You should never look at the "Current Pace" anyway. Use Lap Pace for a much more usable number.
As far as accuracy goes, I very very rarely ever see it off by more that a few feet on marked course. (and you probably dont run the excact same route everytime anyway).
I love mine, bought it in July after using a Polar 625 for several years. I also bought the Foot Pod for the hell of it and am so glad I did. I find it very accurate over trails and undercover with the additional pod. Just lock the bezel if it's raining, otherwise it'll drive you crazy. I've heard of people having fogging problems aswell, so I just don't mess with the bezel (I keep it locked) in bad conditions and have seen no problems. Enjoy it, it's really a great training aid and the wireless download and exportable data is excellent.
LuvinGPS is right.
I have the 205 (which I believe has the same GPS chip as the 305, 405, 310xt) and I use "Lap Pace" to get pace readings. I usually set the lap to 1 mile so you get a pretty good reading once you are about 1/4 mile into your current mile.
As LuvinGPS said, the "instantaneous pace" stinks and it is virtually useless along with the altitude data.
Overall, I love the 205 and don't run without it unless I'm on a track. You should be happy with 405 if the touch screen doesn't bother you much - I think its supposed to be less bulky than the others.
Steve
So I just got back from my first run with it... here's my assessment after run 1...
Seemed pretty much spot on on the roads and open trail (I'm in NYC, and it was working perfectly running up 6th avenue into the park and then on the bridle path) and then it had me running a 7:52 mile when I was in the wooded north trails. Doubt it was that slow, but ok, no biggie. It then seemed pretty accurate once again after I came out back into a more open area.
I then went on the roads in Central Park and things seemed ok until it said I "lost satellite connection" or something to that effect running west to east on 59th street. When it came back, it kind of went haywire. I apparently ran a 3:33 mile and then a 1:13 mile and did 12.2 miles in 67 minutes (I would guess it was closer to 10 miles). Strange because much of that off period was on the 6th avenue stretch I started from and when I started it was correct.
I am curious to load it tonight when I get home.
I imagine it maps my run? Can I go and change the route if its all screwy (i.e. move points on the map?).
Guess I'll find out tonight...
I'm in NYC too. I have a friend who says his Garmin NEVER works in Manhattan. Which is the only reason I don't have one yet. Thinking about getting that Nike wrist band do-dad.
Bridget,
I had good results for 9 out of 10 miles. Thinking about it, even that 7:52 mile in the north woods was probably correct. I had to duck under a few fallen trees and really slow up going to the top of Harlem Hill, so it is possible I lost 20 seconds doing that. And it is also possible I slowed to 7:30 pace on the rest. So basically, it seems to work in NY. When running on 59th it obviously broke down, but I have a feeling that was an exception, not a rule. It was spot on in the park.
So loaded my route up. Pretty cool. It looks really accurate in the park. Sure enough, though, it says I zigzagged down 59th street (and has some crazy elevation, so I think it may have had me climbing some buildings!).
Is there a way to move points on the Google Maps after you upload the data so that it is the actual route rather then the messed up one?
LuvnGPS wrote:
You should never look at the "Current Pace" anyway. Use Lap Pace for a much more usable number.
As far as accuracy goes, I very very rarely ever see it off by more that a few feet on marked course. (and you probably dont run the excact same route everytime anyway).
is the lap setting default at 1 mile? or do you have to set it that way to use lap pace?
Not sure if it's accurate but I do like the fact it's very light in weight and its like wearing a watch.
Garmin wrote:
So loaded my route up. Pretty cool. It looks really accurate in the park. Sure enough, though, it says I zigzagged down 59th street (and has some crazy elevation, so I think it may have had me climbing some buildings!).
Thats actually pretty close to what the watch thinks happened. The only places Garmins aren't particularly reliable is in major metro areas. The GPS signals bounce between the buildings and you get some really wierd readings sometimes. They work really well in every other environment I've ever used them in.
Garmin wrote:
So loaded my route up. Pretty cool. It looks really accurate in the park. Sure enough, though, it says I zigzagged down 59th street (and has some crazy elevation, so I think it may have had me climbing some buildings!).
Is there a way to move points on the Google Maps after you upload the data so that it is the actual route rather then the messed up one?
Use garmin connect and gets lots more data, maps, and graphing.
Come to think of it I've had two runs since July that were clearly bizarre (or I'm the fastest miler in history which is probably not true). Both times I was in downtown Toronto, crossing the city. Otherwise, since I bought the foot pod I've never noticed any issues. Also, thanks for the description of your run, I visited Manhattan for the first time this past summer and you brought back all these amazing images of a fantastic city.
Garmin wrote:
This should be really handy especially for tempo runs (it has a heart rate monitor too) if it works well.
Too bad the current speed feature is horribly inaccurate.