What's new

Tech Cheap GPS trackers

microcord

Maximum Pace
Aug 28, 2012
1,650
1,193
Until yesterday I had close to zero interest in tracking myself via Strava or whatever. (Also, years ago, I had a brief relationship with a Garmin 800 [I think it was], which very quickly descended to mutual loathing.) But yesterday I started thinking, and ... kind of ... changed my mind ... maybe.

Wahoo Element Bolt was a name I thought of. I duckduckwent for it. Damn, that's a lot of money for something I might soon drop, have stolen, or simply hate. Helpfully reading my mind, Amazon also recommended doodads branded "Xoss", "Coospo", and "Cycplus", for under one fifth of the price. Since none of these is shown displaying a map, I infer that they don't display maps. I can live with that. As for what they do claim to do, it's mostly Greek to me. (Apologies to any Greek persons reading this.) But I presume that they can get a file of where I went into my computer, where RwGPS or whatever can digest it. Good.

Any GPS For Dummies advice, or quick (dis)recommendations for any example(s) of this genre?

(One thing I know I'd appreciate is being able to buy a second mount, so that the device could be easily moved from one bike to another.)
 
Last edited:
Of course, when buying from Garmin, Wahoo or other major brands, you are also paying for the marketing.
However, other times you "buy cheap, buy twice".

If you want to track your rides with near-zero cost, why don't you use the RwGPS or other similar app in your phone?
You said you don't need the map function, you can still run the app in airplane mode to save battery and your data plan.
If you do wanna use the maps, you can become a paid subscriber of RwGPS (which is much cheaper than buying a cycling computer) and download the maps to use offline.

Apologies in advance if this is not exactly what you are asking.
 
I have an Edge 500, at least 10 years old and still ticking--maybe look for a used one? For that series, whether it's the J model or not doesn't matter (no maps), I just use it to track rides.
 
I have a Bryton 420 I can give you for free.
It has breadcrumb navigation which… isn't very helpful, but it might be enough for you. You can definitely record a ride and upload it to rwgps.

I replaced it with a Wahoo Bolt for much improved navigation
 
Last edited:
Like Joshua, I have an OLD Forerunner 205 I would give you. (wrist mount)

If you want something a little more robust, I have an Oregon 550 (I think) that I would part with as well - but not quite free. (bar mount with maps)
 
Thank you, all! (And particularly @hat and beard . . . oh, and now @bloaker too.)

Just to clarify a little:
  • I'm already a (happily) paid-up user of RwGPS (which already has a lot of my "routes" but currently has not a single "ride" for me).
  • I tried using a phone for tracking once or twice, but this was a massive drain on the battery.
  • My particular Garmin may have been defective. But its defects aside: first, it did a better job of reflecting the sky than of displaying a map; secondly, its display was so small that to read its map I had to put my head close to it, whereupon far-sightedness would cut in and I'd have to lift up my glasses, whereupon near-sightedness would cut in and I'd have to come to a halt so that I could eyeball it from just a few centimetres away.
In order to follow a map, I'm much happier using my phone than I was using that Garmin. (My phone is big and heavy. Generally I leave it in my back pocket; I mount it on the handlebar during complex stretches.) I often ride with -- or rather, huff and puff as I attempt to keep up with -- people using Garmin, Wahoo, or other pricey stuff. So I can appreciate that they're good for many people. Just not for me, I think. (Also, I'm stingy.)
 
You can look into a phone mount like Quad lock, then invest in a small frame back to hold a spare battery and you can charge your phone while using it on rides. I do that when I am back in the US. It cost me about $100 for the quad lock mount and case. The frame bag I bought was also a top end bag, but onsale for $100. I use the bag often and dont regret the purchase at all.

BTW - this is the Oregon.

Not nearly as good as my Edge 830, but then again, not nearly as expensive.
 
I really don't want to leave my phone on my handlebar, because it's too big for the Minoura mount that I confidently used for its predecessor, and it's so big and heavy that I'd prefer not to trust it to the mount that I use now. (Every one of the various mounts sold these days looks rather dubious in some way, at least when used for what now are mainstream phones.)

It's been a couple of months since I last looked, but back then there were a few small smartphones on the market, and I might yet get one of those, equip it with a cheapo (no talking) SIM card, and use it as a navigation device (and occasional backup for my regular phone).
 
I resisted spending money on a head unit like you did, but at least for me I think that was a bit of a mistake. I thought that my iPhone can do all this and more. But in truth, head units are optimized for this whereas your smartphone is not. For the reasons that you gave I also did not want to leave my phone on my handle bars. This might be an option if you do bike touring at more moderate speeds, but both, on my road and my mountain bike, I was afraid for its safety.

Regarding your list of devices, another option is Karoo's Hammerhead 2. I agree with the others, apart from Byron, if you are interested in a "smart" head unit skip everything else.

When it comes to Wahoo vs. Garmin, it is quite similar to Apple vs. Microsoft. The feature that sold me on Wahoos was the zoom feature. Basically, you can add a bunch of data fields to your page, but with two buttons on the side you determine how many fields are visible. As far as I understand this is not possible on Garmin. Also, you configure your head unit on your smartphone. The Wahoo assumes you have a smartphone with you if you go farther. The Wahoo is the least like a smartphone.

With Garmin you have more freedom, but you configure your Garmin on your Garmin. To me Garmins feel like Windows CE "smartphones" from a bygone era.

The Karoo Hammerhead is configured on your computer, but seems to be the most modern smartphone-y of all.
 
It's been a couple of months since I last looked, but back then there were a few small smartphones on the market, and I might yet get one of those, equip it with a cheapo (no talking) SIM card, and use it as a navigation device (and occasional backup for my regular phone).
IMHO that's not a good option. One big one is weather proofing: only more expensive smart phones are fully water proof, whereas that's a given. Also, having the screen on constantly will decimate the battery of most smartphones, especially cheap ones.

If you are really strapped for cash, you could consider something like Garmin's 130. I gave my sister one for Christmas in 2019 when it was on sale for something like 110 €. Mapping is off the table, yes, but you have everything else — power, GPS, etc.
 
I resisted spending money on a head unit like you did, but at least for me I think that was a bit of a mistake. I thought that my iPhone can do all this and more. But in truth, head units are optimized for this whereas your smartphone is not. For the reasons that you gave I also did not want to leave my phone on my handle bars. This might be an option if you do bike touring at more moderate speeds, but both, on my road and my mountain bike, I was afraid for its safety.

Regarding your list of devices, another option is Karoo's Hammerhead 2. I agree with the others, apart from Byron, if you are interested in a "smart" head unit skip everything else.

When it comes to Wahoo vs. Garmin, it is quite similar to Apple vs. Microsoft. The feature that sold me on Wahoos was the zoom feature. Basically, you can add a bunch of data fields to your page, but with two buttons on the side you determine how many fields are visible. As far as I understand this is not possible on Garmin. Also, you configure your head unit on your smartphone. The Wahoo assumes you have a smartphone with you if you go farther. The Wahoo is the least like a smartphone.

With Garmin you have more freedom, but you configure your Garmin on your Garmin. To me Garmins feel like Windows CE "smartphones" from a bygone era.

The Karoo Hammerhead is configured on your computer, but seems to be the most modern smartphone-y of all.
IIRC, the Karoo and the Leomo Type S are literally just Android smartphones.
 
IIRC, the Karoo and the Leomo Type S are literally just Android smartphones.
Yes and no.

The difference is the form factor and the much lower volume, which makes head units more expensive than smartphones. They are also lacking common phone features like speakers and microphones in the right places (the Karoo 1 famously came without a speaker) and cameras. Head units have smaller displays than today's smartphones, and I think most head units have transflective displays (i. e. based on different display technology). They are also weather proof, and weather proofing is taken seriously. My iPhone 7 is also weather proof, but still, I managed to kill one after slightly less than 2 years of use because of water ingress.

So technically, you are correct, but even those two head units are heavily, heavily modified. I wouldn't call either one of these two a phone (smart or not).

PS Wahoo's head units are running Android, so in a sense, this is also just a "smartphone".
 
Perhaps I've been wider awake today than I was yesterday, but for whatever reason it struck me with stunning obviousness that if I just want a tracker I don't have to worry about handlebar mounts and such: I can just carry it in my pocket.

Also, remembering that the battery of my phone was a lot better than that of its predecessor, I thought I'd try using it as a tracker (for RwGPS) today. So, this is my first recorded ride in years. Viewed from above, the track is fine.(Yes, I unenterprisingly went up the river and then back down the river.) Viewed from the side, it's nuts: it looks like a set of stalagmites. I'd guess that total elevation gain would be less than 20m, but RwGPS says 400m. How can that have happened? I've no reason to think that my phone has a sensor for barometric pressure; and if it hasn't, then I'd presume that elevations would have been read from my coordinates. The ride took a couple of hours (vicious headwind going upstream, insufficiently high gearing to benefit fully from the tailwind going downstream), and took the battery's charge down from 42% to 38%, thus just 1% per 10 km, far less of a drain than I'd dared hope.
 
I bought a Wahoo Bolt 2. It came with 2 mounts - one aerodynamic mount and a stem mount. Ordered directly from Wahoo online and was slightly cheaper than the prices locally by a few thousand yen for c tax. Defo worth the money and very easy to use even with gloves on.
 
Perhaps I've been wider awake today than I was yesterday, but for whatever reason it struck me with stunning obviousness that if I just want a tracker I don't have to worry about handlebar mounts and such: I can just carry it in my pocket.

Also, remembering that the battery of my phone was a lot better than that of its predecessor, I thought I'd try using it as a tracker (for RwGPS) today. So, this is my first recorded ride in years. Viewed from above, the track is fine.(Yes, I unenterprisingly went up the river and then back down the river.) Viewed from the side, it's nuts: it looks like a set of stalagmites. I'd guess that total elevation gain would be less than 20m, but RwGPS says 400m. How can that have happened? I've no reason to think that my phone has a sensor for barometric pressure; and if it hasn't, then I'd presume that elevations would have been read from my coordinates. The ride took a couple of hours (vicious headwind going upstream, insufficiently high gearing to benefit fully from the tailwind going downstream), and took the battery's charge down from 42% to 38%, thus just 1% per 10 km, far less of a drain than I'd dared hope.
Re the elevation data, have you tried the replace elevation data feature (it's in the more tab menu when you view the ride on the browser version). It sometimes gives you a more realistic estimate for elevation, especially if enough people have ridden there with barometric sensors.
 
I bought a Wahoo Bolt 2. [...] Defo worth the money and very easy to use even with gloves on.
I don't doubt that it's an excellent device of its kind and that it's good value for many people. But it does a lot more than I need it to do, and unsurprisingly it costs a lot more than do more modest devices that promise to satisfy my humdrum requirements.

(Years ago, back when people bought and read magazines, there were computer magazines, which assiduously whetted the appetites of the people they called "power users". Maybe we can similarly talk of "power cyclists". If so, I'm just an unpower cyclist....)

Re the elevation data, have you tried the replace elevation data feature (it's in the more tab menu when you view the ride on the browser version).
Thank you for the tip: no, I hadn't noticed this. I'll try it out.

My phone is the Redmi 9S, which according to this page doesn't have a barometer; since it doesn't, I don't know how it could generate altitude data, dud or otherwise. (By misinterpreting map data, maybe?)
 
I plan on one day figuring out how to replace my usb connection in my old Garmin and ressurecting it again.

But in the mean time I got a very cheap

[COOSPO Cycle Computer, GPS, Cycling, Wireless, Bicycle Speedometer, Built-in Battery, Bluetooth 5.0 & ANT+, Cadence Speed Sensor, Continuous IP67 Level Waterproof, 2.3 Inch Display

All my Garmin sensors are connecting as well.

Quite impressed so far. (who needs maps when you have an iPhone).
 
Back
Top Bottom