7/13/14 3:42 PM

Looking to D2R2 this year, I'm thinking of getting a GPS into which I can load a file of the course and follow it. I see the various Garmin models, but have only used the 200 which is much more basic. Any thoughts on one better than another? I really don't care about anything other than following the course.

Ha ha, if you're wondering why I need it, I just came across this video today as I was a thinking about which course to ride this year. It gives a good sense of D2R2, and at around 5:30 shows none other than me (green kit, orange bike) standing astride my bike, taking a drink and looking at my watch. This was 2012, and I had just figured out that me and a couple other guys had inadvertently turned onto the wrong course. The other guys decided to backtrack and try to pick up the right course, which I declined so I was trying to figure out what the freak to do next. Had a great ride anyway.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XmGXHSV8xgo

But I may try a longer version this year, so little margin of error, hence the GPS. TIA

7/13/14 5:22 PM

...in my write-up of our Provence trip:

"The Garmin Edge Tourings were a mixed bag, as they often became confused. Given the nature of the roads in Provence, it’s somewhat understandable and perhaps the mapping data for France isn't as good as it is for the US. The bottom line is that you need an analog backup (a map and/or cue sheet). However, the displays were generally easy to read without my reading glasses and the audible turn warnings were quite handy. The menu system is somewhat confusing, but I suppose one would get used to it. I won't be replacing my 500 with one any time soon, but if you like to use courses, the Touring is a much better way to go."

I hope this helps.

7/14/14 3:43 AM

When you say "if you like to use courses, the Touring is a much better way to go" do you mean for downloading course files to the unit? I would probably download a file from Ride With GPS and follow it. I don't need the bells and whistles of the more expensive models, maybe the Touring would be a good choice?

7/14/14 5:35 AM

The main reason for that statement is that the large color display and the turn warnings make using courses much more practical than on the smaller units like the 500. The Touring is designed for navigating and if you don't need the added features of the higher-end models, it seems like a good choice. It collects basic ride data too, pretty much all I need. If I didn't already have a 500, I would consider buying a Touring.

One thing we did notice is that the elevation gain/loss numbers on the Tourings we used were much higher than on our personal Garmins (500 & 705) for the same rides. Perhaps this is a known issue, but regardless, I would definitely check the Garmin forums before making a purchase.

7/14/14 6:01 AM

Sounds like the Touring may be the ticket. I am directionally challenged and need all the help I can get.

7/14/14 6:29 AM

Dan - the Touring Plus has a barometric altimeter instead of the gps based one in the Touring. I have a plus and it measures elevation gain a. Irately as opposed to the 200 I had which was wildly off. It has the mapping and course features of the 800/810 but not the power reading options and it is easier to use, but can still be daunting.(accurately) damn phone.

7/14/14 6:43 AM

I'd consider the 800/810 before the touring for what you want to do. The 800 series has a large enough display, does courses very well with no turn notification delay, and is an actual bike computer. Good review of the Touring here : http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/08/garmin-touring-computer.html

I use a 500 on group rides in case I have a mechanical/get dropped, and its ok, usable but not great.

7/14/14 9:12 AM

Why is an Andriod/App not a good choice. I read a lot of negative reports on the 800/810s. And it is not exactly cheap either. Have they sorted out the issues with them?

7/14/14 10:01 AM

quote:

---

Why is an Andriod/App not a good choice.

---

7/14/14 10:57 AM

...it appears that what we had on the trip was the Touring Plus, since they paired with our heart rate straps. This also explains why they didn't have speed/cadence sensors on the bikes; the Touring Plus is not compatible with them. However, you still get GPS-based Time/Speed/Distance info, just not cadence.

Using the comparison feature on the Garmin site will spell out all of the differences, but it doesn't seem to work if you include more than two models.

7/14/14 11:54 AM

"and is an actual bike computer"

I've had a 200, 500, 510, and a Touring plus, and I don't understand your statement. The Touring/plus has the mapping/ screen size and display of the 800/810, but lacks Ant+, cadence sensor, smartphone link, but its very much a bike computer. It is my favorite of all the Garmins I've ever tried. I don't need the GPS tp tell me I have low power output.:)

Brian- When you upload to Garmin, make sure down near the bootom left that elevation correction is disabled. That way you use the altimeter data and not the GPS data.

7/14/14 2:29 PM

...was that it's compatible with a speed cadence sensor, like a "real" bike computer.

I already have the data uploaded, but I have the files, so I could delete them and upload them again without the correction, to see if it makes any difference.

7/14/14 3:35 PM

Yes, that's what I meant. If you're going to have a head unit on the bars, you might as well have cadence data, hr and the ability to use power.

I guess that I overstated my point.

I'd be curious to see what happened if you formated a touring plus and then loaded 800 firmware, as it appears to have the Ant receiver etc there, just not enabled.

7/14/14 4:15 PM

Do what I do. Use a cheap, yet highly accurate bike computer with a traditional pick-up and info on the bar and use your favorite app to track the hard data, which you don't need while you ride.

My iPhone 5S can easily cover a century or more with no extra battery pack. I just start Strava and drop it in my pocket.

With the screen off, your battery will last plenty long enough unless you are doing a double or the likes.

7/14/14 4:42 PM

I'm thinking I will get a Touring Plus and take a crack at the 160k course. I think that is at the edge of my capability, but I may be able to do it. As I said, with the GPS I only care about following an extremely confusing, largely unmarked course of rural dirt roads/jeep paths/whatever. Don't care about cadence, hr, power, strava, etc. I'm actually not that good that I need to need to worry about that stuff. I like to see distance, speed is remotely interesting, that's about it. Thanks for the excellent input.

7/14/14 4:53 PM

"With the screen off, your battery will last plenty long enough unless you are doing a double or the likes."

Mmm... that rather defeats the purpose of having a GPS in the first place: far superior navigation aid than the old fashion cue sheet!

A lot of guys (and gals) in my club uses Garmin of different model. Seems they all work fine once their owner figure out the idiosyncrocy of each particular model.

The only reason I haven't jump on that bandwagon is I would need to have two mounts for my 2 bikes which I use interchangeably. Unlike Dan, I very much like the excuse to make extra stops by looking at my phone's GPS screen if I come to an intersection without signs. ;-)

7/14/14 5:39 PM

I had the speed cadence sensor with a 510 and thought it was useless. I don't care about cadence but I hoped the speed sensor would smooth out the speed. The GPS always uses the sat for speed unless it loses signal then it reverts to the sensor. The speed was actually more volatile.

Since I use mine on 4 bikes, I consider it a plus that the Touring Plus can't use the sensor as I found it worthless.

7/15/14 5:52 AM

...but once set up properly, I've found them to be pretty reliable and accurate. They do get funky when the battery gets low.

7/15/14 8:33 AM

I presently use the Garmin 510 and a Powertap G3 hub for my basic data power, distance, speed, course upload once competed and ...cadence. Prior to the Garmin I used a Powertap computer head. Both I believe make inferences about cadence if you do not use a cadence sensor. I noticed a significant "drop" in cadence from the Garmin vs the Powertap computer head, anyone else experience this???

7/15/14 8:54 AM

It's actually not that hard to count off cadence for 15 seconds and multiply by 4.

7/15/14 9:12 AM

nm

7/15/14 1:27 PM

Rick-not sure why this would be, but I'd try turning off the "Smart Recording" in the Garmin settings and see if that helps. The G3 cadence is inferred from torque spikes at the hub, and its ok but not great, which is why some folks use the optional magnetic cadence sensor.

7/15/14 3:30 PM

Count and multiply? Dan you obviously are not riding hard enough.

7/15/14 5:47 PM

How many words can you say out load in zone, three, four, etc before you can not stop from talking a breath and at what HRs? :)

Or should I say word?

7/16/14 4:57 AM

That's based on comparison with the Polar units and others I've used, and my typical average cadence, which really doesn't vary much.