Running Electronics

Why? You don't need it, and they are usually only useful to
competition, or serious runners.

Why not? I guess the important part of my message was "considering".
The site I'm looking for would ideally give information on who would
get what out of owning one of these gadgets.

You suggest I would get nothing out of any of them - duly noted. Any
other opinions out there? I've seen too many people running with some
sort of hrm to believe that they are utterly worthless. Perhaps wildly
overpriced for the benefit, though.

Cheers!

Minister Hugo said:

You suggest I would get nothing out of any of them - duly noted. Any
other opinions out there?

A GPS is good for preventing you getting lost in the woods (except the timex
one, which ironically doesn't display the primary information one gains through
GPS -- your position). What a GPS is designed for, and what it's good at,
is telling you where you are, not how fast you're going.

As far as measuring distances is concerned, there are two primary reasons
people measure courses:

(1) for the purpose of logging mileage. In this case, an estimate is
usually good enough. If you run at an effort level that usually produces
7:30/mile for 1hr, it's reasonable to put "8 miles" in your log book. If
you want an objective take on "effort level", you can use also a HRM.

(2) for the purpose of racing, or measuring distances for interval workouts.
In this case, you need a very accurate course, because even a 1% error
is substantial (about 3.5-6 seconds per mile). GPS doesn't cut it, use
a (preferably calibrated) bike odometer instead.

Quoted message said:

I've seen too many people running with some
sort of hrm to believe that they are utterly worthless.

HRM, maybe. I've heard Alan Culpepper and Bob Kennedy both used heart rate
monitors.

GPS, no. How many top athletes have you heard of using a GPS ? I haven't
heard of any.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

Why not? I guess the important part of my message was "considering".

The site I'm looking for would ideally give information on who would
get what out of owning one of these gadgets.>

Just look at the HUNDREDS of threads that has been on here, and you'll
see the general consensus agrees with me.

Quoted message said:

You suggest I would get nothing out of any of them - duly noted. Any

other opinions out there?>

None that count.

Quoted message said:

I've seen too many people running with some sort of hrm to believe that they are utterly worthless. Perhaps wildly

overpriced for the benefit, though.>

So you could tell by looking if they were elite runners, or just
joggers by looking at them? Amazing.
Some people like to "look cool" like they are actually doing something,
this accounts for 40% of the HRM you see. The rest are elites or
racers, and the remainder are the dorks that try to make something as
simple as putting one foot in front of the other, as rocket science.
Spend you money on good shoes, and stop pretending to be"Joe pro".

Quoted message said:

I've heard Alan Culpepper and Bob Kennedy both used heart rate

monitors.>

Yes, two elite runners, just as I said.

Quoted message said:

Some people like to "look cool" like they are actually doing something>

And the "nike crowd" is included in that group.

Quoted message said:

Any other opinions out there?

http://tinyurl.com/eycpo
http://tinyurl.com/bx2t2

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

GPS, no. How many top athletes have you heard of using a GPS ? I haven't
heard of any.

Well, one of the top ultrarunners out here has one. We ran into each other
while running, and he showed me the cool features. We run in mountains
mostly without forest cover, and GPS gives you information about elevation
and instantaneous and average speed, as well as distance, and you can upload
the workouts to some pretty cool software.

There's a new unit (Garmin 301) which has a heart monitor in addition to
GPS.

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

GPS, no. How many top athletes have you heard of using a GPS ? I haven't
heard of any.

Well, one of the top ultrarunners out here has one. We ran into each other
while running, and he showed me the cool features. We run in mountains
mostly without forest cover, and GPS gives you information about elevation

The elevation information isn't all that accurate. If you get a unit with a
barometric altimeter ($$$), you can get decent readings, but GPS alone is more
or less useless for small climbs (less than 200ft, which applies to most runs
on the road) and merely inaccurate for larger climbs. I suppose if you're doing
700ft+ of climbing (not unrealistic for an ultra runner on trails, but rare on
the roads), the plus or minus 100 feet or so you get on a GPS might be
tolerable if not accurate.

If you're serious about getting accurate altitude measurements, your best bet
is a GPS unit that has these (but it costs)

Quoted message said:

and instantaneous

No, it doesn't tell you instantaneous speed. It estimates average speed over a
short distance by subtracting multiple sample points over time. For this reason,
the so-called "instantaneous" pace readings are nowhere near as accurate as
pace readings averaged over a mile or so. The problem is that the distance you
travel in a second or two is less than the resolution of the unit.

Quoted message said:

and average speed, as well as distance, and you can upload
the workouts to some pretty cool software.

As "cool" as that software may be, it's only as good as the data that is
uploaded. It's great if you want to do things that a GPS unit is actually
designed for, such as mapping your routes, or anything else that depends on
a reasonably accurate estimate of *global position* (again, 'P' does not stand for
'pace'! ) but it's not that good for accurate course measurement, or making
an accurate estimate of your velocity.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

In article said:

Newbie here. I've been running for a few months and am considering
picking up some sort of hrm/pedometer/gps system to carry with me. Is
there a site that any of you can recommend that does
comparisons/evaluations of this sort of thing from various
manufacturers and price levels?

I haven't seen any decent sites giving comparisons, so here's my 2c:

For distance logging and mapping, I'd go for the forerunner 201. It's
cheap and fairly light. The timex bodylink doesn't do any mapping and
you have to strap on all sorts of gizmos to be able to download to
a PC, and you can't even transfer lap data, never mind positions. If
you want do add HRM data then either get the 301 or 201 plus a cheap
Polar or similar, but something that has download capabilities.

For distance logging and pacing then I think the Suunto t6 is the
best. I can set a 20s/mile pace window alarm and the alarm hardly
ever goes off. It also has a barometer so you can get good altitude
traces and climb/descent logs. It also has a HRM. You might also
consider the s625x and the triax elite amongst others.

The downsides of GPS are that you have to wait to get a lock before
you can start your run, pacing is useless and altitude measurement is
miserable. You also need a reasonably clear sky view.

The downside of accelerometers is that you need to calibrate them
and the calibration factor is usually a function of speed (as well
as terrain, shoe, etc). I know that makes them sound like a pedometer
but they're much more usable than those.

If I'm running a new route I use my 201. For my daily runs I use
the t6 for hassle free data logging.

Paul

I've heard of gizmos at ski resorts that will capture all your
ski runs for a day, then draw you a map and print a time table.
It could be nice to have one these for running, capture a month's
worth, them dump them into a computer.
It could keep track of the duration, path and speed of your runs.
I presume they exist for runing, but arent quite
watch-size yet.

Quoted message said:

Well, one of the top ultrarunners out here has one. We ran into each other

while running, and he showed me the cool features. We run in mountains

mostly without forest cover, and GPS gives you information about
elevation
and instantaneous and average speed, as well as distance, and you can
upload
the workouts to some pretty cool software.

There's a new unit (Garmin 301) which has a heart monitor in addition
to
GPS.>

Just as I said "cool toys".

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The elevation information isn't all that accurate. If you get a unit with
a
barometric altimeter ($$$), you can get decent readings, but GPS alone is
more
or less useless for small climbs (less than 200ft, which applies to most
runs
on the road) and merely inaccurate for larger climbs. I suppose if you're
doing
700ft+ of climbing (not unrealistic for an ultra runner on trails, but
rare on
the roads), the plus or minus 100 feet or so you get on a GPS might be
tolerable if not accurate.

When Guillermo and I talked, we compared elevations (we were about 600' up a
mountain) and my barometric altimeter watch and his Garmin were within 10'.
I guess we just got lucky. I've since looked up some stuff, and verified
that elevation in the inexpensive Garmins can be off by 100' in many cases.

Donovan Rebechi's electric buttplug gives great directions. Contact him
for more info.

Thanks for all of your replies. Certainly gives me more to think about
as I *consider* picking one of these gizmos up.

BTW, the trolls seem hungry. Luddites.

Cheers!

Minister Hugo said:

Thanks for all of your replies. Certainly gives me more to think about
as I *consider* picking one of these gizmos up.

BTW, the trolls seem hungry. Luddites.

What trolls? You mean Donovan? Sometimes his harsh tone comes across as
trolling. I think he means well.

tkb

TenKBabe said:

Minister Hugo said:

Thanks for all of your replies. Certainly gives me more to think about
as I *consider* picking one of these gizmos up.

BTW, the trolls seem hungry. Luddites.

What trolls? You mean Donovan? Sometimes his harsh tone comes across as
trolling. I think he means well.

Don't know what the state of your killfile is, but I suspect he's talking
about either "CrabbyBeach", "bagpip", "TrueGrit" or "Lance Armstrong" (who,
despite the variety of names, are all the same guy)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

I suspect he's talking about either "CrabbyBeach", "bagpip",
"TrueGrit" or "Lance Armstrong" [...] all the same guy

And all along I've been thinking they were individual dwarves: crabby,
pippy, gritty, army - and sneezy, grumpy, donnie.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect he's talking about either "CrabbyBeach", "bagpip",
"TrueGrit" or "Lance Armstrong" [...] all the same guy

And all along I've been thinking they were individual dwarves: crabby,
pippy, gritty, army - and sneezy, grumpy, donnie.

i find they have distinctly different personalities. i think TrueGrit is
the nasty one. the rest of them are at different levels of sexual
frustration.

Quoted message said: