Garmin GPS

Monkeys uncle wrote:

I've spoken to a few people who were off by a mile or more over the course of a marathon, which would be in the neighborhood of 4 - 5% error, which is rather significant even in the 5k(200 - 250m) - 10K(400 - 500m) range.

This is a classic case of not reading the instruction book. I've had to explain this to people I run with too. They need to set the smoothing fuction to most - this will give them a far more accurate reading. I've raced with my Garmin 20 or so times (up to 10 mile) and its never been more than 50m out every time.

Sorry if this is a little off the topic... I have the polar sd800 and really do find it very useful.

My only ? is I find that when compared to my friends x625 that once we are out on a tempo run I come up very long. Example: he will measure 4 miles when I am measuring 3.68 this is significant and we both are exactly the same when on the track. I may try calibrating it while running at a faster pace. I plan on using it on a certified distance to see if indeed it is off.

Average_Joe wrote:

Apparently the next generation of these things is going to augmented with the WAAS system which improves the accuracy by use of land-based transmitting stations. Some of Garmin's higher-end GPSes apparently already have it.

Mine has WAAS but it was disabled during my test. I'd like to tell you I did that on purpose to mimic what a Forerunner can do, but the truth is I didn't even know mine had it until I read your note.

The manual says that currently WAAS will sometimes be more accurate than without it, and sometimes less accurate. It claims it can determine which is the case and will use the most accurate method if WAAS is enabled. I'll run tests with it both disabled and enabled.

Don't be stupid, I'm neither upset nor arguing. You'd have to have piss-poor reading comprehension to have assumed that.

ok, look back over this thread and tell us again that you weren't being argumentative...this is a thread about the Garmin and you found your way on it and going back and forth point by point with someone who used it about why it wasn't necessary and even calling it an electronic shackle and telling the guy he must not have had much experience runningi don't think you were upset but you were certainly being argumentativeyou made your point, you don't know need one... good for you

Charlie Horse wrote:

Don't be stupid, I'm neither upset nor arguing. You'd have to have piss-poor reading comprehension to have assumed that.

should read

[quote]anEconomist wrote:

you made your point, you don't need one... good for you

You say argumentative, I say spiritedly questioning. I have no idea what your last line is supposed to mean, it's horribly written.

Okay, that makes more sense.

Just skimmed through the thread.

I'm clearly not as bright as you but do I have this right?

One experienced guy thinks it works for him but you want some kind of proof that it works for him?

Have you taken time away from your job for your effort here? It seems like the whole point by point thing...ah never mind.

You don't have to be very bright to figure this one out.

One guy was trying to be helpful and the other one is going out of his way to be a hopeless prick.

Hope that clears things up for you.

I have owned the 205 for a year with not even the slightest problems - I actually feel sorry for the guy who has gone through 3 previous Garmins as he appears to have some very bad luck and gotten lemons, or he stores them underwater. I've run in rain storms, blizzards, on heavily forested back trails, marathons (it was less than a meter off the distance). It has been soaked with sweat. It's never lost the signal and has never stopped working. Moisture has not been a problem. I had the 201 and it still works after 3 years, but it is not nearly as accurate and loses it's signal often. Buy it, read the manual, set it outside a few minutes before you run to catch the satellite signal, and it'll work fine. I think the 305 is the same but includes a HR monitor.

Retired2 wrote:

Just skimmed through the thread.

I'm clearly not as bright as you but do I have this right?

I cannot be sure.

One experienced guy thinks it works for him but you want some kind of proof that it works for him?

I sought objective input, not subjective pimping.

Have you taken time away from your job for your effort here?

No, I'm not a slacker goldbrick like so many people who visit this site.

It seems like the whole point by point thing...ah never mind.

It's remarkably easy, actually, but will do.

Just wanted to know if the Garmin watches are bulky or arete comfortable to wear...anyone have an opinion

I just got the 305, and found that it looks bulky, but I can seriously say that I don't even notice. I was wearing the Polar 625X previously.

notapro wrote:

Just wanted to know if the Garmin watches are bulky or arete comfortable to wear...anyone have an opinion

I have a small wrist. It's "bulky" on my wrist, but it's also incredibly light. I would say there's no noticeable difference running with it on that bothers me.

Can't recommend it enough

On real long runs you might notice the weight but otherwise it is great. I got mine from amazon for $100 off the regular price and love it.

I bought the 200W from Buy.com for $214 shipped.

I plan on using it during a week drive through Texas and sell it on Ebay hopefully for more than $214.

Oh you people are talking about the watch. Nevermind.