Garmin Bike Computers

My current Edge 530 is getting a bit long in the tooth now so I’m looking for a new bike computer.

I’ve tried a Wahoo years ago and wasn’t a big fan so will probably stick with a Garmin. It’s mainly for navigation so a decent screen is a must.

Are the Edge 1040 and Edge 1050 a big jump from the 840 size screens or is it not really noticeable?

Are the new models still reliable? My previous few Garmin’s have all been faultless so I’m expecting similar with new models.

Is there anything else worth considering?

I got a 1040 refurbed from a PSA posted here and love it. The 540 was slow the 1040 is noticeably quicker on routing (on a long ride of 100km+ the 540 would struggle to route back to start)

Really worthwhile upgrade

My old Garmin 520 is getting a bit past its best…..  battery life is definitely on the decline, the on/off button bit of the case has broken – it still works but has a bit of tape over it, another hole starting to appear in the side…..  not helped when I buried it in a muddy bank during a big off.

I’m currently thinking of getting the Garmin Edge Explorer 2. I don’t need a lot of fancy features, just the usual connectivity. I understand from reviews that it’s good for navigation and battery life and it’s not too spendy…. so might get one

I had a 520+ and when the battery life declined sufficiently I got an 840. I’m very happy with it. Navigation is better, it’s noticeably faster at everything and the touchscreen works very well.

You might know this. I’d probably go for a 540 if it is button operated. I have both a 530 and an 830 (for reasons). I use the 530 more as it is easier to work with gloves on and in wet/muddy conditions. I tend to be just tracking performance data or following a pre plotted route so don’t tend to use a lot of the function.

I once had a 1000 and never really found the bigger screen much of a help. It’s still small compared to a phone so I use that if I want to have a look at a map mid ride.

I’d probably go for a 540 if it is button operated. I have both a 530 and an 830

I think Garmin have made the x40 interface less button friendly so would favour the 840 over the 540.  I have a 530 because I wanted buttons after the horrible experience of an 820 and I find the 530 fine to use but all the button pressing makes panning and zooming a map a right hassle.  I think that hassle goes up a notch on the x40 computers.  If you want a bigger screen it’s going to have to be the 1040 or 1050 anyway and I’ve not had anything that size to give an opinion on the benefit or otherwise of the bigger screen

I got a 540 a few months ago and it’s been great, I specifically didn’t want a touch screen (I know I’m in the minority there), AIUI the 840 is basically the same device but with a touch screen, and the UI has been tailored more towards the 840.

There’s also the Explore 2 which has a bigger screen and seems to be available cheaper than either the 540 or 840, but battery life is claimed as less (Explore V1 was crap for battery IME)…

The cost jump to the  1040 and 1050 is significant, not sure it’s worth it for most people.

Explore 2 if you don’t need the extras. I have the Explore and have managed all day rides with a battery extender.

 I have the Explore and have managed all day rides with a battery extender.

That was the bit that I couldn’t live with, to be clear the navigation and other functions were really good, but battery was a let down.

By comparison I’d charged my 540 before a 2hr ride I did earlier (no rout following) and it used just 6% which puts it broadly in line with Garmin’s claims. 840 should be the same.

Ive just upgraded from a 530 and went for the 840, primarily just for the map scrolling simplicity. I also opted for the solar version. My Fenix 6 definitely got some benefit from this and I’d expect the placement of a bike computer to improve things further.

From the things I’ve read it would seem that the Explorer 2 has much better battery life than the original Explorer (1).

I’ve had both an Explore and currently use an Explore 2. Battery life on the first was crap but is good on the 2 and will comfortably manage 15+ hours.

From the things I’ve read it would seem that the Explorer 2 has much better battery life than the original Explorer (1).

It does. Like, WAY better!

I had a Touring (which was pretty crap TBH) and then got the Explore when that came out and replaced the Touring. It was decent but the battery life dropped off a cliff after a couple of years (and it was never that great to begin with).

So I got the Explore 2 (I just need the nav, not the performance features). Battery life is good for all day running full nav, routing, guidance, the map screen, the whole lot. I’ve done a few all day (12hr+) road rides on it and it’s lasted perfectly with 30% battery remaining at the end of it.

It’s also a significant upgrade in features over the old Explore; the Climb Pro feature is ace, the routing is better (not perfect but I rarely use Garmin’s suggested input, preferring to calculate routes myself on Strava). I think Garmin sort of neglected this aspect of the market when they were busy with performance stuff on the old 530/540 and 830/840 etc but they’ve really stepped up on this one.

The Explore suits most of my rides, but the additional Anker cylinder battery pack kept it running for four days bike packing. You’ll get 4-6 hours depending upon how many functions are on – it will last much longer on battery save, but you only get direction changes – not very useful if you need to see the route – i.e. off road with lots of tracks to follow. Bluetooth can hit the performance a lot.  I rarely ride for more than 3 hours though, so can live with the few times a year I do use the extender. The Explore 2 is better in all respects.

I’ve a 1030 plus which I only use for touring. Will last c 8-10 days with battery saving which is bonkers. I don’t know how it fares feature wise against the explore2, but comparably I guess, plus all the performance stuff I never use. I’m also guessing they’re about the same price.

Some people don’t rate the touch screen but seems fine to me in rain and gloves. Not sure how you’d navigate the screen with buttons otherwise.

Are the Edge 1040 and Edge 1050 a big jump from the 840 size screens or is it not really noticeable?

I have both, a 1040 solar that I use on the road bike and an 840 that I use on gravel and mtb.

In a word, yes. The 1040 screen is much bigger and great to see at a glance. It is also much better on climb pro, where the sub text is easy to see. On the 840, most is good most of the time, though I do find climb pro hard to see the detail.

I wear varifocals on the bike and my corrected sight is pretty decent for phone screens and the like.

The 1040 is too big for me on mtb, where it looks huge and rather vulnerable.

If you don’t want mapping, I really rate the Edge 130 Plus. Smaller and black and white only with buttons not a touch screen. But… the screen is clearer and when set at three fields, the font is bigger than the other computers. Easy to customise fields with up to 8 on a screen. Only auto laps every five miles (good for TTs but not for track). It’s the successor to the long missed 500. I don’t want a phone-sized computer on my bars thanks.

Is your phone a Nokia 8210?

Garmin 1030 59.3 x 117.6 x 20.0 mm

iPhone5/SE 58.6 x 123.8 x 7.6 mm

I don’t want an iPhone 5 on my bars. How’s that?

Edge 130 plus 41 x 63 x 16 mm

Yeah I’m most tempted by the 130. I just want the updated version of my 510 which seems to keep on trucking despite being abused for over 10 years, scratched screen etc. I’d have upgraded to a newer one if the range wasn’t so confusing!

I definitely do not want a massive screen on my bars. It strikes me as pointless gadgetry that no pros use.

I think the 1000 series Garmins, for mountain biking at least, seems like an accident waiting to happen. Regardless on where you put the thing, it’s going to suffer in a crash, and it’s a bunch of cash. I’ve an 830 that fits pretty snugly on the stem, and hasn’t (so far at least) pinged off into the undergrowth, or smashed into a rock.

I definitely do not want a massive screen on my bars. It strikes me as pointless gadgetry that no pros use.

The pros don’t have to navigate their own way around nadgery little lanes.

I have a 530 and a 1040.  I use the 530 for recording local mtb rides, and the 1040 for when I need to see the map for navigation. If I could only have one, it would be the 1040. Mine has been jarred about on the mtb, dropped, covered in mud, drowned, etc. and still looks and works like new. It once stopped recording elevation during a particularly wet ride but was fine once dried out for a few minutes.

What I would suggest is spending time setting up the profiles to your needs; they have far too much information as standard. I prefer to use just 2 or 3 screens. Each screen can have a LOT of information and/or clear mapping.

Edit: I use an “out front” mount on the road/gravel bikes and the standard “rubber band” mount on the mtbs. The standard mount holds it in place perfectly, yet allows it to move if you do manage to clobber it. These things are pretty tough ime!

I’ve just had a quick look on the Wahoo website to see what their latest offerings are.

They’re showing a new bike computer by the looks of it launching on 3rd December. I may just wait to see what that is before I jump in and buy a Garmin.

What I would suggest is spending time setting up the profiles to your needs

I was pleased to see that this can now be done in the Connect app for my new 840. I’m guessing it works for all the x40 devices too? Certainly a bit simpler than using the buttons on the 530.

 It once stopped recording elevation during a particularly wet ride but was fine once dried out for a few minutes.

I think that a ‘feature’ of all Garmin devices, not just the 1000 series. My 830 suffers from the same thing

The pros don’t have to navigate their own way around nadgery little lanes.

The 130 allows the standard breadcrumbs routes of old. For lanes, I’ve found that to be fine. It requires routes to be uploaded in advance of course.

I really like the 130 – b&w is fine for info and recording. Lovely high contrast. BUT battery life just isn’t good enough

I really want to get more than 1 day on the mtb out of it. And once the battery gets old. Or it’s cold. It gets worse.

currently have a 530 which I’m happy with

ideal for me would be a 130ish device with a 24 hr battery life (as large as it needs to be for that battery)

I think that a ‘feature’ of all Garmin devices, not just the 1000 series. My 830 suffers from the same thing

I think it’s a barometric altimeter. If the little hole through which it senses the air pressure gets full of water, it won’t work.

I’ve just moved to an 840 and its a nice device, and easy to follow the maps, but gosh – what a lot of warnings, beeps, pot-hole alerts, unpaved roads, hills. I think it needs a lot of things turned off. My 2 big niggles at the moment are:

a) when following a route at the weekend twice, just as we needed to find the entrance to a byway, the Climb thing popped up and hid the map completely.

b) On my regular commute to work it pops up a warning “Animal” and only offers me the chance to say that its still there. I don’t seem able to cancel the alert (given that I’ve ridden past this farm ~ 1500 times and there’s never been an animal)

So, a decent device, but it does need “toning down” a bit.