Amt0571

Not necessary to spend that much. I recently bought an Etrex Touch 35 for 165€. I also sold my old, perfectly working, Dakota 20 for 65€ (which means someone obtained a GPS for less than 3 times the 250$ you mentioned).

Yes, they're not cycling specific, but unless you need to use a power meter, they provide all data you could need and are cheaper than the Edge equivalents. BTW, I don't buy edge units because I value having replaceable batteries and don't need/want/have a power meter.

Steve B.

Not that that cheap currently, $220 is the going price here in the states. And it's not just Power Meter, as it has no ability to use the iQ RWGPS app, as example. That's worth $50 (IMO) for the easy ability to quickly and via BT get a route onto the device. Personally I think the 1030 is way overpriced but glad I purchased as it has Di2 compatibility, which I really like. I tend to recommend the Edge Explore to friends, which is only $249. But !, I do like the Touch 35 the more I look at it, would likely be a great touring model.

Seattle Forrest

Garmin's watches are a great alternative to their Edge computers. Even the more lowly ones run third party software, and they're useful off the bike too.

I was glad to have the map in mine while I was skiing yesterday.

Amt0571

I plan most of my rides on the computer using Basecamp. If I had to pass some track from the phone to the Garmin I just create the track on the phone using Oruxmaps and use a USB OTG adapter to transfer it.

I didn't consider the Edge Explore because it does not have removable batteries, but especially, because it doesn't have barometric altimeter (which IMHO, is an absolute must together with the compass). The compass is missing even on some of the nice Edges, and it's really useful when you stop on paths crossing while riding in a mountain bike, for example. A barometric altimeter also makes a lot of difference if you want to precisely know total climb, especially if it's a precise one (which not all devices from all brands have).

The Etrex may not be an option if you want to use a power meter, Di2 compatibility, or if you want strava segments. I could care less for strava, and I don't have interest in buying a power meter nor do I want electronic shifting, so the Etrex 35 makes for a great GPS with lots of features at an affordable price, and moreover, is a great long distance unit, as you can replace the batteries whenever you need to (IMHO, is way better than the Edge Touring, which is more expensive and has less features).

Anyway, if you are budget constrained, I don't think having power meter or Di2 integration is an issue. And in any case, even without these features, it sure beats a smartphone as a way to record rides and as a bike computer. My old Dakota 20 didn't miss a beat in 7 years, and frankly, I only upgraded it because I wanted to use magnetless cadence sensor, because it didn't show the climb grade and because I liked the Etrex showing the smartphone notifications that allow me to know if it's my wife calling or I can ignore the call without having to stop and find the phone.

Steve B.

I agree with all of your logic except elevation. I wouldn't be using the word "precise" when describing the elevation data or current altitude as generated by any GPS. They are notoriously imprecise when trying to calculate just using GPS and hit/miss with barometric due to the possibility for weather variations generating incorrect altitude. There's a few days worth of reading on the pages on this and other cycling forums describing all the assorted problems users have had as well as their disappointments when they discover the elevation data is all over the map.

Amt0571

I don't agree. Garmin at least use the barometric altimeter periodically corrected by GPS when it has good reception (this avoids sudden pressure changes affecting the climb data).

Based on my experience de deviation using this method is less than 50m for 1000m climbed. Way more accurate than most of us need, I think. I consistently get around 580m of climb on my work commute, and at the highest point the altimeter measures a height between 513m and 517m every day. Seems really good to me.

I've been having consistent climb data on the same rides for 7 years with my Dakota. My new etrex seems to follow the trend with (nearly) identical data.

Admittedly I have an amazfit watch and a phone with barometric altimeter and both of them are a POS. So either not altimeters are the same, or Garmin has figured a better approach. The amazfit watch is especially bad, bordering uselessness.

Seattle Forrest

The Fenix watches I've had have generally been excellent as altimeters, but when they're wrong, it's almost always because of changing weather. They've gotten pretty good at guessing whether a change of air pressure is because you've moved up and down, because of weather, or both. But it's not magic.

Amt0571

In the 7 years that I used my Dakota 20 I only had one case of innacurate elevation data where it showed 1500m climbed when reality was closer to 1300. It was caused by a really strong headwind that blowed in bursts instead of being steady. Everytime a burst hit, the pressure augmented momentarily, and it lowered again when it passed, causing the altimeter graph to look a bit like a sawtooth when I zoomed on it (not really noticeable without zooming, but it affected the climb and descend data). In a case like this there's nothing you can do because even if you periodically recalibrate using GPS, it can't account for such fast changes.

In any case, this was a very specific meteorological condition that I have found once in 7 years, and it was also a condition in which I would have avoided riding if it didn't catch me when I was 20km from home because it was outright dangerous.

It's not perfect, but I think barometric altimeters are really good.

bikebikebike

MapMyRide by map was 3% less than by the phone app on 3x 10 mile rides
Not horrid but annoying
The Karoo is much more stable with my Mangene Cadence meter and Wahoo HRM in BT which the phone drops frequently.
The phone is best for casual use
MMR maps seemmuch better and I like their app, but find Strava does better with non map data.
Data security is getting to be more of a concern for me as well.