Forerunner 301

I got one that works GREAT! Just place two fingers on your wrist, and
count.

Charlie said:

Hi
Anybody got this?
Looking to get a heart rate monitor and like the idea of GPS with it. Am I
better off just going for the Polar HRM though. I'm more keen to have a good
quality HRM than the GPS, if you know what I mean.

i've got the older original gps/watch version. i don't need
the heart rate monitor. but i LOVE the Speed/Distance concept.
Before I had to estimate my pace, now i'm reading it.
And I see that sometimes I speed up without knowing, like when
I'm crossing at an intersection or passing walkers on the sidewalk.
So now, when I'm training, I can train at the pace i want to.
Also, when I'm doing a distance run (not time), I know
exactly when I'm done. And I can add a block or two,
or go into a park without trying to think about how far that was.
Get one if you can afford it. The heart rate monitor could
be nice if you intend to do any HR based training.
All-in-one is perfect.
....thehick

Try this.

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/GarminF/

"Charlie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi
Anybody got this?
Looking to get a heart rate monitor and like the idea of GPS with it. Am I
better off just going for the Polar HRM though. I'm more keen to have a
good quality HRM than the GPS, if you know what I mean.

P.

Charlie said:

Hi
Anybody got this?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Looking to get a heart rate monitor and like the idea of GPS with it. Am I
better off just going for the Polar HRM though. I'm more keen to have a good
quality HRM than the GPS, if you know what I mean.

I love it. Great tool for pacing, etc. USB downloads of your runs,
graphing, map overlay, etc. Comes with software that allows keeping track
of activities. For very detailed activity logging and tracking check out
http://www.motionbased.com

Quoted message said:

For very detailed activity logging and tracking check out
http://www.motionbased.com

Great site. I've logged virtually all my runs there since July '04 (173
entries to be exact).

--
Phil M.

"Scorn B Woe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I got one that works GREAT! Just place two fingers on your wrist, and
count.

What if you don't have a pulse?

Jay Hennigan said:

I love it. Great tool for pacing, etc. USB downloads of your runs,
graphing, map overlay, etc. Comes with software that allows keeping track
of activities.

VERY cool. I find my motivation increases when I do some kind of logging of
my training. Before I used to log the time to run a predefined track, but
that carries only very little information of how well you really perform.
Recently I've been borrowing a HRM from a friend of mine (standard Polar
one), and the fun of logging increased severalfold. Been drooling over the
Forerunner quite a while now, will be gettting one as soon as I can afford
it. Expect to see me on the Yahoo! Running group! 🙂

--
Proper prior planning prevents [censored] poor performance.
torarnb ætt stud dått ntnu dått no

Thanks for that guys.
Sounds great.
Finally, are there any features that the Polar 625 has that the Forerunner
doesn't?
Just wondering why the polar is more expensive?

P.

"Jay Hennigan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Charlie said:

Hi
Anybody got this?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Looking to get a heart rate monitor and like the idea of GPS with it. Am
I
better off just going for the Polar HRM though. I'm more keen to have a
good
quality HRM than the GPS, if you know what I mean.

I love it. Great tool for pacing, etc. USB downloads of your runs,
graphing, map overlay, etc. Comes with software that allows keeping track
of activities. For very detailed activity logging and tracking check out
http://www.motionbased.com

Bosco said:

Thanks for that guys.
Sounds great.
Finally, are there any features that the Polar 625 has that the Forerunner
doesn't?
Just wondering why the polar is more expensive?

Built-in barometric altimeter. Also a bunch of things for cycling
(optional attachments), "mobile connectivity with your Nokia 5140 mobile
phone" (yea, I can tell you were holding your breath waiting for this 😉.

BTW, when I looked at Polar's page, they have a new series RS of hrm
with speed and distance - without all the extras of the 625, but I
didn't look for prices or details.
http://www.polar.fi/polar/channels/eng/segments/products/RS200sd.html

625 uses an accelerometer rather than gps used by the garmin.

Both accelerometers and gps receivers have advantages and disadvantages.
Neither one is a perfect solution for distance estimates, imho. I
haven't looked at pace since I run by effort, but do like to have a
reasonable estimate of distance when done, esp. on long runs.

GPS receivers may have difficulties when they don't get a clear view of
sky (canyons, buildings, leaves, esp. wet leaves, etc.) or satellites
are poorly configured. GPS units can be used running, hiking, biking,
canoeing, skiing, etc.

Accelerometers don't depend on satellite reception, but you generally
need a footpod attached to your shoe. They depend on a running or
walking type motion so are useless for some activities, like canoeing.
My footpod does seem to survive immersion, although it wasn't an
intentional test. Clean the mud off of it after the run.

I've been using a 625 since late October the day of first snowstorm, so
haven't calibrated it on terra firma. I've used the footpod only since
late January. The first couple runs I used it on in Oct were really
slippery, slushy and one was snowshoe in similar conditions. The
distances didn't seem reasonable so I put it away intending to calibrate
in spring when I could run the gravel edge of a section line road to
calibrate it.

However, when we had a good, firm snow surface for running back in
January, I decided to try it again and got very reasonable numbers. That
trail had some mile markers on it, and I also had a gps with good
reception with me. On another trail system, I have a map with distances
between intersections estimated in meters - I believe from wheeling or
chaining since it's used for hs competitions. The 625 distance estimates
were within a couple percent of known values for these.

When I'm comparing numbers on long runs, I get distance and elevation
estimates from the gps directly as well as overlaying the route on an
electronic map and using software to get estimate. Using a map to
estimate total elevation gain on a route with a lot of small ups and
downs is *really* inaccurate since the overlay is not accurate enough -
steep terrain where 20 ft to one side may result in you being in valley
rather than on ridge.

I tried some of the free stuff on MotionBased tonight with some routes
in my gps - without reading detailed directions, so maybe I did
something wrong or need a paid subscription - OR they have minimal data
for Alaska, which is highly likely. No photo backgrounds. The 2
backgrounds that they did have were poorly vectorized - like MS Streets
& Trips - so roads, rivers, and trails didn't line up properly. But they
may get estimates from underlying data model not accurately represented
by the graphics. Some of their distance estimates were longer than what
I got from either my gps directly or my 625, but some were close.

For my long runs, I generally use the footpod and gps (Etrex Vista with
barometric altimeter) and record both sets of data for distance and
elevation change. I'll sometimes also get a distance estimate from map
(elevation is useless from map unless I'm going up one of the
mountains). In most cases, the distances are fairly close among all
three - and no way of knowing "true" value. The gps frequently reads
higher for elevation change, sometimes a *lot* higher, than the 625, so
I really wonder about it. When evaluating the altimeter on my 625, I've
looked for reasonable consistency in the run (shows up for uphills, etc)
and symmetry in out/back runs. I'm using 15 sec intervals for logging.
As long as a storm front doesn't come through, I tend to believe my 625
elevation change data more than the other numbers.

I have enough confidence in the accelerometer that I use those distance
estimates without question as long as footing is reasonable, and it's
not a really big, steep hill (aka mtn). I haven't been able to get good
footing on a big hill yet to really test, but should be able to in the
next month or so. Snow is melting.

Here's a link with some discussion by trail runners using gps units and
what seems to work / not work from their personal experience. YMMV as
you can tell.
http://forums.runnersworld.com/thread.jspa?threadID=262631&tstart=0

While I love my 625, it can't be used to map trails like a gps unit can.
I'm considering getting a Foretrex (AAA battery version) (relatively
low cost) or another regular GPS (maybe with quad antenna, maybe not,
pricey) for mapping trails. People seem to have better luck with regular
gps than the wrist mounted, but I've not seen any formal studies. I
don't need "virtual training partners" of the Forerunners.

If you're road running someplace without big buildings, the gps unit
probably works quite well. The accelerometer would probably work well
even with big buildings. And for trails, it's probably a toss up and
probably depends a lot on what you want the device for. I like the
flexibility of gps units for various modes of exercise.

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004

That's a great help Dot. Thanks very much. There's no real big buildings
where
I'm from so hopefully the Forerunner will suit. Though I'll miss that Nokia
link
up all the same!

Bosco

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bosco said:

Thanks for that guys.
Sounds great.
Finally, are there any features that the Polar 625 has that the
Forerunner doesn't?
Just wondering why the polar is more expensive?

Built-in barometric altimeter. Also a bunch of things for cycling
(optional attachments), "mobile connectivity with your Nokia 5140 mobile
phone" (yea, I can tell you were holding your breath waiting for this 😉.

BTW, when I looked at Polar's page, they have a new series RS of hrm with
speed and distance - without all the extras of the 625, but I didn't look
for prices or details.
http://www.polar.fi/polar/channels/eng/segments/products/RS200sd.html

625 uses an accelerometer rather than gps used by the garmin.

Both accelerometers and gps receivers have advantages and disadvantages.
Neither one is a perfect solution for distance estimates, imho. I haven't
looked at pace since I run by effort, but do like to have a reasonable
estimate of distance when done, esp. on long runs.

GPS receivers may have difficulties when they don't get a clear view of
sky (canyons, buildings, leaves, esp. wet leaves, etc.) or satellites are
poorly configured. GPS units can be used running, hiking, biking,
canoeing, skiing, etc.

Accelerometers don't depend on satellite reception, but you generally need
a footpod attached to your shoe. They depend on a running or walking type
motion so are useless for some activities, like canoeing. My footpod does
seem to survive immersion, although it wasn't an intentional test. Clean
the mud off of it after the run.

I've been using a 625 since late October the day of first snowstorm, so
haven't calibrated it on terra firma. I've used the footpod only since
late January. The first couple runs I used it on in Oct were really
slippery, slushy and one was snowshoe in similar conditions. The distances
didn't seem reasonable so I put it away intending to calibrate in spring
when I could run the gravel edge of a section line road to calibrate it.

However, when we had a good, firm snow surface for running back in
January, I decided to try it again and got very reasonable numbers. That
trail had some mile markers on it, and I also had a gps with good
reception with me. On another trail system, I have a map with distances
between intersections estimated in meters - I believe from wheeling or
chaining since it's used for hs competitions. The 625 distance estimates
were within a couple percent of known values for these.

When I'm comparing numbers on long runs, I get distance and elevation
estimates from the gps directly as well as overlaying the route on an
electronic map and using software to get estimate. Using a map to estimate
total elevation gain on a route with a lot of small ups and downs is
*really* inaccurate since the overlay is not accurate enough - steep
terrain where 20 ft to one side may result in you being in valley rather
than on ridge.

I tried some of the free stuff on MotionBased tonight with some routes in
my gps - without reading detailed directions, so maybe I did something
wrong or need a paid subscription - OR they have minimal data for Alaska,
which is highly likely. No photo backgrounds. The 2 backgrounds that they
did have were poorly vectorized - like MS Streets & Trips - so roads,
rivers, and trails didn't line up properly. But they may get estimates
from underlying data model not accurately represented by the graphics.
Some of their distance estimates were longer than what I got from either
my gps directly or my 625, but some were close.

For my long runs, I generally use the footpod and gps (Etrex Vista with
barometric altimeter) and record both sets of data for distance and
elevation change. I'll sometimes also get a distance estimate from map
(elevation is useless from map unless I'm going up one of the mountains).
In most cases, the distances are fairly close among all three - and no way
of knowing "true" value. The gps frequently reads higher for elevation
change, sometimes a *lot* higher, than the 625, so I really wonder about
it. When evaluating the altimeter on my 625, I've looked for reasonable
consistency in the run (shows up for uphills, etc) and symmetry in
out/back runs. I'm using 15 sec intervals for logging. As long as a storm
front doesn't come through, I tend to believe my 625 elevation change data
more than the other numbers.

I have enough confidence in the accelerometer that I use those distance
estimates without question as long as footing is reasonable, and it's not
a really big, steep hill (aka mtn). I haven't been able to get good
footing on a big hill yet to really test, but should be able to in the
next month or so. Snow is melting.

Here's a link with some discussion by trail runners using gps units and
what seems to work / not work from their personal experience. YMMV as you
can tell.
http://forums.runnersworld.com/thread.jspa?threadID=262631&tstart=0

While I love my 625, it can't be used to map trails like a gps unit can.
I'm considering getting a Foretrex (AAA battery version) (relatively low
cost) or another regular GPS (maybe with quad antenna, maybe not, pricey)
for mapping trails. People seem to have better luck with regular gps than
the wrist mounted, but I've not seen any formal studies. I don't need
"virtual training partners" of the Forerunners.

If you're road running someplace without big buildings, the gps unit
probably works quite well. The accelerometer would probably work well even
with big buildings. And for trails, it's probably a toss up and probably
depends a lot on what you want the device for. I like the flexibility of
gps units for various modes of exercise.

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004