Timex Bodylink vs Garmin Forerunner

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

Quoted message said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would like
something to measure the distance travelled on streets so
I can compare it to distances on the track or treadmill.

Thanks,

Jim

Personally, I am unhappy with the Timex BodyLink. I find the
GPS is completely unreliable and bulky. It was alot of money
and I consider it worthless, except for the heart rate
funcion and takin splits, both of which can be done for well
under the pricey price tag. It is possible that this is due
to satellite availability in my area (South Florida).
Customer servie people were nice (via E-mail) and sent a new
unit and suggested slecting the "smoothing" option. It is
wrong more than it is right. One look and it says 8:oo
running pace--en seconds later it has you at 12:00 pace,
then it will shut off after "searching " for a dropped
satellite. This is on a cloudless day on totally unshaded
streets/sidewalks.

Greg

I don`t know about the Timex, but I am very , very happy
with my Garmin
201.Awesome perfomance Check this link for a discussion on
the topic: letsrun.comflat read.phpOpen ↗
oard=1&id=297494&thread=297494 Good luck!

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

Quoted message said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would like
something to measure the distance travelled on streets so
I can compare it to distances on the track or treadmill.

Thanks,

Jim

I second the great performance on the Garmin! They have
fantastic customer support,and take your suggestions and
possible improvements seriously.

Jim said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would like
something to measure the distance travelled on streets so I
can compare it to distances on the track or treadmill.

Thanks,

Jim

I had the Timex gps then upgraded to the Bodylink as soon as
it came out. I found it bulky (gps unit on the arm) and
annoying - the hrm never worked and gps unit constantly
dropped the signal. Timex even sent me a second unit as a
replacement and I had the same problems.

I had been using a Polar 810 with no problems at all in
getting a signal. I live in Arizona and contrary to popular
belief you can work up a sweat here. When I switched to the
Timex when I'd get really sweaty the hrm would go blank.
When I got caught in the rain, same problem.

I used the Timex Bodylink for a marathon last January and it
did what I'd gotten used to it doing on my long runs - it
added about 1/2 mile randomly about 13 miles into the race.
Very annoying.

I then got a Forerunner when it first came out. I find it
much more accurate than the Timex; it never adds mileage
to my runs; it stores like 2 years of runs internally,
complete with lap splits, maps, etc.; you can switch the
display screens (3 lines per screen) and one it
completely customizable; it fits on one wrist; it runs on
a built-in rechargeable battery; the battery charger is
also the pc uplink.

I can't rave enough about the Forerunner compared with the
Timex. Other than the hrm function, I can't think of one
thing the Timex does as well as the Forerunner.

Jim said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would like
something to measure the distance travelled on streets so
I can compare it to distances on the track or treadmill.

Thanks,

Jim

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

Quoted message said:

Jim <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would
like something to measure the distance travelled on
streets so I can compare it to distances on the track or
treadmill.

I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
measurement. Mine is consistently about .3 miles off in
about a 3.8xx mile course as measured both by car and
mapping software. The car was "calibrated" against two miles
of highway markers at the same speed the course was driven.

Brian Henry <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<y4jAc.1619$5t2.371@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

I had the Timex gps then upgraded to the Bodylink as soon
as it came out. I found it bulky (gps unit on the arm) and
annoying - the hrm never worked and gps unit constantly
dropped the signal. Timex even sent me a second unit as a
replacement and I had the same problems.

I had been using a Polar 810 with no problems at all in
getting a signal. I live in Arizona and contrary to
popular belief you can work up a sweat here. When I
switched to the Timex when I'd get really sweaty the hrm
would go blank. When I got caught in the rain, same
problem.

I used the Timex Bodylink for a marathon last January and
it did what I'd gotten used to it doing on my long runs -
it added about 1/2 mile randomly about 13 miles into the
race. Very annoying.

I then got a Forerunner when it first came out. I find it
much more accurate than the Timex; it never adds mileage
to my runs; it stores like 2 years of runs internally,
complete with lap splits, maps, etc.; you can switch the
display screens (3 lines per screen) and one it
completely customizable; it fits on one wrist; it runs on
a built-in rechargeable battery; the battery charger is
also the pc uplink.

I can't rave enough about the Forerunner compared with the
Timex. Other than the hrm function, I can't think of one
thing the Timex does as well as the Forerunner.

Jim said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would
like something to measure the distance travelled on
streets so I can compare it to distances on the track or
treadmill.

Thanks,

Jim

Timex has offered to replace the Unit with the newer GPS
Unit made for them by Navman. It looks different in the
pictures, and the press releases indicate that it is
supposed to be more accurate. although you never get the
satisfaction of someone saying "Oh, yeah--those were lousey,
but we've fixed it". I will probably have it in a few days,
if you can wait for me to test it.

Greg

The Garmin has much better (and more) features and better
software (PC and embedded) than the Timex... by far.

--
Nova Scotia, Canada

Mike Painter said:

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

Quoted message said:

Jim <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would
like something to measure the distance travelled on
streets so I can compare it to distances on the track or
treadmill.

I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
measurement. Mine is consistently about .3 miles off in
about a 3.8xx mile course as measured both by car and
mapping software. The car was "calibrated" against two
miles of highway markers at the same speed the course
was driven.

Is this course flat? I think the GPS just measures the angle
the satellite sees you move across the earth's surface. It
can tell if you move towards (or away from) a satellite -
like climb a big hill.

HTH, Steve = : ^ )

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Painter said:

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

Quoted message said:

Jim <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> I would appreciate any opinions from users of the
> Timex Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I
> would like something to measure the distance travelled
> on streets so I can compare it to distances on the
> track or treadmill.
>

I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
measurement. Mine

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

consistently about .3 miles off in about a 3.8xx mile
course as measured both by car and mapping software. The
car was "calibrated" against two

miles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of highway markers at the same speed the course was
driven.

Is this course flat? I think the GPS just measures the
angle the satellite sees you move across the earth's
surface. It can tell if you move towards (or away from) a
satellite - like climb a big hill.

It's flat and under clear sky most of it.

The satalitte does not measure an angle. You need three of
them (actually four but the software cheats.) to determine
where you are and it is the GPS unit that does the
calculations, not the satellite. Big units with good
antennas are precise enough to do surveying work but mine
does not seem to be.

(Ironic) said:

Brian Henry <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<y4jAc.1619$5t2.371@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

I had the Timex gps then upgraded to the Bodylink as soon
as it came out. I found it bulky (gps unit on the arm)
and annoying - the hrm never worked and gps unit
constantly dropped the signal. Timex even sent me a
second unit as a replacement and I had the same problems.

I had been using a Polar 810 with no problems at all in
getting a signal. I live in Arizona and contrary to
popular belief you can work up a sweat here. When I
switched to the Timex when I'd get really sweaty the hrm
would go blank. When I got caught in the rain, same
problem.

I used the Timex Bodylink for a marathon last January and
it did what I'd gotten used to it doing on my long runs -
it added about 1/2 mile randomly about 13 miles into the
race. Very annoying.

I then got a Forerunner when it first came out. I find it
much more accurate than the Timex; it never adds mileage
to my runs; it stores like 2 years of runs internally,
complete with lap splits, maps, etc.; you can switch the
display screens (3 lines per screen) and one it
completely customizable; it fits on one wrist; it runs on
a built-in rechargeable battery; the battery charger is
also the pc uplink.

I can't rave enough about the Forerunner compared with
the Timex. Other than the hrm function, I can't think of
one thing the Timex does as well as the Forerunner.

Jim said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would
like something to measure the distance travelled on
streets so I can compare it to distances on the track
or treadmill.

Thanks,

Jim

Timex has offered to replace the Unit with the newer GPS
Unit made for them by Navman. It looks different in the
pictures, and the press releases indicate that it is
supposed to be more accurate. although you never get the
satisfaction of someone saying "Oh, yeah--those were
lousey, but we've fixed it". I will probably have it in a
few days, if you can wait for me to test it.

Greg

Sure. I'd be interested in what you think of the new unit.

Very informative responses from all contributors to this
thread so far. Anyone else who's used any of these various
GPS units feel free to chime in.

Jim

Hi David....Halifax here.

David said:

The Garmin has much better (and more) features and better
software (PC and embedded) than the Timex... by far.

--
Nova Scotia, Canada

I read a review recently from a guy who has used both.
Hopefully someone else can point to the article.

The downside to the Timex to me is that it is 2 pieces, more
costly and I just do not like the idea of having something
around my upper arm while I run.

Got the Forerunner 201--no regrets so far. "Jim"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the Timex
Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I would like
something to measure the distance travelled on streets so
I can compare it to distances on the track or treadmill.

Thanks,

Jim

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Jim <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would appreciate any opinions from users of the
Timex Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I
would like something to measure the distance travelled
on streets so I can compare it to distances on the
track or treadmill.

I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
measurement. Mine is consistently about .3 miles off in
about a 3.8xx mile course as measured both by car and
mapping software. The car was "calibrated" against two

miles

Quoted message said:

of highway markers at the same speed the course was
driven.

Are you sure highway markers are accurate?

Are you running the exact same path as the car is driving?

Could the mapping software be off? You are assuming it is
100% accurate.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Jim <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> I would appreciate any opinions from users of the
> Timex Bodylink or the Garmin Forerunner GPS units. I
> would like something to measure the distance
> travelled on streets so I can compare it to
> distances

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the track or treadmill.
>

I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
measurement. Mine

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

consistently about .3 miles off in about a 3.8xx mile
course as measured both by car and mapping software. The
car was "calibrated" against two

miles

Quoted message said:

of highway markers at the same speed the course was
driven.

Are you sure highway markers are accurate?

They are very accurate. A run of five or ten at 60 mph agree
both in time and odomotor reading.

Quoted message said:

Are you running the exact same path as the car is driving?

For all practical purposes, yes, left hand turns are not as
close to right hand turns but there are are only four of
them out of a total of eight. They don't differ from what I
walk by almost three tenths of a mile and the GPS reports
essentially the same distance walking or driving.

Quoted message said:

Could the mapping software be off? You are assuming it is
100% accurate.

I am assuming it is not off by a large margin. It is almost
certain that it came from surveys, it also places addresses
very close to the correct location

Quoted message said:

The software agrees with several other brands, as well as
with the mileage markers. When 2 out of 3 things agree, in
the lack of other evidence, it is safe to assume the third
one is wrong.

Mike Painter said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
measurement. Mine is consistently about .3 miles off in
about a 3.8xx mile course as measured both by car and
mapping software. The car was "calibrated" against two
miles of highway markers at the same speed the course
was driven.

Are you sure highway markers are accurate?

They are very accurate. A run of five or ten at 60 mph
agree both in time and odomotor reading.

Since the car was "calibrated" against the highway
markers, you don't know that the highway markers are
accurate. If I calibrate X against Y, then Y will for the
most part agree with X.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could the mapping software be off? You are assuming it is
100% accurate.

I am assuming it is not off by a large margin. It is
almost certain that it came from surveys, it also places
addresses very close to the correct location

Quoted message said:

The software agrees with several other brands,

But there are relatively few sources of data for these
software packages, so this "agreement" could in fact amount
to a single data source agreeing with itself.

Quoted message said:

as well as with the mileage markers. When 2 out of 3
things agree, in the lack of other evidence, it is safe to
assume the third one is wrong.

Only if you assume that all three pieces of evidence have
equal weight. That is not in general (or in this instance) a
good assumption.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

I read a review recently from a guy who has used both.
Hopefully someone else can point to the article.

This one from me? groups.google.comgroupsOpen ↗
cansd4.21i.paul%40strut.sbrk.co.uk

BTW the S625X is out, discussion here: runner-runner-Open ↗
sworld.co.uk/forum/forummessages.asp?dt=1&UTN=39571&last-
=1&V=6&SP=

Paul

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Painter said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
> measurement.

Mine

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> is consistently about .3 miles off in about a 3.8xx
> mile course as

measured

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> both by car and mapping software. The car was
> "calibrated" against

two

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> miles of highway markers at the same speed the course
> was driven.

Are you sure highway markers are accurate?

They are very accurate. A run of five or ten at 60 mph
agree both in

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and odomotor reading.

Since the car was "calibrated" against the highway
markers, you don't know

that

Quoted message said:

the highway markers are accurate. If I calibrate X against
Y, then Y will

for the

Quoted message said:

most part agree with X.

Don't be silly If I drive for x minutes at 60 miles per hour
and my odomoter says I have traveled x mile and the mileage
markers say I have covered x miles then I have traveled x
miles. s = vt.

Even if there was any validity in your argument you are
saying that all highway mileage markers on all the roads I
travel are off by the same amount yet match my odomoter for
almost any distance I measure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could the mapping software be off? You are assuming it
is 100%

accurate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am assuming it is not off by a large margin. It is
almost certain that

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

came from surveys, it also places addresses very close
to the correct location

Quoted message said:

The software agrees with several other brands,

But there are relatively few sources of data for these
software packages,

so this

Quoted message said:

"agreement" could in fact amount to a single data source
agreeing with

itself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as well as with the mileage markers. When 2 out of 3
things agree, in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lack of other evidence, it is safe to assume the third
one is wrong.

Only if you assume that all three pieces of evidence have
equal weight.

That is

Quoted message said:

not in general (or in this instance) a good assumption.

It is a very good assumption. I asume that $5,000.00 plus
GPS systems that are used in surveying are more accurate
than $100.00 units with small antennas. I am certain that 60
mph is one mile in one minute and that my watch which looses
less than 15 seconds in six months is accurate and precise.
Therefore my odomoter which agrees with both time and
markers is accurate I am assuming that if my house and the
house of my friend 10 miles away show up on the map where
they should then the map is accurate.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Mike Painter said:

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

Quoted message said:

Mike Painter said:

> > I'm a bit suspect of GPS in this format for accurate
> > measurement.

Mine

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > is consistently about .3 miles off in about a 3.8xx
> > mile course as

measured

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > both by car and mapping software. The car was
> > "calibrated" against

two

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > miles of highway markers at the same speed the
> > course was driven.
>
> Are you sure highway markers are accurate?
They are very accurate. A run of five or ten at 60 mph
agree both in

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and odomotor reading.

Since the car was "calibrated" against the highway
markers, you don't know

that

Quoted message said:

the highway markers are accurate. If I calibrate X
against Y, then Y will

for the

Quoted message said:

most part agree with X.

Don't be silly If I drive for x minutes at 60 miles per
hour and my odomoter says I have traveled x mile and the
mileage markers say I have covered x miles then I have
traveled x miles. s = vt.

Even if there was any validity in your argument you are
saying that all highway mileage markers on all the roads I
travel are off by the same amount yet match my odomoter
for almost any distance I measure.

Part of the problem is that I wasn't actually clear on what
you were saying (you simply weren't very clear). If you find
the odometer consistent across a large number of highway
markers in different locations, with different tire
pressures, then at least your odometer is accurate under
those conditions. But keep in mind that the accuracy of your
odometer could be influenced by several variables (corners,
terrain, etc)

Quoted message said:

It is a very good assumption. I asume that $5,000.00 plus
GPS systems that are used in surveying are more accurate
than $100.00 units with small antennas.

That may be the case, but it does not follow that popular
maps can consistently beat a small GPS unit. If you want to
familiarise yourself with the accuracy of popular mapping
software, google some of the GPS units.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Sam said:

Are you sure highway markers are accurate?

On most highways, the mile markers are very accurate. The
sign locations are set by surveyors, according to the
plan. So they are normally accurate within about a tenth
of a foot.

The state wants to be sure that it gets _exactly_ the amount
of road that it orders and pays for. <g>

Of course, the road miles are surveyed down the centerline.
If you run/walk/bike some other path (such as the
'shortest' path) then you could actually run less distance.
But the difference (for each time you cross from left-to-
right or right-to-left) would normally be much less than
the width of the road.

Steve