Do any GPS watches actually work????

Top Noticer wrote:

I've tried 3 different Garmins and 1 TomTom. All pure garbage.

Where are you running? The garmin 2xx models work pretty well out in the open, and like 99% accuracy in a straight line. If you're running in parks or forests or something, accuracy could be pretty low though. A lot of people just train with a 30$ timex and guestimate distance. Its more fun that way than trying to run somewhere with perfect gps signal.

The old school Garmins from 2007 were pretty good. I had that bulky ass red and black one. Thing took a beating and worked great for 3 years, literally running in rain, sleet, snow, ice, desert heat you name it. I haven't found one like it since though. I used apps on my iphone these days. I don't feel like shelling out $300 for a fancy watch that will probably break in a year or less.

You are correct, most models won't even turn on.

Top Noticer wrote:

I've tried 3 different Garmins and 1 TomTom. All pure garbage.

No, I've stopped wearing them as I got annoyed of them taking awhile to sync up before my runs. As well as the feedback that I get from it is useless as I could be running slower/faster depending on many variables. Also, in running just like any other activities, after the beginner stage, it's a very long grind for you to continue to improve gradually, and it can be depressing to see that you're not improving as much, but that's just the normal procedure.

I think gps watches can be great for hobby joggers who need that extra motivation externally.

GPS watches are terrible for instant pace. If you want that kind of feedback, it's best to use current lap pace and set it to a relatively short autolap. You can also get an older Garmin like the 610 and use a footpod to give you instant pace. The newer ones don't allow that.

Newer Garmins are also pretty bad at getting accurate tracks. In any kind of wooded area or city (and I'm not just talking skyscrapers), your tracks will likely be all over the place, jumping between rooftops and such. That said, the total distance tends to be fairly close.

The older Garmins were much more accurate. Unfortunately, in my experience, they took forever to acquire satellites.

The TomTom watches excel in both accuracy and speed of satellite acquicistion, though they have a lot of other weird quirks that may or may not be deal breakers for some.

In any event, I do every run with a GPS these days. I see it less as a tool to use while training and more as just an easy training log. It syncs up automatically, and I never have to worry about writing down what I did. I can also do unfamiliar courses and I don't have to then manually map it out to figure out how far I went. I also occasionally find that it's useful having more detailed data than I would get from a timex on the track. For example, was my pacing within each rep consistent? Did my cadence suddenly change during my last rep (often an indication that your form has broken down and you've really reached the edge)?

I've had a Garmin 210, 220, 610, 620, and a Fenix 3. I never had any issue with my Garmin simply keeping "mostly accurate" mileage. I never had any durability issues, never had any failures. Occasionally with the 220, I got a few runs where it simply didn't add up. (60 mins of running, only showed 6 miles or something when I had run 8)

Did you charge it?

Serious answer: the Average Pace and Lap Pace functions work very well for the Garmin 210 and 220 (the models I have the most experience with). Instant Pace, not so much.

Instant pace's inaccuracy is just a limitation of the technology. It won't work well until the next wave of GPS satellites are released for public use.

Who cares about current pace? Distance and mile splits seem pretty accurate on the Garmin 110. I've mapped runs after I've done them and they're very equivalent.