R
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
Dot
Guest
reggiefu wrote:
> Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
>
> --
better for what? How do you intend to use it and for what goals?
Dot
--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
> Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
>
> --
better for what? How do you intend to use it and for what goals?
Dot
--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
D
Donovan Rebbechi
Guest
On 2005-07-04, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
The Timex is a better boat anchor, the Garmin is a better doorstop.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
> Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
The Timex is a better boat anchor, the Garmin is a better doorstop.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
R
reggiefu
Guest
So, Donovan, you dislike each of them differently? What would you
suggest as a better alternative? I want the HRM and have used Polar for
years, but have never used a GPS and would like to incorporate that.
In article <[email protected]>, Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-07-04, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
>
> The Timex is a better boat anchor, the Garmin is a better doorstop.
>
> Cheers,
suggest as a better alternative? I want the HRM and have used Polar for
years, but have never used a GPS and would like to incorporate that.
In article <[email protected]>, Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-07-04, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
>
> The Timex is a better boat anchor, the Garmin is a better doorstop.
>
> Cheers,
R
reggiefu
Guest
I would use it for some running and cycling but mostly inline
speedskating so I want to track and graph heartrate date and also the
corresponding speed over various courses. I have been a Polar user for
years.
In article
<[email protected]>, Dot
<dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
> reggiefu wrote:
>
> > Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
> >
> > --
>
> better for what? How do you intend to use it and for what goals?
>
> Dot
speedskating so I want to track and graph heartrate date and also the
corresponding speed over various courses. I have been a Polar user for
years.
In article
<[email protected]>, Dot
<dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
> reggiefu wrote:
>
> > Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
> >
> > --
>
> better for what? How do you intend to use it and for what goals?
>
> Dot
D
Donovan Rebbechi
Guest
On 2005-07-05, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, Donovan, you dislike each of them differently?
No, about the same.
A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods. It will
also give you a reasonable estimate of total distance travelled. It
is nowhere near accurate enough to measure a course for the purpose
of time-trialing, or to get a satisfactory estimate on how fast you're
going. For example, for the purpose of logging mileage, you don't
really care if the unit reads 10.2 miles instead of 10.0. But for the
purpose of measuring pace, that's about a 7-10 second/mile difference,
quite significant.
Since you have a bike, get a bike computer and use that. You will get
better measurements than you would with a GPS (in fact they use bike
odometers to certify road race courses.)
> What would you suggest as a better alternative?
Use the bike odometer.
If you want to be really, really accurate (as good as a certified
course), take a look at this website:
http://home.earthlink.net/~caverhall/newrevcounter/abstractcontents.htm
> I want the HRM and have used Polar
> for years, but have never used a GPS and would like to incorporate
> that.
Don't see how it would help you. Unless you're running wooded trails
and are concerned about getting lost, that is. The 'P' in GPS does not
stand for 'speed' or 'velocity'. The technology was never intended to
be very effective for instantaneous pace readouts, in fact it's not
even that great for average pace.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
> So, Donovan, you dislike each of them differently?
No, about the same.
A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods. It will
also give you a reasonable estimate of total distance travelled. It
is nowhere near accurate enough to measure a course for the purpose
of time-trialing, or to get a satisfactory estimate on how fast you're
going. For example, for the purpose of logging mileage, you don't
really care if the unit reads 10.2 miles instead of 10.0. But for the
purpose of measuring pace, that's about a 7-10 second/mile difference,
quite significant.
Since you have a bike, get a bike computer and use that. You will get
better measurements than you would with a GPS (in fact they use bike
odometers to certify road race courses.)
> What would you suggest as a better alternative?
Use the bike odometer.
If you want to be really, really accurate (as good as a certified
course), take a look at this website:
http://home.earthlink.net/~caverhall/newrevcounter/abstractcontents.htm
> I want the HRM and have used Polar
> for years, but have never used a GPS and would like to incorporate
> that.
Don't see how it would help you. Unless you're running wooded trails
and are concerned about getting lost, that is. The 'P' in GPS does not
stand for 'speed' or 'velocity'. The technology was never intended to
be very effective for instantaneous pace readouts, in fact it's not
even that great for average pace.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
R
reggiefu
Guest
Thanks for the explanation, Donovan. appreciate that. My intention was
to use a Garmin or a Timex for the different long distance inline
skating courses we do. Most of the time, we have cyclists with
computers log the mileage anyway.
Mark
In article <[email protected]>, Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-07-05, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, Donovan, you dislike each of them differently?
>
> No, about the same.
>
> A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods. It will
> also give you a reasonable estimate of total distance travelled. It
> is nowhere near accurate enough to measure a course for the purpose
> of time-trialing, or to get a satisfactory estimate on how fast you're
> going. For example, for the purpose of logging mileage, you don't
> really care if the unit reads 10.2 miles instead of 10.0. But for the
> purpose of measuring pace, that's about a 7-10 second/mile difference,
> quite significant.
>
> Since you have a bike, get a bike computer and use that. You will get
> better measurements than you would with a GPS (in fact they use bike
> odometers to certify road race courses.)
>
> > What would you suggest as a better alternative?
>
> Use the bike odometer.
>
> If you want to be really, really accurate (as good as a certified
> course), take a look at this website:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~caverhall/newrevcounter/abstractcontents.htm
>
> > I want the HRM and have used Polar
> > for years, but have never used a GPS and would like to incorporate
> > that.
>
> Don't see how it would help you. Unless you're running wooded trails
> and are concerned about getting lost, that is. The 'P' in GPS does not
> stand for 'speed' or 'velocity'. The technology was never intended to
> be very effective for instantaneous pace readouts, in fact it's not
> even that great for average pace.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
to use a Garmin or a Timex for the different long distance inline
skating courses we do. Most of the time, we have cyclists with
computers log the mileage anyway.
Mark
In article <[email protected]>, Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-07-05, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, Donovan, you dislike each of them differently?
>
> No, about the same.
>
> A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods. It will
> also give you a reasonable estimate of total distance travelled. It
> is nowhere near accurate enough to measure a course for the purpose
> of time-trialing, or to get a satisfactory estimate on how fast you're
> going. For example, for the purpose of logging mileage, you don't
> really care if the unit reads 10.2 miles instead of 10.0. But for the
> purpose of measuring pace, that's about a 7-10 second/mile difference,
> quite significant.
>
> Since you have a bike, get a bike computer and use that. You will get
> better measurements than you would with a GPS (in fact they use bike
> odometers to certify road race courses.)
>
> > What would you suggest as a better alternative?
>
> Use the bike odometer.
>
> If you want to be really, really accurate (as good as a certified
> course), take a look at this website:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~caverhall/newrevcounter/abstractcontents.htm
>
> > I want the HRM and have used Polar
> > for years, but have never used a GPS and would like to incorporate
> > that.
>
> Don't see how it would help you. Unless you're running wooded trails
> and are concerned about getting lost, that is. The 'P' in GPS does not
> stand for 'speed' or 'velocity'. The technology was never intended to
> be very effective for instantaneous pace readouts, in fact it's not
> even that great for average pace.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
B
Bumper
Guest
As usual your advice is totally useless. The Timex is plastic and
floats, the first requirement of a boat anchor is to sink to the bottom
and snag same. Likewise the Garmin is too light to serve as a doorstop,
lest you wedged it between the floor and the bottom of the door. Could
this obsession with keeping the door open come from your having been
locked out at the finish line by the "running" Lance?
A better use of these units would be for you to hold the Timex in your
left hand and the Garmin in your right, which would preclude your being
able to post these troll responses to the group.
Beers,
Ba da Bing, Ba da Bump
Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-07-04, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
>
> The Timex is a better boat anchor, the Garmin is a better doorstop.
>
> Cheers,
floats, the first requirement of a boat anchor is to sink to the bottom
and snag same. Likewise the Garmin is too light to serve as a doorstop,
lest you wedged it between the floor and the bottom of the door. Could
this obsession with keeping the door open come from your having been
locked out at the finish line by the "running" Lance?
A better use of these units would be for you to hold the Timex in your
left hand and the Garmin in your right, which would preclude your being
able to post these troll responses to the group.
Beers,
Ba da Bing, Ba da Bump
Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-07-04, reggiefu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
>
> The Timex is a better boat anchor, the Garmin is a better doorstop.
>
> Cheers,
D
Donovan Rebbechi
Guest
On 2005-07-05, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
> FWIW, I'm using a Polar S625x for running, and the accelerometer works
> reasonably well for a number of conditions - actually far better than I
> anticipated. But it doesn't seem to like steep hills (or doesn't like my
> forward rate of motion doing them so refuses to acknowledge it - may be
Dot -- don't know about the polar, but the fitsense has two calibrations,
one for walking, one for running. If it drops below a certain pace, the
unit "thinks" that you're walking, and switches to the other calibration.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
> FWIW, I'm using a Polar S625x for running, and the accelerometer works
> reasonably well for a number of conditions - actually far better than I
> anticipated. But it doesn't seem to like steep hills (or doesn't like my
> forward rate of motion doing them so refuses to acknowledge it - may be
Dot -- don't know about the polar, but the fitsense has two calibrations,
one for walking, one for running. If it drops below a certain pace, the
unit "thinks" that you're walking, and switches to the other calibration.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
S
steve common
Guest
Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods.
The Timex won't. The only GPS function it has is that it'll give you the
right time from the atomic clocks on the satellites.
>A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods.
The Timex won't. The only GPS function it has is that it'll give you the
right time from the atomic clocks on the satellites.
S
steve common
Guest
Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods.
The Timex won't. The only GPS function it has is that it'll give you the
right time from the atomic clocks on the satellites.
>A GPS will help prevent you from getting lost in the woods.
The Timex won't. The only GPS function it has is that it'll give you the
right time from the atomic clocks on the satellites.
B
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:22:05 -0700, reggiefu <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
I just bought the 301 and I love it. I like the GPS capabilities
because I tend to get lost on back country road while bike riding. I
like the HR for the feedback it gives as to how hard I'm working.
wrote:
>Really trying to determine whiich is the better unit and why. Thanks.
I just bought the 301 and I love it. I like the GPS capabilities
because I tend to get lost on back country road while bike riding. I
like the HR for the feedback it gives as to how hard I'm working.