# Garmin 520 The good, bad and the ugly



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

So I wanted to post up a review of the Garmin 520, I have had one for for a little over 2 weeks now. I got mine on day one of release. It was so new when I called Garmin to help set it up the rep told me they also had a few guys in the office get it that day as well. Prior to this I was using my phone via strava app and then a TimeX cycle trainer 2.0 (for 8 months). I got the Garmin 520 as a gift so I this is coming from a point of view of someone who didnt buy it and a gift stand point. I did how ever buy my phone and my TimeX so I can compare these to it. 

Well 1st lets start by saying the 520 is really good lookin! Its self looks great and is very clean. Its not to big but not to small in terms of a GPS for the bike. Its a bit larger then my TimeX but nothing of an eye sore. The screens and menus are great as well. Tons of customization when it comes to what you wanna show on the bike. I am running Speed, Cadence, Power, HR, Time, Distance, Avg Speed and it looks wonderful. Im able to see everything I need to see and with out a cluttered look. 

The back lighting is aw some as well and I actually like the fact its not a touch screen! Even tho a lot would disagree Id rather have buttons vs poking at the screen. Also the auto upload is really nice when synced to your smart phone, before I even have my bike in the house my ride uploaded and ready for me to title/post it! Prior to this I had to upload the ride on TimeX Device Agent then convert the file to be able to upload my ride.

Well now to the bad. The thing is super buggy or at least mine is. It will randomly show after uploading max speeds of 70+MPH. It cuts out and zips around on the trails and ends up not picking up segments. It will auto pause on me while not stopped but going slow around a technical trail. I Have it set to auto stop at 0mph but even today it did is a bunch of times then later on the upload it messed up the actual trail. Its elevation is off by a few hundred ft (but that seems to be a common thing with garmins or some of them. The miles is a bit off as well, it gave me over 2 extra miles on my ride this morning. I also am missing 7 segments that are not accounted for when comparing it to my TimeX on this mornings ride.

The live segment feature is terrible. When I 1st looked it up this sound amazing, to the point that I was going ape sheet waiting just to use it but on release I turned it off about 15min into my ride. Its something that sounds great on paper but when you put it in action it doesnt even come close to my expectations. How it works is you really have to know what your doing ahead of time or other wise its pointless. You load up the segments to the garmin and when you hit those trails or roads it then starts the "live segment". But if you are just going out exploring or heading to new trails its pointless. If it could sync with your phone in real time it would be great. I guess that was my stupidity thing thats how it would work. In the trails its horrible, it constantly is popping up and trying to start / tell you your about to start a segment just because of how close some trails are. Things two trails over would be popping up blocking my ride screen when I would be heading a different direction.

Also to use the "Live Segments" you need to have a premium strava account. It gives you a 3 months free premium with the unit but personally I will not be keeping it premium once it runs out. I never felt that the price for strava was worth it. I get its helping to support the app to some extent but for 60 bucks a year just dosnt do anything for me. The live segments would have changed that but seeing how it should be called Planned Segments I cant justify paying the yearly membership for something I am not going to use.

I have not used the mapping yet but judging from DCR review its nothing crazy. Again you have to load up your course to be able to use it so just going out exploring is not something Id trust this GPS to do on its own.

Also one thing I noticed is the calories burned is extremely low. Not that I really would believe a GPS to measure my calories but this one shows even lower then what strava is showing. I thought strava was always a low number but this unit was able to even beat strava. I have seen other garmins burns and the 520 is dirt low. On a ride that would show 4,000 this one will show about 1500-2000 less then other users or units.

So would I have bought the 520 if I didnt get it for a gift? Sadly the answer is NO! For $299 I feel its not worth it, or at least for me its not. I actually really like my TimeX GPS and I paid $65.00 for it. Yes it doesnt have all the bells and whistles to it like the Garmin but for what I needed it for I love it! Dont get me wrong maybe this device just isnt for me. I mean there is a ton of great stuff that I left out that garmin can do and display but for what I need it for (Speed, Power, Cad, HR, Miles) my TimeX did with out all the bugs and for way less. The garmin looks hot and you can tell its an expensive unit but garmin needs to fix some of the issues with the 520 before I use it as my main GPS if its going to cause me problems on my rides. I think if Garmin can come up with a firmware update and get it in working order this unit will be well worth it minus the live segments. That for me is just something that will never be a selling point. 

Looking at the Strava Phone app the Elevations, speeds, times all matched up to my TimeX even before uploading it. I would run the phone app and compare it to my TimeX over several rides to only find they are almost spot on. As for the Garmin 520 it matches nothing. So that leads me to think that in general there are a bunch of issues with in the unit. 

Over all if you have a GPS now and you are happy with it then save your money or wait till this 520 gets updated. I feel like they made a big hype about it but you are not getting anything mind blowing. Heck most of the new garmins are getting the live segment option with there last updates. So unless you get it as a gift like I did or you happen to have lost or broke your old GPS then save that 299 and buy some upgrades for your bike!


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

I had mine since day0... It came early .. anyways, the only issue I have been having is my vector pedals keep losing connection. I broke my NDS crank arm recently and had to go back to my old BB and Cranks so I chalk some of the issue to having to swap pods for the other cranks etc etc. I got the 520 for my TTbike anyways and it talks to the Stages on that bike well enough... so I'm happy.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

A few things:

A) Welcome to the Garmin Unpaid Beta Tester Club. Be surprised if there are not showstopping bugs. Garmin bike computers are always like this and on average about 12 months to get patched enough to want to use.

2) Regarding calories expended. It most likely is not that the Edge is low, it is that all your other references are laughably high.

III) Live segments...new feature expect bugs. Being prone to ping alerts for segments just because of proximity is a flaw of the entire feature on all Edges (My E1K does the same thing). The way you want "live segments" to actually work and be "live" from your phone is not possible. segment paths are fit files and the Garmin preloads all the ones you select into cache at boot....because it is a cache and the way it works, it is not possible to randomly load in more.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

I think even with out the live segments it will be a great GPS once its fixed. I know Spdntrxi said no problems on his or her end but I have had a few annoy bugs. I was wondering how that whole feature would have worked but. I just figured it would be based off of strava syncing on your phone via bluetooth or something. The way the tech at Garmin explained it he made it sound like it would just pick up segments. While that would be amazing I do see how that would also be impossible for the GPS to know that lol.

From what I can see from prior units you are 100% right. Even my friend said his last Garmin took a few updates to get it running in order. As for the Calories burnt I wouldnt really trust any GPS but I will say my Timex would give you relatively close estimates when comparing it to online calculators.

I left out some of the phone features that I think are great. I personally leave my phone on silent when I am riding. Id rather not be stopping to take a call or be distracted, but in the event you are waiting for an important call or if someone really needs to get a hold of you I think that is a great add in for the GPS. Also digging out its ANT and BT compatible. I feel like with so many different products these days just having the option of BT or ANT really is lame. But I will give garmin a thumbs up for giving the 520 both options.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

I've been using a Garmin 810 for over a year now. Most of the time it works, but occasionally GPS goes haywire(last week it decided I swam over the Hudson river and then back), another time the unit just froze after I rode past a patrol car and had to be reset. Occasional problems are just part of the package.

Do make sure you have the latest firmware. When I first got mine, updating the software fixed several issues I had at the time.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Regarding calories burned, I believe the only way to get a reasonably accurate reading is to use a heart rate monitor and enter your weight and the weight of your bike in the Garmin.

Also, using a speed/cadence sensor with a wheel magnet will provide more accurate speed readings than will the Garmin 520 utilizing GPS speed calculation.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ian0789 said:


> On a ride that would show 4,000 this one will show about 1500-2000 less then other users or units.


What ride would show 4,000 calories? i.e. how many hours/miles, what HR, what power?


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> I've been using a Garmin 810 for over a year now. Most of the time it works, but occasionally GPS goes haywire(last week it decided I swam over the Hudson river and then back), another time the unit just froze after I rode past a patrol car and had to be reset. Occasional problems are just part of the package.
> 
> Do make sure you have the latest firmware. When I first got mine, updating the software fixed several issues I had at the time.


Yeah mine shot over a golf course today lol. I keep looking for the updates but checked just a few days ago and said still up to date.



tvad said:


> Regarding calories burned, I believe the only way to get a reasonably accurate reading is to use a heart rate monitor and enter your weight and the weight of your bike in the Garmin.
> 
> Also, using a speed/cadence sensor with a wheel magnet will provide more accurate speed readings than will the Garmin 520 utilizing GPS speed calculation.


I use a HR monitor with the stats punched into the garmin. Using a wahoo cadence sensor that mounts on my shoes strap since I have multi bikes its just easier then to move a senor back and forth. I do have a garmin speed sensor but I normally just use it for indoor training. I ride a lot of cross and mtb as well as road so again rather not keep swapping things off and on the bike. But I do agree that the sensor would a better way to keep things consistent. 



DaveWC said:


> What ride would show 4,000 calories? i.e. how many hours/miles, what HR, what power?


Centuries? Depending on if you are pulling, riding solo or just chilling on someones tail(obviously going to burn less) those will burn some solid calories and 3500-4K+ easy


----------



## Doug B (Sep 11, 2009)

I have been considering a garmin to replace my ten year old Planet Bike computer. 

But, I don't have any desire to Strava, the Planet Bike never has a hiccup, and the battery lasts an entire season. 

I think I'll stick with the Planet Bike computer for a long while.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

Nice write up - sorry you aren't happy with it, maybe it will get better

As far as your losing the trails and auto pausing at the wrong time, did you turn on GLONASS or are you just running GPS? The GLONASS should be under the GPS menu options under System if the menu is like the 510. GLONASS will help if the cause of your jumping around is loss of satellite signals. 

I'm surprised the live segments doesn't work well for you, it works fine on my 510, but I turned it off because it's annoying - if it just prompted me briefly that I was approaching then go then returned to the screen I was on until done I might like it better. I prefer to have my power and HR up on the screen when I'm hammering a segment. 

Strava calories is pretty accurate for me but I use a power meter so that could be a difference.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

Doug B said:


> I have been considering a garmin to replace my ten year old Planet Bike computer.
> 
> But, I don't have any desire to Strava, the Planet Bike never has a hiccup, and the battery lasts an entire season.
> 
> I think I'll stick with the Planet Bike computer for a long while.


I was using strava in my jersey and bike computers (only on my road bikes) to show me what I was doing prior to my TimeX. The TimeX I really liked and for the price I paid it was well worth it! Only down side to that is fact you have to convert files to upload it on strava but if your not using strava then no big deal. Also they are not really supporting the device so it works but there wont be to many updates to come for it.



Srode said:


> Nice write up - sorry you aren't happy with it, maybe it will get better
> 
> As far as your losing the trails and auto pausing at the wrong time, did you turn on GLONASS or are you just running GPS? The GLONASS should be under the GPS menu options under System if the menu is like the 510. GLONASS will help if the cause of your jumping around is loss of satellite signals.
> 
> ...


The live segments would work much better on the road but in the trails I found it was prompting to many segments since things are not that spaced out. I will try the glonass and see if that helps. I didnt know about that so many that will help with the GPS signal issue! Its not so much that Im unhappy with it but comparing it to my TimeX and the dollar for dollar the TimeX in my eyes is a better value with these problems. Now thats not to say the 520 is a paper weight, I think its a swell looking unit and has the capability to be awesome just wish it would stop showing me doing 70mph max speeds lol

One thing I did leave out is the battery life. Thats another thing Im not impressed about. It claimed to have a large battery life but compared to my TimeX again it lost. My timeX would go 20+ hours with out a charge but the garmin 520 seems to last half of that. I find I am getting about 10-12 hours out of a charge before I NEED to recharge the unit.

The timeX gps has its faults to. Not showing riding with friends even tho our times, routes and segments all matched. Maybe 1 out of 20 rides it showed me if I was riding with a friend. It had to be converted to be used on strava but only took an extra minute.

I think I should point out from a gift point of view I do love it and I think it was a very thoughtful gift. For all the stuff the garmin is able to do and display I will give them that, They sure did a great job! It looks great on the bike and the visibility is hands down a winner. Two nights ago I went out for a night ride, I was able to take a quick look at the screen with just tilting my helmet light down for a second. My TimeX id have to stop and look or really focus, even with the backlight its no match for the Garmin. 

I think I am just a bit disappointed because a $65.00 GPS is working great over a $299.00 GPS. If I had been dead set on buying one of these as a gift to my self Id be a bit upset. If I didnt have a GPS prior I also think Id be super happy with it if going from my phone app / bike computer combo. The 520 is a nice unit in terms of looks and what it has for capability. 

I guess Im a bit torn on how I feel about the device from Garmin as a big name company, I feel it shouldnt need massive updates to be the unit it should be while a cheaper GPS is functioning better in terms of statistics. Even look at the Elevation, I used Strava on 7500ft and 4500ft elevation charity ride. It was a two day well planned out ride with everything calculated to a T. Strava and my TimeX BOTH had spot on elevation, while others riding with Garmins logged way higher numbers on both days.


----------



## Mengtian (May 31, 2015)

Thanks for the input. I was going to get the 520 about a month ago but decided that I would rather get a 500 at bargain prices. It does everything I need it to so without any glitches. I have read in other places about the problems with the 520.

Maybe when Garmin gets it act together I will get a more "advanced" one.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Why wouldn't you use Glonass? Are you using GPS to measure speed and distance? Why don't you use the Garmin. Cadence sensor? HRM? That's going to give you the best calorie numbers, like others have said, lots of sources are grossly inflated. I know you don't want to swap things from bike to bike but that's not a Garmin issue? That's a you issue. It doesn't sound like you have been optimizing the 520. Weird... Writing such an extensive review after what appears to be a poor approach to the unit? I'm not saying you aren't buggy, my 510 gets a little buggy once in a while, but by and large it works great. Sounds like you live your TimeX. Sounds like you fully endorse TimeX. Like a lot... 

Anyone else have the 520 out there? I'd love to see more information. Especially if you are optimizing it...


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Srode said:


> As far as your losing the trails and auto pausing at the wrong time, did you turn on GLONASS or are you just running GPS? The GLONASS should be under the GPS menu options under System if the menu is like the 510. GLONASS will help if the cause of your jumping around is loss of satellite signals.





PBL450 said:


> Why wouldn't you use Glonass?


If the OP has a clear shot at the sky, then he should never be jumping around only on GPS. And if lack of clear sky is causing him to jump around, GLONASS probably won't help that much either.

Also, I've found GLONASS+GPS increases battery draw noticeably on my Edge1000.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ian0789 said:


> Centuries? Depending on if you are pulling, riding solo or just chilling on someones tail(obviously going to burn less) those will burn some solid calories and 3500-4K+ easy


So depending on all of those things your calories can change quite a bit. I have found that the calories reported by my Garmin 500 vary a lot depending on whether it is based on speed alone, speed + HR or speed + HR + Power. The last one is the closest to what I expect. And the calories obviously increase the higher the power.

As a 500 user, my biggest concern from what you've commented on would be the max speed discrepancy and auto-pause kicking in while moving. The rest is irrelevant to my riding. 

fwiw, I wouldn't use my unit without the Garmin speed/cadence sensor and that would probably negate both of those issues.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

PBL450 said:


> Why wouldn't you use Glonass? Are you using GPS to measure speed and distance? Why don't you use the Garmin. Cadence sensor? HRM? That's going to give you the best calorie numbers, like others have said, lots of sources are grossly inflated. I know you don't want to swap things from bike to bike but that's not a Garmin issue? That's a you issue. It doesn't sound like you have been optimizing the 520. Weird... Writing such an extensive review after what appears to be a poor approach to the unit? I'm not saying you aren't buggy, my 510 gets a little buggy once in a while, but by and large it works great. Sounds like you live your TimeX. Sounds like you fully endorse TimeX. Like a lot...
> 
> Anyone else have the 520 out there? I'd love to see more information. Especially if you are optimizing it...


Um im not sure really how to respond to this but, Why would you have to use the Garmin HRM, Cadence or speed. Because it has its name slapped on it? Did you see any part of my review that said I think the HRM, Cadence or Speed is off? No.... so that shouldnt be even brought up. The HR, Cadence and Speed is both the same on my Strava and TimeX. The issue is on the fact that the thing zips around and auto pauses, has poor battery life and isnt as amazing as Garmin would believe you to think. You need a premium Strava account to use Live Seg and I personally feel its not worth it to pay a yearly script for that feature. You shouldnt have to use a speed sensor for the thing to not auto pause. At $299 I think that it should work how it was made to have. 

As for calories grossly inflated, if you have any basic knowledge on your own calories burned and adding in other sources such as running or cycling its easy to tell what you burn in a day. But if I was to use the numbers given by the 520 they ARE extremely low. I have been able maintain a low BF% and progression on my bike while getting in the calories I need to fuel my next ride and recovery. I think its safe to say I know what my body needs to fuel its self and these numbers are not right.

Why am I fully endorsing my TimeX? Because at $65.00 its proved to be a better unit. It works and does everything I needed it for. Im not going to go out and buy Garmin Cad sensors or a HR made by them when the results will be show the same. It has been proven to be more accurate, battery life is longer and works. Why wouldnt I endorse something I like. I paid for that unit my self, the 520 was a gift. 

As for Glonass, I looked and it was set to GPS+GLONASS so that just means that the problem is still within regardless of if I knew what GLONASS Was or not. My TimeX and Phone have never zipped around or paused as much as my Garmin has. In fact they NEVER have done that


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

ian0789 said:


> Um im not sure really how to respond to this but, Why would you have to use the Garmin HRM, Cadence or speed. Because it has its name slapped on it? Did you see any part of my review that said I think the HRM, Cadence or Speed is off? No.... so that shouldnt be even brought up. The HR, Cadence and Speed is both the same on my Strava and TimeX. The issue is on the fact that the thing zips around and auto pauses, has poor battery life and isnt as amazing as Garmin would believe you to think. You need a premium Strava account to use Live Seg and I personally feel its not worth it to pay a yearly script for that feature. You shouldnt have to use a speed sensor for the thing to not auto pause. At $299 I think that it should work how it was made to have.
> 
> *As for calories grossly inflated, if you have any basic knowledge on your own calories burned* and adding in other sources such as running or cycling its easy to tell what you burn in a day. But if I was to use the numbers given by the 520 they ARE extremely low. I have been able maintain a low BF% and progression on my bike while getting in the calories I need to fuel my next ride and recovery. I think its safe to say I know what my body needs to fuel its self and these numbers are not right.
> 
> ...


The problem amigo is, as has been said, "basic understanding" doesn't cut it. 

Everyone and every gadget ever made grossly-overestimates calories burned. Why? Because of user psychology: people are more likely to be customers and happy if they see (ridiculously) high caloric values for a workout, apples-to-apples. To really "know" if the Edge 520 is reading "extremely low" you need to have a power meter and have a BMR test done. Odds are you're coming from tools that grossly inflate calories burned. "Basic understanding" will never tell you if the 520 is right or close or "extremely low".

It could be a bug...and with Garmin it is possible...but it is far more likely you've been drinking workout kool-aid from manufacturers that grossly over-inflate calories-burned values that are less accurate than a Ouija Board.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

Marc said:


> The problem amigo is, as has been said, "basic understanding" doesn't cut it.
> 
> Everyone and every gadget ever made grossly-overestimates calories burned. Why? Because of user psychology: people are more likely to be customers and happy if they see (ridiculously) high caloric values for a workout, apples-to-apples. To really "know" if the Edge 520 is reading "extremely low" you need to have a power meter and have a BMR test done. Odds are you're coming from tools that grossly inflate calories burned. "Basic understanding" will never tell you if the 520 is right or close or "extremely low".
> 
> It could be a bug...and with Garmin it is possible...but it is far more likely you've been drinking workout kool-aid from manufacturers that grossly over-inflate calories-burned values that are less accurate than a Ouija Board.


I think your missing the point of what Im saying. Take strava and then go just use it while riding XC, after around 3hrs+ of intense riding it will show that I burned around 700 calorie. Now factor in that + what I would burn on a day would leave me around 3677 for the day burnt. IF I go by my OWN calculations that have been proven to work for me I would be at 5300 calories thats a difference of 1623 calories. Those numbers are entire day burnt not just a ride. So please stop making assumption that I don't know my daily needs. I can look at a number and get a good idea if its to low or to high at least for my own needs.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

Garmin 520









TimeX









You can see on the map just how much it jumps around. That is only a small section of the ride, there is more on the other half of the map. Now you cant tell me that is not all over the place. I dont even see why people are getting so upset about a review. I gave it a negative review on how I feel the unit has been from day one. It has some nice features but it is buggy with out a doubt or at least on my end. I should have to buy a GPS unit then buy a speed sensor for it. It should work out of the box with out needed one. Thats the whole point of a GPS, if that was the case Id stick with bike computers.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

How do the numbers uploaded to Garmin Connect compare to Strava? I know some of my numbers are are always slightly different...including calories.

It might be interesting to upload your data to TrainingPeaks.com and compare your ride analysis to Strava and Garmin Connect.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

tvad said:


> How do the numbers uploaded to Garmin Connect compare to Strava? I know some of my numbers are are always slightly different...including calories.
> 
> It might be interesting to upload your data to TrainingPeaks.com and compare your ride analysis to Strava and Garmin Connect.


Tvad that is a great question! I have done that as well, it seems Garmin Connect side by side with the 520 upload to strava is almost spot on. While Training Peaks and Strava do show some minor changes to elevation but speed, cad and hr are in check. The Strava and TimeX unit seem to have more reliable elevation while the Garmin shows higher on everything uploaded.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

ian0789 said:


> Tvad that is a great question! I have done that as well, it seems Garmin Connect side by side with the 520 upload to strava is almost spot on. While Training Peaks and Strava do show some minor changes to elevation but speed, cad and hr are in check. The Strava and TimeX unit seem to have more reliable elevation while the Garmin shows higher on everything uploaded.


With elevation....by default Strava reprocess and auto-correct your ride data (both path as well as elevation). Garmin Connect always by default (AFAIK) shows the raw sensor data which can drift due to weather changes. It is why for Challenges on Strava, they always warn to ride further/higher than your computer says-because after processing you may end up with less.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ian0789 said:


> The Strava and TimeX unit seem to have more reliable elevation while the Garmin shows higher on everything uploaded.


Garmin Connect offers an option to correct elevation. Have you analyzed elevation and compared it to Strava or TraningPeaks with this setting off and on? 

I remember several years ago I was using a Rox 8.0 computer that utilized barometric elevation rather than GPS elevation. My elevation and grade numbers were always different from those who were using Garmin units...and the Rox 8.0 numbers were far more accurate. Many of the Garmin users who used elevation correction had elevation numbers that were off from actual elevation (compared to elevation maps or elevation road signs) by a good amount. The Rox 8.0 was always spot on. In many ways, I greatly preferred that unit to the Garmin 500 that replaced it.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

tvad said:


> Garmin Connect offers an option to correct elevation. Have you analyzed elevation and compared it to Strava or TraningPeaks with this setting off and on?
> 
> I remember several years ago I was using a Rox 8.0 computer that utilized barometric elevation rather than GPS elevation. My elevation and grade numbers were always different from those who were using Garmin units...and the Rox 8.0 numbers were far more accurate. Many of the Garmin users who used elevation correction had elevation numbers that were off from actual elevation (compared to elevation maps or elevation road signs) by a good amount. The Rox 8.0 was always spot on. In many ways, I greatly preferred that unit to the Garmin 500 that replaced it.


Its funny you say that because the TimeX uses barometric and I feel its way better in terms of elevation numbers. I have used the correction but still shows a higher number then Strava app or even the TimeX


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ian0789 said:


> Its funny you say that because the TimeX uses barometric and I feel its way better in terms of elevation numbers.


Barometric elevation is superior to GPS provided you keep an eye on your starting elevation and calibrate it occasionally. It also provides more accurate elevation grade numbers.

Oc ourse, this is applicable to all Garmin computers, not only the 520.


----------



## Wetworks (Aug 10, 2012)

This is a timely review for me as I have been considering this device as a future purchase. Presently I have been making use of Cyclemeter (which I love) via my iPhone and Topeak BT speed+cadence unit. As the 520 does BT and would save me significant battery life, I was looking forward to hearing it would be a good choice. Judging from this review (thanks OP!) and everyone's input, I guess I am better off just waiting it out to see if there are any improvements via software down the road.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ian0789 said:


> Garmin 520
> 
> TimeX
> 
> I dont even see why people are getting so upset about a review.


What makes you think that people are getting so upset?

btw, calories show higher on the Garmin than the TimeX.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

btw, in the interest of fairness I looked at the Timex Cycle Trainer 2.0 reviews and found that not everyone is as happy with their unit:

"The Unit worked flawlessly for about a month BUT after 4 weeks the HRM strap stopped working so Timex sent me a new one and an $8 invoice for the replacement. 2 Days later I had the same problem many other reviewers had - The GPS Chip stopped working and so the unit would only work with a speed / cadence sensor"

"I got the bike computer in March. Loved it and used it to motivate me to ride longer and faster. Then after only 2 months of use it gave me a cannot find GPS error and would not work. ~ Last month, after six months use on the new one it too gave me a cannot find GPS error."

"I dropped my rating from an initial 5 stars to 1. The heart rate monitor is now unreliable and will not stay connected to the unit."

"I've had to change this rating to 1 star. Like so many others, this bike computer is good... when it's working. But my GPS stopped working like so many other people have had."

"I am updating my original review from 5 stars to one as this device has started to fail and I am having no luck getting it replaced. The device has started to fail in that it no longer displays properly or at all while I am on the ride. It continues to keep track but I cant see it or it is displayed backwards"

My point is not that the OP is incorrect in his impressions, but that all products have users that have had bad experiences & good. If I were to base my opinion of the Timex on the basis of the bad experiences I've listed, I'd stay away. But the OP has a good unit & has had not problems. If you use Amazon as an indicator both Timex & Garmin have satisfied & dissatisfied customers.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Marc said:


> If the OP has a clear shot at the sky, then he should never be jumping around only on GPS. And if lack of clear sky is causing him to jump around, GLONASS probably won't help that much either.
> 
> Also, I've found GLONASS+GPS increases battery draw noticeably on my Edge1000.


Agreed. I'm road riding and never, ever have satellite issues, but I'm not on MTB trails. Some folks here must use GLONASS on their MTBs though? It is supposed to fix just that problem right? Although my old 200 series Garmin never had GPS issues and it's before Garmin was using the Russian tech. And I was under tree cover more then?? The OP needs to return this 520 if it's bouncing around that much. Something is broken. His review is on a unit that doesn't work? DaveWC gets at this in his posts about TimeX. 

And yes, battery life isn't great... I get just about 1mile per 1% of usage. 40mi ride is about 40% of a charge. Not great.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

you should always use the Garmin with a separate speed sensor and GPS... sorry thats the only way the data is reliable. Garmin is not the only issue, I ride with a lot of people using other computers and their speed data is farked. 

If you are worried about calories... hate to tell you but you but you need both HRM and POWER... some software does the calorie count 1:1 and others 1:1.1 vs Work.. so you will get different numbers there too.

The ops GPS data is messed up.. you are losing signal and that's why you are getting those straight-line... data position is missing for sure. Might be faulty.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

Marc said:


> If the OP has a clear shot at the sky, then he should never be jumping around only on GPS. And if lack of clear sky is causing him to jump around, GLONASS probably won't help that much either.
> 
> Also, I've found GLONASS+GPS increases battery draw noticeably on my Edge1000.


Well, I can say one of the reason's I chose to upgrade my 500 for a 510 was it was showing me way off the roads on some of the climbs we do weekly due to tree cover and deeper valley's presumably. This caused me not to be able to see performance on quite a few segments. Since switching and using GLONASS I have not had the issue even once. It does cause a bit more battery drain, but that's not been an issue for me on rides of 6 or 7 hours on the 510, the lowest I've had on these types of ride was 35% left and that's with running the backlight on most of the time. I do turn off GLONASS on rides that are going to be longer than that to make sure I don't run out of battery. Battery and GLONASS is probably a bigger issue on the 1000 though due to the power hungry screen size.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

For mt biking it's more important to use a speed sensor than on the road imo.
Tight swichbacks combined with tree cover really tend to 'sraighten' the trails, happens even on my 500 when I switch units to one of my bikes w/o a speed sensor.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> btw, in the interest of fairness I looked at the Timex Cycle Trainer 2.0 reviews and found that not everyone is as happy with their unit:
> 
> "The Unit worked flawlessly for about a month BUT after 4 weeks the HRM strap stopped working so Timex sent me a new one and an $8 invoice for the replacement. 2 Days later I had the same problem many other reviewers had - The GPS Chip stopped working and so the unit would only work with a speed / cadence sensor"
> 
> ...


Yeah and I got my TimeX off of amazon. I did read the reviews but I actually seen DCR did a review on it and I said for $65 what the heck let me give it a go. Amazon is so great with returns since it was a prime item I wasnt to worried. I have had and used it for 9 months 4-6 days a week. So I have gotten a ton of love from it and its still going strong. I use a Wahoo cad sensor (shoe mount and love it!) and a Cycleops HR strap. No problems what so ever. Both hook up to the 520 as well.

I think its safe to say different strokes for different folks. I dont think the Garmin is a terrible GPS but I personally wouldnt say its an upgrade over my current.

I just got back from a road ride so will post up some screen shots comparing the two rides on the road it shouldnt be much of a problem.

I think most of you guys are not getting why I said the calories are low, it was just an Observation. Some of you are making it sound like that is my soul complaint about the Garmin. I listed it because I felt it was something I did notice. I just went out for a windy ride, 1hr 54min 20.1avg 37.5miles. The garmin was showing 1300 calories burned. I was hammering solo into the wind the whole time. Thats a low burn for two hours of hard riding with my HR up.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ian0789 said:


> Yeah and I got my TimeX off of amazon. Amazon is so great with returns since it was a prime item I wasnt to worried.


They sell Garmin 520 units as well so the same protection exists. My point was that both products have detractors as well as supporters. It's possible your Garmin is simply a bad unit. It happens. Would you feel it was worth the extra cost if all of your complaints were gone with a replacement unit? I'm starting to doubt that.



ian0789 said:


> I think most of you guys are not getting why I said the calories are low, it was just an Observation.


I noted that the calories were higher on the example you posted than on your Timex. You didn't comment on that. It looked like the Garmin calories were reasonable while the Timex calories were low by 15%. Does that factor into your analysis at all?



ian0789 said:


> I just went out for a windy ride, 1hr 54min 20.1avg 37.5miles. The garmin was showing 1300 calories burned. I was hammering solo into the wind the whole time. Thats a low burn for two hours of hard riding with my HR up.


I've found the calories lower on a Garmin 500 with just HR vs with Power.



ian0789 said:


> Some of you are making it sound like that is my soul complaint about the Garmin


What makes you say that? Many posters have addressed calories but no one have acted like this was your only complaint. Mind you, I also asked who you thought was so upset about your review & you ignored that question so I doubt you'll comment.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

^ you are not going to get a good calorie count without the energy/work. I.E. you need a powermeter... I just did a similar ride as that.. time, avg speed, and miles.. 180w average ~1200 calories. HRM and Power used.

you might be surprised but 1300 is probably about right...


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> They sell Garmin 520 units as well so the same protection exists. My point was that both products have detractors as well as supporters. It's possible your Garmin is simply a bad unit. It happens. Would you feel it was worth the extra cost if all of your complaints were gone with a replacement unit? I'm starting to doubt that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both great questions and actually yes if the garmin was say a bad unit and a replacement was given to me id love it! But missing segments, random crazy max speeds and auto pausing is not something I feel is worth a $299 unit. I said in the review it is very sleek looking, I enjoy the menu setups and customization of the ride screens. The visual aspects are amazing in terms of seeing info in a pinch. Those 3 turns of are kind of big factors would you not agree? I mean really if your GPS did that to you would you not be upset with it? 

As for the calories that everyone is so dead set on even more then I am apparently. I NEVER said uploaded to strava. Those numbers are based on the actual unit. Even to prove that the 520 shows lower burns then uploaded onto Strava, strava then shows a higher burn. While the TimeX shows a higher burn on the unit its self and a lower when uploaded onto strava. BUT the burns shown on my TimeX unit its self are more in check with my actual numbers I go by when figuring out calories expenditure.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> What makes you say that? Many posters have addressed calories but no one have acted like this was your only complaint. Mind you, I also asked who you thought was so upset about your review & you ignored that question so I doubt you'll comment.


Whats your deal? Why do you think I wont comment on it? A few pages back someone said I made an poor attempt to review the unit. And for the record I didnt ignore you I went to ride my bike and then just got home to eat food. Im sorry if I didnt just put my day off make it a point to answer every post.

Everyone has been commenting O YOU NEED POWER or you cant get calories with these units. Who said I one am not using anything to measure power and two what do you know about my body and what it burns? Not everyone is a text book. 150lb person vs a 200lb riding at 250 watts for an 1hr 1/2 is going to be to major differences in what one burns. Again I stated the problems I had with the unit that ALL are major things that one would have a problem with. Why would I not be upset that my GPS is bugging out on a brand new unit. My phone and TimeX both never had those issues so I wouldnt expect a Garmin to have them as well. Never had to use a speed sensor unless I was riding my rollers and wanted to track my speed via unit so why all of a sudden should I need to use one now?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ian0789 said:


> ...the burns shown on my TimeX unit its self are more in check with my actual numbers I go by when figuring out calories expenditure.


Maybe I missed it in an earlier post...how do you determine your caloric _actual numbers_?


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Do you understand how calories work and how calories are calc'd in strava... and how strava uses speed to calc energy and how if your speed is messed up.. your energy will be messed up and thus calories too. It's intertwined.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

tvad said:


> Maybe I missed it in an earlier post...how do you determine your caloric _actual numbers_?


That is something Im not going to comment on  What I do works for me and my numbers work! I have my methods and have been in nutrition for some time with tons of knowledge. Im sure someone will say different but to each is own! Cycling is one of those things that is very hard to measure actual numbers just because of so many factors that can come into play. Most is just a guideline but its been working for me for years so I keep going with it.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

spdntrxi said:


> Do you understand how calories work and how calories are calc'd in strava... and how strava uses speed to calc energy and how if your speed is messed up.. your energy will be messed up and thus calories too. It's intertwined.


I have covered this many of times the UNIT 520 its self shows low numbers. I would never trust strava when calculating.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

ian0789 said:


> I have covered this many of times the UNIT 520 its self shows low numbers. I would never trust strava when calculating.


will garmin is 1:1 while strava is 1:1.1. Garmin is only good as the data that goes in. If you have faulty speed data.. well you can see where this is going.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

The bottom line is I could honestly care less about the calorie numbers I dont use them anyways. It was an observation along with the other issues. The main problem at hand is the fact that the unit is not picking up segments, zipping around, auto pausing, speeds are off and poor battery life. I think that those are ALL valid complaints and if anyone of you guys had those issues youd also be giving the product a review similar. 

I couldnt see one person dropping $299, having those problems and saying LOVE it! Best buy of 2015! I think these are all major flaws. And while some of you guys dont ride MTB or Cross, I do and I feel my GPS should work for any situation. The fact is a $65 unit does the job and I have not had any problems or complaints about that. Its simple but it work. I wouldnt say the 520 is trash or giant way to piss away your money but mine in my current state is not something im thrilled with. I shouldnt to base what GPS Im going to use per every ride. I should be able to grab it, turn it on and pedal.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ian0789 said:


> That is something Im not going to comment on


You made calories a part of the 520 review, and calories have been a significant part of this discussion with your mention of close monitoring of your caloric burn as a foundational argument. It makes no sense why you would not comment on _how_ you calculate your caloric burn, and your desire to avoid commenting really makes it the elephant in the room at this point.



ian0789 said:


> The bottom line is I could honestly care less about the calorie numbers I dont use them anyways.


Then why mention calorie burn at all? From here, it seems like you're backtracking.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

I understand you don't care about calories.. it's more informational for the next person who reads this thread whom may not understand how it works.

Return it.. sounds like your is not working right. If $65 dollar unit does it for you... by all means stick with it.

I think the root cause of your unit is the GPS.. this would account for missing segments.. autopause and all that jazz.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

tvad said:


> You made calories a part of the 520 review, and calories have been a significant part of this discussion with your mention of close monitoring of your caloric burn as a foundational argument. It makes no sense why you would not comment on _how_ you calculate your caloric burn, and your desire avoid comment really makes it the elephant in the room at this point.


Again I could care less what the unit actually says. If it told me I burned 54604 calories on a ride I wouldnt listen to it. And if it was showing higher burns instead of lower I would have made a comment on that. The MAJOR problems have been listed and if I have to repeat them again I will be done with this review. No one seems to be focusing on those just calories. Why I wont comment on how I calculate my caloric intake? Because thats my secret and if a friend of mine ask me for help I help them. I am not going to give you something I figured out on my own. Seems like you guys are more interested in what I know and you dont. 

There is no need for you to know how I calculate my intake. Saying stuff like "elephant in the room" is silly. Go ask a cycling coach for some free info and see how much he spills out to you.... Or go into a bike shop and try to get a free fit. Not going to happen. Will you call them an elephant in a room if they dont do you a solid?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ian0789 said:


> Why I wont comment on how I calculate my caloric intake? Because thats my secret and if a friend of mine ask me for help I help them. I am not going to give you something I figured out on my own. Seems like you guys are more interested in what I know and you dont.


I don't think anyone is interested in what you know and what you believe others don't.

Personally, I just want you to provide a factual basis to your discussion about calorie burn, otherwise your argument is lacking foundation and it's simply some numbers tossed out without any meaning. That's info pertinent to your review.

BTW, I agree with spdntrxi. If your unit's GPS is not working correctly, then you should file a warranty claim and get a new 520 and see if it works better (and if so, let us know here).


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

tvad said:


> I don't think anyone is interested in what you know and what you believe others don't.
> 
> Personally, I just want you to provide a factual basis to your discussion about calorie burn, otherwise your argument is lacking foundation and it's simply some numbers tossed out without any meaning. That's info pertinent to your review.


You seem to be since it seems you are trying to call me out. Sorry but I have no interest in sharing how I break down my calorie intake, macros or anything that has to do with the subject. What I eat in a day does not pertain to this review and is not relevant. My argument isnt lacking any foundation because I never once stated I got fat or lost weight going by Garmin numbers. I stated its low for my liking.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ian0789 said:


> You seem to be since it seems you are trying to call me out.


I'm not calling you out at all. The reason for my question is clearly stated in post #47.



ian0789 said:


> Sorry but I have no interest in sharing how I break down my calorie intake...What I eat in a day does not pertain to this review and is not relevant.


Agreed. Caloric intake and what you eat is irrelevant, nor is it the question asked. _Method of calculation of actual caloric burn_ is the question, because it goes to how you use your _actual caloric burn_ to determine the inaccuracy of what you state the Edge 520 calculates.

If you ask the site administrator to add the Edge 520 to the Computer Reviews section, then you can post your review there and avoid answering questions about it.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ian0789 said:


> The bottom line is I could honestly care less about the calorie numbers I dont use them anyways. It was an observation along with the other issues. The main problem at hand is the fact that the unit is not picking up segments, zipping around, auto pausing, speeds are off and poor battery life. I think that those are ALL valid complaints and if anyone of you guys had those issues youd also be giving the product a review similar.
> 
> I couldnt see one person dropping $299, having those problems and saying LOVE it! Best buy of 2015! I think these are all major flaws. And while some of you guys dont ride MTB or Cross, I do and I feel my GPS should work for any situation. The fact is a $65 unit does the job and I have not had any problems or complaints about that. Its simple but it work. I wouldnt say the 520 is trash or giant way to piss away your money but mine in my current state is not something im thrilled with. I shouldnt to base what GPS Im going to use per every ride. I should be able to grab it, turn it on and pedal.


From what it looks like, you wrote a review about a defective product? It could have been much, much shorter... "Anyone else have problems with their Garmin 520? I got one as a gift and I have to return it because it's whacky." 

As as for knowing the great secret of how to measure calorie burn, that's just weird talk right there... And I'm being polite. I think you might find more than a few people hanging around a cycling forum that are in nutrition for a long time as well. 

My my emphasis on your love of TimeX was to raise the idea that they may have handed you free or discounted products to be a shill online for them.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

you mean you didn't hit 70mph on the trail ? Really that's what speed sensors are for ? Let me guess this trail ride..your GPS dropped again didn't it. I assume this is not the first time you have road this trail with the 520. There is something wrong with the GPS or something is blocking the signal on the trail.. pretty simple.

Have you experienced wonky speed data on other rides ?


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ian0789 said:


> Whats your deal? Why do you think I wont comment on it? A few pages back someone said I made an poor attempt to review the unit. And for the record I didnt ignore you I went to ride my bike and then just got home to eat food. Im sorry if I didnt just put my day off make it a point to answer every post.


Hey bud, chill. You had the time to respond to my previous post (post #28), but ignored the post I made prior to that one where I asked why you thought people were so upset (post #27). It's a question you continue to ignore so clearly you've figured out that the only person becoming upset here is you. And now you're arguing over idiotic details and ignoring the question about who is making it sound like that is your soul complaint about the Garmin... again I assume you realize that no one is doing this. Mind you, with your latest crap about your method of calculating your caloric intake (no idea what that has to do with caloric burn while cycling) calorie burn has become the focus of this thread. Mainly because the lunacy is hard to avoid... it's like driving by a car crash.



ian0789 said:


> Who said I one am not using anything to measure power and two what do you know about my body and what it burns?


If you have a power meter surely you'd have commented one of the may times that people have suggested that power readings increase caloric burn accuracy. Your body's burn rate of calories is irrelevant. No one has said what your caloric burn is or should be. People have focused on what metrics lead to an accurate measure of caloric burn. I think you're losing your chit on this one so weight loss may be in the cards for you tonight.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

PBL450 said:


> From what it looks like, you wrote a review about a defective product? It could have been much, much shorter... "Anyone else have problems with their Garmin 520? I got one as a gift and I have to return it because it's whacky."
> 
> As as for knowing the great secret of how to measure calorie burn, that's just weird talk right there... And I'm being polite. I think you might find more than a few people hanging around a cycling forum that are in nutrition for a long time as well.
> 
> My my emphasis on your love of TimeX was to raise the idea that they may have handed you free or discounted products to be a shill online for them.


Well you know what, this is exactly why I dont normally even bother to do reviews on stuff because people like you guys are a bunch of trolls. Yes you figured me out TimeX pays me money to do reviews and bash garmin. They told me they are going to give me watches for life if I make this post. I posted a screen shot of my garmin messing up and yet you still think that Im a shill. I think its actually funny because someone is happy with a simple working product that you would start to even toss that idea up. 

And how do you know its defective? Last week I was in a shop and they said they have not even gotten them in yet. So how many people even have the 520 yet? So If I sat there and raved about how amazing the new 520 is and had nothing bad to say about it people would have preferred that? I reviewed a product that has bugs and I stated the problems in hopes that garmin fixes them and to give others a heads up. 

It seems like others had similar problems with different models so are they shills as well? I seriously cant get over the fact people seem to be upset that I gave this a bad review. Again because you guys keep rolling out the punches at me. If you had a brand spanking new Garmin with the issues I posted about would you still be happy with your $299 spent? Still no one going to answer that.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

I'll answer that. I'd return it as defective and get a new one. If it was a gift I'd buy a new one on Amazon and return the defective one to Amazon.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

spdntrxi said:


> you mean you didn't hit 70mph on the trail ? Really that's what speed sensors are for ? Let me guess this trail ride..your GPS dropped again didn't it. I assume this is not the first time you have road this trail with the 520. There is something wrong with the GPS or something is blocking the signal on the trail.. pretty simple.
> 
> Have you experienced wonky speed data on other rides ?


It did it my 1st ride using the Garmin 520 gave me another 70MPH max speed. As for blocking the Signal. I am using the same style mounts as I was for my TimeX so other then over cast or trees but even then I never had that kind of problem with my phone or timex. Funny thing is the Garmin picks up GPS signal almost instantly, my TimeX and even my Phone will take a few minutes to pick up anything depending on what area Im in.

Even today on my road ride my max speed off and it picked up one spot differently then my TimeX ride shows but nothing major. The HR, Cad and Power are all with in each other by 1-2 numbers off. Miles was only off by .1 so not a big deal and speed avg as well off by .1 so I can say Im happy with those numbers.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

DaveWC said:


> Hey bud, chill. You had the time to respond to my previous post (post #28), but ignored the post I made prior to that one where I asked why you thought people were so upset (post #27). It's a question you continue to ignore so clearly you've figured out that the only person becoming upset here is you. And now you're arguing over idiotic details and ignoring the question about who is making it sound like that is your soul complaint about the Garmin... again I assume you realize that no one is doing this. Mind you, with your latest crap about your method of calculating your caloric intake (no idea what that has to do with caloric burn while cycling) calorie burn has become the focus of this thread. Mainly because the lunacy is hard to avoid... it's like driving by a car crash.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a power meter surely you'd have commented one of the may times that people have suggested that power readings increase caloric burn accuracy. Your body's burn rate of calories is irrelevant. No one has said what your caloric burn is or should be. People have focused on what metrics lead to an accurate measure of caloric burn. I think you're losing your chit on this one so weight loss may be in the cards for you tonight.


And people still continued to scream power meter, hear rate and other sensors that I have and was using(Minus speed senor) even after I posted my strava ride that shows power getting taken into effect, my avg HR and Cadence. Im not going to keep repeating my self or defending every topic. And no Im not upset but annoyed that I have been called a shill because I didn't drink the Garmin Kool Aid. But you also are one of the 1st people who say "What ride burns 4,000 calories" As if no one around these forums is capable of doing any sort of ride that could burn that much. Most of you guys are just making guessing that I didn't have a HR monitor or something to measure power or a cadence sensor.

If I said man this thing is a POS works great but I think its horrible because I feel like its not counting my calories properly then by all means please I would be an idiot but this device has problems and my MAIN concerns have been what I keep repeating over and over and over again. Has anyone tried to touch on the topic and me just jump back to the calories burned issue? No seriously I dont care what it says, its just something I noticed as well as the other issues. What I care about is its lack of performance in the trails, poor battery life, segments not showing up or wacky data. And regardless of speed sensors or not you SHOULDNT need to buy a speed sensor. I didnt have to for my phone or timex why should i have to for a garmin? And how do you know its defective. Because a brand new unit cant have bugs and need a firmware update? Really how many people have them.

Its like if I say it has a bug then its defective, if I say I liked my phone then Im working for verizon, if I say I think my TimeX was a great value for what I need it for then Im a spy sent in by TimeX to bash Garmin. Would you all just be more happy if I changed the review and said best thing since sliced bread!!! Go out and by one for every bike!


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

ian0789 said:


> And people still continued to scream power meter, hear rate and other sensors that I have and was using(Minus speed senor) even after I posted my strava ride that shows power getting taken into effect, my avg HR and Cadence.


It shows power. It could be calculated power which means little. 



ian0789 said:


> But you also are one of the 1st people who say "What ride burns 4,000 calories" As if no one around these forums is capable of doing any sort of ride that could burn that much.


So just asking a question annoys you. It was just a question, I added nothing negative. That was all you. 



ian0789 said:


> Most of you guys are just making guessing that I didn't have a HR monitor or something to measure power or a cadence sensor.


So what power meter do you have? At an avg power of 165w (from the Strava data you gave) I'd estimate you burn just under 600 calories an hour. That assumes actual power, not Strava calculated power). If you want to know how I calculate that I'll tell you, it's no big secret.

I think your unit is defective. I'd return it rather than review it.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

Seriously this is just a few topics that come up at the garmin forums. There are pages of people having issues or complaints. TimeX but be sponsoring all these guys to! Im not the 1st person who has had problems and I even see there is a few of my same problems mentioned on the garmin site. On that note I am done with this review. If you wanna buy a 520 go for it, if your happy with your current GPS then stick with it. Do what you wanna do =O

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?318327-Problems-with-new-520

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?322277-Pairing-issues-with-Edge-520-and-HTC-ONE-M7

https://forums.garmin.com/showthrea...aveing-Edge-520-and-4iiii-Precision-PM-issues

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?320758-Issues-connecting-to-Garmin-Express

https://forums.garmin.com/showthrea...ng-issues-related-to-other-Garmin-device-pair

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?321490-Can-no-longer-Sync-Edge-520-with-Garmin-Connect

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?315793-Finally-got-my-520

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?316594-Sync-Issues-with-Strava-Segments

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?322394-Sensors-drop-during-a-ride

https://forums.garmin.com/showthrea...tart-boot-up-%28black%B4s-out-after-30-sec%29

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?320440-Keeps-freezing

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?322259-Speed-en-distance-bug

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?319278-Workout-Frustrations-Zones-and-Warnings

https://forums.garmin.com/showthrea...ad-memory-handle-r0-task-ID-r1-handle-r2-rtrn

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?318611-Power-data-dropouts


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ian0789 said:


> Well you know what, this is exactly why I dont normally even bother to do reviews on stuff because people like you guys are a bunch of trolls. Yes you figured me out TimeX pays me money to do reviews and bash garmin. They told me they are going to give me watches for life if I make this post. I posted a screen shot of my garmin messing up and yet you still think that Im a shill. I think its actually funny because someone is happy with a simple working product that you would start to even toss that idea up.
> 
> And how do you know its defective? Last week I was in a shop and they said they have not even gotten them in yet. So how many people even have the 520 yet? So If I sat there and raved about how amazing the new 520 is and had nothing bad to say about it people would have preferred that? I reviewed a product that has bugs and I stated the problems in hopes that garmin fixes them and to give others a heads up.
> 
> It seems like others had similar problems with different models so are they shills as well? I seriously cant get over the fact people seem to be upset that I gave this a bad review. Again because you guys keep rolling out the punches at me. If you had a brand spanking new Garmin with the issues I posted about would you still be happy with your $299 spent? Still no one going to answer that.


I'll answer that, "I'd return it as defective and get a new one." -DaveWC.... Yep. What Dave said... The review would be just as I wrote above. Why give a defective unit a bad review that goes beyond saying that it sucks, it doesn't work and you had to return it. That is a substantively different and equally valuable thing to to post on a cycling forum. 

And yes, you sound like a shill. If you don't think people shill you are clueless. I have been offered a few times to be a shill for decent rewards. It isn't uncommon. People on RBR do it. But YOU are above that of course you just went over the top for TimeX in your first post. $65 is perfect, $299 is bad... You have posted that a gazillion times. Shill stuff.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ian0789 said:


> So I wanted to post up a review of the Garmin 520, I have had one for for a little over 2 weeks now. I got mine on day one of release. It was so new when I called Garmin to help set it up the rep told me they also had a few guys in the office get it that day as well. Prior to this I was using my phone via strava app and then a TimeX cycle trainer 2.0 (for 8 months). I got the Garmin 520 as a gift so I this is coming from a point of view of someone who didnt buy it and a gift stand point. I did how ever buy my phone and my TimeX so I can compare these to it.
> 
> Well 1st lets start by saying the 520 is really good lookin! Its self looks great and is very clean. Its not to big but not to small in terms of a GPS for the bike. Its a bit larger then my TimeX but nothing of an eye sore. The screens and menus are great as well. Tons of customization when it comes to what you wanna show on the bike. I am running Speed, Cadence, Power, HR, Time, Distance, Avg Speed and it looks wonderful. Im able to see everything I need to see and with out a cluttered look.
> 
> ...


A note to the general public (or anyone for whom this thread show up on a Google search), let me cut this off for you in the event you don't want to read this monster post and you will not get to "more replies beneath current depth." Dude has a faulty GPS on his new 520. He sounds like a shill for TimeX. He knows magic things he won't tell you about understanding calorie intake/output. These things alone should be enough to tell you that you can safely move along and disregard this posting.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

PBL450 said:


> A note to the general public (or anyone for whom this thread show up on a Google search), let me cut this off for you in the event you don't want to read this monster post and you will not get to "more replies beneath current depth." Dude has a faulty GPS on his new 520. He sounds like a shill for TimeX. He knows magic things he won't tell you about understanding calorie intake/output. These things alone should be enough to tell you that you can safely move along and disregard this posting.


Mhhh you know what I retract that last post about done with this topic. Actually I will for sure after this next one. That I could care less if it gets me banned or flamed . You are a freaking idiot, about as dumb as they come. If you actually did read that review it doesnt even bash the Garmin. I pointed out several things I really liked about it and thought was great when comparing it to my TimeX. I stated that how many times over the 3 pages? 

I stated its buggy and not worth it till further upgrades. Im sorry that I didnt promote people to buy a brand new unit like I know tons of people did when there old one is working just fine. I stated the only thing I had to compare it to is my TimeX and Phone. So yeah Im not going to lie I love my TimeX over the garmin because the fact of the matter I could have bought 4.6 of them for the price of one 520 and they would have all worked. 

Honestly piss off, I posted a review of a brand new garmin product and didnt find it to be as amazing as they are marketing it as. I got it as a gift as well and admitted I didnt pay for it. As for sounding like a shill I think if I just bashed the 520 with no actual proof of it bugging out or just stating its crap then yeah but GOOD FREAKING GOD 70 mph max speed did you get dropped on your head? Let it be noted to the general public the above poster might be eating paint chips for dinner. Really? Come on man dont try and bash me because I said I didnt like something. Tons of others on the garmin site have problems and garmin is "working on it" in the next update. Again poor battery life(Must be defective right) zipping all over the place (possibly defect? yes), Auto pausing in tight trails (O man get a speed senor or it must be defective). If it bricked or blacked out then yeah I could say defective. O you can also add it dropping sensors and showing my HR at a stuck 30-60ish but on the upload it was fine. 

And how do you know its faulty GPS others stated the same thing while riding in the trails. And yes cant forget about all those magical numbers I hold in my massive large brain that can figure out my calories, HR, Power and even some how I know my own cadence with out the use of sensors. Id hate to be around you if someone told you they didnt like your cooking or how you did something, god forbid someone at works ask you to do something differently. Do you call them shills as well or scream defective? 

Move along people make sure you disregard this post as I am a Shill with a bad GPS! Please make sure you buy 2 garmin 520's per bike you have in your stable. I heard they also come with a free skin suit coupon and make you 1mph faster on your avg speeds just by mounting it on your bike.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

I think you should calm down a little. Here are some of my observations on your situation:

Your GPS tracks look god-awful; these are so bad that one would indeed suspect something is wrong with the GPS in your unit. Of course, it could also just be Garmin's software, see below.
Garmin's software and the firmware and OS they have in their units are notoriously terrible, in particular for new models. Buying a brand-new Garmin product is a crapshoot, plain and simple. However, they usually get things right after a while (as in: half a year or so...)
Thus, your unit may have a hardware issue, or a software issue. Either way, it's unusable in its present state. My recommendation would be to contact Garmin support. Despite their lousy software development team, their support is very good in my experience. They'll probably send out a new unit to you immediately.
If the new unit you receive has the same issues, then you'll have something objective to write about in your review. Without that, as somebody else has remarked, your review should have stopped at the point of saying the unit you have is broken.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

ian0789 said:


> And how do you know its defective? Last week I was in a shop and they said they have not even gotten them in yet. So how many people even have the 520 yet? So If I sat there and raved about how amazing the new 520 is and had nothing bad to say about it people would have preferred that? I reviewed a product that has bugs and I stated the problems in hopes that garmin fixes them and to give others a heads up.



Whether your unit's crappy performance is due to firmware issues or defective GPS hardware is only really interesting to Garmin's failure analysis group. The only thing that matters is that you, the customer, are not satisfied with the product's performance (and justifiably so). Why would you even contemplate holding onto this unit when clearly it's a dud- for whatever reason? If Garmin is being sloppy about sending out products which are faulty or not ready for production, the high number of returns will financially bite them in the a$$ and they will get their just desert.


----------



## TJay74 (Sep 9, 2012)

From someone who came from a Garmin 500 and rides road/MTB and then went to a 510 I have some thoughts on the OP's issue.

The 500's were/are notorious for the auto start/stop while on the trails. Didn't matter if you used the Garmin GSC-10 sensor or not, tight trails with switchbacks would make the 500 drop signal and continually start/stop.

I moved over to the 510 and have never had any issues. I use the GPS-Glonass and ride around 150-225 miles per week. I go about 10-14 days between charges with no issues. I never have any drops, the 510 records perfectly every time.

As for only using 1 sensor for all of your bikes, this is not the right way to do it. Sensors are cheap, I run a speed/cadence sensor on every bike, I also input the exact tire size in every bike so my mileage and speed are spot on. This can and will cause issues with the auto start/stop feature from what my testing has shown over the years.

I have 4 bikes so I cant see cost being a factor as a reason for not running a speed/cadence sensor on every bike for you. The sensors are cheap, so why not run them?

The one thing I didn't like about the 520 which is why I didn't buy one for my wife, you don't have individual bike profiles, so you don't have a way to enter in the bike weight and tire size for each bike, unless Garmin changed that from what I was told by Garmin and saw on a 520.

I wonder if some of the above could be causing some of the OP's issues.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

TJay74 said:


> This can and will cause issues with the auto start/stop feature from what my testing has shown over the years.


There's an incredibly easy fix for the auto start/stop issue. Turn it off. Just let the unit run while you ride. Don't stop cycling until you're done. If you are on the road & you stop at a red light and don't want the unit to record, turn it off & on again when you start cycling.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Stop posting here and contact Garmin for a return/replacement. Your unit is defective.

I've had my 520 for a month now and I don't have the issues you're talking about. (I've never looked at the calories so I won't go there). Mine tracks just fine. I've logged over 700miles on 3 bikes. Only one has a speed/cadence sensor. And one of them a MTB. It tracks just fine in heavily wooded areas. The first couple rides I used it simultaneously with my 500 and the results were almost identical. Most of my rides are with friends, with various computers. Our results are all consistent. 

Battery life is mediocre compared to the 500. Not sure how it compares to the 510/810/1000. I'd imagine comparable.

Screen contrast is really good in daylight. Not so good in dark/twilight. I haven't done any night rides yet but I imagine with a helmet light it won't really be an issue for me.

Syncing through my phone has been problematic. But I'm not sure if it's a problem with my phone or the 520. It works through wifi but not 3g. I haven't yet tested it with another phone. I know Garmin has been having problems in general lately with syncing Garmin Connect.

I like the buttons instead of a touch screen. There are more buttons than what was on the 500. They're more intuitive and navigating the unit is much easier. 

Live segments are kind of silly. You have to scout out the segments you want on Strava, then download them to your unit before you ride. There's nothing "live" about it. You'd have to be a real Strava junkie to be interested in it.

The main reason I got the 520 is for the map. 90% of my rides are on new/different routes so I'm always navigating with the map. Which is really nice using a downloaded map. 
The courses function on the 520 has some issues though. If you go off course or restart the course mid ride, it doesn't always update the course properly. But the map still works. Live segments don't work while following a course. So you have to stop the course if you want to track a segment. Then restarting your course creates an issue.

The biggest issue is they've added a new feature "Turn by Turn" directions. Which is really confusing and buggy. I think a lot of people are looking at the features before they buy and see "Turn by Turn" expecting it to do navigation. Which it doesn't. It's not true navigation. And it's different than the courses function. The computer looks at your course and analyzes it for (sharp) direction changes, then tries to tell you where the next turn is. But it only correctly interprets the turns 50% of the time. So it's completely useless.


----------



## faulker479 (Jan 12, 2015)

ian0789 said:


> I*t did it my 1st ride using the Garmin 520 gave me another 70MPH max speed.* As for blocking the Signal. I am using the same style mounts as I was for my TimeX so other then over cast or trees but even then I never had that kind of problem with my phone or timex. Funny thing is the Garmin picks up GPS signal almost instantly, my TimeX and even my Phone will take a few minutes to pick up anything depending on what area Im in.
> 
> Even today on my road ride my max speed off and it picked up one spot differently then my TimeX ride shows but nothing major. The HR, Cad and Power are all with in each other by 1-2 numbers off. Miles was only off by .1 so not a big deal and speed avg as well off by .1 so I can say Im happy with those numbers.


Are you seeing the Max Speed of 70 MPH in Garmin Connect as well? On my ride this weekend, using my 510, Strava showed a max speed of 47.9 but Garmin Connect showed 24.6. If it is the same for you, that would mean there is a problem on Strava's side of the equation.

Also, have you thought about turning off the auto pause feature off? i dont have experience with this on my 510, but my Vivoactive seems to be delayed when i start up again. that may help with what appears to be lost connection, but i am just guessing on that one.


----------



## TimV (Mar 20, 2007)

These meltdown threads are pure f***ing gold.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

TimV said:


> These meltdown threads are pure f***ing gold.


They are, but this one is troubling as I suspect I'll never learn how this dude calculates his calorie intake so accurately nor how his intake has anything to do with his calorie burn.


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

I have been using a Garmin 520 for about a month now. Bought it mid July, it was shipped mid August. Supplied by Performance using a 20% off coupon, it was $239 shipped free. 

On the GPS recording, using GPS+Glonass, it performs flawlessly. Way better at finding, and holding onto satellites than my previous unit, a forerunner 305. Even under heavy foliage, where other units would lose it. 

I use it with bluetooth off, and for me the battery life is very good, at 95% battery after a 2 hour ride. I have not used any of the phone connected features yet, but likely will eventually. 

I also bought it for the map mode, which for me is huge. I like that you can turn map auto zoom off, and use map zoom +/- and it stays locked in that mode while you ride. I need to alternate between the big picture / street detail when the screen is that small, in unfamiliar areas. 

Also like the ability to set up multiple speed/cadence sensors, as well as different profiles for training, indoor, etc. - All things my simpler running focused 305 lacked. I switch between 3 bikes and this is key. 

On the buttons versus touch - I like the buttons, another reason I bought it over other Edge models. On rough roads, touch does not work for me on small screens. 

Bottom line - works great on the "basics", recording GPS detail and cadence, etc. 
Get your unit serviced under warranty if yours does not. The 520 is the best Garmin GPS receiver technology that I have used, and I have 6 other Garmins here.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

DaveWC said:


> They are, but this one is troubling as I suspect I'll never learn how this dude calculates his calorie intake so accurately nor how his intake has anything to do with his calorie burn.


Or how he can go straight into a headwind for an entire ride? Think about that one for a second??


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

tvad said:


> Regarding calories burned, I believe the only way to get a reasonably accurate reading is to use a heart rate monitor and enter your weight and the weight of your bike in the Garmin.


You need a power meter for that.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> You need a power meter for that.


I disagree, but I suppose it's a matter of how accurate is accurate. 

For me, a heart rate monitor has been fine for many, many years. I don't require more for my purposes.


----------



## Poonjabby (Dec 31, 2014)

I've had the 520 now almost a month and ridden about 400 miles with is. I have the HRM, Cadence and Speed sensor. I find the calories very accurate. The speed and cadence are accurate. The only two issues I have with mine is sometimes you get an off course warning when your not off course. And the Strava segments are wildly inaccurate. I'm assuming these will both be fixed with software updates. I love the unit. My wife has a Garmin Edge 25 and the numbers between the two units are always within 1% of each other.


Poon


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 25, 2004)

Same issue as the OP - I just purchased a 520 and during my first two test rides it has presented a known course that is 5.0 miles to be 4.3 miles. Further - when riding at a steady speed - the speed display jumps from 6.0 to 7.2 to 5.4 to 6.3 to 7.5 etc.... Fairly significant % swing. So I have ended up looking at only the timer to evaluate my performance on this course (fat bike on single track in winter/snow). 

Mine is going back.... I guess less is more. Just give me time, maybe HR and I guess I
m good. was hoping to use more of the features - but it is annoying in its current state.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

jtc1 said:


> Further - when riding at a steady speed - the speed display jumps from 6.0 to 7.2 to 5.4 to 6.3 to 7.5 etc....


Use a speed/cadence sensor. You won't get the inaccurate speed readings.


----------



## GlobalGuy (Jun 9, 2015)

Cyclists that I know that have them overall like them. Main obvious legitimate complaint by some is the small display. I have to admit that if you are 50 plus you probably need bi-focal riding glasses.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

I didn't like my Garmin 810 that much when I first got it. The U.I. didn't seem intuitive, but now its a year and a half later and I'm used to it. Other than occasional hiccups with the unit freezing or rides that don't record correctly(both are fairly rare occurrences) I've grown to like it.


----------



## ian0789 (Aug 2, 2012)

jtc1 said:


> Same issue as the OP - I just purchased a 520 and during my first two test rides it has presented a known course that is 5.0 miles to be 4.3 miles. Further - when riding at a steady speed - the speed display jumps from 6.0 to 7.2 to 5.4 to 6.3 to 7.5 etc.... Fairly significant % swing. So I have ended up looking at only the timer to evaluate my performance on this course (fat bike on single track in winter/snow).
> 
> Mine is going back.... I guess less is more. Just give me time, maybe HR and I guess I
> m good. was hoping to use more of the features - but it is annoying in its current state.


I got off the phone today with Garmin as I still have tons of issues with mine. I have tried everything under the sun and still no dice. Today I got someone who rides with a 520 and said yes that my issues are all very common on some of the 520's. Not sure if there was a bad batch of them that went up but he said that unit needs to go and should have been replaced a while ago. Not after 4 months of frustration. I went back the 2 weeks to use my TimeX and zero issues, I still want to use my 520 but not in the current state. Well hopefully the new one will work!

Getting a paid label in my email with in the next day or so and its going back for a replacement! Hopefully this one works better. My last straw was the GPS just stopped working for 45mins while riding. Just cut out and wouldnt come back till randomly it decided to work again. After I uploaded the ride it had an Avg speed of 5mph, tons of miles/time lost and made hyper jumps all over the course.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Switch to a 510 or 810. They work fine.


----------



## Mckdaddy (Feb 8, 2014)

I waited for an update or two before buying the 520. Thus far I've not had any issues and have thoroughly enjoyed the device (knock on wood). My 500 was very reliable w/ excellent batt life, but having auto-syncing to my phone has been a feature I've enjoyed. Additionally, the strava segment notifications have been beneficial -- I'm not setting any KOM's, but it is good to see live where I stand in terms of time ahead/time behind when on a segment.


----------



## Mckdaddy (Feb 8, 2014)

*.*

Another note: The 520 screen I can see very well in the sunlight, but not as well in the shade or on overcast days.


----------



## LuckyB (Sep 9, 2012)

Mckdaddy said:


> I waited for an update or two before buying the 520. Thus far I've not had any issues and have thoroughly enjoyed the device (knock on wood)..


Me too. It's only getting better with more familiarity using it. As far as battery life, when I'm syncing it gets fully charged as I sync almost after every ride anyways. It's been about 1/2% battery life per mile.


----------



## Z'mer (Oct 28, 2013)

Mckdaddy said:


> Another note: The 520 screen I can see very well in the sunlight, but not as well in the shade or on overcast days.


I had that problem at first, screen hard to see in the basement indoors or at twilight. I set it to "display on" 100% of the time, at 30% brightness. Works great, battery drain not an issue at all (for typical 2 hour rides). I also use it with bluetooth off, though.


----------



## Mckdaddy (Feb 8, 2014)

Z'mer said:


> I set it to "display on" 100% of the time, at 30% brightness.


Had not thought of this combo, should be beneficial on cloudy days.


----------



## faulker479 (Jan 12, 2015)

You waited 4 months to get Garmin to send you a replacement? You are more patient than I would be. My 520 has worked flawlessly. But if it didn't, that sucker would have been sent back that week either to Garmin or the store I purchased it from.


----------



## ljvb (Dec 10, 2014)

So, I skimmed through the thread, and did not notice anyone mention the fact that using glosnass will have no real affect when your in an area with poor line of site to the skies. Glosnass is just the Russian version of GPS, and is still satellite based. What it will provide is better accuracy when you do have a good clear line of site to the sky as the more data points you have, the better the accuracy. What you are probably thinking of is WAAS, which is ground based and provides additional accuracy when it is available in your neck of the woods, being ground based designed to augment flying navigation, if you have too many mountains in the way, you are pretty much screwed.

Since accuracy is not guaranteed, especially when mountain biking, software typically will adjust the route to the near trail or road, even though your GPS coordinates might be bouncing off the wall because your accuracy is at 30m, 50m or worse because you currently connected to fewer satellites than is ideal. This is also why you distance and elevations can be screwed up (unless your devices also includes a barometric sensor, in which case you elevations will be pretty accurate). All the companies do it differently, but they use software to adjust for these discrepancies.

It is why you want to use wheel sensors in addition to GPS to get more accurate results.

As for Garmin, their quality control is rather poor (I just purchased a FR230 and FR235 both had major quality issues and were returned). Their firmware has always been buggy, but eventually they fix those. So yeah, we are basically real life beta testers. I was looking at the 520, but decided to stick to my 810 for now.


----------



## Mckdaddy (Feb 8, 2014)

ljvb said:


> As for Garmin, their quality control is rather poor (I just purchased a FR230 and FR235 both had major quality issues and were returned). Their firmware has always been buggy, but eventually they fix those. So yeah, we are basically real life beta testers. I was looking at the 520, but decided to stick to my 810 for now.



I too returned the 235 for the reason that its biggest feature, wrist-based hrm, wasn't as consistent as I preferred it be, as compared to a chest strap. The 235 was great to wear -- just slip it on and go! But the hr data it provided irked me a bit. A buddy of mine loves his 235 and tried to convince me to keep it, stating that I'd eventually begin to compare the hr data it provided me against its own future hr data, instead of constantly comparing it to my previous chest strap data. Maybe so.

Anyway, I returned it for the 230. Knock on wood, ljvb, it has performed like a charm, but I've only used it for 2 weeks.


----------



## Michael9218 (Jul 18, 2010)

*Chronic problems with accuracy*

I too have had problems with the accuracy of the Garmin E500 and E520 units. I'm on my 4th replacement unit. It's great that Garmin will replace them if they deem them faulty, but after 4 you get a bit frustrated that they just have terrible quality and they know it.

Specifically, mine have had random tracking errors and consistent heart rate dropping.


----------

