only used it on my bike a couple of times, but it seems to do what you need and you get the HR strap from day 1.

Seems a very good bit of kit to me.

njee20

Get a polar, they are world leaders in the hrm world.

Having had Polar S710/S720/S725 HRMs (at the time their top cycling ones), and now having a Garmin Edge 705 I'd not go back to the Polar, the Garmin's just a far more versatile piece of kit.

I'd get the 200, unless you're focusing your training HR is just a number, and not hugely useful. If and when you decide you want to do that you can get a HRM.

Greer_

njee20 wrote:

Get a polar, they are world leaders in the hrm world.

Having had Polar S710/S720/S725 HRMs (at the time their top cycling ones), and now having a Garmin Edge 705 I'd not go back to the Polar, the Garmin's just a far more versatile piece of kit.

I'd get the 200, unless you're focusing your training HR is just a number, and not hugely useful. If and when you decide you want to do that you can get a HRM.

Thanks njee, was hoping you'd comment! That's pretty much what I wanted to hear, no use to me at the moment, but I didn't want to throw away money!

njee20

Nope, and even if you do take it more seriously a lot of decent riders just ride on perceived exertion - HR can be difficult to interpret - a reduction in HR from day to day can mean you're fit, you're unfit, you're ill, you're overtrained etc etc!

Greer_

You've convinced me, cheers! I'm really starting to enjoy this racing More motivation to go out and train .... I mean cycle!

Greer_

I found this but it's not garmin! :? Its another option, but still think I'd prefer the Edge 200!

97th choice

If you already have a smartphone you could use endomondo pro with a HRM which would help you with training.

RandG

97th choice wrote:

If you already have a smartphone you could use endomondo pro with a HRM which would help you with training.

That's a good option, it's what I do, tho not with endo.

Greer_

Nah, the reason I want a Garmin is because my phone GPS keeps messing up. I've used endomondo and others, and it always does something wrong.

RandG

Greer_ wrote:

Nah, the reason I want a Garmin is because my phone GPS keeps messing up. I've used endomondo and others, and it always does something wrong.

Your fone is rubbish then, cause I've never had a single bit of bother with my s3

Greer_

Thanks :roll:

Brand new nokia lumia 800 to replace an HTC desire that didn't work properly either, but I asked to be recommended a GPS, not a phone.