NEW GPS for motorcycle from Garmin Again

[04FJR4ME]

Lots of questiions about why the Zumo 550 is better then a 26xx, 27xx or 28xx or even the 276c or 376c. I have one strong answer to this question! SiRF III GPS receiver, the Zumo 550 has it and the others don't! What good is a GPS system if it fails to navigate due to GPS receiption issues. And yes, if Garmin does not have an issue with GPS receivers, they sure the heck is not going to PAY SiRF for their receiver when Garmin is a GPS receiver manufacture! You can all thank Clif Pemble for this one!Anyway, everyone have an opinion, but the fact of the matter is, Zumo 550 is a better unit over all in my opinion, but what do I know, I only beta test for most of these GPS manufactures.

Chipsets cost about $20 each at wholesale. Garmin doesn't manufacture their own chips, they don't own a fabrication facility. So they have to pay someone whether it's their design or Sirf's. Sirfstar has about 7 dB of performance benefit. Which is great if I'm in a parking garage - but previous chipsets work just fine in 99.9% of the locations where you will likely be operating.

So next time I need coverage in my living room I'll feel better knowing that the Sirfstar chipset is on board.

The Zumo isn't quite as excellent as I would have liked. The touchscreen is dead to a finger (but good with a finger nail). Pricing is nothing special - a 376c with a car kit is less expensive than Zumo (and comes with the XM Pod). Styling is funky. Battery life is short.

I'm not changing my units out quite yet.

bramfrank

You may never have used your GPS unit in an urban canyon environment or heavily wooded roads or you will not make this type of irresponsible statements.

Lets just say this about Garmin and SiRF, the SiRF III cost more then many other GPS receiver and it is not used in any of the 26xx, 27xx, 28xx, 276c, 376c for a reason. For everyone dollar Garmin saves on a GPS receiver, it is $4 at retail price level, and this is the exact reason only the top shelf Garmin GPS unit uses the SiRF III receiver.

In my backyard without a SiRF receiver, in certain area of Santa Cruz mountain the GPS reception is marginal if I am lucky and no reception on and off.

Alpine Blackbird uses a Centrality GPS receiver and their unit was unable to perform without an external GPS antenna in the City of San Francisco.

Your opinion is yours, do you offer your knowledge of GPS receiver to Garmin along with your opinion? I told Cliff Pemble 2 1/2 years ago that Garmin needed to switch to SiRF, his answer is Garmin makes their own GPS chip set and SiRF is a competition and that will never happen! Do you think Cliff enjoy being wrong. I think Garmin understands what is needed better then most of us, and for Garmin to stay competitive, they needed to use the SiRF receiver and not for any other reason as you may have suggested, including what you think their cost is only $20, it is necessary to be competitive with TomTom, Magellan, Mio, and just about every GPS manufacture representing PND units also using SiRF receiver.

Why is the SiRF III used only in the Nuvi's, C550, C530, Zumo 550 PND and some handheld devices that are used for hiking and geocaching? and not the other less expensive units if your theory is correct? The 7200 and 7500 along with the GVN52 is the exception, why? They expect the customer to use an external GPS antenna with these units. The price of SiRF cost to much to make sense for Garmin to have in every unit, and by the way no body is asking anyone here to buy a Zumo unit if they have a GPS unit they are happy with already, what I am saying is that the Zumo unit is better suited and design for motorcycle environment then a marine or automotive unit that is not touch screen, and does not have expansion features and does not have the extra abilities that comes with the Zumo.

Next....

 

[Jackson]

Whew! Who woulda thunk that a GPS receiver could stir up such strong feelings. :blink:

 

[bramfrank]

bramfrank
You may never have used your GPS unit in an urban canyon environment or heavily wooded roads or you will not make this type of irresponsible statements.

Lets just say this about Garmin and SiRF, the SiRF III cost more then many other GPS receiver and it is not used in any of the 26xx, 27xx, 28xx, 276c, 376c for a reason. For everyone dollar Garmin saves on a GPS receiver, it is $4 at retail price level, and this is the exact reason only the top shelf Garmin GPS unit uses the SiRF III receiver.

In my backyard without a SiRF receiver, in certain area of Santa Cruz mountain the GPS reception is marginal if I am lucky and no reception on and off.

Alpine Blackbird uses a Centrality GPS receiver and their unit was unable to perform without an external GPS antenna in the City of San Francisco.

Your opinion is yours, do you offer your knowledge of GPS receiver to Garmin along with your opinion? I told Cliff Pemble 2 1/2 years ago that Garmin needed to switch to SiRF, his answer is Garmin makes their own GPS chip set and SiRF is a competition and that will never happen! Do you think Cliff enjoy being wrong. I think Garmin understands what is needed better then most of us, and for Garmin to stay competitive, they needed to use the SiRF receiver and not for any other reason as you may have suggested, including what you think their cost is only $20, it is necessary to be competitive with TomTom, Magellan, Mio, and just about every GPS manufacture representing PND units also using SiRF receiver.

Why is the SiRF III used only in the Nuvi's, C550, C530, Zumo 550 PND and some handheld devices that are used for hiking and geocaching? and not the other less expensive units if your theory is correct? The 7200 and 7500 along with the GVN52 is the exception, why? They expect the customer to use an external GPS antenna with these units. The price of SiRF cost to much to make sense for Garmin to have in every unit, and by the way no body is asking anyone here to buy a Zumo unit if they have a GPS unit they are happy with already, what I am saying is that the Zumo unit is better suited and design for motorcycle environment then a marine or automotive unit that is not touch screen, and does not have expansion features and does not have the extra abilities that comes with the Zumo.

Next....

Yes, I use my units in downtown canyons. I also use them on mountain rides and under heavy foliage - but we're not discussing IFR operation and signal losses are of short duration when in difficult circumstances - in other words, the occasional loss of signal isn't a cause for concern - and the Sirf chipset doesn't prevent people from getting lost nor from having crashes.

The Sirf set is more capable than Garmin's traditional one, in essence allowing the designers more latitude with case design, because they can use less effective internal antennas and still achieve good performance. And, while every manufacture-cost dollar normally translates into a $4 increase at retail (actually $5 to MSRP) it need not. The direct cost only can be passed to the consumer without markup if the manufacturer so decides. So the extra $5 at cost doesn't have to make a $20 difference in the retail price of a $1,000 unit, which if you consider it isn't much of a difference at all.

About the only thing you've said that I agree with is that units without the Sirf-equipped devices are intended to be used with external antennas. That puts the 2000 series at something of a disadvantage, but has no impact on units like the Quest, 276/376/378/478 and even the StreetPilot-III which already have external antennas.

The reason Sirfstar isn't in the units you mention is that the chip set didn't exist as a design option within Garmin when the units you describe were laid out.

However, if Sirf's chips are a panacea, then Garmin will be getting out of the chip business or will be redesigning their chips to deliver similar performance (the company I work for buys 10,000 OEM Garmin receivers a year and we've just been bought by a US company that makes a chip set of it's own). But it seems to me you are focusing on solving a problem that isn't really significant and playing it up.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that bike navigators ought to have touch screens - I don't happen to agree.

Beyond that, I have noticed that the Zumo is relatively insensitive to finger presses, requiring that I use the tip of my nail to make a selection. Since I wear gloves when I ride, it is a REAL pain.

I have also seen that Zumo doesn't always pick up incoming caller ID. It doesn't grab the phone's contact list and in any case, I have (and VERY strongly prefer) a separate MP3 music source and Bluetooth connection to my Autocom.

The dock designs are also a mess. I think they did the 276 (with a single cable carrying the audio, sensor I/O and alarm output in addition to the power input - though it uses a plug arrangement, rather than quick disconnecting docking connection) and the 2610 (as well, on a connector with the remotely located audio output jack) much better in terms of cabling. A fully implemented Zumo has a rats nest of cables running to the base - aside from possible connector corrosion issues over time, it is just messy. They ought to have provided an single umbilical with the jacks at the end and allowed the rider to make his connections underseat.

Zumo is not the creator's ultimate response to the motorcyclist's needs. It is a good attempt, but IMO the implementation is somewhat flawed. If there was one perfect solution, there'd be but one product offering on the market.

I do think Cliff Pemble (Garmin's VP Engineering and a member of the board for those who may be wondering) ought to lobby the board to make you president of Garmin or at least VP in charge of product development!

next . . .

 

[04FJR4ME]

bramfrank

You may never have used your GPS unit in an urban canyon environment or heavily wooded roads or you will not make this type of irresponsible statements.

Lets just say this about Garmin and SiRF, the SiRF III cost more then many other GPS receiver and it is not used in any of the 26xx, 27xx, 28xx, 276c, 376c for a reason. For everyone dollar Garmin saves on a GPS receiver, it is $4 at retail price level, and this is the exact reason only the top shelf Garmin GPS unit uses the SiRF III receiver.

In my backyard without a SiRF receiver, in certain area of Santa Cruz mountain the GPS reception is marginal if I am lucky and no reception on and off.

Alpine Blackbird uses a Centrality GPS receiver and their unit was unable to perform without an external GPS antenna in the City of San Francisco.

Your opinion is yours, do you offer your knowledge of GPS receiver to Garmin along with your opinion? I told Cliff Pemble 2 1/2 years ago that Garmin needed to switch to SiRF, his answer is Garmin makes their own GPS chip set and SiRF is a competition and that will never happen! Do you think Cliff enjoy being wrong. I think Garmin understands what is needed better then most of us, and for Garmin to stay competitive, they needed to use the SiRF receiver and not for any other reason as you may have suggested, including what you think their cost is only $20, it is necessary to be competitive with TomTom, Magellan, Mio, and just about every GPS manufacture representing PND units also using SiRF receiver.

Why is the SiRF III used only in the Nuvi's, C550, C530, Zumo 550 PND and some handheld devices that are used for hiking and geocaching? and not the other less expensive units if your theory is correct? The 7200 and 7500 along with the GVN52 is the exception, why? They expect the customer to use an external GPS antenna with these units. The price of SiRF cost to much to make sense for Garmin to have in every unit, and by the way no body is asking anyone here to buy a Zumo unit if they have a GPS unit they are happy with already, what I am saying is that the Zumo unit is better suited and design for motorcycle environment then a marine or automotive unit that is not touch screen, and does not have expansion features and does not have the extra abilities that comes with the Zumo.

Next....

Yes, I use my units in downtown canyons. I also use them on mountain rides and under heavy foliage - but we're not discussing IFR operation and signal losses are of short duration when in difficult circumstances - in other words, the occasional loss of signal isn't a cause for concern - and the Sirf chipset doesn't prevent people from getting lost nor from having crashes.

The Sirf set is more capable than Garmin's traditional one, in essence allowing the designers more latitude with case design, because they can use less effective internal antennas and still achieve good performance. And, while every manufacture-cost dollar normally translates into a $4 increase at retail (actually $5 to MSRP) it need not. The direct cost only can be passed to the consumer without markup if the manufacturer so decides. So the extra $5 at cost doesn't have to make a $20 difference in the retail price of a $1,000 unit, which if you consider it isn't much of a difference at all.

About the only thing you've said that I agree with is that units without the Sirf-equipped devices are intended to be used with external antennas. That puts the 2000 series at something of a disadvantage, but has no impact on units like the Quest, 276/376/378/478 and even the StreetPilot-III which already have external antennas.

The reason Sirfstar isn't in the units you mention is that the chip set didn't exist as a design option within Garmin when the units you describe were laid out.

However, if Sirf's chips are a panacea, then Garmin will be getting out of the chip business or will be redesigning their chips to deliver similar performance (the company I work for buys 10,000 OEM Garmin receivers a year and we've just been bought by a US company that makes a chip set of it's own). But it seems to me you are focusing on solving a problem that isn't really significant and playing it up.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that bike navigators ought to have touch screens - I don't happen to agree.

Beyond that, I have noticed that the Zumo is relatively insensitive to finger presses, requiring that I use the tip of my nail to make a selection. Since I wear gloves when I ride, it is a REAL pain.

I have also seen that Zumo doesn't always pick up incoming caller ID. It doesn't grab the phone's contact list and in any case, I have (and VERY strongly prefer) a separate MP3 music source and Bluetooth connection to my Autocom.

The dock designs are also a mess. I think they did the 276 (with a single cable carrying the audio, sensor I/O and alarm output in addition to the power input - though it uses a plug arrangement, rather than quick disconnecting docking connection) and the 2610 (as well, on a connector with the remotely located audio output jack) much better in terms of cabling. A fully implemented Zumo has a rats nest of cables running to the base - aside from possible connector corrosion issues over time, it is just messy. They ought to have provided an single umbilical with the jacks at the end and allowed the rider to make his connections underseat.

Zumo is not the creator's ultimate response to the motorcyclist's needs. It is a good attempt, but IMO the implementation is somewhat flawed. If there was one perfect solution, there'd be but one product offering on the market.

I do think Cliff Pemble (Garmin's VP Engineering and a member of the board for those who may be wondering) ought to lobby the board to make you president of Garmin or at least VP in charge of product development!

next . . .

"Yes, I use my units in downtown canyons. I also use them on mountain rides and under heavy foliage - but we're not discussing IFR operation and signal losses are of short duration when in difficult circumstances - in other words, the occasional loss of signal isn't a cause for concern - and the Sirf chipset doesn't prevent people from getting lost nor from having crashes."

bramfrank, To start with, please don’t take my responds to personally, it is just the way I write sometimes that seems to direct and sometime challenging. What I am trying to illustrated here is probably the same thing you are trying to do which is to share our knowledge and let the forum members make their own decisions as to what they feel is helpful to them when making a GPS purchasing decisions. I am unaware of your background and what you do and I will qualify myself later on as to why I feel I may have a slightly better perspective then you in this PND industry. Now lets move on and address each of your replies.

Actually, we are discussing the sensitivity and significant of GPS receiver that is not available on most Garmin lower end units, and why SiRF receiver is very important and necessary. You have stated that you have ridden in urban cannon environment conditions and found it to be less of a concern. Well, I would say that when an inferior GPS receiver loses GPS signals, which can cause one of two things to happen. #1 give you wrong turn by turn direction due to wrong positioning on the map cause by poor GPS reception, this can cause you to turn onto the wrong street or worst a one way street which would be a huge concern for most! or #2 Not giving any directions when it is difficult to navigate in unfamiliar area which can cause you to stop, pull over and stop what you are doing, you many need to pan the map manually which is unacceptable in my books if a better solution such as SiRF receiver is available.

"The Sirf set is more capable than Garmin's traditional one, in essence allowing the designers more latitude with case design, because they can use less effective internal antennas and still achieve good performance. And, while every manufacture-cost dollar normally translates into a $4 increase at retail (actually $5 to MSRP) it need not. The direct cost only can be passed to the consumer without markup if the manufacturer so decides. So the extra $5 at cost doesn't have to make a $20 difference in the retail price of a $1,000 unit, which if you consider it isn't much of a difference at all."

I respectfully disagree with you, these GPS manufactures are trying to save cents and not dollars, every cent spent causes the price to rise dramatically in the retail pricing and for you to say that it does not matter only reflects your understanding of product marketing and design cost. Trust me, if they can save a dollar, which would be huge for these manufactures. The most expensive cost on a unit is the display and mapping software cost, and the mapping software only cost around $20-$30 depending by the amount of attributes and POI’s they wish to purchase from NavTeq, and they are continually trying to negotiate the mapping price down so I beg to differ with you regarding cost.

By the way, your 376c uses City Select or Navigator lite which translates to LESS available attributes, so if you happen to need to make a turn in a roundabout which have 4-5 street options, your 376c will only offer right turn and left turn without offering the full command such as turn right on the 2nd street on the roundabout! Ask me how I know?

I performed a demo ride with Garmin for a little company call Cendant and I made sure that they used the full feature set or full attribute mapping software for this client.

By the way, you never really add up the cost of additional Garmin data card that is required for your 376c at the additional expense and that you can’t really load all of the NA mapping software in this unit? Strange…

I have on going relation with NavTeq and Tele Atlas mapping software companies also, and they visit us for our opinion and recommendations since we have a better pulse of what the consumers is demanding. Being the WORLD FIRST GPS specific retail store for the past 10 years, we have an advantage over most other stores that may sell a few PND units and have no understanding of what they are selling. I may have a little better understanding of this market than you due to our daily contact with consumers that patronize us and offer their requirements. Not sure though, you seem to be very knowledgeable about everything regarding GPS so it seems anyway.

"About the only thing you've said that I agree with is that units without the Sirf-equipped devices are intended to be used with external antennas. That puts the 2000 series at something of a disadvantage, but has no impact on units like the Quest, 276/376/378/478 and even the StreetPilot-III which already have external antennas."

I am happy that you agree with me on something!

"The reason Sirfstar isn't in the units you mention is that the chip set didn't exist as a design option within Garmin when the units you describe were laid out."

Well, let’s just put it this way, SiRF was readily available when the C330 was designed which was a new format, no SiRF was installed in these units and I told Cliff Pemble that my requirements for the Cendant deal was to have SiRF receiver in these units. The C530 is a C330 with a SiRF III and a better brighter display and speaker so think about that before you make these broad statements.

"However, if Sirf's chips are a panacea, then Garmin will be getting out of the chip business or will be redesigning their chips to deliver similar performance (the company I work for buys 10,000 OEM Garmin receivers a year and we've just been bought by a US company that makes a chip set of it's own). But it seems to me you are focusing on solving a problem that isn't really significant and playing it up."

SiRF received their knowledge and paten from a small company call Rockwell, Garmin, Magellan, Centrality and many other GPS receiver manufactures have been trying very hard to duplicate SiRF success and finally gave in because it is cheaper to buy the chipset then to pay for royalty and reinvent the wheel. Garmin, Magellan is very proud of whom they use to be, and what they can do, both Garmin and Magellan told me they will never use a SiRF GPS receiver because they make their own and SiRF is a competitor, well lets just say I have reminded both companies more then once that they have the big title and know how, but this little retail store have better understanding of the market then they do.

"You are certainly entitled to your opinion that bike navigators ought to have touch screens - I don't happen to agree."

No, I did not say motorcycle navigation needs to be a touch screen, what I did say it is easier to use on a motorcycle and I use a different larger touch screen on my FJR which is a Kenwood / Garmin GPS with a 7” touch screen and I have no problem using it with my gloves.

"Beyond that, I have noticed that the Zumo is relatively insensitive to finger presses, requiring that I use the tip of my nail to make a selection. Since I wear gloves when I ride, it is a REAL pain."

Hint: If you have that much trouble using your glove with Zumo units, simply glue a small tip on the end of your glove index figure and problem solve! Instead of giving this obstacle a reason as to why it is inferior, you should have thought of how to get around your personal limitations of not being able to use the Zumo with your glove on. Maybe you have real big figures and adding a small plastic tap at the end of your index figure would resolve this issue.

 


"I have also seen that Zumo doesn't always pick up incoming caller ID. It doesn't grab the phone's contact list and in any case, I have (and VERY strongly prefer) a separate MP3 music source and Bluetooth connection to my Autocom."

 


The Bluetooth connections is an issue for every GPS manufactures, different phones, different service along with compatibility issues, all I can say Garmin by far have a superior Bluetooth interface over TomTom and Magellan, but they all have their limitations and you are buying a navigation system with Bluetooth hands free capabilities and not the other way around. So is it better then not having the Bluetooth feature, absolutely not, but can it be better. YES! We beta test these BT enable GPS devices and all I can say is that it is nowhere near perfect yet. By the way, the phone contact list interface is an issue with your cell phone carrier and not the Zumo, we have tested many cell phones that allows the transfer of phone contact list. Stop blaming the Zumo when it is your cell phone that is not compatible with the Zumo

 


"The dock designs are also a mess. I think they did the 276 (with a single cable carrying the audio, sensor I/O and alarm output in addition to the power input - though it uses a plug arrangement, rather than quick disconnecting docking connection) and the 2610 (as well, on a connector with the remotely located audio output jack) much better in terms of cabling. A fully implemented Zumo has a rats nest of cables running to the base - aside from possible connector corrosion issues over time, it is just messy. They ought to have provided an single umbilical with the jacks at the end and allowed the rider to make his connections underseat."

 


I think the issue is to have the unit be compatible with motorcycle and cars without having a sacrifice the speaker volume. To be IPX7, the unit cannot have anything that is exposed to the potential water seepage, so they have to design it this way. Magellan RoadMate 2200T is IPX4 rated and there is an internal speaker but you can’t submerge it in water and it is not as loud. So you can have everything, I am sure the Garmin engineer understands the dilemma you have with this unit, but for now, it is only a compromise and not perfect. Do you know of another product that is superior that have the exact same features that the Zumo has to offer! I can tell you the marine design 376c is not the answer either.

 


"Zumo is not the creator's ultimate response to the motorcyclist's needs. It is a good attempt, but IMO the implementation is somewhat flawed. If there was one perfect solution, there'd be but one product offering on the market."

 


So far, I don’t see any other unit that is in the same class as the Zumo 550, and the Zumo is just a ruggedized Nuvi, which is one of the most popular GPS units in the market today after the Garmin C330. I think the C330 is just that, cheap and simple with no other features and most consumers do not need anything more and this is why the C330 is currently the leader in PND market.

 


"I do think Cliff Pemble (Garmin's VP Engineering and a member of the board for those who may be wondering) ought to lobby the board to make you president of Garmin or at least VP in charge of product development!"

 


Well, I can say that I sit on the marketing board with Magellan to offer my input as to product requirements, I have continuous discussion with TomTom sales and marketing VP’s and CEO and I definitely advised Cliff Pemble 2 ½ years ago that Garmin products is not user friendly and he disagreed strongly back then and now, we have these ease of use successful products from Garmin. Yes, I should be the VP of product development for Garmin.


Ask Dan Bartel Garmin VP of world wide sales, he was at the meeting when I challenging Cliff with what he feels to be true about Garmin UI back in the days when Magellan had over 50% of the PND market with the MRM 700 units.


I have reminded of Cliff and Min many times about my foresight of PND feature requirements and the 2 page long list of product feature requirements have now become a reality. I think Min and Cliff probably reads these post or some dealer from Garmin will point them to this post. So if I am making things up, I am sure Garmin will eliminate us an authorized Garmin dealer won’t they?


By the way, did I mentioned that Pioneer send their marketing engineers to visit us along with Alpine and Mio to gather our input and opinion of the market and what we feel is needed. I would bet that you probably would not find another company that have this type of respect from the GPS industry.

 


Please excuse my grammar and spelling, English is my second language but GPS is my only passion!

 


next . . .

 


PEACE!