bgrider

Anyone using a GPS watch instead of a dedicated bike computer? I would appreciate a comparison of each from someone who has studied both.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

rms13

I have a friend that uses a watch. Works fine for recording activity but the obvious difference is you don't have the information in front of your face when you're riding. I'm not sure if you can connect cadence sensor/power meters etc

Xherion

Depends on how you plan on using it. Do you do multi sports? If so, a watch might make more sense to track swimming and running as well.

If for just cycling, a dedicated bike computer is going to be better. Larger display, better battery life, more flexibility for devices, etc. If you have ANT+/BLE devices, there is much better support for such devices on a bike computer. For instance, if you have a power meter, only the very top watches have support for ANT+ signal. Not sure offhand if even the top Forerunner or Fenix devices can offer turn by turn as well like many bike computers.

I have a Garmin Vivoactive and Garmin Edge 810. Both are great, but come down to how you plan on using it and what data you need.

Hypno Toad

Lisa has both a Fenix and a 520. She got the Fenix first, but didn't like it for biking and bought the 520 for rides. She didn't like the Fenix on her wrist, and the activity pages aren't targeted to bikes.

lupy

I use a suunto ambit 2s watch. I just made a little foam holder so it fits on my bars. I have it for multi sport use though. I think its the ant sensor in my PM and not the watch, but it struggles to get signal without interruption. I've never had an issue with speed/cadence sensors. I have nothing to compare it to, but I hope that helps.

EDIT: Ambit 2s has 3 fields available and you can scroll screens and settings with a button. It shows everything I need while I'm riding and I can program routes into it.

ypsetihw

better cycling GPS units will incorporate heart rate and cadence, and can link up with power meters should you choose to get one. they also have higher sensitivity receivers and better models can track more GPS satellites, allowing for higher accuracy (especially at high speed), quicker signal acquisition, and less dropped signals. most GPS watches for running and hiking are not designed to track you when going 25+mph and can be spotty in their tracking.

personally, I have a small, simple computer with cadence (non-gps) on the stem, the "watch" part of my HR monitor on the bars (while wearing the chest strap obviously), and use my iphone for Strava, which serves as my GPS. I know my way around, so I mostly want the data for afterwords to track miles and analyze segments. having a headsup map is not important to me at this time.

the garmin 500 red bundle with speed cadence HR and GPS is available online for $249 right now from several places, and is a killer deal IMO. also the bryton rider 310T bundle can be had for under $150, and looks great on paper, although I have not personally used one.

DonBjr

The triathlon oriented watches do a good job as a bike computer. They do ant+ and/or bluetooth, support power meters, hrm, speed/cadence. I have an ambit-2 that I've used for biking. There's a handlebar mount for it. The biggest downside I would say is the size of the display and therefore the number for fields you can have displayed at once. There's also a few bike specific features a good bike computer might have that the watch might not (e.g. showing the current % grade which my watch doesn't do though there are what I'd call crude 'apps' that can be added to do that). Typically a watch wouldn't have maps on it, while many bike computers do.

I ended up getting a 520 bike computer partly because my watch was having problems with the trek speed/cadence sensor and the 520 seems ok with it, but also I thought the maps would be nice, and support for varia radar.

DrIsotope

Replaced my Garmin 500 with a Bryton 310 about 2 weeks ago. I had the Garmin speed and cadence sensors already, so I'm using those. The Bryton pairs to the sensors far more quickly than the 500 ever did, and syncs to GPS in a matter of seconds. I have so far not found a drawback to the Bryton... unit. The online software is utilitarian and needs some polish, but it's new so I'll forgive it.

I couldn't do a watch. I look at the data pretty regularly, so it needs to be right in front of me.

Seattle Forrest

I'm using both. Like the watch much more. Wouldn't really be enough for cycling because I want to see how many watts I'm putting out, on my stem. The watch understands my power meter (actually it's smarter than my Edge unit) but it's harder to see and I'm not taking it off my wrist just to ride a bike.

Also it's great for running, hiking, swimming, climbing, skiing, and scrambling. I really like not being able to forget my GPS anymore. Not very relevant to cycling, but it's saved me a lot of pack weight compared to a hiking GPS once you factor in batteries for a half week trip.

Seattle Forrest

You'd be surprised, but my Fenix 3 has a much longer battery life than my Edge 800. The watch supports turn-by-turn, pulls more information out of my power meter than the Edge can, and it has features like how long should you rest after a workout that the Edge lacks. For sure the bigger display and the ease of mounting it where it's most visible tips the scales toward the Edge for cycling, but in all other ways (including battery and flexibility) the watch is a much better device.

Fun fact: GPS units track more accurately the faster you go. Because you have more inertia at 25 mph than 2.5 mph, the software can filter out more side-to-side GPS jitter. I always get more accurate tracks riding than walking the same routes and so does everyone else I've talked to.

gregf83 

They both can record the same data. The biggest difference is you can't easily see the data on the watch. For racing where you don't look at your meter it's probably OK but it's very difficult to do intervals in training with a watch on your wrist.

gregf83 

That may or may not be correct for cycling GPS units but it would have nothing to do with inertia. GPS units designed for fixed use are far more accurate than GPS units intended for cycling and achieve accuracy measured in mm.

johnny99

If you like riding up and down mountains, the better GPS bike computers have built-in barometric altimeters, which are much more accurate than GPS elevation. Also, GPS bike computers have bigger screens that are easier to read and can display more data (possibly maps) and also bigger batteries for longer rides and possibly multi-day events.

ypsetihw

hmm interesting, makes sense I guess. the only time I tried to use a hiking GPS for cycling (a cheap bushnell waypoint backtracker) it was all over the place. with that said, perhaps the signal quality wasn't all that great to begin with.

Lt Stonez

I have G edge 1000 and its great, but I proberly gonna buy garmin 235with built in HR. I hate to use the HR strop around my chest and the watch will broadcast your HR to the bike computer. It will also give you your rest time.
Garmin Forerunner 230 & 235 In-Depth Review | DC Rainmaker

bgrider

Thanks for all the replies! I studied a bunch of different specs yesterday and this morning and believe a cycling specific GPS is the route to go. While I'd like to think I will start running and (whatever) the truth is I biking is probably it.

In a separate thread, I just asked about compatibility of Garmin Connect software with corporate Vitality tracking programs. If you have input on this I welcome it here. I started a separate thread since its a different topic - but as you might imagine, the two are intertwined in my decision about what type of GPS to get.

As always - thanks to everyone for their input and good riding to you all!

Bgrider

Seattle Forrest

We had a "wellness portal" last year. My company runs a summer fitness challenge every year to get a discount on our insurance rates. For a couple years it was step count, last year it was total exercise time. We had this site that would sync to a number of sources (like Garmin Connect, Fitbit, etc) to get your data. Ours was crap, and we canceled their contract. But they had an "apps and devices" page where you'd link your accounts, it had a list of other web apps, and GC was in the list. If yours is able to read from Connect, look for something like that.

deacon mark

I have a Garmon 910x. Works as both you can wear it as a watch and take it of the band and quick mount it to your bike. The best of both worlds has heartrate strap downloads to Garmin the can auto to strava. One of the best items I ever bought for my bike. But just to be anal I still have a cat eye wireless on the bike too. This is just to keep track of total mileage on my bike. Saturday went 41.56 on Garmin and cat eye was at 41.34 pretty accurate for both for sure

TheRef

I have 2 garmin watches I use often. Never on my wrists while riding. I use thishttps://www.amazon.com/Garmin-Forerun...DLEBAR+ADAPTER

Shuffleman

I think that this is correct. I actually prefer the Garmin FR60 and have used it for years. It is a cadence based watch as opposed to gps. I originally liked it better because it was much smaller than the original garmin gps watches and the battery lasted longer. You can use these on the bike or trainer with no problem. It just requires a seperate pod. I love it for running but it is too small for riding.

I <3 Robots

On a bike the a head unit type is the better way to go. I have a 510, Tactix, and a 910. You can read the data much easier on the large 510 display. Also you don't have to take your eyes off the road as long. I'll download tracks onto my 510 when on new trails. The large display makes it much easier to follow.

Multi sport probably the watch, but if your using one strictly for the bike...its gotta be a head unit type.

The plus for the watch is that well...you can wear it like a watch. With the Tactix it can give me notifications from my phone. Like the 510, it automatically uploads my ride when I stop it.

CliffordK

I've experimented a little bit with using RideWithGPS on my phone for a real-time speedometer.

One thing I've noticed is that it is less responsive than a wheel magnet. This may or may not be important depending on your riding. If you're wanting to sprint and monitor your speed, there is often an annoying short lag period. Likewise, on a hill climb, the dynamics of the hill climb can change faster than the GPS computer can keep up.

stockae92

I have Fenix 3 simply because I use it for running as well. It works well and give me all the information I need. I use the Garmin bike mount when using it with my bike.

If I don't run, then I would probably stay with bike only GPS computer as a longer cost option with more different mounting choices

Planemaker

I currently have a Garmin 810 Edge and will likely get a Vivoactive HR when it's available in April. The Vivofit HR and can pair with the speed and cadence sensor (I could also pair a different HRM to the device as well) on my bike so, it will be able to not only track other activities but, my cycling as well. In addition, I will be able to pair the HRM on the Vivofit HR to my Garmin 810 Edge so, I will continue to use the cycling computer.

If I understand the Garmin Connect moblie app, I can have two devices via Bluetooth connected to my phone and be able specifiy which device will sync activities.

There are too many advantages as stated above to having a dedicated cycling computer for me to not have one but, I also want an activity tracker as well. The only solution for me is have both.

bgrider

I ordered a G520. I may get a minimalist activity tracker to use for walks or runs.

Thanks for all of the replies!