Garmin 520 vs Garmin 130

[Rpoole8537]

I'm in the market for a Garmin. Will use mostly for heart rate, tracking mileage etc. GPS function somewhat important, as is, ability to use on my trainer to motivate me when I'm feeling a bit lazy. Amazon is selling the 520, base, for $189 now. The Garmin 130 is $199. I can get 20% off on the 200 at REI in a few weeks. I don't like to over tech my rides but I do want to give this type of unit a try. Can I get your feedback and ideas. Thanks a million.

[R3awak3n]

garmin 200? that is super old and like $80 on the used market.

I would either do the 520 or the wahoo bolt

[Gummee]

I just sold a 520 prematurely. Thought the 935 I bought was going to be the 'one watch to rule them all.' It isn't. So I bought a 130. Think 520 lite.

Picks up sensors just like my 520. That was the big thing for me 'cause I have 3 HR straps, and 4 power meters. 935 doesn't like that. Neither does my Fenix 3.

The display is black and white and smaller. I'm not using the phone linking and notifications or the mapping on this computer either.

Nits: buttons are in the wrong place compared to the 520 and the 500 before that. Turning off the computer is a 2-button process: power then start/stop. Nothing that's not a deal breaker, but you need to think about it if you've just come from a 500/520

So far, so good in the first few weeks of ownership.

M

[Rpoole8537]

Originally Posted by Gummee

I just sold a 520 prematurely. Thought the 935 I bought was going to be the 'one watch to rule them all.' It isn't. So I bought a 130. Think 520 lite.

Picks up sensors just like my 520. That was the big thing for me 'cause I have 3 HR straps, and 4 power meters. 935 doesn't like that. Neither does my Fenix 3.

The display is black and white and smaller. I'm not using the phone linking and notifications or the mapping on this computer either.

Nits: buttons are in the wrong place compared to the 520 and the 500 before that. Turning off the computer is a 2-button process: power then start/stop. Nothing that's not a deal breaker, but you need to think about it if you've just come from a 500/520

So far, so good in the first few weeks of ownership.

M

Thanks much for that review. It sounds like what I'm looking for without too many bells and whistles. I have a 120 and mounts on two bikes. I will be able to use the 130 on those bikes, as well, I think. I'll buy one more mount and then move it to all three road bikes!

[mattsurf]

I own a 130 and a 1030.

The 1030 I love because of its mapping functionality, but I do like to be able to see lots of items on the display as I am an information junky, however, the 130 does pretty much everything the 1030 does (beside Navigation), the main omission in my view is the Normalised Power.

Where I do like the 130 is light weight and aerodynamics. I always use the 130 for races

Given the choice of a 520 and 130, I would take a 130. I don't think that the 520 has any major functionality benefits, however, I have heard that the touch screen is not brilliant, the lack of touch screen on 130 I perceive as a benefit

[AngryScientist]

i agree that lack of touch screen on athletic devices is a positive.

trying to swipe or hit specific areas of a touch screen with sweaty hands, or in the rain is maddening. buttons still rule for functionality in less than ideal conditions in my experience.

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

i agree that lack of touch screen on athletic devices is a positive.

trying to swipe or hit specific areas of a touch screen with sweaty hands, or in the rain is maddening. buttons still rule for functionality in less than ideal conditions in my experience.

520 isn't touch screen. That's why I bought one. The 510 I had before the 520 was 'fiddly' to use. ...even before you add gloves or sweat!

M

[redir]

I was gonna say.... The 520 is touch screen? Mine isn't.

I like the 520 enough but I cannot compare it to anything. All I know is I put it on my bike and it works

[R3awak3n]

510 was touch screen 520 is not.



Funny I love touch screen on my 1000... Because with maps, touch screen is a good thing, I also rarely touch the computer so it works great.

[MagicHour]

FYI still a couple nits with my Edge 130, namely:
Battery life - with 3-sensors, livetrack, GPS glonass, no routing I get ~<10hrs. The 15hrs is a bit of a fallacy promised by Garmin would be if you ran the device with virtually no features or sensors. Further although I've only done a handful of cold-weather rides this season there have been reports of diminished battery life in the cold, which may or may not be related to a recent FW release-still to be determined.

Altimeter altimeter is all over the place, I live in NYC basically at sea-level, and sometimes the Edge 130 will give goofy starting elev. like -200ft . It kinda rights itself out over the course of a ride, but is still an annoying bug. They've added a manual calibration but there are still issues.

I do really like the tiny size and features (if they all work) of the Edge 130, but sometimes wishing I ponied up a little more for the 520 plus, which seems to be more stable in the above areas, and has more advanced features.

Edit: Not sure what your intended trainer use is, but if you want to use in conjunction and control a Smart trainer you need to step up to the 520 series. The 130 is very basic in it's training features much beyond simply displaying sensor data fields.

[sjbraun]

I agree with your assessment of the 130. I've been borrowing my wife's, battery life is not great. I get about 6 hours before I need to recharge

Garmin has new/updated products coming out April 13. The 520 becomes the 530. I have no info on what upgrades will be forthcoming.

[MagicHour]

Interesting, thanks hadn't heard that.

Originally Posted by sjbraun

Garmin has new/updated products coming out April 13. The 520 becomes the 530. I have no info on what upgrades will be forthcoming.