Cheapest Garmin for Strava?

sniper68

As per title what's the most basic Garmin that can be used with Strava?I'm not wanting OS Mapping just a devise to use like a standard cycle computer that can up load data to Strava. I'm getting a bit bored with messing about with my iPhone only for it to lose the signal and not store the route in the app.

defbref

They can all be used with Strava, Edge 200 is the cheapest bike specific one, about £80 to £90

sniper68

Cheers not too pricey then.

rolf_f

If you don't insist on Garmin you can get more for less than the price of an Edge. I bought a Bryton 20 earlier this year for £65 with a HRM included.

jonny_trousers

Yeah, the Edge 200 is a fantastic little computer for your needs.

ben-----

If you're not fussed about seeing info as you ride, a gps logger is what you want. It's just a little box with one or two buttons. Turn it on, put it in your pocket/bag, set off, get back, turn it off, download gpx file to computer, upload to Strava.

Anonymous

ibbo68 wrote:

Cheers not too pricey then.

If you think that then consider getting an edge 500.
The extra features may make your ride a better one to upload to strava.

sniper68

Thanks for the advice 8)
After some comparing I decided on the Edge 200.Seems to do everything I need at the minute and managed to get one for £70

kajjal

Get beating those times

The obvious improvements the 500 has over the 200 is it is more accurate once set to record position every second and the screen can be set to display the info you want from a long list. You may find in time it is a useful upgrade to make.

rolf_f

Kajjal wrote:

Get beating those times <br abp="812"><br abp="813">The obvious improvements the 500 has over the 200 is it is more accurate once set to record position every second.

No, it's not more accurate - just higher resolution data. And that doesn't matter unless the higher resolution tells you something that you would otherwise miss. It's nice if you don't mind that the bigger file sizes will use up more memory for no real benefit aside from gaining a fragment of a mph higher readings on a fast descent. It might also be useful if you are in a crash........

sniper68

I'll see how it goes and if I want more features I'll possibly upgrade next year
My mate has an edge 800 which is very trick but a bit more than I need at this time.

rattyc5

don't rely on the garmin edge 500 to give a very good elevation reading , its way out. the wife has it and I have the 800 which has an altimeter.

kajjal

Rolf F wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Get beating those times <br abp="812"><br abp="813">The obvious improvements the 500 has over the 200 is it is more accurate once set to record position every second.

No, it's not more accurate - just higher resolution data. And that doesn't matter unless the higher resolution tells you something that you would otherwise miss. It's nice if you don't mind that the bigger file sizes will use up more memory for no real benefit aside from gaining a fragment of a mph higher readings on a fast descent. It might also be useful if you are in a crash........

The 200 uses dynamic recording which can mean well over ten seconds between readings. On straight roads it makes little difference but on twisting roads or MTB single track it makes a noticeable difference as the 200 smooths out corners or misses them out entirely. I have never run out of storage space on my 500 with several rides stored on it.

The additional configurable display data is very handy for training due to the variety it can show. The 200 is fixed.

StillGoing

The accuracy with devices differs from model to model. On a recent ride with someone using a Garmin 800 doing exactly the same course, he recorded a distance of 1.5 miles further than me, whilst my 810 recorded a higher overall elevation.

rolf_f

Kajjal wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Get beating those times <br abp="812"><br abp="813">The obvious improvements the 500 has over the 200 is it is more accurate once set to record position every second.

No, it's not more accurate - just higher resolution data. And that doesn't matter unless the higher resolution tells you something that you would otherwise miss. It's nice if you don't mind that the bigger file sizes will use up more memory for no real benefit aside from gaining a fragment of a mph higher readings on a fast descent. It might also be useful if you are in a crash........

The 200 uses dynamic recording which can mean well over ten seconds between readings.

What actually determines the frequency then? It sounds like the dynamic aspect of the recording isn't programmed very well because you'd think that your example would result in maximum frequency of recording.

Re 'several rides' - obviously it depends how you use your unit as to whether that is ok or not - I commonly end up with up to 60 rides on a unit as they tend to pile up rather quickly on the commute! The Brytons tend to record every 4 seconds so that 60 rides worth of space would be used up in a week if the unit was recording every second.

philthy3 wrote:

The accuracy with devices differs from model to model. On a recent ride with someone using a Garmin 800 doing exactly the same course, he recorded a distance of 1.5 miles further than me, whilst my 810 recorded a higher overall elevation.

Distance is one thing, elevation another. Take the latter with a pinch of salt. Eg Strava likes Garmin so if you upload a Garmin recording to Strava they'll often give you 20% more elevation (and, in comparison to planned routes, 20% less accurate elevation) than that recorded using other computers! Makes life much harder on the elevation challenges! The 1.5 miles is a bit more of a worry. Were both units using the same method of distance calculation? ie gps only or wheel magnet plus gps?

wongataa

Rolf F wrote:

The 200 uses dynamic recording which can mean well over ten seconds between readings.

What actually determines the frequency then? It sounds like the dynamic aspect of the recording isn't programmed very well because you'd think that your example would result in maximum frequency of recording.

Garmin don't say so we don't know.

Rolf F wrote:

Re 'several rides' - obviously it depends how you use your unit as to whether that is ok or not - I commonly end up with up to 60 rides on a unit as they tend to pile up rather quickly on the commute! The Brytons tend to record every 4 seconds so that 60 rides worth of space would be used up in a week if the unit was recording every second.

If you run out of space just copy the log files off the device or record them to a SD card (if the device can use them).

I have had experience with a Bryton and the record data every 4 seconds. Corners on roads & roundabouts weren't tracked very well due to a too low sampling frequency.

kajjal

On the 500 you can manually set the update frequency to one second on the 200 it is adaptive giving varying results which shows up more on twisty sections. If you google this you will see the comparisons on maps which are surprisingly different and stopped me buying a 200.

MiddleRinger

I've never had a problem with the "dynamic recording" of the Edge 200 giving wonky results. It's perfectly fine for recording road rides. I think it'd be more of a problem if you were using it for twisty MTB stuff though. Personally given the lower price of things now, I'd probably go for a 500 or 510 model instead just for that little bit more flexibility in setting up the data displays.

kajjal

I use my 500 for road and mountain biking which is why the 200 was not right for me. Also like you say I wanted the flexible display set up as well

rolf_f

wongataa wrote:

I have had experience with a Bryton and the record data every 4 seconds. Corners on roads & roundabouts weren't tracked very well due to a too low sampling frequency.

That is true but, in the context of the ride stats, it makes no difference at all. All you really gain from the higher sampling frequency is a more attractive trace when you zoom in!

The only time I've regretted the 4 second sampling frequency was when cycling The Ghost Peloton. All the intricate moves would have come out more nicely if I'd had 1 second data points but even on a trace like that, constantly turning all the time, the overall numbers were similar to those using Garmins.

Kajjal wrote:

On the 500 you can manually set the update frequency to one second on the 200 it is adaptive giving varying results which shows up more on twisty sections. If you google this you will see the comparisons on maps which are surprisingly different and stopped me buying a 200.

So Garmin went to a lot of trouble and effort to introduce functionality to the 200 to make it worse!
I'd have fixed it at 1 second and made the penalty unnecessarily large file sizes.

StillGoing

Rolf F wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

The accuracy with devices differs from model to model. On a recent ride with someone using a Garmin 800 doing exactly the same course, he recorded a distance of 1.5 miles further than me, whilst my 810 recorded a higher overall elevation.

Distance is one thing, elevation another. Take the latter with a pinch of salt. Eg Strava likes Garmin so if you upload a Garmin recording to Strava they'll often give you 20% more elevation (and, in comparison to planned routes, 20% less accurate elevation) than that recorded using other computers! Makes life much harder on the elevation challenges! The 1.5 miles is a bit more of a worry. Were both units using the same method of distance calculation? ie gps only or wheel magnet plus gps?

Both devices use exactly the same measuring processes. I don't bother about the numbers just that there is such a vast difference between two devices made by the same manufacturer.

Cannock Chase

I use the Edge 200.
I have a 30 mile circuit which I ride regularly, sometimes on the racer, sometimes on the tourer. Same route but different speeds. One fast, one leisurely. Each time the Edge 200 records each ride within a couple of hundreth's of a mile of each other. Whatever the sampling speed is, it doesn't seem to make much difference to the mileage.

Anonymous

200 seems a good little unit for £70 but it sometimes seems more of an upgrade from a Cateye.
I only mentioned the 500 because the OP said cost of 200 was lower than expected.

£50 extra would seem to get much better VFM and longterm use without the need to upgrade unless you wanted proper mapping.

wongataa

Rolf F wrote:

wongataa wrote:

I have had experience with a Bryton and the record data every 4 seconds. Corners on roads & roundabouts weren't tracked very well due to a too low sampling frequency.

That is true but, in the context of the ride stats, it makes no difference at all. All you really gain from the higher sampling frequency is a more attractive trace when you zoom in!

If the sampling frequency is low enough to not track corners correctly the total distance of the GPS track can be less than the actual distance travelled. With a long enough ride and enough twisty bits the difference could be significant.

rolf_f

wongataa wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

wongataa wrote:

I have had experience with a Bryton and the record data every 4 seconds. Corners on roads & roundabouts weren't tracked very well due to a too low sampling frequency.

That is true but, in the context of the ride stats, it makes no difference at all. All you really gain from the higher sampling frequency is a more attractive trace when you zoom in!

If the sampling frequency is low enough to not track corners correctly the total distance of the GPS track can be less than the actual distance travelled. With a long enough ride and enough twisty bits the difference could be significant.

it's inconsequential. Unless you lose sleep over a few metres. You need tight turns to really cut the corners with a lower sampling frequency but with tight turns you are going more slowly so the change of direction over four seconds is less.... You'd have to be slaloming across the width of the road the whole way to make the difference noticeable.

The discrepancies are minute compared to elevation discrepancies.

wongataa

Rolf F wrote:

it's inconsequential. Unless you lose sleep over a few metres. You need tight turns to really cut the corners with a lower sampling frequency but with tight turns you are going more slowly so the change of direction over four seconds is less.... You'd have to be slaloming across the width of the road the whole way to make the difference noticeable.

The discrepancies are minute compared to elevation discrepancies.

I agree that It isn't very much difference in distance. It could add up on a really long ride though. I usually ignore GPS altitude numbers as they vary so much. I don't have any altitude data displayed on my Garmin 800.

Cannock Chase

it's inconsequential. Unless you lose sleep over a few metres.

I agree that It isn't very much difference in distance. It could add up on a really long ride though..

I think you have to be a real distance anorak to worry about sampling rate.

Either way, whichever GPS is used it's probably far more accurate than a conventional cycle computer, where even a difference of a couple of pounds of tyre pressure will affect the indicated distance far more than different GPS sampling rates.

junglist_matty

a stolen one?