General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Garmin Forerunner -- anybody else have problems?

Started by Ron · · Last activity · 13 posts · 1,368 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
23 February 2004
Last activity
1 March 2004
Original author
Ron
Posts
13
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,368
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–13 of 13
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hello,

    I've seen several glowing reviews of the Garmin Forerunner here, with almost no bad news. My
    experience has been different.

    I'm on my second unit. The first one was ridiculously inaccurate; I emailed Garmin with some
    data, and they replaced the unit. I have had a replacement unit for about a month, and am still
    not very happy.

    The pace info is terrible. When running at, say, 6:30/mi pace, I may see anything between 6:30
    (but rarely) and 10:00/mi. Useless. It does show higher paces when I run faster, but they are
    usually way off.

    I've also done a lot of repeatability tests, since there's no arguing with the conclusions in that
    case. If I measure (by starting a new lap) at, say, each mile, out and back, the measurements are
    often off by 15%, and occasionally off by 20-25%. (I'm measuring known points that I measured long
    ago on a calibrated cyclocomputer, and the errors I'm talking about are simply the disagreements
    between the "out" and "back" GPS measurements.) I measured laps during a hill workout so I could
    record many cycles over the same route (about a quarter mile), and the distances are only within
    about plus or minus 16% over 20 laps. Today I recorded a separate lap during the time I stretched
    after running (i.e., no motion), and it recorded a distance of 40 feet and an elevation change of
    160 feet. If I turn the mapping function on, I can usually see large differences between out-and-
    back coordinates that should be the same, and sometimes there are turns that I didn't make, or that
    go in the wrong direction.

    By the way, this is on the road in a residential area and on a bike path; very few trees and no tall
    buildings. I usually run midday (10:00 AM - 2:00 PM), if that makes a difference.

    Anyone else see anything like this going on? I really want this thing to work, but am very
    disappointed so far. Is it possible that I just live in a GPS-impaired area?

    Ron

  2. I have also noticed the "current" pace fluctuates too much and is not dependable. Do you have pace
    "smoothing" turned on?

    My experience with the accuracy of the distance is that mine is right on the money.

    It is far from perfect, but I like it a lot.

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

    Quoted message said:

    Hello,

    I've seen several glowing reviews of the Garmin Forerunner here, with almost no bad news. My
    experience has been different.

    I'm on my second unit. The first one was ridiculously inaccurate; I emailed Garmin with some
    data, and they replaced the unit. I have had a replacement unit for about a month, and am still
    not very happy.

    The pace info is terrible. When running at, say, 6:30/mi pace, I may see anything between 6:30
    (but rarely) and 10:00/mi. Useless. It does show higher paces when I run faster, but they are
    usually way off.

    I've also done a lot of repeatability tests, since there's no arguing with the conclusions in that
    case. If I measure (by starting a new lap) at, say, each mile, out and back, the measurements are
    often off by 15%, and occasionally off by 20-25%. (I'm measuring known points that I measured long
    ago on a calibrated cyclocomputer, and the errors I'm talking about are simply the disagreements
    between the "out" and "back" GPS measurements.) I measured laps during a hill workout so I could
    record many cycles over the same route (about a quarter mile), and the distances are only within
    about plus or minus 16% over 20 laps. Today I recorded a separate lap during the time I stretched
    after running (i.e., no motion), and it recorded a distance of 40 feet and an elevation change of
    160 feet. If I turn the mapping function on, I can usually see large differences between out-and-
    back coordinates that should be the same, and sometimes there are turns that I didn't make, or
    that go in the wrong direction.

    By the way, this is on the road in a residential area and on a bike path; very few trees and no
    tall buildings. I usually run midday (10:00 AM - 2:00 PM), if that makes a difference.

    Anyone else see anything like this going on? I really want this thing to work, but am very
    disappointed so far. Is it possible that I just live in a GPS-impaired area?

    Ron

  3. Hi Ron,

    I agree that the pace information isn't always accurate and I usually go by lap pace. There is an
    option to increase or decrease pace smoothing.

    As far as distance inaccuracy goes, I think your problem may be that you are going out and back. The
    GPS records your position every few seconds and then passes a smooth curve through the points to get
    your track. If you make sharp corners or loop back then a section of the track may get smoothed off
    resulting in a distance error.

    Hope this helps.

    Marcel

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

    Quoted message said:

    Hello,

    I've seen several glowing reviews of the Garmin Forerunner here, with almost no bad news. My
    experience has been different.

    I'm on my second unit. The first one was ridiculously inaccurate; I emailed Garmin with some
    data, and they replaced the unit. I have had a replacement unit for about a month, and am still
    not very happy.

    The pace info is terrible. When running at, say, 6:30/mi pace, I may see anything between 6:30
    (but rarely) and 10:00/mi. Useless. It does show higher paces when I run faster, but they are
    usually way off.

    I've also done a lot of repeatability tests, since there's no arguing with the conclusions in that
    case. If I measure (by starting a new lap) at, say, each mile, out and back, the measurements are
    often off by 15%, and occasionally off by 20-25%. (I'm measuring known points that I measured long
    ago on a calibrated cyclocomputer, and the errors I'm talking about are simply the disagreements
    between the "out" and "back" GPS measurements.) I measured laps during a hill workout so I could
    record many cycles over the same route (about a quarter mile), and the distances are only within
    about plus or minus 16% over 20 laps. Today I recorded a separate lap during the time I stretched
    after running (i.e., no motion), and it recorded a distance of 40 feet and an elevation change of
    160 feet. If I turn the mapping function on, I can usually see large differences between out-and-
    back coordinates that should be the same, and sometimes there are turns that I didn't make, or
    that go in the wrong direction.

    By the way, this is on the road in a residential area and on a bike path; very few trees and no
    tall buildings. I usually run midday (10:00 AM - 2:00 PM), if that makes a difference.

    Anyone else see anything like this going on? I really want this thing to work, but am very
    disappointed so far. Is it possible that I just live in a GPS-impaired area?

    Ron

  4. In article said:

    The pace info is terrible. When running at, say, 6:30/mi pace, I may see anything between 6:30
    (but rarely) and 10:00/mi. Useless. It does show higher paces when I run faster, but they are
    usually way off.

    Wouldn't expect any better from a GPS unit (or for that matter an accelerometer unit). They're not
    much good for instantaneous pace measurements.

    Quoted message said:

    I've also done a lot of repeatability tests, since there's no arguing with the conclusions in that
    case. If I measure (by starting a new lap) at, say, each mile, out and back, the measurements are
    often off by 15%, and occasionally off by 20-25%. (I'm measuring known points that I measured long
    ago on a calibrated cyclocomputer, and the errors I'm talking about are simply the disagreements
    between the "out" and "back" GPS measurements.) I measured laps during a hill workout so I could
    record many cycles over the same route (about a quarter mile), and the distances are only within
    about plus or minus 16% over 20 laps. Today I recorded a separate lap during the time I stretched
    after running (i.e., no motion), and it recorded a distance of 40 feet and an elevation change of
    160 feet.

    That amount of distance drift is normal assuming a reasonable period of time elapsed. The elevation
    change seems like a lot though -- to me this seems to suggest you're not getting enough satellites
    to get a good 3d position fix. You need 4 satellites to get a reading worth anything, but having at
    least one redundant satellite is better.

    Quoted message said:

    If I turn the mapping function on, I can usually see large differences between out-and-back
    coordinates that should be the same, and sometimes there are turns that I didn't make, or that go
    in the wrong direction.

    Now that's problematic. Looks like you're probably not getting good satellite reception.

    Quoted message said:

    By the way, this is on the road in a residential area and on a bike path; very few trees and no
    tall buildings. I usually run midday (10:00 AM - 2:00 PM), if that makes a difference.

    It's hard to tell. You can get bad reception even in areas that "should" give good reception.

    If the unit has any screens that display status information about the number of satellites that the
    unit has locked onto, I would look to that for troubleshooting.

    BTW, calibrated bike computers are an excellent method of measuring courses. You will never do
    better than this with any GPS. The advantage of the GPS is convenience, but the bike computer should
    be more accurate/reliable.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflord

  5. Ron said:


    The pace info is terrible. When running at, say, 6:30/mi pace, I may see anything between 6:30
    (but rarely) and 10:00/mi. Useless. It does show higher paces when I run faster, but they are
    usually way off.

    That's consistent with what everyone is reporting. Something I've wondered is if people know their
    instantaneous pace that accurately, why are they bothering with a gadget?

    <other observations snipped for brevity>

    Today I

    Quoted message said:

    recorded a separate lap during the time I stretched after running (i.e., no motion), and it
    recorded a distance of 40 feet and an elevation change of 160 feet.

    not too surprising, esp. the 40 ft since that's close to what the error is in a lot of cases (at
    least for me). If the forerunner doesn't show coordinates, take a regular gps, stand still, and
    watch the coordinates change. The values only need to be "accurate" 95% of the time. The other 5%
    they can be anywhere, from what our gps people have told me - and my experience seems to confirm.
    Some gpsr have smoothing functions or ways of filling in gaps.

    If I turn the mapping function on, I can usually

    Quoted message said:

    see large differences between out-and-back coordinates that should be the same, and sometimes
    there are turns that I didn't make, or that go in the wrong direction.

    With a regular gps, it's not unusual (not common, but it happens) to have any given point be out of
    whack giving the impression of a side trip. In my case, it can make the difference between being on
    top vs bottom of a ridge. Of course, the map I'm overlaying on could also be wrong, but in these
    cases it definitely looks like off-reading from gps.

    Quoted message said:


    Anyone else see anything like this going on? I really want this thing to work, but am very
    disappointed so far. Is it possible that I just live in a GPS-impaired area?

    yes. or the satellites might be poorly configured at the time you are using it. There's software
    available that tells when/where the windows are good/poor. People that need to get good gps readings
    (work related) wait for the good days and avoid the bad for their gps work. Solar disturbances like
    the ones in early Nov (or late Oct) can throw off even the good equipment. Satellites may be out.
    etc. I'm pretty sure that gps is used for aircraft - usually unobstructed view of sky (unless near
    ground) 😉 - and perhaps they're high enough that they don't deal with a lot of the issues the
    ground gps's have and are higher quality.

    Some gps units will give a reading with a large error. Others don't give a reading until the error
    is less than a desired value, I think.

    If the forerunner doesn't provide satellite info (I've not seen any indication that it does, but
    that doesn't mean it doesn't), then if you have a friend with a real gps, try that at the same time
    as the forerunner and see what happens (note number of satellites being received - if only 3 or 4,
    that's probably the problem) - that is, get a better handle on whether it's an inherent gps issue or
    the forerunner. Or if you know someone locally that uses a gps, ask them what their experience with
    gps has been. I've had trouble with my regular gps numerous times, but it's always been explainable
    by limitations of gps and where/when I am using it - some local issues, sometimes regionally. Other
    times on same route I get almost perfect tracks with different weather and satellite configs. And
    then there's some routes...

    FWIW, I snowshoe ran/walked with a sheep gps collar strapped to my camelbak awhile ago - testing it
    for a colleague at work. Simple out/back, and came back in my same snowshoe tracks. When they
    downloaded it and overlaid it on an aerial image, it was matched up almost perfectly - within a
    couple feet (probably less than width of vehicle). The points were taken every second, and it
    surprised the heck out of me how consistent the path and spacing was, given the blips I've had with
    my gps (12xl, etrex vista) along the same trail on some days.

    And no, the sheep one doesn't come equipped with buttons and screen, but the one for goats, esp.
    those wearing screw shoes, does 😉

    Dot

    --
    "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

  6. I don't need GPS. I usually know where I'm at at any given moment.

  7. I have the Timex and recently picked up a Garmin.

    There are several local loops that I have measured many times with the Timex. One of which has
    measured very close to 9.23 (perhaps varying 1 or 2 100th of a mile). With the Garmin I have run it
    twice and gotten
    9.39 each time, a difference of 1.8%. And this is typical for the other loops.

    I went to the track and ran a 10k (25 laps) at the local high school to do a comparison and check
    accuracy wearing both. No nearby trees or buildings, the sky was overcast with high clouds.

    A 10K is 6.21 miles, the Timex measured 6.24 for an accuracy of
    10.52%. The Garmin measured 6.55 for an accuracy of 94.5%. The Garmin consistently has measured
    higher than the Timex but this was exceptionally far off. Perhaps it was due to interference
    from wearing both units or it may not handle an oval track as well where it must switch
    satellites all the time.

    For what it's worth I have run two marathons with the Timex and measured 26.36 and 26.41. An
    accurate certified course would be 26.25 including the .1% margin that is added to the distance.
    Given that a certified course measures the shortest possible line thru corners and such (which isn't
    normally practical to run) I would say these were quite accurate.

    It would be interesting for other runners who own a Garmin and/or Timex to do a 10K on the track and
    follow up with a post of your results.

  8. Thanks to several responders for excellent advice and suggestions. In particular I plan to borrow my
    brother-in-law's "real" GPS unit and see how many satellite contacts I am getting (the Forerunner
    does not report this). Based on the feedback I suspect I might just be getting too few signals for
    good accuracy.

    Another piece of data I didn't mention that supports this hypothesis: for four laps around the same
    2-mile loop (2.05 by cyclocomputer), I get distances of: 1.85, 2.04, 1.83, 1.88 miles. Not much
    winding around, almost no trees.

    Regarding the pace setting, I have tried each of them. Different results at each setting, certainly,
    but none of them very accurate.

    Thanks again, Ron

  9. Not to go off-topic, but my watch does not have a speed or average speed function. At least it
    wasn't in the list of functions to choose in the custom setup. Anyone else?

  10. glenn <[email hidden]> wrote in news:fte340hfai4p5gm7npk1746q3rlg293tn8@
    4ax.com:

    Quoted message said:

    Not to go off-topic, but my watch does not have a speed or average speed function. At least it
    wasn't in the list of functions to choose in the custom setup. Anyone else?

    Are you wanting average speed, as in miles per hour, or average pace, as in minutes per mile? You
    can't have both at the same time. Maybe Garmin will add this feature on a future firmware update.

    If you want average speed: Go to settings>> set units>> pace (running)>> change to speed (biking) On
    the main screen you will see time, speed, and distance.

    You can set the custom page now for average speed. Although I don't see the need for this, since it
    is already on the main screen.

    Phil

    --A wise man thinks before he speaks what he ought to say; the fool speaks and thinks afterwards
    what he has said. -French proverb

  11. You need to go to the settings menu and on the units menu you should be able to change from the
    running mode which shows pace to the biking mode which shows speed. You also probably need to
    upgrade the firmware to 3.10 which has the new bike speed function. Go to the garmin site and get
    the firmware if you need it.

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

    Quoted message said:

    Not to go off-topic, but my watch does not have a speed or average speed function. At least it
    wasn't in the list of functions to choose in the custom setup. Anyone else?

  12. Ron said:


    Thanks to several responders for excellent advice and suggestions. In particular I plan to borrow
    my brother-in-law's "real" GPS unit and see how many satellite contacts I am getting (the
    Forerunner does not report this). Based on the feedback I suspect I might just be getting too few
    signals for good accuracy.

    Another piece of data I didn't mention that supports this hypothesis: for four laps around the same
    2-mile loop (2.05 by cyclocomputer), I get distances of: 1.85, 2.04, 1.83, 1.88 miles. Not much
    winding around, almost no trees.

    Regarding the pace setting, I have tried each of them. Different results at each setting,
    certainly, but none of them very accurate.

    Thanks again, Ron

    I have been using the 201 for a month now and have never had a problem with it. Yes, you
    occassionally get a wierd reading for a few seconds but nothing not explainable by gps errors. I
    have a measured 5k loop which the garmin says is 3.12 miles and a 7 mile (measured using Autoroute)
    which the garmin says is 6.85 miles. Each time I run them I get exactly the same distances. I live
    by the sea in a flat area with no tree which might help 🙂

    When you first configure the 201 it's best to do it indoors. Wait until it gets confused and asks
    you if you are indoors and say "no". It'll then ask you if you have moved location recently. Then go
    outside to a clear sky and say yes and leave it for at least 20 minutes. It'll download new
    satellite data for every satellite it sees. Don't move it when it says it is complete as it only
    needs four satellites for that. Wait much longer so it can find as many as possible. Unfortunately
    there is no satellites display like on proper gps devices so the longer you leave it the better.

    One variable that can affect the accuracy is running hills. If the gps can only lock onto three
    satellites it can only get a two dimensional fix. It needs four to account for altitude.

  13. Ron <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    anybody else have problems?

    Yes, which ones do you want to hear about first? Substance abuse to

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.