On 2005-07-06, Dan Stumpus <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> GPS, no. How many top athletes have you heard of using a GPS ? I haven't
>> heard of any.
>
> Well, one of the top ultrarunners out here has one. We ran into each other
> while running, and he showed me the cool features. We run in mountains
> mostly without forest cover, and GPS gives you information about elevation
The elevation information isn't all that accurate. If you get a unit with a
barometric altimeter ($$$), you can get decent readings, but GPS alone is more
or less useless for small climbs (less than 200ft, which applies to most runs
on the road) and merely inaccurate for larger climbs. I suppose if you're doing
700ft+ of climbing (not unrealistic for an ultra runner on trails, but rare on
the roads), the plus or minus 100 feet or so you get on a GPS might be
tolerable if not accurate.
If you're serious about getting accurate altitude measurements, your best bet
is a GPS unit that has these (but it costs)
> and instantaneous
No, it doesn't tell you instantaneous speed. It estimates average speed over a
short distance by subtracting multiple sample points over time. For this reason,
the so-called "instantaneous" pace readings are nowhere near as accurate as
pace readings averaged over a mile or so. The problem is that the distance you
travel in a second or two is less than the resolution of the unit.
> and average speed, as well as distance, and you can upload
> the workouts to some pretty cool software.
As "cool" as that software may be, it's only as good as the data that is
uploaded. It's great if you want to do things that a GPS unit is actually
designed for, such as mapping your routes, or anything else that depends on
a reasonably accurate estimate of *global position* (again, 'P' does not stand for
'pace'! ) but it's not that good for accurate course measurement, or making
an accurate estimate of your velocity.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/