Garmin ?

[jmal]

I'm considering a new Garmin and was curious if anyone has used the Edge 20/25. I currently just use Strava on my phone, and it serves all my needs except battery life. I need something that can handle 6-8 hour rides and still leave me with a functional phone. I don't really need the features of the more expensive units. I essentially need average speed, elevation gain, ride time, and the ability to upload to strava. Any thoughts?

[Dead Man]

with the 510 and 520 out, you can find pretty screamin deals on the 500.

Can you record rides on the 25? I didn't think it worked with Strava

[jmal]

I believe you can upload from Garmin Connect if I am reading correctly. I'm not seeing any significant deals on the 500 either. Most are refurbished. Competitive cyclist has them for $250, but that is nearly twice as much as the 20. If the 20 works well I can't justify the extra expense.

[benb]

Any device that you can get to talk to Garmin Connect or manually upload to Garmin connect can then upload to Strava... strava has very little to do with the device you use other than the cases where an Edge device directly talks to Strava to do things like Live Segments.

e.x. all the forerunner watches work fine with strava, etc.. and you can even do things from stuff like the eTrex which is not really intended for fitness. There are some older devices which can't export the GPS data in the right format, they're the only real exception because their data point IIRC does not list the time you arrive at each point in the track, so Strava doesn't have the ability to figure out speed. (Or something like that)

[Mark McM]

I'm a bit confused by many GPS cycling computers, including the Garmin 20/25 being discussed. The GPS system was originally intended to tell a user where they are, and/or where they're going. But it appears that many cycling computers can't tell you where you are or where you're going, the can only tell you where you've been (and even then, only after you gotten to where you're going). That doesn't seem useful to me, since I almost always know where I've been (since I've already been there). Most of the rest of the standard cycling computer functions (like recording distance, speed, altitude, etc.) are actually best done without GPS.

Do I ever use cycling GPS? Sure, on those occasions when I'm riding someplace new. But in those cases I use a Garmin Edge 800, which has mapping database builtin (and with a moving map display) which can instantly show me where I am, and also help show me how to get where I'm going.

[jmal]

For me, standard cycling computers do not fit my needs as well. I don't like all the wires. Wireless need the display unit to be close to the sensor on the fork. I like to keep my phone in my pocket. I specifically do not want to see data during a ride. This is not possible with wireless computers as it is too far from the sensor. Even on the bars the sensors can be fickle. Lastly, I like strava so the ability to upload to strava is essential. I do not need a mapping feature. I like some uncertainty when possible.

[benb]

Getting that track of where you've been allows you to know how you performed on a given route on a given day compared to previous times you'd rode through there. And that's a lot of fun which explains a huge part of the success of these devices & strava IMO.

A lot of these data points seem a lot less useful without the GPS to tie it all together. I bought a HRM back in like 2000 that could record your HR through a ride and then upload it to a computer. It was never very useful since there was next to no context. Same thing can of course happen with a power meter dataset.

My experience is garmin devices have next to no problems with wireless sensors unless you knock the sensors out of alignment so they stop picking up magnets.. but every computer has that issue.

The only other thing AFAICT that seems different with my Garmin as opposed to the Bontrager Node computer I was using previously is that in dry weather when my HRM has trouble getting a reliable reading the Garmin seems to insert false high readings (above my max HR), whereas the Bontrager would insert false low readings. I prefer the Bontrager's behavior as it causes an underestimate of TSS, Strava Suffer Score, etc.. whereas the Garmin causes an overestimate. Since this behavior usually happens at the beginning of a ride during warmup the underestimate is more appropriate.

[drewellison]

Reason for GPS: In cycling, as in business, if it's not documented it didn't happen. :rolleyes:

[Mark McM]

Reason for GPS: In cycling, as in business, if it's not documented it didn't happen. :rolleyes:

In other words, a GPS computer is the cycling version of the selfie?

[FlashUNC]

I have the 25.

Works well and I like it. It can do Garmin's Live Tracking via Bluetooth and, yes, can do courses while you're out riding, providing location and turn-by-turn if need be. So, yes, its more than just a self-indulgent piece of kit everyone seems so quick to claim it is.

All in something the size of what a Cateye computer used to be on the bars.

The bluetooth connection can be a little wonky with the phone sometimes, but the seamless upload to Connect and Strava is a nice feature when a ride is done.

[jmal]

I have the 25.

Works well and I like it. It can do Garmin's Live Tracking via Bluetooth and, yes, can do courses while you're out riding, providing location and turn-by-turn if need be. So, yes, its more than just a self-indulgent piece of kit everyone seems so quick to claim it is.

All in something the size of what a Cateye computer used to be on the bars.

The bluetooth connection can be a little wonky with the phone sometimes, but the seamless upload to Connect and Strava is a nice feature when a ride is done.

Thanks for the info. Exactly what I was looking for. I'm guilty of it too, but it is amazing how quickly threads can turns into something completely unrelated to the original question/topic. Thanks for bringing it back to the point.

[bobswire]

Thanks for the info. Exactly what I was looking for. I'm guilty of it too, but it is amazing how quickly threads can turns into something completely unrelated to the original question/topic. Thanks for bringing it back to the point.

My thinking was much like yours but I ended up with the Edge 500 because of some great sales a couple of months ago. I paid basically what a Edge20 cost but what I do like about the Edge 25 is it supports HR. Oh BTW there is a good deal for Red Edge 500 with HR/Cadence bundle also the Edge 500 is not very large at all. https://www.westernbikeworks.com/product/garmin-edge-500-red-with-premium-heart-rate-cadence?dc=wbwstaffpicks&psb=2821&ecn=77c9e3130539952f6e859eaa6ee9b6a9&ln=260901998&utm_source=WesternBikeworks.com+List&utm_campaign=2fdce27dcc-WBW_120215_pub_wntres1215_1215shmsho_wbwstaffpicks&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b3086437d5-2fdce27dcc-68857005 http://i65.tinypic.com/xgmu78.jpg

[FlashUNC]

Thanks for the info. Exactly what I was looking for. I'm guilty of it too, but it is amazing how quickly threads can turns into something completely unrelated to the original question/topic. Thanks for bringing it back to the point.

Fwiw, The Boss loves that she can sit on the couch and watch my ride. Provides her some peace of mind in case something ever happens. And she likes to send text messages once in a while that'll show up on the screen.

Garmin still has their idiotic button layout, which can be a bit tough to use in full finger gloves, but the device looks way better on 26.0 bars than their older Edge 500 units.

The fields of data aren't quite as customizable and you have to scroll through a couple screens to get all your data if you're that kind of nerd. I personally just start it and leave it on the clock setting and that's that till my ride is over.

[phutterman]

How's the battery? That's been my main reservation about the 25. Would be irritating to have it die at the end of an all-day ride.

[jmal]

Yeah, how is the battery life? I just read a review that said it is about half of what is advertised. That would be a deal breaker for me.

[FlashUNC]

My limit has been about 4 hours out on the bike, and its been fine for that with juice to spare, even when I forget to top it off.

Not sure what a whole day of riding would look like -- I'm sure Live Tracking would eat up a fair bit of the juice -- but I've not personally run into any battery issues.

Its definitely better than running strava on the phone and having that chew through battery life.

[Dead Man]

Wish I'd known the 25 was so capable.. I just thought it did speed/cadence and that was about it. So what does the 500 do that the 25 cant?

[k-mac]

Wish I'd known the 25 was so capable.. I just thought it did speed/cadence and that was about it. So what does the 500 do that the 25 cant?

Power meter compatibility.

[bobswire]

Wish I'd known the 25 was so capable.. I just thought it did speed/cadence and that was about it. So what does the 500 do that the 25 cant?

http://www.gpscentral.ca/products/garmin/edgecomparisonchart.html

[benford]

Have you considered Magellan? They have the 315 and the 505.
Pretty good bang for your buck...
http://www.magellangps.com/Store/Cyclo-Series

[Dead Man]

http://www.gpscentral.ca/products/garmin/edgecomparisonchart.html

dayum.. 25g and it does almost everything.. now I want one

[alembical]

I am going to piggy back onto this thread as I have searched the forums without much luck, but...

I am new to the world of Garmin gps based bike computers and the like, and would appreciate any feedback or thoughts.

I use strava but via my phone and use it more for tracking. I don't pay for the premium or care too much about any KOMs. I also have a wireless polar wheel based computer.

I would like to be able to follow cue sheets and the directions for gravel rides I am unfamiliar with. The Garmin edge 520 seems best for this, but as I understand it, the 25 can also do that. I do like the smaller size of the 25, but if I get off course having a map would be nice.

If I go with the 520 0r 25 should I also get the speed sensor? A lot of the cue sheets have very detailed and easy to miss turns at things like 36.3 miles in. Does the speed sensor help improve the distance measurement accuracy? I don't really understand how the unit measures distance via 2 methods and then decides which one to present, an average?

Sorry for all the remedial questions.

[djg21]

I'm a bit confused by many GPS cycling computers, including the Garmin 20/25 being discussed. The GPS system was originally intended to tell a user where they are, and/or where they're going. But it appears that many cycling computers can't tell you where you are or where you're going, the can only tell you where you've been (and even then, only after you gotten to where you're going). That doesn't seem useful to me, since I almost always know where I've been (since I've already been there). Most of the rest of the standard cycling computer functions (like recording distance, speed, altitude, etc.) are actually best done without GPS.

Do I ever use cycling GPS? Sure, on those occasions when I'm riding someplace new. But in those cases I use a Garmin Edge 800, which has mapping database builtin (and with a moving map display) which can instantly show me where I am, and also help show me how to get where I'm going.

For many, it's about recording the ride so it can be uploaded to training peaks, strava, Garmin connect, mapmyride, etc.

[simonov]

Yeah, how is the battery life? I just read a review that said it is about half of what is advertised. That would be a deal breaker for me.

Mine has been pretty good. I haven't done an 8 hour ride with it, which is the claimed battery life, but I've done a couple 6+ hour rides and it stayed powered on to the end. I made sure not to leave the screen on autoscroll just to save a little extra power.

In comparison to the other computers, I think the 20/25 are great general purpose, no fuss computers. The 500+ or 800+ series are a better choice as a head unit for people doing structured training who want to see multiple data points during their workout. Those also come with the ability to load a workout so that the computer will guide you through intervals. For anyone on a training plan, it's a great feature. But it's overkill if you just want to know how long and far you rode.

[jmal]

For the record, I went with a Lezyne Power GPS. So far it has been great. Really good battery life, but it does drop from 50% charge to zero pretty quickly. The first 50% lasted forever though. Just something to be aware of.

[benb]

For many, it's about recording the ride so it can be uploaded to training peaks, strava, Garmin connect, mapmyride, etc.

Heh.. I just started using Training Peaks.. it makes me really, really, really wish I had not paid for Strava. One is about bragging rights, one is really useful.

[Mark McM]

For many, it's about recording the ride so it can be uploaded to training peaks, strava, Garmin connect, mapmyride, etc.

So, it's the GPS equivalent of the selfie?

[Dead Man]

So, it's the GPS equivalent of the selfie?

"Look how cute I am" ≠ "Look how hard I crush - and sorry about that KOM sucka"

[druptight]

I would like to be able to follow cue sheets and the directions for gravel rides I am unfamiliar with. The Garmin edge 520 seems best for this, but as I understand it, the 25 can also do that. I do like the smaller size of the 25, but if I get off course having a map would be nice.

If I go with the 520 0r 25 should I also get the speed sensor? A lot of the cue sheets have very detailed and easy to miss turns at things like 36.3 miles in.

People seem to be missing your question and responding to older items in the thread. As a starting point - DC Rainmaker does the most comprehensive, and best reviews on GPS units (and power meters) around. Here's his review of the 520: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/07/garmin-edge-520.html From his article, regarding the maps included with the 520:

The best way to think of this is that if you’re looking to be able to create directions on the fly during your ride, the Edge 810/1000 are far better options. But, if you just want to know where you are on the map and be able to zoom around to figure out where you’re going – this will work quite well.

This ought to do exactly what you're looking for, whereas the 25 doesn't look like it displays maps in a user friendly manner that would help you out on gravel trails. I suggest getting the wheel sensor, primarily because if you're in a heavily wooded area with a lot of cover over the road, it's very possible to intermittently lose your GPS signal and the wheel sensor would be important to maintaining an accurate distance. It also enables you to use your cadence/speed on a trainer.

Edited to add - DC Rainmaker has product comparison page, so you can choose your two GPS units and compare their features: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comparison-calculator

[alembical]

Thanks druptight. Definitely one of the issues I faced when choosing to bump and old thread to piggyback my question onto rather than just start a new one.

[druptight]

Thanks druptight. Definitely one of the issues I faced when choosing to bump and old thread to piggyback my question onto rather than just start a new one.

No problem - if you make the leap on the 520, make sure you follow his directions on loading the free maps. The base maps suck.