I have a Forerunner 201, it works OK for cycling, but it kind of sucks for running. It will often go 10,20,60 seconds before recording another data point, meaning the data is less accurate (both distance,pace, and route taken are off).
Are the newer forerunner models more accurate? 205,305,310,405,410...etc.....
thanks.
Yes.
Yes. I've used a 210 and 405. I've been very happy with both. It's not going to be as accurate as marking off your route, but it's pretty damn close. You also have to get used to using the current pace... it jumps around a bit, but I have found it very useful for my training.
GPS tracking will generally cut your distance short by a little bit because it's only taking a reading every 3 seconds (or 1 second on the newer, more advanced models). That 3 seconds causes it to cut the corners a little short. There is also GPS drift and stuff like that. But, coming from nothing into the new-era gps watches... I can't imagine training without one.
Klemm wrote:
GPS tracking will generally cut your distance short by a little bit because it's only taking a reading every 3 seconds (or 1 second on the newer, more advanced models). That 3 seconds causes it to cut the corners a little short. There is also GPS drift and stuff like that. But, coming from nothing into the new-era gps watches... I can't imagine training without one.
This or if you go under a tunnel or are in-between buildings. Otherwise, for the most part, it is fairly accurate. I'm just learning to use the current pace versus the avg pace--maybe that's why I've been working too hard on my intervals?
I use the 405 and have all my athletes do the same. I have been certifying courses with it as well.
You can't do that.
If you have a smart phone mapmyrun is a great app. You info automatically gets sent to your online profile, you get mile splits elevation, pace, calories time real time average pace, and more. For me, the gps was more accurate than the garmin 405 i tried for a week. Just another option...and free if you already have an iphone or droid.
Will Lingren wrote:
I use the 405 and have all my athletes do the same. I have been certifying courses with it as well.
They are accurate enough for what I need and use it for, but they are certainly not accurate enough to certify a course. Every time I race, the distance on the watch is a little shorter than the certified race distance. Check this...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/health/nutrition/gps-watches-may-not-track-runs-accurately.html?pagewanted=allmapmyrun1 wrote:
If you have a smart phone mapmyrun is a great app. You info automatically gets sent to your online profile, you get mile splits elevation, pace, calories time real time average pace, and more. For me, the gps was more accurate than the garmin 405 i tried for a week. Just another option...and free if you already have an iphone or droid.
Strava does the same thing and I love it. It got annoying always running with a phone, though. That is why I bought my first Garmin. Now I'm hooked. Strava is addicting as well... I definitely recommend checking it out if you're not familiar.
Also, I found my iPhone way less accurate than my Garmin Forerunner.
It has been a while since I had a 201, but can you not go into the settings to get it to record more often?
I have the 610 with the HR monitor and love it. Didn't have a GPS watch before, but used the 405 a number of times, but this one is far and above much more user friendly and a better all-around watch. I got it as a gift and thought I would use it only on easy days...but now can't go a day without it.
Basically...its easy to change between screens just by taping the screen. Seems to pick up signal quicker than the 405. And best of all, it has separate training pages you can set up if your running or biking, so you can customize the data you're trying to get based on what activity your doing.
I have the 610 but coming from the older non-GPS model with footpod, the pace reading does take some getting used to. The old footpod was not 100% accurate, but it seemed to correlate more closely with what you were doing - i.e. speed up, the pace goes up, but the GPS does have some lag and can do strange things going round sharp corners. You can bump up the sampling to 1-second (from 3) on the 610 but to be honest, I couldn't see much of a difference. I've actually set up a page on my watch to show the last lap pace, and now set the auto-lap to every half mile and use this to try and adjust pace rather than constantly glancing at the varying instant pace. Tempo runs were getting too stressful!
As a watch I would say it's been a good purchase. The display is very big and clear and the customization options for the display are excellent (see last lap pace example above). The option to have the watch vibrate to alert you is also great.
I use the intervals functionality and this works well. Unfortunately, I've not found as much use for the Custom Workout feature. This was the main reason I went for the 610, thinking I could program in the Daniels workouts at my specific paces (8:20 easy for 2 miles, 3x6:30 tempos etc.) but in reality, this doesn't work because 1) the pace reading fluctuates too much (lots of spurious speed up/slow down alerts that get annoying) and 2) you realize that you rarely finish exactly on 2 miles easy before progressing to the quality portion of the workout due to hills, traffic, etc.
405er wrote:
I'm just learning to use the current pace versus the avg pace--maybe that's why I've been working too hard on my intervals?
Current pace is not terribly useful. Average lap pace is the thing for intervals - display that and keep it on your target pace for the interval.
210. Love it other than the lag in getting Current Pace. If you never want CP just get the 110.