Smart Watch/Bands for Cycling??

bendertherobot

y33stu wrote:

Another vote for the Vivoactive HR GPS. It's the only watch I wear now. Use it to record all commutes. Before that I was recording commutes via Strava on an iPhone, which now seems tedious since having the Vivoactive. I'm generally not interested in speed or data while riding, so looking at the watch isn't really something I do often. If I'm doing a longer ride on a route I don't know I'll use the Garmin Edge 500 for the routefinder.

The Vivoactive also takes about 3 seconds to find GPS and also send ride data to Garmin connect and Strava, so I don't have to bother plugging the Garmin in, or faffing about with the iPhone in a back pocket.

The only downside to the Vivoactive is that there is no auto start/stop function, so my avg speeds appear to be way lower, but Strava fixes that when it syncs anyway. I also find the HR data to be near enough accurate. Not as accurate as the chest strap, but maybe by a few BPM at most.

You sure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmsiPcNtMVs

tlw1

bianchimoon wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

The Garmin Fenix 3 will change your life.

As Bender says, there is no competition the Fenix 3 does it all

Yep, covers it

y33stu

Cheers Bender.... you're right. I didn't know that menu existed. Used the start/stop feature this morning and immediately noticed an extra 1.5mph on my avg speed. So I'm mentally happier

lakesluddite

meesterbond wrote:

The idea of being able to do everything in one unit is appealing and the Garmin Vivoactive looks like it would do that... depends how much data you want from your bike really, plus if you wanted to record speed you'd need that sensor pack and a HR chest strap if you want to record HR while it's strapped to the bars... plus the adaptor to strap it there in the first place.

An Edge 20 and a Charge HR would be cheaper...

This. I have this unit (the Edge 25 actually, not sure of the differences) which was around £80 at the time. It weighs next to nothing, and is the size of a watch face - gives time elapsed, distance and speed on the same screen, and will fit onto the top of your stem with space to spare.
It also has the ability to do 'turn by turn' navigation. And with Garmin Connect will sync to Strava and it can link to a smartphone via bluetooth. It's not the all-bells-and-whistles of more expensive units, but it's perfect for my needs.

thegibdog

Swapped my Edge 500 for a VivoActive when I started doing a bit of running. Quicker for picking up satellites with GLONASS and quicker uploading to Strava with Bluetooth. Not as good for recording elevation though as no barometer (only really noticed this in Gran Canaria). After a few rides I didn't really miss having a screen on my handlebars.

smd13

If it's just for speed you can't beat a wireless cateye computer, and it's a fraction of the cost. Otherwise like most people say don't get a watch unless you're intent on doing other sports with it. The 910/920 are top for tri, but the fenix is as good and more "wearable" everyday

KevinA

I have a fenix 3 as I am planning on swimming and I play football as well as cycling and cant fault it.

Yes its £500 for the package I got but the watch is nice, it records power, cadence, distance just like my garmin 1000 so its hand to have as a backup.

Its good for recording distance ive ran and from what ive read the swimming is also accurate.

redbikejohn

I have a fitbit surge. It works quite well. Gps logs your ride and heart rate etc and it syncs with strava instantly. As a general exercise tool it works fine. Heart rate accuracy is a guide as are all built-in units.
But in a working man's life I find it a bit of a let down as it can't stand up to knocks very well. I work with tools and have chipped the glass and cracked it. Rubbery finish is a pain as it makes it difficult when push arm into sleeves. Day to day battery life is five days or so but if using the GPS to record a ride then it's good for two 2hr rides.
So it works well but not sure I'd buy one. I was given this one. I like the idea of garmin etc but the prices!

tyw214

bendertherobot wrote:

I wonder if we'll see the 3 drop in price when the £500 5 arrives.........

there is no official discount yet, but many places i checked online has been dropping around 100-150 USD.

niblue

I occasionally use my Vivoactive HR when cycling however while it does a great job of recording the ride the display is pretty small so I never look at it when I'm riding - instead I just have it running as a backup an Edge 810 which is my main cycling GPS. Even bar mounted I think the display on the Vivoactive HR would still be too small to be useful and while it's notification functionality is very good it'd still be a struggle to see them on the go.

Previously I used to use a Garmin Forerunner 305 as my main device for running and cycling. It was meant as a multi-sport watch so was pretty good, with a decent size display and quick release mounts for wrist and handlebar.

I think all the devices you mention will be too small to be all that much use when on a ride.

Exumanewbie

tyw214 wrote:

I am deciding between Fitbit Charge 2, Garmin vivosmart HR+, or the Garmin vivoactive HR...

I'd like to see cycling speed on the watch if possible... anybody have suggestion?

Well I got a cheap bryton gps cycling computer for $130.00. It has 70 functions and you can connect your cadence, heart rate and a power metre to it.

thegreatdivide

Exumanewbie wrote:

tyw214 wrote:

I am deciding between Fitbit Charge 2, Garmin vivosmart HR+, or the Garmin vivoactive HR...

I'd like to see cycling speed on the watch if possible... anybody have suggestion?

Well I got a cheap bryton gps cycling computer for $130.00. It has 70 functions and you can connect your cadence, heart rate and a power metre to it.

Is it a watch?

Exumanewbie

thegreatdivide wrote:

Exumanewbie wrote:

tyw214 wrote:

I am deciding between Fitbit Charge 2, Garmin vivosmart HR+, or the Garmin vivoactive HR...

I'd like to see cycling speed on the watch if possible... anybody have suggestion?

Well I got a cheap bryton gps cycling computer for $130.00. It has 70 functions and you can connect your cadence, heart rate and a power metre to it.

Is it a watch?

No its not a watch. But an integrated cycling computer that shows everything on one screen. I tried the whole HRM watch thing and it was a real nuisance. The gps can show both the percentage of your max hr and the bpm at the same time. once you have bluetooth and the bryton app it uploads to strava automatically.

dennisn

PBlakeney wrote:

Don't.
Put a watch on, go for a cycle and see how impractical a watch is for data display while cycling.

I think you may have decided that you really, actually need all this data all the time. I'd suggest watching the road and your fellow cyclists as opposed to watching some data stream.

N1TRO

Sometimes I wonder how many gadgets we really need to enjoy what we're doing, be that cycling, running or something else. I'm not a die-hard super sportsman and I'm quite happy with your average Sigma bike computer. It shows me my speed, distance ridden and some other bits, but that's about it. It's low maintenance and low impact, just the way I like it. I enjoy the surrounding and if I get lost in my own thoughts from time to time, that's fine too. I'm pretty sure some flashy device that's smarter than me would sooner ruin the experience than better it.

I understand one might want to use the data recorded to keep track of training, but sometimes buying gear just for the sake of having it might not be the best idea.

bianchimoon

smart watches/bluetooth data devices come into their own if you want to keep a record of your ride, routes and stats on social media/strava/Garmin connect etc, if you don't want a record you don't need a smart watch/computer. If you do on the other hand...