dalava

I know the Apple Watch is not out yet, so a lot is still unknown. From what's already disclosed, it looks like the combination of Apple Watch with iPhone running Strava with a BLE sensor (speed/cadence) would be functionally very close to the Garmin Edge dedicated unit for my intended use: look at ride data from time to time (I don't need the ride info headunit in front of me all the time as if I am in a time trial), GPS based routing, and ride record keeping.

Or may be this is just my excuse to get an Apple Watch.

dippitydoo

I was thinking about this as well.

I assume doing turn by turn would be a bit more cumbersome as you need to take our your phone first though.

dr_lha

I think the Wahoo RFLKT(+) would be better for this job, honestly. This is the setup I have, and I cannot imagine having to look at a watch to see my current speed/cadence/HR. That or just mount your iPhone on your handlebars. Having to look at a watch and potentially "swipe" or scroll it to get the information I need sounds cumbersome. However, lets reserve judgement until the Watch comes out and people try it out.

I'll be waiting for DC Rainmaker's review, personally.

mbw

Apple watch battery life seems like a big issue. I am also not sure it can pair with all of this stuff at once... anyone know?

I have been looking into this stuff recently and I opted for tech that I can use in different ways.

Bontrager Smart Bluetooth and ANT+ speed+cadence censor (same as the 4iii one and others)
4iii Viiiiva Heart rate monitor, also Smart Bluetooth and ANT+
Garmin Edge 500, cheap, works with all the ANT+ stuff, good for connect and strava

Also looking at the 4iiii Precision power meter, ANT and Smart Bluetooth.


So I can use my phone and any apps I want (Nexus 6) or just use my Garmin 500 for rides.

The dual broadcast stuff makes the decisions pretty easy. I can even run both types of apps at once.

Seattle Forrest

I've been walking down a similar road lately. Decided to get a Garmin Fenix 3 watch, some reasons I didn't get an Apple Watch are its battery life, and the fact that I have an Android phone. Honestly Apple stuff seems pretty over-priced in my opinion. (I'm still using my Edge 800 as a display/nav unit.)

I think the Wahoo stuff is probably a better kit than the Apple Watch for this. Partly because people are using it happily now, the Apple Watch has a lot of unknowns but will be their first attempt at this.

K.Katso

Smartphone GPS is still not as good as Garmin.

You don't need an excuse to get an Apple watch if you want one, just buy it already.

DXchulo

Wait for the Leyzne GPS. TPE15: All-New Lezyne GPS cycling computers track down killer design, amazing prices

dr_lha

Well, to be fair, the Watch will not be pairing with the things, your phone will. The Watch is just another BLE device, attached to the phone, displaying data, reading HR. The battery life of the Watch seems to be fine unless you're planning to go on a double Century, I would guess.

What remains to be seen is how good it is as a replacement for an HR strap, other watch based solutions (e.g. Fitbit Surge) haven't been that great.

DowneasTTer

I'll be purchasing a sport version to try. Currently have a garmin 1000. I actually LIKE my 1000. But as with all things garmin it works for some things, not others and you end up owning a piece of beta tech. Then the next version comes out complete with bugs and the cycle goes on. However one of the main reasons for it's purchase was for BTLE connections to my iPhone 6. This still is NOT reliable even after the 1000 has been on the market for over a year. I should learn by now as I have purchased several garmin devices in the past including a Fenix. However Apple's device WILL work as promised right out of the gate. I'll still have my 1000 on the handlebars for the maps and tracking though.

WhyFi

I don't think that it'll be better than a dedicated device, but it just may be good enough. The things that I would be concerned with, in the proposed capacity, would be battery life, GPS accuracy, HR accuracy and durability (the watch is listed as water-resistant, not waterproof, so I don't know how that'd work out with all of the sweat).

edited to clarify: when I say that I would be concerned, I mean that it's something that I would look in to further. The concern is based upon the typical limitations of phone-based solutions and the limited information that we have on the device at this time.

tekhna

I'm just gonna go ahead and guess it's going to be super-kludgy for the first two years on the market.

SpeshulEd 

Have you guys actually used a garmin for routing? Cause it sucks. If I plot out a looped course on my 810, I spend the entire ride having the garmin beep at me and telling me to take a wrong turn or to make a u-turn because it's constantly trying to redirect me back to the ending point. The turn by turn directions suck. Luckily, the latest firmware has finally allowed the opportunity to turn the turn-by-turn directions off, so you just follow your path. When I had a 510, you just followed a bread crumb trail on the screen with no distance data information whatsoever.

In all my experiences with my iphone, I've found the mapping to be far superior to my garmin, even using apple maps.

Needless to say, I'm buying an apple watch. I'll keep my garmin for awhile, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I won't need it for much longer.

Seattle Forrest

I'm enjoying the training effect measurement on my F3. I like the concept of recovery adviser but it remains to be seen how trustworthy it is. I also like that the calories are dead-on accurate and that it can do zones by heart rate reserve and not just a percent of a guess at my max. The Apple Watch and Fitbit and Mio don't have the Firstbeat goodies in them, for whatever that's worth.

I keep the watch on my wrist while I ride. Still using my Edge as a display unit because it mounts on the stem.

Pretty often with an 800. It works for me. I like that I can build routes when I don't have a cell connection, I don't have coverage in the mountains and even the foot hills except near bigger towns and highways.

How are you building your looped course exactly?

StanSeven

You probably have to unscrew your stem and handlebar to charge it

SpeshulEd 

I build all of my courses in Garmin Connect, usually trying to keep the starting position about a 1/4 mile or so from the finishing position. I'm not the only one that has this problem, google "garmin 810 routing error" and you'll find tons of issues.
https://www.google.com/search?q=garm...=0CCoQrQIoBDAA

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread...armin-Edge-810

Also, you shouldn't need data coverage to use the mapping feature for routing on your iphone, you just need to save the map offline.
Apple's new iOS 6 Maps support automatic offline use for a wide area

bonz50

FTR - some of the things I've read is that the estimated 18hr battery life is very low usage and with heavy use can be as low as 8hrs. that, to me, is a deal breaker on the Apple Watch regardless of whether or not I used it for cycling, thats just horrendous and quite expensive for what it does for you. they've gotta go a lot further on battery life before I'd even consider it, even as a fashion accessory, I already have enough things to plug in each night before bed, I don't need yet another.

dr_lha

Sure, but when cycling, you're not going to be in the "heavy usage" category are you? Occasionally glancing at the watch to see your speed/distance. I would assume "heavy usage" would mean doing a great deal of interaction with the watch, which I think would be ruled out when cycling, as it would be way too distracting.

I'm not advocating Apple Watch for cyclists FYI, in fact I think it'll probably be useless for cyclists!

dalava

From what I read, you don't need to take out the phone for turn-by-turn direction. You will be alerted on the wrist by the watch when the turn is coming up, and you can just take a look at the watch for the direction. That actually sounds pretty cool.

dalava

Battery life concern seems to be universal, but this is what Apple has said:

All-day battery life is based on 18 hours with the following use: 90 time checks, 90 notifications, 45 minutes of app use, and a 30-minute workout with music playback from Apple Watch via Bluetooth, over the course of 18 hours.

It would seems to me that it should at least last 10 hours as an accessory for cycling because most of the heavy lifting was done by the iPhone.

dalava

Why do you think that?

Looigi

Agree. My Samsung S5 has better GPS than my Garmin 500 and 705, it's quicker and receives GLONASS too. 510 receives GLONASS so might be equivalent to phone. Of course key is using a wheel sensor to mitigate inherent noise/variability in location/speed as reported by GPS.

As for the Apple watch, the only thing it adds is perhaps a more convenient UI over mounting the phone on the bars.

bonz50

I would think, but i guess it depends on how many apps are active on the watch and etc.

i'm a mild apple fanboi, but i just do not see the point of this thing at that price point. if you're gonna use a phone just bar mount the phone instead of having a remote screen attached to your wrist, you get all the benefit of the longer battery life of the phone, WAY more capability, add on a BLE HRM and be done with it. cheaper, easier, and imho, more effective.

RomansFiveEight

So here's my perspective, YMMV.

If you're already going to get an Apple Watch; then actually it sounds like there's little motivation (other than battery life; but many of us don't regularly ride 5+ hours and can get by with shorter battery life) to go out and buy a Garmin. NOT to say the Garmin doesn't have advantages over this solution; but with an Apple Watch, the list of equipment you already own and already use suddenly becomes more powerful and makes a harder case for dropping money on a dedicated cycling computer. With the Apple Watch you should be able to do turn by turn, in addition to seeing the sort of data you'd want to see; like cadence or speed. Personally; I'd still use a chest strap. As I understand it, that'll be more accurate than the heart rate monitor on the iWatch or any other optical HRM. As I understand it, optical HRM's like on the iWatch take an average over a certain period of time (perhaps only a few second); whereas the chest straps take real time data. (Can someone back me up or refute me on that?)

I use the Wahoo RFLKT+ and really like it. I actually take along an old iPhone 5. The iPhone 4S and up have BTLE and so they are compatible with all of your bluetooth sensors and will be compatible with the Apple Watch. Additionally, with the RFLKT+ screen, you can use ANT+ sensors. (Though, IMO, the bigger draw for the RFLKT+ is it's built in altimeter; more accurate than using GPS data.) It displays all the data I need. And battery life? Seriously rivals a Garmin. Here's the deal, turn off the screen AND the cellular radio, and I'm only using 4-5% an hour of battery life. Seriously. Removing the SIM card disables the cellular radio (hence using an old iPhone; so I have my 'new' iPhone with me as well that can be used for phone calls if need be; but otherwise is left alone and unused. I don't drain my 'main phones' battery.) Of course this can be done with your 'current phone' if you didn't hang on to your older iPhone. It's just the way I do it.

The only real disadvantage to the RFLKT+ is no turn by turn. That's where an Apple Watch would come in handy, since you'll be able to do that.

At the end of the day, giving the price (with a band you're likely to spend $500+, but even the cheapest version with the cheapest band) you're spending what you would on a Garmin 510. A bump more and you can have an 810 with turn by turn. Given the choice of the two I might choose the Garmin. But if I already wanted an Apple Watch, was already planning on owning one just for the other features; then suddenly the motivation to run out and buy a Garmin gets that much lower.

Personally, I'm going to keep my RFLKT+. But I do want an Apple Watch. It might come in handy for occasional turn-by-turn directions.

dr_lha

I just don't see the benefit of something wrist mounted (while cycling) versus handlebar mounted.

RomansFiveEight

I think it just comes down to overall convenenience. That's why I said it makes the most sense if you already intend to own one. Using the thing you already HAVE on your wrist INSTEAD of something on your bars makes a lot of sense. Going out and buying something you only intend to use on the bike and wearing on your wrist instead of your bars maybe not as much. For some, the total fitness tracking of the Apple Watch will be cool too. Unlike other fitness trackers, it'll track cycling distance and will quantify that along with steps/running/whatever else you do.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't come out with a bar mount for the Apple Watch. The straps simply pop off and the Apple Watch could be clicked right into some other mount.

If you're buying it SPECIFICALLY for cycling; then I still think the RFLKT makes the most sense. Around a hundred bucks, a smidge more if you want the "+" version which adds ANT+ connectivity, temperature and a barometric altimeter. Mount it on the bars, lasts forever on a coin cell battery. And as I said, my battery lasts for a REALLY long time with the cellular radio off, screen off, tucked away in a saddlebag.