Garmin Edge 500 vs 520

salsamuffin204

I've decided to buy a Stages Power Meter in the Spring. My current Garmin Forerunner 305 won't read power data so I need to buy a head unit that will give me my power display. The Forerunner has served me well for over 5 years so im happy to stick with Garnin.

Looking to train with power, log rides, keep track of things like lap time, cadence, distance, HR, speed, time of day, the usual stuff. Fairly basic. Like to upload to mapmyride and Strava.

I can find a 'refurbished' Edge 500 for $150 on Amazon.com

Or should I go for the new Edge 520 for about $300.

The live Strava sectors and Bluetooth cell phone link up seem 'nice' but not essential. As long as I get decent battery life, and consistent reliable logging I'm happy.

The only thing that really caught my eye on the 520 was using more (or another) satellite system for faster and more accurate GPS. I'm not sure.

Would love to hear your thoughts on getting a refurbished 500 for half the price of a new 520.

Thanks in advance.

londoncommuter

Do you ever intend to use it for navigation? Even the odd time? If so, I'd consider the extra.

On the basics though it's pretty hard to argue against the 500 as it is a great little unit.

What kind of person are you, the sensible kind who can buy the cheaper bargain or (probably like most of us) the kind that will always be annoyed for not spending the extra and then get one anyway.....

redvision

Had both. 520 wins in every department and has so many extra capabilities should you ever need them.

I have owned several Garmins (205, 305, 500, 705, 810 & the 520) and the 520 is by far and away the best.

salsamuffin204

redvision wrote:

Had both. 520 wins in every department and has so many extra capabilities should you ever need them.

I have owned several Garmins (205, 305, 500, 705, 810 & the 520) and the 520 is by far and away the best.

Thanks for your replies guys. What has impressed you most about the 520?

londoncommuter

redvision wrote:

Had both. 520 wins in every department and has so many extra capabilities should you ever need them.

I have owned several Garmins (205, 305, 500, 705, 810 & the 520) and the 520 is by far and away the best.

I've also had both and love my 520 but actually don't use any of the extra functions other than the maps (why didn't they build in a bigger memory?). Just saying, rationally, I'm not sure twice the price makes sense but irrationally I'd get the 520 every time!

redvision

londoncommuter wrote:

redvision wrote:

Had both. 520 wins in every department and has so many extra capabilities should you ever need them.

I have owned several Garmins (205, 305, 500, 705, 810 & the 520) and the 520 is by far and away the best.

I've also had both and love my 520 but actually don't use any of the extra functions other than the maps (why didn't they build in a bigger memory?). Just saying, rationally, I'm not sure twice the price makes sense but irrationally I'd get the 520 every time!

What about the phone connectivity? Text/call alerts, Strava (if you like that), Bluetooth smart 4.0, Auto uploads,
to mention a few.

I agree the 500 is a similar and excellent device, but the 520 offers so much more.

PLus, the 500 is no longer supported by Garmin.

ayjaycee

londoncommuter wrote:

What about the phone connectivity? Text/call alerts, Strava (if you like that), Bluetooth smart 4.0, Auto uploads,
to mention a few.

I agree the 500 is a similar and excellent device, but the 520 offers so much more.

PLus, the 500 is no longer supported by Garmin.

I quite fancy a 520 to replace my 500 because it's new and shiny and the mapping facility, albeit limited, might come in useful on the [very] odd occasion. However, I don't do Strava and the thought of getting text / call alerts when I am out enjoying a bike ride doesn't turn me on in the slightest. That said, the 500 is still a half decent bit of kit even if it is 'no longer supported by Garmin' (whatever that means).

Bottom line is, if you want a 520 and can afford it crack on - all the reports that I have seen say that it is a very good.

londoncommuter

ayjaycee wrote:

londoncommuter wrote:

What about the phone connectivity? Text/call alerts, Strava (if you like that), Bluetooth smart 4.0, Auto uploads,
to mention a few.

I agree the 500 is a similar and excellent device, but the 520 offers so much more.

PLus, the 500 is no longer supported by Garmin.

I quite fancy a 520 to replace my 500 because it's new and shiny and the mapping facility, albeit limited, might come in useful on the [very] odd occasion. However, I don't do Strava and the thought of getting text / call alerts when I am out enjoying a bike ride doesn't turn me on in the slightest. That said, the 500 is still a half decent bit of kit even if it is 'no longer supported by Garmin' (whatever that means).

Bottom line is, if you want a 520 and can afford it crack on - all the reports that I have seen say that it is a very good.

I got the 520 partly as Garmin annoyingly didn't release Di2 compatibility for the 500 (that's what it means when they stop supporting).

Grill

I have both. Prefer the 500 and it's what I use when I race. I don't use live segments or tracking (and have an 800 for maps), so IME it's not worth the extra $150 just for GLONASS.

pastryboy

I have the 500 and have mulled over the 520.

The advantages i see are:

The 500 navigation is poor - the line you're following frequently disappears from the screen and it's slow to update so you're never sure which turn it is you're meant to be making. It can get you by if junctions/road splits are few and far between but you'll quickly be lost in any remotely busy area. Plus, you never know if the file you downloaded will work - some just have the line disappear completely and it never comes back.

Varia compatibility - Looks decent in my opinion

GLONASS - Whilst I don't know for sure if the 520 would be better I find my 500 very slow to lock on when I leave work due to all the tall buildings - can take 4 minutes or so. I had a 200 for a while and that didn't have the same problem.

None of the other features are of interest to me.

pastryboy

londoncommuter wrote:

I've also had both and love my 520 but actually don't use any of the extra functions other than the maps (why didn't they build in a bigger memory?).

How useful is the 50MB in practical terms, is there a certain radius it's useful for? Would I get all of London within the M25 on it for example?

mugensi

I have just replaced my 500 with a 520 and love it. I done quite a bit of research before buying and to answer your question regarding how practical the 50mb is, on open maps, the greater sydney (australia) area takes up 46mb and is quite detailed. So if you simply load the map of your choice on then there is more than enough space for a days point to point mapping. The only problem would be if you were touring (which I have no intention of) and needed to cover greater distances and didnt have the ability to upload new maps each evening.

I love the text and call alert function, it saves me having to stop t take out my phone to see who is contacting or messaging me. The auto upload to strava is also a cool function. It means my phone battery lasts much longer as I can leave location services switched off on the phone which saves battery life.

If you can afford the 520 then go for it but if your on a budget then the 500 is an excellent piece of kit and does more than most will ever need.

ben-----

pastryboy wrote:

The 500 navigation is poor - the line you're following frequently disappears from the screen and it's slow to update so you're never sure which turn it is you're meant to be making. It can get you by if junctions/road splits are few and far between but you'll quickly be lost in any remotely busy area. Plus, you never know if the file you downloaded will work - some just have the line disappear completely and it never comes back.

That is pretty much completely fixable – if you're prepared to jump through an extra hoop or two per route. Assuming you're creating your routes on Ride with GPS (this is probably is the same for others), download the route as a TCX file, which is probably what you're doing already, then upload it to gpsies.com, select the download options on the route, and tick the "set points evenly" option. Download as TCX again and that route won't disappear on the 500 like it did before. (If you spent time setting up your cue points manually on the original route, getting them just right, doing the just described actions will obliterate those on the resulting route, but there is also a way round that.)

ayjaycee

Not sure if anybody is interested but a couple of days ago, I stumbled across an article by DC Rainmaker on putting your own maps onto a 520. He reckoned that, in practice, the pre-installed base map was pretty useless and that you would therefore be better off deleting it and freeing up another 50MB or so for personal use (ie. to a total circa 100MB). I guess you could always just make a copy of the base map and re-install as and when required. FWIW, the article can be found here: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/05/down ... 00810.html.

Anonymous

Get the reconditioned 500, it does not seem that spending the extra $150 will be worth it to you.

The 'cell phone link up' is worth it alone to me. Connecting via a cable for starva is a P.I.T.A!

philbar72

520 for me. allows me to use 2 different powermeters for the 2 different bikes without back tracking through a tonne of menu's. its also more responsive, clearer to see and just has a bucketload more features.