Garmin 500, 510, 810 blah blah

michaelatkinson

Hi guys,

I am looking to do 2 x 100 mile sportives next year which will be my first ever! Sure thats nothing compared to some of you die hards! Anyway, I have been reading a few books and have got myself a good training programme together for next year. It seems as though I need to get myself a cycle computer with cadence etc. I want to get the HRM with it too as I think that could be quite useful..

Are Garmins the only way to go or are they others? Out of the Garmins what do you reccomend?

Ta

Mick

meursault

I have Garmin 800 handles HRM and cadence well. The main difference is the navigation, 500 if you don't need it 800/810 if you do.

michaelatkinson

Cheers, dont think navigation will be that much of an issue for me although it could come in useful someday!

supermurph09

The 500 will be the only device you'll ever need with HRM and cadence.

craker

You can easily get yourself fit enough for a 100 mile sportive without GPS or hrm or any gadgets. If you can navigate a long training ride without GPS (take a map, ride with a club) then you'll be fine.

But I do fancy getting myself a garmin 500 to help with audax navigation.

michaelatkinson

Supermurph09 wrote:

The 500 will be the only device you'll ever need with HRM and cadence.

Why the 500 & not 510?

cougie

You dont need a garmin for cadence. Plenty of cheaper computers have them - plus Merckx and co did fine without either.

Review of the 510 here - http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... -13-46859/

I went for the 500.

dw300

Buttons > Touchscreen on a cycle computer, all else being equal.

You can operate it without looking. There's feedback that youve pressed the button. You can use the device more easily when the road is bumpy. You can keep an eye on you opponents.

I had a 500 and upgraded to an 800. 500 was easier to use, just doesn't have the features.

cerv50

dw300 wrote:

Buttons > Touchscreen on a cycle computer, all else being equal.

You can operate it without looking. There's feedback that youve pressed the button. You can use the device more easily when the road is bumpy. You can keep an eye on you opponents.

I had a 500 and upgraded to an 800. 500 was easier to use, just doesn't have the features.

Without taking over the OP's thread, how do you get on with the 800?. I currently have 500 but am thinking of upgrading to gain the mapping function and cant decide whether an 800 or 810 would be better? Have thread going here

viewtopic.php?f=40042&t=12952695

stoobydale

Out of curiosity, does anone really use cadence when out on the road? I used to use it for winter training when I was told to keep my cadence above 90rpm (as part of a plan.) But after looking at the data for lots of rides, the average was always 89-92, so stopped using it and have never bothered since. One of my mates seems to be really hung up on cadence and I don't know why. I think I would be considered more of a grinder than a spinner. My mate is more a spinner.

manxshred

I would think you are closer to a spinner, my average is usually below 80rpm.

meursault

stoobydale wrote:

Out of curiosity, does anone really use cadence when out on the road? I used to use it for winter training when I was told to keep my cadence above 90rpm (as part of a plan.) But after looking at the data for lots of rides, the average was always 89-92, so stopped using it and have never bothered since. One of my mates seems to be really hung up on cadence and I don't know why. I think I would be considered more of a grinder than a spinner. My mate is more a spinner.

I take some notice. I find that developing an auto, muscle memory thing, feels pretty good for efficiency. Don't analyse after a ride though.

kingstonian

stoobydale wrote:

Out of curiosity, does anone really use cadence when out on the road? I used to use it for winter training when I was told to keep my cadence above 90rpm (as part of a plan.) But after looking at the data for lots of rides, the average was always 89-92, so stopped using it and have never bothered since. One of my mates seems to be really hung up on cadence and I don't know why. I think I would be considered more of a grinder than a spinner. My mate is more a spinner.

I had a 20 year break from cycling, and got back into it 6 months ago. Back in the days my cadence was always around 80, and now I find it is exactly the same. I can't be a spinner, it has always felt unnatural to me.

TakeTurns

stoobydale wrote:

Out of curiosity, does anone really use cadence when out on the road? I used to use it for winter training when I was told to keep my cadence above 90rpm (as part of a plan.) But after looking at the data for lots of rides, the average was always 89-92, so stopped using it and have never bothered since. One of my mates seems to be really hung up on cadence and I don't know why. I think I would be considered more of a grinder than a spinner. My mate is more a spinner.

I do. Particularly useful when doing cadence drills. Also good for when climbing. Making sure that you aren't grinding(as people tend to do when it gets tough) will help you climb efficiently.

I also use the cadence meter with a wheel magnet. I like my speed to be accurate. I don't know whether it's because I live in London, but the speed sensor is more responsive and accurate than the GPS(as good as the gps is).

mentalalex

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Garmin-Touchscr ... garmin+800

if its any use garmin 800 for 209

DKay

If you want a GPS computer with cadence and HRM, then I would buy a Bryton Rider 20E. It's ANT+ compatible so can be paired up with a HRM and a cadence sensor. It's main downside is that you can't customise the displays, but I got mine for £50 brand new which was a bargain.

zcapp96

You can get a Bryton 20 with a HRM for under £70 from Merlin Cycles. Got one for Christmas and was great on the one ride I've done so far. Am going to get a cadence sensor to pair with it as well.

milese

dw300 wrote:

Buttons > Touchscreen on a cycle computer, all else being equal.

You can operate it without looking. There's feedback that youve pressed the button. You can use the device more easily when the road is bumpy. You can keep an eye on you opponents.

I had a 500 and upgraded to an 800. 500 was easier to use, just doesn't have the features.

Sorry for being basic, are you saying that the 500 is more usable than the 510?

My 500 is goosed and thought I might get the newer version so at least I'm getting something different for my money.

Your comments aside, I thought:

Bigger screen
Wireless uploads, which is pretty useful and time saving.

Are there any reliability issues with the 510? I've had two 500's fail on me, along with some buggy software issues....

richa

Milese wrote:

Sorry for being basic, are you saying that the 500 is more usable than the 510?

My 500 is goosed and thought I might get the newer version so at least I'm getting something different for my money.

Your comments aside, I thought:

Bigger screen
Wireless uploads, which is pretty useful and time saving.

Are there any reliability issues with the 510? I've had two 500's fail on me, along with some buggy software issues....

This is worth a read:
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/01/garm ... eview.html

ednino

I've been using the 500 for a year now. Its been brilliant & does everything i want.

The latest update means it also works with vector power sensors. Not that i can afford them lol