responder wrote:
However, there are memory limits -- around 20 hours for the FR60. Even though the watch will stop storing your data once memory capacity is reached, it will continue to show pace, time, and miles.
The limited memory is also why the FR70 (not sure about the FR60) doesn't support advanced workouts and workout downloading from Garmin Connect. That's the only feature limitation, as compared to the more expensive GPS models, that I've run into so far.
Dan
dc rainmaker also agrees that the FR60 accelerometer does a reasonable job of extrapolating pace away from the calibrating pace. Looking at some of the downloaded plots on dc rainmaker, it certainly has to be closer than the knockoff I had which would never show more than 45 seconds per mile different from the calibration even when I was walking. It was good at measuring distance to about 1% at the calibrated pace though.
redux wrote:
What watch is Frank wearing in this pic?
http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/frank-shorter-2012-xsport-fitness-rock-n-roll-ke5V6d.jpg
That actually happens to be a Garmin FR70.
Dan
Franky Short wrote:
No idea. I couldn't tell you a Garmin from a whatever other brands there are out there. Even if he wears a GPS watch now, he certainly didn't use when in 1972 when he brought home the gold and glory.
Right. And he wouldn't have worn one if they were around.
I like my 210 alot except for one thing. There is a 2-3 second delay when starting a run the first time I start after acquiring satellites.
redux wrote:
Franky Short wrote:No idea. I couldn't tell you a Garmin from a whatever other brands there are out there. Even if he wears a GPS watch now, he certainly didn't use when in 1972 when he brought home the gold and glory.
Right. And he wouldn't have worn one if they were around.
Yeah, while we're at it, we should get rid of all the new training methods, nutrition, racing flats, spikes, ect. If what he had worked 40 years ago, why should we use anything else now?
None. Gps watches can be up to 15 seconds/mile off. Not worth it for me.
Nutella1 wrote:
Agreed. Don't buy a 610 either. When you're running fast, you don't want to use a touchscreen, you need physical buttons.
Garmin 110 or 210 or if you don't mind it being bulky the 205.
The Nike Sportswatch for 149 is also pretty decent IMHO.
Can't say anything about the Soleus or Timex. Those are some other options.
True about a touchscreen being annoying for splitting during a race, but on the 610 you start/split/stop with physical buttons. The touchscreen is for flipping between modes (time/chrono/virtual partner/etc).
Has anyone used the new Garmin Forerunner 10? It seems to be exactly what he's looking for. No frills, just gives you distance/pace.
redux wrote:
What watch is Frank wearing in this pic?
http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/frank-shorter-2012-xsport-fitness-rock-n-roll-ke5V6d.jpg
He's wearing a Garmin FR60.
I have an FR60 and a 210 (GPS) watch. I far prefer the FR60 with footpod -- it gives instant pace, is super accurate, works instantly etc. The watch has tonnes of options you can configure the screen to show whatever you want.
The footpod, out of the box, was about 98-99 percent accurate. Once calibrated it's about 99.8% accurate most of the time.
Oh yeah, the footpod also measures cadence and the watch can display it live -- I find it's a very good training tool when I try and improve form.
I only use the 210 GPS watch when I do trail runs and I like to have a fancy GPS trace.
