smarkinson

It doesn't look like anyone has posted about the 2 new Garmin GPS units so here is the info from DC Rainmaker:

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2018/04/...h-mapping.html

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2018/04/...th-review.html

Long story short the 520 Plus is the 520 with better maps and the 130 is a bit like the old 500 but not actually the old 500.

Cyclist0108

They also completely re-designed their radar tail light. I saw it today at the Sea Otter. Major improvement. I may have to convince my wife she needs my current one.

str8jakett

I went ahead a pre-ordered the 520 Plus based on the DCR post and I was a week away from picking up a 520. Good timing Garmin!

Sy Reene

I'm not obviously understanding what the new 520 does that the old 520 can't do., Reading the DCR article, you "must have a pre-created route downloaded to the device to navigate with." Ok, I always start this way with a TCX file.

It goes on to say, that once you select the route on the device "it’ll start to ‘calculate’ the turns for your route. And this is where I’ve been having some fairly significant delays..." I don't understand this, a TCX route already has the turns calculated?

njkayaker

The turns in the TCX file are optional. It's not clear, but the 520+ can also use GPX files, which don't have the turns. The 520+ will be able to generate turns for files without turns in them.

Anyway, the turns you are talking about are "course points".

The turns the 520+ has now (in addition) are "turn guidance".

The instructions provided by "turn guidance" are more clear and less-fussy about placement. "Turn guidance" requires routable maps.

"Course points" don't need maps at all.

WalksOn2Wheels

This does present a dilemma for me. I am in the minority that I actually like the touch screen on my 510. I considered getting the 820, but in reality, do I *need* legit maps? I do like to do rides/events where it's best to have a GPS backup, so I use the 510 for that. The 520+ looks nice, but I'd be going back to buttons, which isn't the end of the world. But if I'm going back to buttons it seems like the 130 would do just as much navigation wise as the 510 and be a pretty robust unit like the old 500 and probably have a much better battery life.

On the plus side: I like my 510 and there is no immediate reason to change that. I even get all day battery when needed by adjusting the backlight settings.

str8jakett

I'm upgrading from my 500, which will just move to the backup bike. In reality I'll probably never need all the features of the 520 Plus but with the age of my 500, I didn't want it to end up in a bad spot if it finally dies. The maps will be a nice upgrade, and the color screen I won't be used to, but the Trendline routing was also intriguing. In case anyone didn't read the DCR article, here are the differences between the 520/520+ from DCR:

– Added full map set for display of roads/routing
– Added turn by turn navigation capabilities, also route recalculation
– Has Trendline popularity routing engine overlaid atop the new maps
– Added Rider to Rider messaging (introduced on Edge 1030 last summer)
– Added two mountain bike trail apps loaded by default (TrailForks & Yelp)
– Updated Strava Segments algorithm found in Edge 1030 that is more accurate for racing segments
– Added slight differences in data page/field layouts
– Added new Extended Display mode for Garmin FR935/Fenix 5 integration as a secondary display (Edge 820/1030 will get too)
– Beefs up by 2g more than the Edge 520 (63g vs 61g)

My reasoning was with the 27 points ($27) I earned through Clever Training VIP, it nicely offsets the $30 cost over the regular 520 I was going to buy.

dim

Can you enter a postcode or address on the unit, (like the Edge 1000 and 1030), or do you have to create a route on a computer, and then download it?

Seattle Forrest

How does this work?

TrojanHorse

I can't seem to figure out what the difference is - can you elaborate? I want one though, had my wife all queued up to get me one for father's day and I picked up a 520 last week (for $212, new) in order to use it. Talk about bad timing.

As far as I can tell, the biggest difference is that the 520+ comes with pre-loaded maps that are usable. The 520 has very little storage space, so you can load limited OSM maps (I got most of orange county and LA onto mine but I'd have to swap them for a different set if I went to vegas or paso robles...). For me, all I use it for is creating a route in RWGPS and then following it. I have no interest in putting an address in and letting it route me there, but the 520+ will do that (and use routes that are popular with cyclists, which is a plus)

It does some other nonsense that I couldn't care less about, like allowing you to send pre-formatted messages to your ride buddies, assuming they also sprung for a 520+

From the DCR Review: the top two lines are the only things that may interest me, but then again, the 520 may work out as well, I need to give it a test run this afternoon.
– Added full map set for display of roads/routing
– Added turn by turn navigation capabilities, also route recalculation
– Has Trendline popularity routing engine overlaid atop the new maps
– Added Rider to Rider messaging (introduced on Edge 1030 last summer)
– Added two mountain bike trail apps loaded by default (TrailForks & Yelp)
– Updated Strava Segments algorithm found in Edge 1030 that is more accurate for racing segments
– Added slight differences in data page/field layouts
– Added new Extended Display mode for Garmin FR935/Fenix 5 integration as a secondary display (Edge 820/1030 will get too)

Cyclist0108

The main difference is it has a more aero/vertical profile, and the tail-light is much brighter (I run a second tail-light, even during the day -- I ride under a redwood canopy a lot). In terms of the functionality, I don't know. I only looked at it briefly.

I just looked for a picture of it on their website and only see the old one.

Seattle Forrest

I've been wondering when they'd upgrade the radar unit, and how. The first gen one works amazingly well as a radar.

TrojanHorse

Form factor looks better (I found it on the garmin site) and I'm always a fan of brighter. Seems like the Varia is one of the few Garmin devices that is universally praised, or at least not immediately hated-on.

WalksOn2Wheels

For kicks, I found garmin's page on the 510 that I still have. Battery life rated at up to 20 hours. Both the 130 and 520+ are only rated up to 15 hours. I think I'll just stay put for now. I hate charging things so much, I built a dynamo hub on my Crockett so I don't have to deal with charging a headlight.

John00

I was ready to buy one last week, now I'll wait to see what they retail for and how much the old model cost drops.

FeltF2Tarmac

Just replaced my 520 with another one, missed out on this by a week or so. Had no idea.

Bah Humbug

From what he said, it will forward the screen (or maybe just the fields) from your watch to the head unit. For triathlon, it's a semi-major feature. The 935 and Fenix5 have dedicated triathlon modes, but you typically can't see the watch face while riding, so this allows you to record on your watch but also see the fields on your Edge.

I say "semi-" major because I just have the Edge there anyway while doing my riding, and want more than the four fields available on the watches, so that's not a great answer. I'll just start the Edge once I'm underway.

JohnJ80

This was the radar/taillight the original should have been. The tail light feature was next to worthless being too dim to be of any use. I also like that they changed the device to mount vertically instead of horizontally. The old unit, if I had it slightly cocked on the mount, would occasionally touch my thighs which I found irritating. The form factor on the old unit was so bad, I just put it in a jersey pocket where it worked just as well as mounted on the bike.

J.

musicmaster

I agree. I have a 510 (after upgrading from the 500) and there's nothing on the 520 or 520+ that really interests me. Since I don't pay for Strava, the Live Segments doesn't interest me and the turn-by-turn feature on the new 520+ is still well behind that on the Wahoo where you can enter in an address on your phone and send the course to the device -- It looks like the Garmin requires pre-planned routes and can't do anything on the fly.

I know it's trendy to "hate" on Garmin, but I'm tired of their stagnant development and overpriced hardware. As a historical owner of the Garmin Forerunner 201, 205, 110, 220, 230, Edge 500 & 510 and the Etrex 20, I've sampled a bunch of their hardware. It's also a fact you can walk into BestBuy and for $30-40 walk out with a prepaid smartphone, that has a significantly higher res screen that with Bluetooth smart support can do pretty much everything a $280 Garmin does with an assortment of apps.

Garmin's strategy is incremental updates reusing the same hardware as much as possible. I'd bet the Forerunner 235 and 735XT are the same exact hardware, just the 735XT running different software, costing $150 more. The Edge 520+ is probably just a software update to the Edge 520 with minor manufacturing changes. I wouldn't be shocked if manufacturing costs were under $30/unit given the low technology involved.

What I find interesting is their two biggest competitors (Wahoo on the bike front and Suunto on the Watch front) keep innovating and adding features throughout the product life. And in the case of the Suunto, their lowest level watch runs the same software as their highest level - the difference being physical features, size, screen res, battery life, etc.

Cyclist0108

I'm gonna try that. I had no idea it would work though fabric. I was considering putting it in a saddle bag and cutting a hole for it to "see" cars. (My legs are sufficiently short that it precludes using both a saddle bag and saddle light mount, so I often mount it on a rear rack.)

Munk69

Is it just me or did Garmin make the new 520 basically the same as the 820? Why would anyone want to pay more for the 820 if the 520 can do 95% on what the 820 can do? The only real difference is 1 has a touch screen and the other does not.

I just got the 820 a couple of months ago. If this 520 was out when I was in the market, I would have gone with the 520 and saved 100.00.

Steve B.

Do you mean the 520+ ?

I suspect they were getting hammered by Wahoo, with the Bolt offering better mapping at that price point.

Many have commented they don’t see the point of an 820 now, might was well pick between the 520+ or the 1030, excepting that the 1030 at $600 is absurd.

Munk69

Yeah, I meant the 520+. It does indeed seem that the 820 has become irrelevant. Guessing soft sales on the 820 and as you said, competition on the lower platforms.

musicmaster

The Edge 520 lets you upload routes you create elsewhere, and follow them, using the native basemap. The 820 has this, plus you can also enter in an address on the computer itself and create a route.

https://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/ge...ge-1000-50967/


From what I've read, you still can't manually enter an address in on the Edge 520+ nor on the Garmin Connect app.

Seattle Forrest

Sure, for the most part. (No radar on the phone. ) And that's a pisser. On the other hand the $30 phone doesn't have a battery that will last through a century ride.

Suunto is about a decade behind Garmin in watch features. Any my Fenix 3 got a lot of features that were never promised during the time I owned/used it. Lactate threshold detection, for example. That was never promised, and the watch got it for free. The newer watch has bona fide maps and can generate bike-friendly round trips on the fly, then give you turn-by-turn through them.