Garmin vs Polar

[BAN007]

I am a MTBiker in the market to purchase a heart rate /gps monitor. I need some advice however. I am looking at the Garmin Edge 500 or the Polar CS500.In terms of GPS I know the Garmin offers this and the polar does not. In terms of heart rate monitors Polar are awsome. I need to know how user friendly either of these computers are and what features are the most important especially for training. Most races done are clearly marked so is their a need for the gps? Please help I am very confused!

[Sharkie 2]

I would for the Garmin, just as good as the Polar if not better and offers the GPS and Garmap function. So many cool functions on the 500, you can download routes from Garmap of routes others have cycled and recommend and then their is a ghost rider function where you can race against them and see where you are quicker or slower, works great on cross country courses.

[chris_w_65]

The Edge 500 isn't that kind of GPS, it does not give you directions. If you want that kind of GPS I think you need an Edge 800.

 

I have the Garmin Forerunner 310XT, much the same as the Edge 500 but I can run with it too.

 

Check this out http://connect.garmin.com/activity/52439431

[Vivster]

I had a Polar and bought a Garmin Edge 500 this week. Heart rate on the EDGE works better and the fact that it is GPS based means you need no other goodies on the bike, just the mount. In my opinion Garmin has taken the lead in cycling computers. Polar is better for multi-sport athletes.

[Wyatt Earp]

An interesting bit to add here.

This weekend here at the Crater Cruise my mount for my 705 broke, AGAIN as this is now the third time the thing went flying, it happened quick and I only realised after a few seconds that the thing was missing.I hunted for about five minutes and when I picked it up the screen was cracked.

I feel they need to replace it, I CAN SEE A BIG FIGHT COMING.

[kosmonooit]

The GPS on the Garmin 500 is for logging your route: when you are done you upload to Garmin Connect and it plots all your data including your track on Google Earth, even has a feature to play back your entire route. Works very well, I have had mine for about three months now, after a long period of pondering over the options. I got the bits separately (most from CRC) since I wanted the more minimalistic Premium Heart Rate strap. Mount with rubber bands is bit mickey mouse but I am going to mod one with a bolt-on stainless steel plate to headset.

[BAN007]

Thanks for the response, I have been reading up more about the edge 500 and I think I am going to get it.

[chris_w_65]

I had a Polar and bought a Garmin Edge 500 this week. Heart rate on the EDGE works better and the fact that it is GPS based means you need no other goodies on the bike, just the mount. In my opinion Garmin has taken the lead in cycling computers. Polar is better for multi-sport athletes.

 

I would still put on the speed/cadence sensor. Cadence is good to have and the speed sensor works on the indoor trainer.

[Mats]

I like my Polar RS800CX. Will not trade it for any Garmin.

[chris_w_65]

Polar was awesome 10 years ago when I started running and then they brought out some great cycling watches too. I think Garmin has overtaken them in the last few years.

[Ovenboi]

Biggest drawback on the Garmin is Battery Life compared to the Polar. If you are doing a Multi day event and don't have access to charge your Garmin it is useless.

[scotty]

Garmin is friendly and there are many progarames such as their own Training center s/w or Web Garmin Connect which is free or Sportracker (the latest version is a pay for use). My only dealing with Polar is the 520 which i was not too impressed with. The 500/800 base their calorie consumption on HR.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Polar was awesome 10 years ago when I started running and then they brought out some great cycling watches too. I think Garmin has overtaken them in the last few years.

 

Yeah agreed, Polar was great, man my first Polar had a wire running down my arm from the strap to the watch - was breaking edge technology back then, ran a few marathons with it, nogal.!

 

........ but I agree, I think today Garmin really just has the technological edge.

[chris_w_65]

Biggest drawback on the Garmin is Battery Life compared to the Polar. If you are doing a Multi day event and don't have access to charge your Garmin it is useless.

 

You can charge off your laptop, or a car charger. AFAIK, you can also buy generic type battery packs these days to charge cell phones etc with when you are in the bush.

[GLuvsMtb]

I have a polar s725x and a Garmin Edge 500.

 

Polar has better battery life (about 30 hours without downloading) and has all the essentials you need for training and racing. What I like about the Garmin, is the way you can adapt the menu's to show exactly what you want it to show. I had to send my Polar away twice for warrantee related repairs and the agents were very good in that respect.

[phillyza]

I would for the Garmin, just as good as the Polar if not better and offers the GPS and Garmap function. So many cool functions on the 500, you can download routes from Garmap of routes others have cycled and recommend and then their is a ghost rider function where you can race against them and see where you are quicker or slower, works great on cross country courses.

 

Hi Sharkie,

 

I have a Garmin Forerunner 305. I use it for cycling and running. I am looking for a place on the web to download the routes others have cycled. Can you perhaps assist?

Thanks