Originally Posted by
JohnJ80
Do you want me to more loudly agree with you?
J.
You aren't being clear.
You called it a "big about face". I disagreed. But we agree? Huh?
GPS speed works ok (usually). The speed sensor works better.
Maybe, Garmin initially intended that the speed sensor was needed only for a bike on a trainer.
(It's amazing that people are "complaining" about what the ancient 305 does.)
Originally Posted by
JohnJ80
Originally Posted by About the Speed and Cadence Sensors
Cadence data from the cadence sensor is always recorded. If no speed and cadence sensors are paired with the device, GPS data is used to calculate the speed and distance.
Presumably, since the Edge 1000 (and the 820) are much newer than the 305, their GPS capability is more advanced. So it's surprising that Garmin made a big about face in how they treat speed sensors vs GPS.
No, GPS (even "more advanced" ones) are weak for speed for low speeds.
The issue is that the error in GPS position is about the same as a couple of wheel rotations.
Counting wheel rotations is very accurate.
With a properly calibrated circumference, it's much more accurate over short distances to count wheel rotations.
The limitation is inherent in GPS units that are cheap (and small and that are moving at slow speeds and in places where signals are blocked).
It's not going to change (any time soon).
So, it's not "surprising" that they prefer the wheel sensor at all (even for current units).
Garmin figured it out a long time ago (with the 605?).