Cycling Watches vs Computers
 

So my girlfriend has been asking me for Christmas ideas so I have been wanting to get either a watch or computer to star tracking my stats. She is a marathon runner and has a Garmin watch that tracks heart rate and distance, avg speed, and all of that good stuff. I have been looking at the Wahoo BOLT bike computer but I would also like something to measure my heart rate and possibly cadence (Wahoo sells a package deal for all of this). My questions is what does everyone use and what do they prefer or if they like a combination of the two (watch and computer)? TIA!

I have a Garmin watch with optical HR that broadcasts to the computer via Ant+

I have both, but I only use my bike computer (Garmin 820) for bike stuff. If I'm going hard on the bike, it's easy to look at my numbers on the Garmin 820. I just glimpse down. Looking at the watch requires twisting my arm around and taking my eye away from where I'm going.

I use a Garmin 500. It does GPS and it collects data from my HR strap and power meter. As for a watch, I have a Fortis B-42. All it does is tell time.

I used to have a bike specific computer, I got a GPS watch, no longer have the bike comp, and really don't miss it. It's not as ideal on the bike but more than makes up for it in versatility.

I've got both. I use the Garmin 1000 as my "Heads Up Display" as I'm riding but, use the Garmin Forerunner 935 to upload all of my data to Garmin Connect because, the watch strings the entire day together.

FYI - Not everyone gets great results with wrist heart rate monitor (I do) so, I actually use a chest heart rate monitor and pair it with both the 1000 and 935.
FWIW - The Forerunner gets awesome battery life (over 24 hours with the GPS running and over two weeks without).

I have a Bolt with the Wahoo speed/cadence sensors and an older Garmin HR strap. About 5 years ago I used a Garmin watch strapped to the bars to do a big climb, with that same HR monitor.

I much prefer the Bolt.

I use a Garmin Edge 510 for the bike, and Fenix 5x for everything else. I find the watch display too small to read at my age.
Its nice to have both Garmin devices so that they upload to the same app, as oppose to a Wahoo for your bike, then some other watch for everything else and they upload to different apps.

I have a Fenix 5 I use for running and occasionally record a bike ride. I use a 520 on the bike. If I'm using the watch I don't usually look at it so it's useless for navigation. I find the wrist HR is useless for running or cycling. It provides a general idea but is very slow to react and doesn't always go in the right direction with changes in intensity. I like the 520 for the bike. It's a decent size and has everything I need.

You can get a bike computer (Bolt or otherwise) that does everything your GF's watch does and more. The good thing is that you have a bicycle you can mount it to; she doesn't have something to mount her watch to other than her arm.

That's what I was thinking since I will be using this for cycling only, I don't run or do any other exercise so the Bolt is such a great option plus the Bontrager built in cadence/speed sensors into my Trek bike seem like a good duo that will handle everything.

I use an ELEMNT Bolt and have been super super happy with it. Not only does it connect to all my sensors for the stats, I can also control my Smart Trainer with it (manually).

You will have people on both sides of the fence in terms of brand. I would advise you to watch comparison videos on YouTube and make up your own mind on what features/capability/real world use, or lack thereof are important to you.

I have a Garmin Edge 520 and a Garmin 235. I've used both for cycling and prefer the Edge hands down. The Edge just mounts nicer on my bike and provides more information in an easier to read format.

The 235 is great for running and other activities. If you're planning to just cycling from time to time, but will spend most of your time running, hiking, doing weights, etc. I'd go for the 235. Otherwise a dedicated bike computer it is.

That's exactly what I have, and it's worked well for me. I previously used a Garmin Edge 25, and that also worked well, although it's more limited in what it can do. As to brand, I think Garmin and Wahoo are both very good. DC Rainmaker has comparisons on his site. One benefit of Wahoo I think is that it's designed to play well with more other websites than Garmin, which seems to be more of a closed system (you can upload data but not share so easily with other sites). That may or may not matter to you.

I have a fitbit with gps and heart rate. It's good as an activity tracker. The HR monitor sucks compared to my Wahoo Tickr. I think optical wrist HR is less accurate and definitely less accurate when I'm doing anything active because it's effected by movement of my wrist. Maybe Garmin is better then Fitbit but I know my readings on Fitbit vs Tickr can be vastly different. I'm currently using Wahoo Tickr, speed and cadence sensors with my phone

Bike computer. I used a Garmin watch for a few years and didn't think I needed a bike computer. I was wrong. I got an Element Bolt about about 14 months ago and will never got back to a watch. The bigger screen allows me to see more while I'm riding. Maps for uploaded routes are a very convenient.

I used to use a Polar watch with bike and HR sensors. Now I use a Garmin Edge for the bike and a Polar watch for everything else: running, gym, skiing, hiking, etc. That's a big improvement, but more money. The Garmin maps and ability to follow a route are a big deal.

GF's watch can count laps in the pool and reps in the weight room. Bike computer can't do everything the watch can. That stuff may or may not be useful to different folks, but it's not accurate to say an Edge or Bolt has all of the functionality of a watch.

For what it's worth, you can go into the settings in Garmin Connect and have them automatically send the file to Strava, MFP, and whoever else as soon as they get it.

True - I meant that with respect to cycling uses.

Polar is in its own world, although some websites, like TrainingPeaks, will accept Polar data. Everyone else is supposed to live in the .FIT file world and thus those files should be importable into any website or software other than Polar. That said, there's a current screwup going on between .FIT formats, FIT 1 and FIT 2. Some equipment now creates FIT 2 files which don't import into some websites or software.which only accept Fit 1 files. I haven't encountered this problem since my Edge 800 uses old firmware, though problems with Wahoo files produced by new firmware have been noticed. I doubt that we'll see any problems with Garmin devices. There's a FIT File Repair Tool that fixes FIT 2 files for import.