Garmin edge 520 vs 810

Anonymous

Carbonator wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Still see the 500 on the bars of pro riders today

Which means what exactly?

Which means it still does the job of what it was built for despite supposed 'better' tech being available.

Who said it didn't?
An old Nokia does the job it was built for but who uses one of those?

There is 100% no supposing lol. Its better tech.
Pro's have their reason for doing what they do, become a pro before you copy them

I have a 500, 25, 520 and 1000.
Only the 500 is on ebay though.

End of the day the newer tech does little more than the old in regards to Garmin Edge 500 series. For me all I care about is speed, cadence, distance and power with a few desirable extra bits. I don't need touch screen for that. A button click to scroll through the pages if I require is easier than a tap on the screen. The 510 was so poor an upgrade the sluggish touchscreen was gladly removed. I think Garmin knew what they were doing by removing it. The 500 series and 800 series are aimed at different markets. Yes they have dome cross over but the 500's are meant to be functional snd the 800's are for touring with maps etc. If you want an 820 and use it for racing so be it. It still does the job but its not its primary target. If you want to tour on a 520 its not so good with its breadcrumb trail but it can still be done but again its not the target selling point. Touchscreen on the 510 just wasn't necessary. For some it may be a nicety or even a necessity but if it is get an 820 instead. Why make another crappy laggy 510+ when a more fluid functional unit can be produced which the 520 is.

StillGoing

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

The 810 is old.
What is it with Garmins that people want old outdated tech so badly?
Is it cyclists?

Like no touch screen on the 520?

Errr, I said get an 820 :roll:

As I also said, the 5 series and 8 series are not really comparable anyway.

I was referring to you calling people for wanting outdated technology. The 520 has reverted to outdated technology by going to buttons rather than an improved touch screen. Double :roll: :roll:

Not quite sure you can call a 520 outdated technology because it does not 'choose' to use touchscreen.

Live starva segments and Group Track capabilities (group trackable) seem pretty bang up to fcuking date to me, and just the type of thing old tech buyers poo poo.............. until its old tech :roll: :roll: :roll:

Garmin have their reasons for not having touchscreen on the 520 I guess, but you could have got a 1000 and now an 820 if you want touchscreen that bad.

Was the 510 touchscreen?
Anyone know why they dropped it on the 520 if it was?

People love the 500, yet moan about no touchscreen on the 520 lol
They just love knocking expensive Garmins, until they are not expensive, then they buy one, say its the best thing ever, and move on to knocking the newer models.

You made a reference to why riders would choose old technology over new, I'm merely pointing out that in effect, that is what the 520 did. Garmin went the way of touch screen with the 800, 510, 810 and 1000. They then release the 520 and despite what else it does, it reverted to old tech with buttons instead of a revised touch screen. The 820 comes out and oh look, a touch screen again.

For the record, my 810 never had a problem with its touch screen. My SiL has not had a problem with the touch screen on his 510 either. The riders I know with 800s have not had problems with their touch screens. My 820 touch screen has been fine so far for me.

sparklehedgehog

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Still see the 500 on the bars of pro riders today

Which means what exactly?

Which means it still does the job of what it was built for despite supposed 'better' tech being available.

Who said it didn't?
An old Nokia does the job it was built for but who uses one of those?

There is 100% no supposing lol. Its better tech.
Pro's have their reason for doing what they do, become a pro before you copy them

I have a 500, 25, 520 and 1000.
Only the 500 is on ebay though.

End of the day the newer tech does little more than the old in regards to Garmin Edge 500 series. For me all I care about is speed, cadence, distance and power with a few desirable extra bits. I don't need touch screen for that. A button click to scroll through the pages if I require is easier than a tap on the screen. The 510 was so poor an upgrade the sluggish touchscreen was gladly removed. I think Garmin knew what they were doing by removing it. The 500 series and 800 series are aimed at different markets. Yes they have dome cross over but the 500's are meant to be functional snd the 800's are for touring with maps etc. If you want an 820 and use it for racing so be it. It still does the job but its not its primary target. If you want to tour on a 520 its not so good with its breadcrumb trail but it can still be done but again its not the target selling point. Touchscreen on the 510 just wasn't necessary. For some it may be a nicety or even a necessity but if it is get an 820 instead. Why make another crappy laggy 510+ when a more fluid functional unit can be produced which the 520 is.

The major upgrade over the 500 for me was the wireless connectivity. That was the sole reason I went for the 510 over the 500 as I felt for me it was important to remove the necessity for computer transfer

Anonymous

philthy3 wrote:

You made a reference to why riders would choose old technology over new, I'm merely pointing out that in effect, that is what the 520 did. Garmin went the way of touch screen with the 800, 510, 810 and 1000. They then release the 520 and despite what else it does, it reverted to old tech with buttons instead of a revised touch screen. The 820 comes out and oh look, a touch screen again.

.

Why do you find this so dfficult to understand??

The 800 is old tech
The 810 is old tech
The 520 is not old tech
The 5 series are completely different to the 800 and 1000 series
It was a mistake that the 510 was touchscreen and Garmn have rectified that by not repeating the mistake on the 520.

Nothing wrong with getting outdated kit, but just admit why you are getting it and be happy for those that want something else.

Do you pull over at car dealerships and tell the people looking at new cars that your 10 year old one does just what you need it to?

StillGoing

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You made a reference to why riders would choose old technology over new, I'm merely pointing out that in effect, that is what the 520 did. Garmin went the way of touch screen with the 800, 510, 810 and 1000. They then release the 520 and despite what else it does, it reverted to old tech with buttons instead of a revised touch screen. The 820 comes out and oh look, a touch screen again.

.

Why do you find this so dfficult to understand??

The 800 is old tech
The 810 is old tech
The 520 is not old tech
The 5 series are completely different to the 800 and 1000 series
It was a mistake that the 510 was touchscreen and Garmn have rectified that by not repeating the mistake on the 520.

Nothing wrong with getting outdated kit, but just admit why you are getting it and be happy for those that want something else.

Do you pull over at car dealerships and tell the people looking at new cars that your 10 year old one does just what you need it to?

DO you continually try to argue black is white? I'll wager the replacement for the 520 has a touch screen. If it were such an innovation do you not think smart phones would have reverted to it? Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

sniper68

robbo2011 wrote:

I am still using an edge 800 and it is fine. Should i change that too just because it is old?

That's exactly what I've just done.Replaced my Edge 800 with and 820 and I prefer the size of the 820.Not sure if it's better at anything than the 800(apart from Bluetooth/Wifi) but my 800 is a couple of years old now so I thought I'd get a new one 8)
My lad has now got the 800 to replace his 200 so everyone's happy

twist83

I had the Garmin 510 and it was dire. The touchscreen was junk combined with a slow interface made it infuriating.

The 520 IMO is streets ahead. It does what it needs to do without the need for a touchscreen. Seeing as it does not have a proper Nav function built in, once you are on a screen you tend to stay there. Hence the buttons just work better.

The other half has a 820 and the touchscreen and overall experience is a lot better and works well with a touchscreen because of the enhanced mapping/nav feature. When having a touchscreen is beneficial.

philthy3 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You made a reference to why riders would choose old technology over new, I'm merely pointing out that in effect, that is what the 520 did. Garmin went the way of touch screen with the 800, 510, 810 and 1000. They then release the 520 and despite what else it does, it reverted to old tech with buttons instead of a revised touch screen. The 820 comes out and oh look, a touch screen again.

.

Why do you find this so dfficult to understand??

The 800 is old tech
The 810 is old tech
The 520 is not old tech
The 5 series are completely different to the 800 and 1000 series
It was a mistake that the 510 was touchscreen and Garmn have rectified that by not repeating the mistake on the 520.

Nothing wrong with getting outdated kit, but just admit why you are getting it and be happy for those that want something else.

Do you pull over at car dealerships and tell the people looking at new cars that your 10 year old one does just what you need it to?

DO you continually try to argue black is white? I'll wager the replacement for the 520 has a touch screen. If it were such an innovation do you not think smart phones would have reverted to it? Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

kingstongraham

I have a 500 and it still does exactly what it always did. That didn't stop me buying an 820 as it is better. Hope that helps.

Anonymous

philthy3 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

You made a reference to why riders would choose old technology over new, I'm merely pointing out that in effect, that is what the 520 did. Garmin went the way of touch screen with the 800, 510, 810 and 1000. They then release the 520 and despite what else it does, it reverted to old tech with buttons instead of a revised touch screen. The 820 comes out and oh look, a touch screen again.

.

Why do you find this so dfficult to understand??

The 800 is old tech
The 810 is old tech
The 520 is not old tech
The 5 series are completely different to the 800 and 1000 series
It was a mistake that the 510 was touchscreen and Garmn have rectified that by not repeating the mistake on the 520.

Nothing wrong with getting outdated kit, but just admit why you are getting it and be happy for those that want something else.

Do you pull over at car dealerships and tell the people looking at new cars that your 10 year old one does just what you need it to?

DO you continually try to argue black is white? I'll wager the replacement for the 520 has a touch screen. If it were such an innovation do you not think smart phones would have reverted to it? Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

Touch screens are great on devices like phones. But you dont use a garmin like a smartphone. I could do a million marvellous things on an ipad but if I want to write a long letter I will still use a computer with a proper keyboard. Technology for the sake of tech is not very innovative if it doesn't actually enhsnce the experience

Barbarossa

If you are mainly looking for performance data, the 520 is the one to go for.

I would probably die of embarrassment if someone saw me with something as big and clunky as an 810 / 820 on my bike. :oops:

Anonymous

philthy3 wrote:

Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

Er, no.

500 = no touch screen but great unit.

510 = touchscreen on a unit that seems to have issues with it (i.e. mistake).

520 = no touchscreen but great unit.

The 500 series would have to have a touch screen on a usable device before the omission of a touch screen was a step back!
It never worked properly on the 510!!

We will have to wait and see what a newer 500 series has
Even if they do finally sort touchscreen out on a non nav edge, it means nothing in terms of the 520 not having it.

Anonymous

Barbarossa wrote:

If you are mainly looking for performance data, the 520 is the one to go for.

I would probably die of embarrassment if someone saw me with something as big and clunky as an 810 / 820 on my bike. :oops:

Er, the 520 and 820 are exactly the same size :oops:

StillGoing

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

Er, no.

500 = no touch screen but great unit.

510 = touchscreen on a unit that seems to have issues with it (i.e. mistake).

520 = no touchscreen but great unit.

The 500 series would have to have a touch screen on a usable device before the omission of a touch screen was a step back!
It never worked properly on the 510!!

We will have to wait and see what a newer 500 series has
Even if they do finally sort touchscreen out on a non nav edge, it means nothing in terms of the 520 not having it.

There are plenty of people who aren't having problems with the touch screen on their Edge devices including the 510 series. The issue in my mind is those users who can't differentiate between using a bike computer and a smart phone. The edge touch screen is different technology to a smart phone designed to quickly move between pages on the move and little else.

We'll agree to disagree. My own thoughts are that Garmin released the 520 early to stave off losing customers to Wahoo and it should have been the 820 all along.

Anonymous

philthy3 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

Er, no.

500 = no touch screen but great unit.

510 = touchscreen on a unit that seems to have issues with it (i.e. mistake).

520 = no touchscreen but great unit.

The 500 series would have to have a touch screen on a usable device before the omission of a touch screen was a step back!
It never worked properly on the 510!!

We will have to wait and see what a newer 500 series has
Even if they do finally sort touchscreen out on a non nav edge, it means nothing in terms of the 520 not having it.

There are plenty of people who aren't having problems with the touch screen on their Edge devices including the 510 series. The issue in my mind is those users who can't differentiate between using a bike computer and a smart phone. The edge touch screen is different technology to a smart phone designed to quickly move between pages on the move and little else.

We'll agree to disagree. My own thoughts are that Garmin released the 520 early to stave off losing customers to Wahoo and it should have been the 820 all along.

What BS. Although the 520 lost the touchscreen function it brought about a fair few other advances over the 510 and 810 like real time Strava segments. I for one do not care for mapping so why would the 820 or any 8 series appeal to me with its premium price tag? As i can see the 820 is the same size as the 520 but with more tech in it gor the mapping etc so it is within their capability to produce a working touchscreen on the 520. They just decided not to. It worked perfectly fine on the 810 and 1000 both released before the 520 so it was obviously a conscious decision to omit it.

StillGoing

Maglia Rosa wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

Er, no.

500 = no touch screen but great unit.

510 = touchscreen on a unit that seems to have issues with it (i.e. mistake).

520 = no touchscreen but great unit.

The 500 series would have to have a touch screen on a usable device before the omission of a touch screen was a step back!
It never worked properly on the 510!!

We will have to wait and see what a newer 500 series has
Even if they do finally sort touchscreen out on a non nav edge, it means nothing in terms of the 520 not having it.

There are plenty of people who aren't having problems with the touch screen on their Edge devices including the 510 series. The issue in my mind is those users who can't differentiate between using a bike computer and a smart phone. The edge touch screen is different technology to a smart phone designed to quickly move between pages on the move and little else.

We'll agree to disagree. My own thoughts are that Garmin released the 520 early to stave off losing customers to Wahoo and it should have been the 820 all along.

What BS. Although the 520 lost the touchscreen function it brought about a fair few other advances over the 510 and 810 like real time Strava segments. I for one do not care for mapping so why would the 820 or any 8 series appeal to me with its premium price tag? As i can see the 820 is the same size as the 520 but with more tech in it gor the mapping etc so it is within their capability to produce a working touchscreen on the 520. They just decided not to. It worked perfectly fine on the 810 and 1000 both released before the 520 so it was obviously a conscious decision to omit it.

The 520 came out long before the 820 replacing the 510 that had been released after the 810. IF Garmin were having problems with the touch screen technology of the 510 and feared losing customers eager to have the new capabilities of the Wahoo device being released, it would make perfect sense to release an early upgrade to the 520 instead of continuing with the development of the due replacement of the 810. Again, I will wager the replacement for the 520 when it arrives has a touch screen.

Anonymous

philthy3 wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Whatever else the 520 does that is a leap forward over the rest of the 500 series, buttons was a step back.

Er, no.

500 = no touch screen but great unit.

510 = touchscreen on a unit that seems to have issues with it (i.e. mistake).

520 = no touchscreen but great unit.

The 500 series would have to have a touch screen on a usable device before the omission of a touch screen was a step back!
It never worked properly on the 510!!

We will have to wait and see what a newer 500 series has
Even if they do finally sort touchscreen out on a non nav edge, it means nothing in terms of the 520 not having it.

There are plenty of people who aren't having problems with the touch screen on their Edge devices including the 510 series. The issue in my mind is those users who can't differentiate between using a bike computer and a smart phone. The edge touch screen is different technology to a smart phone designed to quickly move between pages on the move and little else.

We'll agree to disagree. My own thoughts are that Garmin released the 520 early to stave off losing customers to Wahoo and it should have been the 820 all along.

What BS. Although the 520 lost the touchscreen function it brought about a fair few other advances over the 510 and 810 like real time Strava segments. I for one do not care for mapping so why would the 820 or any 8 series appeal to me with its premium price tag? As i can see the 820 is the same size as the 520 but with more tech in it gor the mapping etc so it is within their capability to produce a working touchscreen on the 520. They just decided not to. It worked perfectly fine on the 810 and 1000 both released before the 520 so it was obviously a conscious decision to omit it.

The 520 came out long before the 820 replacing the 510 that had been released after the 810. IF Garmin were having problems with the touch screen technology of the 510 and feared losing customers eager to have the new capabilities of the Wahoo device being released, it would make perfect sense to release an early upgrade to the 520 instead of continuing with the development of the due replacement of the 810. Again, I will wager the replacement for the 520 when it arrives has a touch screen.

Why would an established GPS manufacturer as globally recognisable as Garmin be "worried" into people abandoning it in favour of a relatively new companies gadget? I would maybe have thought the rise of smartphone competition would have been a bigger threat personally but I still don't believe a company as big as Garmin would worry about losing its market share especially to people upgrading. They are more likely to just stick with the older device until the new one is released regardless of the time frame. The release dates between devices is only a year or so, who replaces their garmin every time a new one is released?

I still have my 500 and the 510. I am looking at getting the 520 soon but im not so rushed that I have to buy the next new one right now. I can wait cos I know both do what I want. I only persevere with the 510 over the 500 cos I bluetooth my uploads. If it were not for that it would be on ebay already and I would just use the 500. Maybe the new 520 replacement will have touchscreen. If there is a big enough call for it they may do so, but if the general consensus is people really, on the whole, don't mind (and sales of the 520 seem to confirm this) then why would they change it?

The 8 series (and 1000) are navigation devices designed to be interacted with on the ride. Plotting routes, following directions etc so a touchscreen here is a pretty useful thing. The 500 series however is a press go and ride device. It is there to give feedback on the data you wish it to display. It isn't designed to be tapped and interacted with every other minute. It is a glorified speedo. A glance down every now and then to see you speed or distance or power output is not something that requires a physical interaction. Apart form turning it on and pressing start how often do you actually touch your GPS on a ride? I can go miles and miles and only touch it twice. once to start and once to stop. I don't need a fancy touchscreen for that. And have you considered that maybe the absence of this helps keep the price down? No need to pay an extra £50 for a device just for a touchscreen when I only really do so twice.