One GPS to rule them all

Courage Monsieur

Hi All

I’ve had a Polar heart rate monitor for 10 years now. I want to upgrade to GPS and using my PC. Seems like a big and exciting leap in tech. I’ve read the reviews and done the searches. But can you help?

What I want is a unit that tracks HR and distance across running and cycling so that I can see all the stats and program intervals etc. I’ll also use it for summer hiking, just to log routes.

I can’t cycle much during the week at the moment, unfortunately. So instead about twice a week I go to the gym to spin, or go jogging outdoors. So the unit needs to cover those needs too. Yep, I won’t need GPS in the gym.

I won’t use it for swimming at all, and I’m not likely to get a power meter anytime soon. I don’t race. I'll ride at weekends. Cycling aims this year are to be able to do a long sportive and possibly a week or so in the Alps / Pyrenees on hols. Running wise I'd like to do a few 5km and 10km.

I would like mapping but realise this means a dedicated bike unit. It would however make it easier to plan rides and open up touring possibilities. I don’t have a smartphone. I’ve a Blackberry Bold that comes with my job. For mapping I could wait til I change jobs and get a smartphone and use the navigation on that, and just make do with battery limitations.

At the moment the Garmin 310XT seems to cover the bases best of all, but it also seems quite old now. No maps of course. But what do you think?

Options:
1. Get a 910. Seems to be more accurate. Newer tech too. Won’t need the swim functions.
2. Get a jog / gym specific Garmin (eg 210) and a cheaper Bryton or Garmin 500 for the bike. Seems like overkill, but it covers the bases best of all.
3. Get a 310XT. I have a bike computer. Do people generally bother with the speed sensor for the 310 if they have a computer?
4. Weakest option but going to put this out there: get an 800 and carry it while running. Some people do this apparently. How feasible would that be? I could also use the 800 as navigation when hiking, though that’s not going to happen often.

Other quick questions:
- Is the Garmin software all I'll need? Is it any good? Do people use that and Strava or just pick one?
- Say I were to get a jog Garmin and a Bryton for the bike. Would the units talk to each other or would I have to load the data up into a 3rd party, like Strava (ie would it be a chore).

Any advice is appreciated.

Cheers
Paul

cat_with_no_tail

Why do you need a 210 AND a 500?

Why not just get a 500 (or 510)? Does the 210 do something the 500 doesn't?

smoggysteve

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Why do you need a 210 AND a 500?

Why not just get a 500 (or 510)? Does the 210 do something the 500 doesn't?

Well considering the Edge 210 doesnt even exist it can do whatever you want it to do!!!

Take it you meant the Forerunner 210 and it does nothing the edge cannot do already. Or the Edge 200 for that matter.

Courage Monsieur

Yes sorry meant the forerunner 210. Can wear on wrist, cheaper than rest, then use Edge / bryton on bike as easier to read and has directions. It's the overkill option so dont want to dwell on it, but it might end up same sort of price as forerunner 910 or edge 800.

Realise my post covers a lot of options. What I mean is mapping and bike nav would be nice but I can do without and am erring away from a bike specific unit. Main thing is to cover the running/cycling split in the neatest way. Hence 310xt looks stronger. Just wondering what others do, or if anyone jogs with their edge 800 etc.

smoggysteve

Quite why you would want multiple items on you when you can get one that does all you need for the same price is anyones guess. If you want the best value one, get a Garmin 500 with heart rate and Cadence. Only thing you wont get is route but how hard is it to look up a map on google and do it by memory? Unless you are going somewhere strange and most of us cycle pretty much from home and surrounding area it shouldnt be too hard to do.

SoSimple

I've just bought a Garmin edge 800 after trying to use my Forerunner 405 for cycling. It was fine for recording data for Strava, except when it lost the signal and also when it ran out of juice halfway round my biggest ever ride!

There was a review , think it was DC Rainmaker and it showed a picture of someone wearing an edge 800 on their wrist- in my opinion but he looked a right co@k! He even had a special wrist strap so maybe it's cool after all.

I didn't plan on upgrading but after those incidents I've decided to keep the Forerunner for running and the edge for cycling.

The only other option you may wish to consider is maybe using an iPhone?

smoggysteve

I used to use iPhone, But its tonk, signal loss and tracking is poor. I also tried using my Nike+ watch which gives better results but its a pain playing around with the file to import it to Strava. Best just geta dedicated cycling gps. thats why there is a market for them.

proto

Not sure if this helps at all but I'm trying to flog an 'as new' Garmin Forerunner 410. Used about 4 times by my wife before she gave up exercise. Grrrrrrrr!

All the bits and bobs, GPS, Premium HR strap, charger, straps, etc. Any good?

housemunkey

By trying to get something that does it all, it sounds as though you'll end up with something that never satisfies. My opinion would be to get a GPS dedicated to the specific situation. It may cost a little more but you'll end up with gear that does what you want and is a pleasure to use, so it'll be worth it. Kind of like buying a hybrid so you can go on the road and off-road, you'd be better served with a dedicated roadie and MTB. HTH

rowlers

I've got a Foreunner 410, it does everything you want. I use it on the bike and in the gym, spinning etc...
The only thing that lets it down is the battery life. If you regularly want to track 100mile rides then the battery won't last the ride. This is using cadence sensor too.

lc1981

SmoggySteve wrote:

If you want the best value one, get a Garmin 500 with heart rate and Cadence. Only thing you wont get is route but how hard is it to look up a map on google and do it by memory?

You don't get a map with the 500, but you can have a route if you want it.

smoggysteve

lc1981 wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

If you want the best value one, get a Garmin 500 with heart rate and Cadence. Only thing you wont get is route but how hard is it to look up a map on google and do it by memory?

You don't get a map with the 500, but you can have a route if you want it.

Been reading up on gps a bit recently, Still in the should I, shouldn't I buy phase at the moment. I get the breadcrumb bit on the 500. So long as its easy to follow. I doubt I would stump up the cash for anything as costly as a 510 or more as thats just stupid money to spend when there are so many more constructive things I could spend the cash on. Not saying they aint good bits of kit but prices have to be a bit more affordable. This is a market that really needs more competition in to bring the costs for the consumer down me thinks.

TheStone

Currently training for the marathon and the marmotte.

Mostly by chance, but have ended up with the Edge 510 and the Forerunner 410.
Very happy with both.

I seem to constantly upgrade the Edge for not much money (they hold value quite well on ebay).
Got the 410 very cheap on Amazon.

whitestar1

SmoggySteve wrote:

I used to use iPhone, But its tonk, signal loss and tracking is poor. I also tried using my Nike+ watch which gives better results but its a pain playing around with the file to import it to Strava. Best just geta dedicated cycling gps. thats why there is a market for them.

That's interesting I too use my smartphone an iPhone 4s with Cyclemeter and not have these issues. File export and to Strava could be a lot better but it works. As for the OP I had a look at the Garmin offering and felt comfortable that my iPhone met my needs a lot cheaper than what Garmin demands

smoggysteve

whitestar1 wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

I used to use iPhone, But its tonk, signal loss and tracking is poor. I also tried using my Nike+ watch which gives better results but its a pain playing around with the file to import it to Strava. Best just geta dedicated cycling gps. thats why there is a market for them.

That's interesting I too use my smartphone an iPhone 4s with Cyclemeter and not have these issues. File export and to Strava could be a lot better but it works. As for the OP I had a look at the Garmin offering and felt comfortable that my iPhone met my needs a lot cheaper than what Garmin demands

Generally it works OK. But there are times I have looked on Strava and it has had my position well out from where I actually was. There have been many occasions where it as not registered my attempt on a segment because it has been nowhere near where it says I was. Bit annoying when you know you have done well and it decides to say I was 30m away and therefore not recorded my time.

lc1981

I used to use a smartphone too, but unless you're going to mount it on your stem, it just can't offer what a Garmin can - data as you ride. If you're interested in heart rate, then you're probably going to want to see it on the move!

Aggerdoo

Hey
I don't want to hijack this thread but I've been in a similar dilemma thinking about buying a Garmin GPS watch. The one thing I notice is it says that on most of the watches the average battery life when training (i presume this means with GPS enabled) is about 8 hours. Does anyone have any experience how using a heart rate monitor affects the battery life. My main reason for getting one is I'm doing the RideLondon 100 and up to now I've been using my Samsung Galaxy S3 with Strava but I noticed that it used about 50-60% battery over just a 3 hour ride. I'm not the fastest cyclist so Im not being overly ambitious and I'm aiming to do the 100 miles in around 7-7.5 hours and would hate it if my gps ran out of juice in the last few miles.

robgod

Aggerdoo wrote:

I've been using my Samsung Galaxy S3 with Strava but I noticed that it used about 50-60% battery over just a 3 hour ride.

I use an s3 with strava and it lasted over 10 hours last year when I did a 100 mile night ride (we made lots of stops!!)
Do you leave the screen on? perhaps your battery is faulty. You can disable 3g to get more life. It only needs gps enabled to record the ride. Otherwise you could just buy a spare battery.

Anonymous

Its a really easy answer........just get an Edge 500.
They can be bought at a good price and are a perfect size and functionality.

I used my forerunner for ages (as I already had it for running) but as well as battery life, it is just nowhere near as easy to use on a bike. The 500 screen is a much better size to read the info. I still get a buzz clipping my 500 onto the bike
I chose the 500 over the 510 as I would not really use the features, it was a lot cheaper, looked nicer (IMO) and was not touch screen. My Forerunner has a touch bezel and its a little annoying if you touch by accident and because of that I like that the 500 is real buttons only.

I felt that I did not want a bigger unit on the bike all the time and that the extra functions of an 800/810 may even be a distraction to cycling.
I am not dissing the 800/810 but I felt the 500 was better and that I would get the 810 (or whatever the best one was at the time) in addition to the 500 (not instead of) if I really wanted it.

If you for some reason feel that you need nav or something, then just sell the 500 and buy one. Its a very popular unit and you should have no problem selling/upgrading

northpole

Sorry to be negative but 'One GPS to rule them all' has not yet been released onto the market.

I have found the Garmin 705 and 800 devices to be infuriating pieces of underdeveloped technology and yearn for the day when the Garmin folks meet up with TomTom and/ or Apple and really try to develop a device which works reliably AND intuitively. One day, maybe......

Peter

Anonymous

Agree with above. It does seem that Garmin have a lot of improvement to do on in terms of software.

This is another reason I think the Edge 500 is a good option. Its great when it works, but not so expensive etc. to get worked up about if it has a wobbly.

Garmin seem a good company that will sort things so I am quite calm about my 500 possibly going gaga.

I think north pole hit the nail on the head about Garmin needing to become as user friendly as a Tom Tom and iPod/pad/mac