Vista HCx vs. Cx - Micro Review - Part 1 (Cx) |
|
|
| Overall Rating | |
| Technical Difficulty | |
| Aerobic Difficulty | |
| Distance (mi) | 7.1 |
| Elevation Range (ft) | 5138 - 7434 |
| Total Ascent (ft) | 2373 |
| Total Descent (ft) | -2238 |
| Total Ascent Distance (mi) | 3.1 |
| Total Descent Distance (mi) | 4.0 |
| Moving Time | 02h 51m 55s |
| Stopped Time | 00h 09m 52s |
| Average Speed (mph) | 2.4 |
| Average Moving Speed (mph) | 2.5 |
| Stops | 10 |
| Start Time | 2007/09/14 09:45:53 |
| Finish Time | 2007/09/14 12:47:40 |
| Time Zone | Mountain Time (US & Canada) |
Description
This is Part 1 of a 2 part “micro review” of the new Garmin Vista HCx GPS receiver as compared to the Garmin Vista Cx. Part 2 can be found here.
A common complaint of many Vista owners is the accuracy of the receiver. If you get into heavy tree cover or narrow canyons the unit really struggles to maintain satellite reception. Well, in answer to that Garmin released the new HCx line which boasts a high sensitivity receiver (the H in HCx). I picked one of these up and decided to try it out head to head with the Cx on a trail on which the Cx has struggled before. Note this is my experience with a single hike on a single trail. Furthermore, I am comparing only the apparent performance of the receiver in each model. Thus the “micro” review. More thorough comparisons have been done. If you are serious about comparing the 2 models you should seek out this additional information.
This trip, Part 1, is the trail according to the Cx. As I said before, I have taken the Cx on this trail in the past and it has struggled. It will repeatedly lose satellite reception. This results in gaps in your track and inconsistencies in your data (speed, distance, etc).
This trip was par for the course. There were definitely gaps in my track, the distances shown above are not quite right, and to top it off the unit reported my max speed at 174 MPH! Looking at the map you can see some of the stray points that would have caused these inconsistencies. In addition, although the trail was clearly marked on the topo map on the unit, the track showed a straight line through many of the curves in the trail. I had both units set to report their estimated accuracy. Even with the above noted problems, the Cx generally reported that it was more accurate, usually about 10 feet more accurate, than the HCx! Have a look at the map and continue on to Part 2 to see how the HCx performed.
Nearby trips
| Distance to (mi) | Name | Created by | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | Vista HCx vs. Cx - Micro Review - Part 2 (HCx) | ghadzoox |
|
| 0.6 | Revisiting Rock Canyon Campground | ghadzoox |
|
| 2.2 | The Y, Slide Canyon, Maple Flat, Mother Luna's Nose | ghadzoox |
|
| 4.0 | Toad Head | ghadzoox |
|
| 4.6 | Buckley Mountain | ghadzoox |
|
| 5.1 | Bike Provo River Parkway | bwise |
|
| 5.7 | Big Springs Snowshoe | ghadzoox |
|
| 14.2 | Placing Diddabug Point GEO Cache | g23guy |
|
| 14.2 | Lookout Point to the Radio Tower | ghadzoox |
|
| 22.0 | Little Cottonwood Canyon | bwise |
|
Map
Map Markers:Publish Map
You can embed this map on your own web page: just cut and paste the HTML code below:
<iframe src="http://www.mtbguru.com/trip/iframe/3077?width=500px&height=500px" width="510px" height="565px" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"></iframe>
Share Trip
URL to copy and paste:
http://www.mtbguru.com/trip/show/3077-vista-hcx-vs-cx-micro-review-part-1-cx




Comments
Add Comment
Please log in to add comments.