Garmin 1040 solar
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,284
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2847 Post(s)
Liked 1,580 Times
in
905 Posts
It would make the data go directly from the Garmin to the internet without going through your phone on the way. I guess if you have Bluetooth issues that would be good since BT wouldn't be involved. In theory a little less drain on your phone battery and if you don't have an unlimited data plan there's that. But that's all more theoretical than practical, if live track works most people don't care how. This is for people who want to leave their phones behind.
For those changes, you need a data plan for your Garmin.
For those changes, you need a data plan for your Garmin.
#27
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 19,916
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8556 Post(s)
Liked 3,191 Times
in
1,715 Posts
It (meaning the 945LTE, here) has a built-in SIM that doesn't care what you use in your phone. It doesn't mean you go to Verizon and get a SIM for the watch; you enable it with Garmin and it works for the features they use it for.
#28
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18880 Post(s)
Liked 10,640 Times
in
6,050 Posts
Yes, but no. I mean there isn't a 1040 LTE, or any Edge LTE I think, so it's hypothetical. Because watches are so small Garmin has put a chip in that does the same thing as a sim card. It's basically the same thing you just don't physically put it in and take it out, and it can only use one specific data provider as result. But that's a workaround for not having a sim door in a watch people swim with. You can think of it as a sim card and basically be right.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,284
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2847 Post(s)
Liked 1,580 Times
in
905 Posts
Hammerheads method is to add a SIM card of your choice, on whatever carrier you choose. You then enable the SIM on the device, it connects when its not using WIFI
Last edited by Steve B.; 06-15-22 at 10:16 PM.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,297
Bikes: Too many.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked 174 Times
in
86 Posts
It would make the data go directly from the Garmin to the internet without going through your phone on the way. I guess if you have Bluetooth issues that would be good since BT wouldn't be involved. In theory a little less drain on your phone battery and if you don't have an unlimited data plan there's that. But that's all more theoretical than practical, if live track works most people don't care how. This is for people who want to leave their phones behind.
For those changes, you need a data plan for your Garmin.
For those changes, you need a data plan for your Garmin.
Plus, having a cell phone with me in the event of a mishap or emergency is why I have a phone that can go anywhere. Leaving it at home or in the car when riding seems to go against why I have it in the first place.
But different strokes for different folks. If someone wanted to pay more for connectivity and leave their phone behind, that's their call.
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,297
Bikes: Too many.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked 174 Times
in
86 Posts
Yes, but no. I mean there isn't a 1040 LTE, or any Edge LTE I think, so it's hypothetical. Because watches are so small Garmin has put a chip in that does the same thing as a sim card. It's basically the same thing you just don't physically put it in and take it out, and it can only use one specific data provider as result. But that's a workaround for not having a sim door in a watch people swim with. You can think of it as a sim card and basically be right.
#32
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 19,916
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8556 Post(s)
Liked 3,191 Times
in
1,715 Posts
Yes, and I was explaining the Garmin approach, which is exactly what I want but seems to cause much confusion.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,667
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3841 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times
in
758 Posts
It would make the data go directly from the Garmin to the internet without going through your phone on the way. I guess if you have Bluetooth issues that would be good since BT wouldn't be involved. In theory a little less drain on your phone battery and if you don't have an unlimited data plan there's that. But that's all more theoretical than practical, if live track works most people don't care how. This is for people who want to leave their phones behind.
I suspect there is a larger proportion of runners who don’t want to carry phones. They are generally out for shorter periods and having a phone in a pocket (or whatever) is going to be more annoying.
For those changes, you need a data plan for your Garmin.
I suspect there is a larger proportion of runners who don’t want to carry phones. They are generally out for shorter periods and having a phone in a pocket (or whatever) is going to be more annoying.
For those changes, you need a data plan for your Garmin.
Sure, it might save a little bit of phone battery but at the likely cost of significantly higher battery use in the head unit.
How many people would want to pay $7/month for it?
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/06/...explainer.html
It could let the device get texts but those would have to be sent to another number.
Having LTE doesn’t let the head unit replace the phone. So, many more people are likely to also be carrying a phone anyway. There are likely many more of these people than those who want to leave their phone behind.
It’s extra engineering, cost, support for no good reason.
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-16-22 at 08:25 AM.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,667
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3841 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times
in
758 Posts
Phoneless tracking. Like, literally, that's the thing LTE does. My wife used to use a Quarq Qollector, but the 3G shutdown killed it. Now she has a 945LTE that she uses for bike rides just for the tracking so I can see she's ok. She also uses a 530 for actual ride tracking, and would like an Edge with LTE to handle both LiveTrack and activity recording. A 1040(or 540, or 840)LTE would be an easy immediate sale. The lack of it on the FR955 and now 1040 is concerning to us regarding Garmin's long-term plans for LTE devices, which we'd thought were to be .
Maybe, it’s not worth the hassle of making arrangements with providers to support it.
Maybe, not many people used it.
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/06/...explainer.html
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-16-22 at 08:34 AM.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,667
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3841 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times
in
758 Posts
I wonder how many people spend the extra for the service for it.
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-16-22 at 08:24 AM.
#37
Senior Member
https://www.amazon.com/Portable-2000...s%2C438&sr=8-3
Lot less money than buying a 1040 solar.
#38
Senior Member
LTE doesn’t seem to have much use beyond live tracking (and incident detection).
Sure, it might save a little bit of phone battery but at the likely cost of significantly higher battery use in the head unit.
How many people would want to pay $7/month for it?
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/06/...explainer.html
It could let the device get texts but those would have to be sent to another number.
Having LTE doesn’t let the head unit replace the phone. So, many more people are likely to also be carrying a phone anyway. There are likely many more of these people than those who want to leave their phone behind.
It’s extra engineering, cost, support for no good reason.
Sure, it might save a little bit of phone battery but at the likely cost of significantly higher battery use in the head unit.
How many people would want to pay $7/month for it?
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/06/...explainer.html
It could let the device get texts but those would have to be sent to another number.
Having LTE doesn’t let the head unit replace the phone. So, many more people are likely to also be carrying a phone anyway. There are likely many more of these people than those who want to leave their phone behind.
It’s extra engineering, cost, support for no good reason.
And all this talk about LTE on a Garmin is useless if you don't have a signal. Nobody (for the most part) is leaving their phone at home when they ride anyway. So why have two devices that have LTE that you have to pay for?
Last edited by prj71; 06-16-22 at 12:30 PM.
Likes For prj71:
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,284
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2847 Post(s)
Liked 1,580 Times
in
905 Posts
And this touches on the whole idea of LTE in the device. I would guess that 95% of riders bring a phone along on their rides, if only as they recognize the potential to needing a phone in an emergency or mechanical issue. Thus they will likely have the ability to get a connection (if there's available cell coverage) for vis the Garmin phone app for LT, Incident Detection and Notifications, so at that point I cannot see a need for any stand-alone connection right off the device.
Likes For Steve B.:
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,297
Bikes: Too many.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked 174 Times
in
86 Posts
Then that would be a dealbreaker for me. Not that Garmin should care as I'm not the target for a watch of this type, but if I'm going to pay a data subscription fee (and I assume there has to be a monthly fee) for a data connection, I'd like it to be all tied to whatever single provider I choose for all my mobile enabled devices.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,667
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3841 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times
in
758 Posts
LTE is going to be more useful generally on the Karoo (because it's really just a smartphone).
I suspect people who are interested in this feature might be more likely to be forum members. The usage in the overall population might much less.
As a WAG, I suspect that 5% of Garmin users use the Garmin forums.
And it seems very likely that more Karoo users are also carrying phones with them than are using LTE on their Karoo.
Outside of live tracking, I don't see why people wouldn't just tether their Karoo to the phone they are rather likely to be carrying anyway.
I think Garmin leveraging the device that many/most people are already carrying makes a lot of sense.
I think carrying a phone while riding is much less of a nuisance than carrying one running. That is, LTE on a non-phone device is more valuable for runners than it is for cyclists. For "serious" people, runner are likely spending less time on the activity than cyclists. That might mean that runners are more likely to not care as much about "full" connectivity than cyclists and have less of an issue not having their phone for that period.
You read this, right?
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/06/...explainer.html
I suspect people who are interested in this feature might be more likely to be forum members. The usage in the overall population might much less.
As a WAG, I suspect that 5% of Garmin users use the Garmin forums.
And it seems very likely that more Karoo users are also carrying phones with them than are using LTE on their Karoo.
Outside of live tracking, I don't see why people wouldn't just tether their Karoo to the phone they are rather likely to be carrying anyway.
And this touches on the whole idea of LTE in the device. I would guess that 95% of riders bring a phone along on their rides, if only as they recognize the potential to needing a phone in an emergency or mechanical issue. Thus they will likely have the ability to get a connection (if there's available cell coverage) for vis the Garmin phone app for LT, Incident Detection and Notifications, so at that point I cannot see a need for any stand-alone connection right off the device.
I think carrying a phone while riding is much less of a nuisance than carrying one running. That is, LTE on a non-phone device is more valuable for runners than it is for cyclists. For "serious" people, runner are likely spending less time on the activity than cyclists. That might mean that runners are more likely to not care as much about "full" connectivity than cyclists and have less of an issue not having their phone for that period.
You read this, right?
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/06/...explainer.html
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-16-22 at 10:22 AM.
Likes For njkayaker:
#42
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18880 Post(s)
Liked 10,640 Times
in
6,050 Posts
No. People will only spend the extra premium on this feature because they want the ability to leave their phone behind. Most customers don't pay extra for that ability and then not use it.
Likes For Seattle Forrest:
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,667
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3841 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times
in
758 Posts
I suspect there aren't that many of these people*. Not enough of a market to have to negotiate with the carriers in multiple places/countries to provide it.
Anyway, it's actually only people who want tracking and incident detection and want to leave their phone behind. That's an even smaller number of people who want to leave their phone behind.
The LTE in the watch serves a limited purpose (tracking and incident detection). Many people are still going to want to get texts and phone calls. (Users of newer Apple watches get much more of the features a phone provides.)
* It's likely that there is a higher percentage of runners who would be interested (I talked about why earlier).
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-16-22 at 10:43 AM.
#44
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18880 Post(s)
Liked 10,640 Times
in
6,050 Posts
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,667
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3841 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times
in
758 Posts
The new fr955 doesn't provide an LTE option. That might suggest there isn't much of a market for it. Though, they might release a version later (the ft945LTE is recent; released a year ago).
LTE just for tracking and incident detection is not that useful except to a rather limited number of people. If they are that interested in it, they can get the fr945LTE watch.
The incident detection without being able to contact the person with the incident has issues too.
How many people use the tracking and incident detection (and they are separate features) on the Edges?
Last edited by njkayaker; 06-16-22 at 10:58 AM.
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 6,464
Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,341 Times
in
1,564 Posts
over a decade ago, I could rationale that for my area. Seeing how times have changed (downhill) I would much rather have a smart phone that can capture vids/pics & have the capability for dialing out. A bicycle computer with a tracking subscriptions plan will only give the approx location on where I was hit & potentially dragged for a quarter of a mile before being carpeted into the river.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
-Oh Hey!
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,667
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3841 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times
in
758 Posts
The fr945LTE uses "Cat M1" (LTE-M).
https://www.onlogic.com/company/io-h...20Per%20Second.
This is LTE for limited data transfers.
https://www.onlogic.com/company/io-h...20Per%20Second.
This is LTE for limited data transfers.
#48
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18880 Post(s)
Liked 10,640 Times
in
6,050 Posts
#49
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18880 Post(s)
Liked 10,640 Times
in
6,050 Posts