Originally Posted by
TrojanHorse
I find the 520 easier to read than my old 800 - the display is higher resolution and "crisper" for lack of a better word. However, if your farsightedness keeps you from reading it, you may be doomed. I got contacts last year that are multi-focal so they have a bit of reading correction built in and I can read them just fine. YMMV I use it with 8 fields on the main screen. My normal readers are +1.5 if that helps.
Thanks TH. What you wrote makes a lot of sense. A philosophical conundrum really as you describe it as well as an earlier poster. Go mega screen with bad eyes...or....correct eyes to see more conventional screen many can see just fine. Because I don't have awful distance vision for riding my bike, I have always opted away from correcting my near vision and sought a computer I could blow up the font.
My current and very basic cycling computer today is the Cateye Padrone which is about the same size as a Garmin Edge 500 but narrower and doesn't require USB recharging because it offers little functionality:
https://www.amazon.com/CatEye-Padron...drone+wireless
I have it on a couple of bikes and works just fine, can read it no problem when out on the road.
I believe given a choice of wanting to view 3 metrics of speed, heart rate and power out on the road, the Wahoo Element Bolt gets the nod as the more readable screen with distinct font. I may pick one up and get back into riding with heart rate and power. I have taken a break from training with both but may go back to the well at some point.
And yes, for eye correction, options of contacts versus a sunglass corrective lenses is often discussed on this forum.
Pro/con to each.
Thanks again..