[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Scott Williams <
[email protected]> wrote:
>> VITOdelapata wrote:
>>> All of my runs involve hills and mountains. There are very few flat spots to run. I measure
>>> out certain distances with my car, 12, 15 and 20 miles but would like a more accurate way to
>>> do this.
>>
>> Important bit of info there. A GPS unit requires 4 signals to give you credit for altitude gained
>> or lost. Based on measurements I've taken with my Timex, I'm thinking that it only catches 3
>> signals, as I come up short on distance for my hilly workouts, and I'm a flatlander. It seems to
>> be remarkably consistent with my cyclometer (which is pretty accurate) on the flats.
>>
>> I'd be curious to know, in fact, how many signals the Timex uses.
>
> I've heard three. That's anecdotal, however.
>
> I keep eyeing the Garmin Forerunner 201 though, the price and accuracy is pretty appealing.
Three is correct. I bought the Garmin Forerunner 201 a few weeks ago for $124 at Amazon.com. So far,
I love it. It's probably within 20 feet accuracy (just a guess, havn't tested this). The only thing
that isn't as accurate is the "real time" measurment, such as current pace or speed and hill grade.
In order to get a good reading on pace, you should only look at your average pace, or your lap pace.
I have mine set to count a lap every mile, so this is pretty accurate. A few times it had trouble
picking up a signal at the start of my run, so it wasn't logging any miles for a while, just elapsed
time. Now I'm careful to make sure it has a signal before I start my run. But the pleasure of not
having to measure my routes is pretty neat. Just head out the door and run anywhere.
-Phil