In my ever increasing quest to run where I can't be seen, (and therefore where I can't measure out in the car), I have decided to invest in a _colin type thingy.
Does anyone have any recommendations?
Andy since you dangled one in my face before cruelly snatching it away, do you have a link which shows the spec of yours? I'm happy that if you're satisfied with what yours does then it'll be good enough for me.
Oh god, I feel terrible now. Slightly terrible, anyway.
There are various gadgets that will tell you how far you've run. I like the GPS ones, and there are two sorts that I know of: the TImex and the Garmin Forerunner.
I am/was happy with both. The Timex I had was the original one. THe new 'Bodylink' system includes heart rate monitor and is generally a higher spec than the old one. This is the one that Ian Painter uses, and as far as I know he and others I've read about on the Runners World forum are pretty happy with it.
The main negative is that you wear a separate arm transceiver, but there are a lot of features. I'm not sure what they are these days, to be honest, but I'm sure a trip to the Timex website will tell you all.
The Forerunner is great too, with everything contained in one wrist unit. Main negative compared with the Timex is that it doesn't contain a HRM, but it has some other nice features that I like, eg the 'virtual partner' that allows you to run against yourself. Also, can integrate with maps so that you come home, connect it to your PC and see your route on an OS map. (You have to buy the maps separately but they're not expensive.)
Best thing to do is to read the RW Gear forum where there's a lot of correspondence about all these gadgets. My personal view is that I prefer the Forerunner, but only because I'm not too bothered about having a HRM (perhaps I should be), and I prefer not to have the extra arm unit.
On the other hand, if you don't have a HRM the Timex looks like a good value package. It just depends on your needs. Before you check the RW forum you may want to see the respective websites which will give you the lowdown on latest features.
Last time I looked, the Garmin was cheaper but best thing is to check Ebay for any 'Buy Now' offers ie new equipment but imported. Or generally scout around. Avoid just buying one from a running shop. You can probably save 50%-ish by doing some research.
El Gordo
Great things are done when men and mountains meet.
I've had my Forerunner for about a month now and think it's really great. Not had any problems with it (yet) and it's dead easy to use. I find the slow pace alarm pretty good but it can be really annoying after a while when it is forever telling you you're going too slow. Can't compare it with any others 'cos I know nothing about them.
I've read here on this site and elsewhere the odd posting where these devices occasionally let you down, mostly it seems when they lose (or can't find to begin with) the satellites.
My question to the panel is this: given that they do occasionally fail in an obvious way, can you be sure they are accurate at all? Are they continuously struggling to find satellites and relying on guesswork to give you results?
I ask myself the same questions about my HRM. How can I be sure the damn thing is accurate? Should I buy shares in Garmin, Timex and Polar on the basis that gullibility is profitable, or do these beasts actually have some value?
They do occasionally fail, particularly in city centres, surrounded by high buildings, or under thick tree cover.
However, the GPS works out how far you've gone by measuring a straight line from the last reading. This is fine if you've travelled in a straight line since the point where the signal is lost. Not so good if you've been zig-zagging round.
The reality is that the great majority of GPS failures are short-lived, so you don't get much distortion in the figures. Most running places don't cause any problems. If people do normally run next to tall buildings, or through thick forest, I suppose the best advice may be not to use a GPS at all. Find some other measuring device.
As for their accuracy, this can be tested pretty easily by using them in races, or for distances that you know for sure are accurate (like on a track). Bath Half marathon, mine said 13.31 but Nigel's, I seem to recall, was 13.13. Copenhagen marathon, mine said 26.7. Given it was a really mazy urban marathon, I'd say that is acceptable. I used it for a 10K where it came out at exactly 6.2.
So the accuracy is pretty good on the whole.
I'd have thought a HRM was accurate as it's directly measuring your heartbeat. But this can be tested easily enough I guess by just taking your pulse, though perhaps not easy while actually running.
What a helpful answer, eh?
El Gordo
Great things are done when men and mountains meet.
Have done a bit more research now. What model do you have Andy and YP, 101 or 201?
Unit looks pretty cumbersome to wear, but I guess it's quite light.
At least I've decided that I'm not interested in a HRM, as I can usually tell when I'm just about to burst a blood vessel, and having a heart rate too low when running is just not possible!
I have the 201. I think the 101 is a slightly cut-down version.
It's not really cumbersome at all. In terms of size I suppose it's like wearing a watch that's the width of two faces. Weight is negligible. Honestly, you don't notice it's there. I prefer it to the Timex arm attachment, though in fairness you also don't notice that once you get going. But it's just one more piece of equipment to lose.
The Timex is an admirable bit of kit, but if a HRM isn't important to you, I'd go with the Forerunner.
El Gordo
Great things are done when men and mountains meet.
Go for the 201, SP. It's worth it so you can download the data.
The accuracy is pretty good. One regular sortalong run of mine has varied from 7.42 to 7.57 miles - plus/minus 1% or so.
In London, I gained an extra half mile in the early stages of the race, perhaps because it was difficult to run a tight line amidst the crowds.
Then I lost this extra distance in a short period around Canary Wharf Tower, where the Forerunner had me jumping temporarily to 2 500'. Since the only Superman-type leaps that day were a couple of brief dashes for the bushes (visible as spikes in the pace plot), I'd guess that was a multiple reflection problem from the high buildings. The final mileage recorded was 26.18 miles.
You can see the faster first 3 miles, all downhill, then a more or less even-paced section before the loss of signal at Canary Wharf around 17 miles. After that my performance steadily deteriorated beyond Mile 20, before a short but emotional final sprint up The Mall to the finish.
In Blackpool, there were no such problems with crowds, bushes or buildings, and the final distance was 26.21 miles. Don't worry, I ran the extra 17.6 yards anyway, just in case.....
No run today, but I did 2.29 miles in 44.41 minutes at an average speed of 3.1 miles per hour on a dog walk!
Up early for a weekend longee tomorrow. Can't wait in a geeky sort of way.
p.s My dog's fairly nippy and loves running after tennis balls I whack for her with a tennis racquet. Hmmm.......might attach the jobbie to her collar!!
Well there you go - HRM's do have the odd glitch as well. My HRM (Polar S210 for the geeks out there) proudly announced that on the hill climb leg of my run, I managed (momentarily) a pulse rate of a staggering 237, or 133% of my maximum HR! Pleased to announce that while I was pushing it just a tad, I didn't have a coronary or anything remotely worrying.
Just as well these things aren't satellite linked to the nearest ambo base.
Maybe one day I'll buy a Garmin, for the moment though I'll allow the terrible exchange rate to work in my favour by keeping my impulses in check.
Great toy, this Garmin jobbie. Only problem I had on returning from my maiden run was my house had "sunk" a few feet into the ground! (Elevation was lower at start/finish than at finish start...)
before cruelly snatching it away, do you have a link which shows the spec of yours? I'm happy that if you're satisfied with what yours does then it'll be good enough for me.
