Forum home Road cycling forum Road general

Edge 25 or 500 or 520

stu-bimstu-bim Posts: 406
edited July 2016 in Road general
Having recently damaged my 810, water damage and no touch screen anymore, I cannot decide between the the Edge 25, 500 or 520. Repairing would likely cost more than a new 500.

I am certainly leaning towards the 500 from around GBP109 as it will do everything I want and is the cheapest.

I tend to use for tracking ride to garmin connect, generally use three view data screen: heartrate, speed and cadence. I do not have a power meter but am considering I may some day, so this rules out the Edge 20.

Not bothered with touch screen, didn't like it on 810.

From other users experience, what I would gain from the other units considering both are more expensive?

Thanks
Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon

Posts

  • amaferangaamaferanga Posts: 6,789
    The Edge 25 does not work with a power meter. It could because it's ANT+ and does work with HR and cadence sensors, but Garmin decided (for reasons unknown) to make it incompatible with power meters. That may change in the future with a firmware update, but given that they can't even fix an issue with speed/cadence sensors then I doubt it'll ever work with power meters.
    More problems but still living....
  • Man Of LardMan Of Lard Posts: 903
    Given the (design) age of the 500 and the speed of satellite acquisition, I'd say it's false economy... for me it would be between the 25 & 520 (erring towards the 520 on the basis of future possible power meter needs which the 25 doesn't do according to DCRainmaker)

    Comparison results towards the bottom of the page - http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/11/wint ... 93#results
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 16,809
    500 - Too old tech.
    25 - Impossible to view cadence and heart rate simultaneously. Battery only lasts up to 6 hours.
    520 - More expensive and bigger than the 25 but does everything you need. Can be found cheaper than a 510.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • alex222alex222 Posts: 598
    I've got the 500 which still works. But will be upgrading to the 520 when my work's next round of Bike to Work scheme kicks off again.
    GPS tracking can go a bit off mid ride (annoying on my recent Alps trip) and it takes time to locate satellites at the start of the ride (annoying on commutes).
    So in your shoes I'd go 520.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,934
    PBlakeney wrote:
    500 - Too old tech.
    25 - Impossible to view cadence and heart rate simultaneously. Battery only lasts up to 6 hours.

    I was going to comment on the battery, I've had an elapse time of 7h12m out of mine but it died just after the finish line. I ended up finishing the second day of road touring using my phone the weekend before last too.
  • stu-bimstu-bim Posts: 406
    censored about the 25, I thought it was the 20 that had no powermeter support

    I was really expecting you would all tell me to get the 500, don't waste the extra money, and I was ready to pull the trigger

    Some more research for me now then
    Raleigh RX 2.0
    Diamondback Outlook
    Planet X Pro Carbon
  • apreadingapreading Posts: 4,533
    Given the (design) age of the 500 and the speed of satellite acquisition, I'd say it's false economy... for me it would be between the 25 & 520 (erring towards the 520 on the basis of future possible power meter needs which the 25 doesn't do according to DCRainmaker)

    Comparison results towards the bottom of the page - http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/11/wint ... 93#results

    In my experience, the 800 gets satellite lock much (MUCH) faster than the 25, every time. And I often ride with both (the 800 for mapping and the 25 to get phone call/text alerts etc) so I see this almost every other day. I cant recall much difference between my 800 and my son's 200 before he upgraded to an 800, so would imagine the 500 is quicker than the 25.

    If I have just the 25 then I often start rides before it has achieved lock and miss the first half mile on the history.

    Maybe the 25 is as quick or quicker with GLONASS turned on but everyone says that eats the battery.
  • PituophisPituophis Posts: 1,025
    Never had a moments trouble with my 500, but everyone else seems to hate them.
    I am Mr. Basic-needs though.
  • cgfw201cgfw201 Posts: 669
    Recently upgraded from a 500 to 520 and it's light years ahead, well worth the investment,
  • philbar72philbar72 Posts: 2,228
    520 if you can afford it. the other 2 are far weaker products and the 500 especially is showing its age.
  • apreadingapreading Posts: 4,533
    I would agree. Right now I would say 800 if you want proper mapping, 520 for anything else unless you really want a small cheapie with minimal functionality, in which case 25. The 800 and 520 are so cheap now that if you want decent functionality there isnt much point lookng elsewhere.
  • rs6mra1rs6mra1 Posts: 104
    I would rule the 800 out. Old tech and its 6 years old. Its a matter of time before Garmin stop firmware updates for that model. LIkewise the 810 which is coming up to 4 years.
    I have the 510 and keen to upgrade but i do not fancy the 1000 and I prefer the size of the 810 but it hasn't Glonass. Is there a market for a product that would supersede the 810???????? That is the question I keep asking myself.
    Personally I would struggle to go from an 810 to anything below that, but if you never used the other functions especially mapping, the 520 could well be the one for you.
  • apreadingapreading Posts: 4,533
    rs6mra1 wrote:
    I would rule the 800 out. Old tech and its 6 years old. Its a matter of time before Garmin stop firmware updates for that model. LIkewise the 810 which is coming up to 4 years.
    I have the 510 and keen to upgrade but i do not fancy the 1000 and I prefer the size of the 810 but it hasn't Glonass. Is there a market for a product that would supersede the 810???????? That is the question I keep asking myself.
    Personally I would struggle to go from an 810 to anything below that, but if you never used the other functions especially mapping, the 520 could well be the one for you.

    But you dont need firmware updates for the 800, because it just works. I havent yet applied the last four firmware updates to mine because it doesnt need them. And while it may be old tech, its still better than any of the newer stuff in my opinion. Better battery life, resistive touch screen that works with gloves, reasonable size and proper routable mapping. There are often factory refurb 800s around for just over a hundred notes too. 810 adds a few features like linking to your phone but costs more money, seemed to have more buggy firmware and otherwise is essentially the same as the 800.

    520 is fantastic if you dont really want the proper mapping features and if that were me, it would be my defacto choice.
  • Alex99Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    520 if you can. You'll forget about the cost difference quick enough.
  • stovemanstoveman Posts: 125
    Would highly recommend the 520,as a newer rider I got the cadence and hr sensor pack bundle and tells me everything I need and want to know at the moment for where my current abilities are.
  • stu-bimstu-bim Posts: 406
    Thanks for all the replies, may go for 520

    Just seen it on wiggle at GBP 189

    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-edge-520 ... -computer/

    Anyone know of it cheaper somewhere else or a voucher for wiggle
    Raleigh RX 2.0
    Diamondback Outlook
    Planet X Pro Carbon
  • Man Of LardMan Of Lard Posts: 903
    Halfords on eBay had them for £169 earlier on...
  • IanRCarterIanRCarter Posts: 217
    £10 cheaper at CRC if you're a BC member and haven't already used your code this month.
    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/garm ... prod138428
Sign In or Register to comment.