App or Garmin

[annirak]

I have been using a mobile for tracking my rides for about 3 years. It's got good points and bad points. I'm thinking of either moving to a paid app or to a Garmin.

I have a Wahoo RFLKT, so if I move to a paid app, it should support that.
I am mostly happy with what the Wahoo app provides, but it doesn't manage a couple of things I'd like: mobile notifications and turn-by-turn navigation of pre-loaded routes.

I don't want to mount my mobile to my handlebars. While this is a good solution in general, it has a couple of drawbacks: I need a case for wet weather, but cases make it hard to see the screen. The screen can't stay on for a whole ride or I'll have no battery left.

If I go for a Garmin, I want to be able to navigate along a pre-loaded route, I want integration with Speed/Cadence sensors and HRMs. Integration with a Garmin smartwatch for HRM would be nice, but isn't necessary.

Are there any RFLKT users who have managed to get navigation working? Or is that strictly the domain of Garmin, etc.?

 

[Joffey]

My Garmin 510 does all that you require!

 

[annirak]

The 520 is my pick for the moment--the others seem to be either missing a feature or discontinued.

 

[RegG]

I'm looking at getting a Garmin and have been looking at the 520 bundle with HR, cadence and speed sensors. Am I right in thinking the speed sensor (attached to the hub) will provide more accurate data than using the Garmin without it and relying on GPS?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm looking at getting a Garmin and have been looking at the 520 bundle with HR, cadence and speed sensors. Am I right in thinking the speed sensor (attached to the hub) will provide more accurate data than using the Garmin without it and relying on GPS?

Don't know definitively. But how accurate do you need it to be?

 

[RegG]

I'm not expecting 100% accuracy but am using Strava app at the moment and on occasions I have accelerated from 0 to 40mph in less time than a Ferrari so have my doubts about data using GPS only!

 

[fossyant]

I'm looking at getting a Garmin and have been looking at the 520 bundle with HR, cadence and speed sensors. Am I right in thinking the speed sensor (attached to the hub) will provide more accurate data than using the Garmin without it and relying on GPS?

It helps, and can be slightly more accurate. Useful if the signal is ever weak. The advantages of a cycling GPS is much lower battery use and accuracy, and having a compact device on the bars that you can read easily.

 

[annirak]

Yes, the more I look at it, the more I think that a Garmin 520 (or competitor) is the right answer.

 

[jonny jeez]

Always Garmin- save your phone battery for when you might really need it.

 

[RegG]

I think it will be a 520 with the HRM and cadence bundle. My step-son has one and is very pleased with it. The HRM appears reasonably accurate and consistent.

 

[JtB]

I'm looking at getting a Garmin and have been looking at the 520 bundle with HR, cadence and speed sensors. Am I right in thinking the speed sensor (attached to the hub) will provide more accurate data than using the Garmin without it and relying on GPS?

The speed sensor is also good for tracking turbo trainer sessions.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The speed sensor is also good for tracking turbo trainer sessions.

only good for?

 

[JtB]

only good for?

Not good for absolute distances which in a turbo trainer always equate to zero, but excellent for relative distances to chart personal progress when using a fluid trainer with a defined power curve.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not good for absolute distances which in a turbo trainer always equate to zero, but excellent for relative distances to chart personal progress when using a fluid trainer with a defined power curve.

surely the entire point of a wheel sensor on a GPS enabled device is for stationary training on turbo or rollers. Like a footpod matched with a running watch. Great for a treadmill but outdoors? Why bother.

Outdoors GPS rules the roost surely?

 

[annirak]

surely the entire point of a wheel sensor on a GPS enabled device is for stationary training on turbo or rollers. Like a footpod matched with a running watch. Great for a treadmill but outdoors? Why bother.

Outdoors GPS rules the roost surely?

GPS is... finicky. Go under some trees? Wildly inaccurate signal, or just none. Go through a tunnel? No signal. Take a sharp corner? Bad tracking.

There is no better measure of distance covered than how many times your rear wheel has rotated (excluding endo's ) provided that the wheel size is correctly calibrated. Calibrating the wheel size can be a bit difficult, since it involves riding your bike in a straight line for a fixed number of wheel rotations, then measuring the distance covered.

Here's an example of the problems with GPS-only speed measurement: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/garmin-speed-sensor-wheel-size-setting.189497/#post-3959348