pacingsucks wrote:
Cool. Think I'm gonna see what Garmin might do for me. I liked the forerunner 110 but the 225 looks sweet. To everyone else I wasn't doin my entire run on the track. Sometimes I start our finish on one to soak up some miles...
Try this:
Take your freaking GPS watch and throw it in the river and go run your (obviously first) marathon.
20 laps = .5? wrote:
20 laps = .5? wrote:Why should it say .5 after 20 laps? Shouldn't is say 8,000 meters, or the equivalent in whatever unit of measure you're using (4.97 miles, 8 Kilometers, 26,246.7 feet, etc.)? In what unit of measure would .5 be the correct reading after 20 laps?
Can someone explain this? I am legitimately curious. Am I just being an idiot and not understanding what the GPS readout is supposed to mean?
seconded.
I have a garmin 405 CX I believe. For the most part I swear by it except for when I'm on the track.
It's accuracy can fluctuate depending on how cloudy it is or how many other people are using a garmin right next to you.
I found It records an extra ~ .01 for every 1600 meters I run while on a track.
But in a road race it's always been spot on with the course markers or at least within a few meters (less than 10).
Basically, even if it is a bit off you won't be so far from a mile marker that you wouldnt be able to easily calculate the difference.
First I'd do a reset and update if it needs that.
If you are really worried then you might just want to buy a new one.
Garmin has some pretty new watches nowadays
John Clendon wrote:
I have to think of everything wrote:Did anyone ever consider the watch is completely accurate and takes into account the distance your arms are swinging or more accurately flapping about? That would account for your 4/100 extra distance.
The watch has no way to differentiate the one foot your arm swings in a horizontal plane.
Everyone needs to do a little GIS and GPS research before they complain about the accuracy of mappedometer or their Garmin.
GPSs can be a lot more accurate off your wrist and pinned to a hat or the back of your shirt, but it's probably due to the antenna being in a stable, open location that is not blocked by your body. Here is how accurate a Suunto Trackpod pinned to someone's shirt or head can track someone in lane 1 of a track for 3km. (The GPS chip in that Suunto is probably better than those in most Garmin Forerunners, but having it off the wrist contributes to the result.):
http://www.attackpoint.org/sessiondata.jsp?sessionid=3324123My Garmin 610 was much worse on the track. It's been a while, but I think it read 0.27 mile for every 400 meters. Here is a sample:
https://connect.garmin.com/activity/307841460I have a Suunto Ambit 2S now, but I haven't used it on the track to compare.
garmin wrote:
garmin 610 wrote:I ran a 10.000m on a track and the garmin measured 10.6k. And yes, I didn't run an extra lap. Similar for 5.000m.
I ran a 10k on a 2.5 loop course and the garmin measured 10.12k.
So, I would guess that the pace can be off by a couple of seconds even when you run fairly straight lines in the countryside.
With buildings or hills it might be off constantly because of reflection of the signal. Don't get stressed out, just run.
If available put on the 1 second mode.
Were you sure the loop was exactly 2.5? And did you run the tangents?
Even if it isn't entirely accurate, 0.12 is only 1% off.
Well, it was a certified 10k course, but I did take out the measuring wheel myself ;-)
You are right, it's only 1% - and that is pretty good. Also factor in some extra metres, because nobody runs the exact tangent (or, ventolin? ). It was just to highlight that gps-measurement is more inaccurate on a track.