Do you really find it necessary to be that rude in your tone ?

This is an interesting thread. Let's keep it civil please.

You implied that people who used a feature that you don't like "didn't actually ride bikes". That's a "rude tone".

You implied that people who used a feature that you don't like were doing something that made no sense. That's a "rude tone".

Well no, I never stated that and it's certainly not a direct quote of anything I wrote. I never stated it was a feature I didn't "like" merely a feature I didn't "use".

My post stated "Well. Yes, but in the 28 years I've been cycling I've never used a cycling computer that didn't offer avg. speed and didn't calculate that by using the time spent actually moving. Then I got a Garmin 810 and one option for avg. speed was entire time spend riding, including time spent stopped, OR avg. just for moving. It puzzled me as to why anybody would want to know their avg. including time stopped at traffic lights.

Then I got a Wahoo and it wasn't an option, nor was it an option on a 15 yr. old Cateye. I read some review of Wahoo devices vs. Garmin and they commented that Wahoo seemingly is built by people that actually ride bikes, while Garmin is not. That is very true as I compare the 810 setup with a Bolt. Wahoo gets it."

Seems pretty clear that "I've" never used that feature, and I was clear in stating that I would be puzzled as to the use, leaving open the possibility that there well could be good uses I don't need.

The comment about the developers of Wahoo was how THEY think about the products they develop, vs, how the Garmin developers think about what they develop and I was again, clear that the comment was from a review written by others, that I happen to agree with having now spent some time with both products.

Perhaps next time you might ask for clarification of the intent of a comment before jumping on someone. Certainly the written words can be misinterpreted.

You weren't merely "puzzled". You "could not for the life of me understand how that's a useful piece of information". That's kind of extreme.

This paragraphs is strongly implying the "option" makes no sense (or is useless) for anybody "who rides bicycles".

You think removing the "option" is an example of "getting it". That means you don't think it's useful for anybody.

No, you weren't clear about that at all. That's the problem.

I didn't "jump" on you. I was blunt.

You "could not for the life of me understand how that's a useful piece of information". I suspect that isn't true.

Sorry you were rude. "the fact that your imagination is limited" I mean really, you don't finds that rude ?.

No call for it.

It's just this "I could not for the life of me understand how that's a useful piece of information" in other words.

You should avoid saying things like "I could not for the life of me understand how that's a useful piece of information" (it doesn't help you).

You should avoid implying that users and providers of an option are somehow not real cyclists. There's no call for it (and it's wrong).

The ancient Garmin 810 does a whole lot more than the brand-new Wahoo Bolt.

As far as I understand, the Bolt requires a cellphone to configure. There are problems with that (people don't have the option of not having a smartphone).

Part of the issue with the Garmins is that they are using "legacy architecture".

The 810 is a relatively minor update of the 800. When the 800 was released, it probably would have made no sense to require using a cellphone to configure it.

When the 810 was available, the only thing Wahoo had was the "reflect", which was really limited and didn't seem to work that great.

Yes, all true and as effort to keep on topic.

I used the 810 for 18 mos., so purchased near the end of its product life, it wasn't long after they were hard to find, but got a very good deal on it. Research showed it it was buggy, but thought maybe some of those issues, including lost BT connections, crashes with lost rides, etc... possibly had been stabilized with subsequent software updates, I never experienced BT issues and found that was a terrific feature as compared to the 800. It did crash a few times. Actually it crashed 3 times in the first 2 weeks, but then stabilized with a crash every 6 mos. or so. Then 3 crashes recently with frozen touch screen requiring re-boots. I cannot state that I ever felt the unit was reliable and went on every ride expecting a crash, but part of that is the expectation of it being a Garmin thus will crash, which is not deserved given the replies on my Why Garmin thread, with many replies stating good reliability.

Does the 810 do more then a Bolt ?, possibly, but is that useful if it's flaky ?. Not too me. The use of a smartphone on the Wahoo's for setup certainly makes life easier for the developers, but I can state that setup was SIGNIFICANTLY easier then on the 810. Part of that may be that the Garmin manual just sucked. The internet was more useful in trying to find how to configure. The Bolt was painless. An example is speed sensor pairing. It's done once on the Bolt to any sensor and the device knows if you've switched bikes with a different sensor and pairs immediately. On the 810 the sensor belongs to a bike profile and as far as I can tell, you need to manually change the bike profile on the unit if switching to a bike with a different sensor. Thus you cannot assume a 2nd bike with a sensor is paired and the sensor is operational. As well, the concept of different bike profiles on the Garmin, outside of owning sensors, is information that if you change bike profiles, the bike you rode on is not info that gets ported to Connect after a ride. If you desire to track a bike in Connect your get to manually edit the ride info in Connect. Thus I was unclear as to the usefulness of bike profiles on the device.

So now I'm on a Bolt, which does everything I need, including useful navigation and I don't start a ride wondering if the unit will be reliable, but agree that if you don't own a smartphone, don't buy a Wahoo.

The 800 has been very reliable for me. I think it's crashed only 3 or so times in 4 years (some of the crashes were due to the fact that the 800 apparently has problems with rides longer than 180 miles).

It shouldn't be flaky. But it's much easier to make something that does less more reliable.

The Bolt is somewhat close to the 520 (which still does more) but has better maps.

The navigation the Bolt provides is pretty-much what the 520 provides (but it looks better on the Bolt). It's easy to implement that level of navigation (Garmin has had it since at least the 500).

I believe the Edge 1000 (and newer units) works this way.

When the 810 came out, the Wahoo Bolt didn't even have profiles (because it didn't exist).

The profiles with connect are an issue. I suspect the reason is that the profile isn't being written to the "activity" fit file (which is the thing that is uploaded to Garmin Connect).

The Bolt seems fine.

It's weak on navigation features: it doesn't do any routing on the device, you can store locations to it (AFAIU), if the smartphone app that does routing needs internet access, that's a real limitation, you can't pan/zoom the map (AFAIU), you can't display multiple tracks (AFAIU), you can't install custom maps. Not everybody needs these things but some people use them (I've used all of them).

The map on the Bolt/Elemnt can be zoomed using the right side up/up down buttons. I think currently the map zoom needs refinement as it's too coarse. I suspect that'll get fixed as Wahoo is aware of it. The zoom function also works on the display so if you set a display to 9 metrics, you can zoom in to just a few, with attending increase in font sizes. Good if you have poor reading prescription and need larger fonts.

I hear 'ya on re-routing on the Bolt and Elemnt. In theory you would use your smartphone to go online to RWGPS and create a new course from your current position, then save, load to device and follow. Completely dependent on A) Owning a smartphone and B) Having data service. Garmin in theory should do this better on 800/1000 series, but in reality it sucked as you could not really draw a route (would you know where to go ?), but in my experience Garmins choices for a reroute back on course never worked anyway, so best hope there's cell service. The ability to reroute once off course is possibly the singular most difficult thing to ask of a bike GPS as there's a whole lot of decisions you are asking the device to do. Car GPS's often suck at it as does Google Maps. No great solutions at this that I've been happy with, IMO.

FWIW, I chose a Bolt over an Elemnt as I was curious if the smaller size would give me most of the navigation as well as the cycle computer functionality as found on a 520 and 810. I actually ordered an Elemnt from Amazon, then got the Bolt at REI and decided to try it. It did what I needed so returned the Elemnt having never received it.

Wahoo pushed an update yesterday that adds structured workouts.

As follow on as to function of the Bolt with buttons vs. the 810 touch screen I initially liked the idea of TS, but ultimately liked buttons better. The TS on the Garmin was often unresponsive and I had to get trained as to exactly how to touch the screen to use it. I found swiping to other pages an issue, finally learned to press the lower screen till the page arrows appeared, then used them. The TS went flaky.

The units are really too small to plan routes on but I've used the device routing to get to a place.

Using a smartphone is a better option for routing. There are a few apps that do the routing on the phone (without data service). Some of them might let you export a gpx track file. But it appears the only way to wirelessly transfer the route to the devices is to use a website. You could use a cable with an Android phone (I've done it with a tablet).

On the 800, the rerouting abandoned the course and calculated new route to the endpoint (newer units don't work that way), which isn't what people generally want. I never used it (the general advice is to keep it off). It's not generally needed anyway. It's not that hard to figure out an alternative way back to the route by panning/zooming the map.

I don't have a problem with the touch screen. It would be hard to pan the map (it would seem 4 buttons would be needed).

Why care about speed at all?
 

Why do you even care about Avg. Moving Speed, and Elapsed/Gross Speed? So many factors (head/tail wind, hills, temperature, clothing choices, solo vs. group drafting, aero position, bike weight, tire size) all contribute to a widely varied speed metric. Forget speed and get yourself a power meter if you want to measure and compare your efforts in vastly varied conditions.

Basic math .. have a stopwatch?

Speed = Distance covered in given time, including stops, versus just counting it only when you are moving..

Why dredge up what was otherwise a dead thread, just to add comments toward an argument that wasn't really material to the OP's question.

Randonneurs. Brevets have time limits, where it's the all-inclusive speed including that matters including stops for traffic/water refills/restroom breaks. Knowing where you stand can suggest speeding up (sleep less on long rides) or let you relax.

Long distance cyclists in general. You want to know where you stand with respect to course cut-offs and food/water source closing times.

People with significant others. Your partner wants to know when they can expect you for dinner, not how distant you are in miles or your remaining moving time.

Yup