Running Electronics

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Minister Hugo, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Hi All,
    Newbie here. I've been running for a few months and am considering
    picking up some sort of hrm/pedometer/gps system to carry with me. Is
    there a site that any of you can recommend that does
    comparisons/evaluations of this sort of thing from various
    manufacturers and price levels? I'm thinking of something like
    www.dpreview.com (for digital cameras), if that gives you an idea what
    I'm looking for.

    Thanks in advance. Cheers!
     
    Tags:


  2. Why? You don't need it, and they are usually only useful to
    competition, or serious runners.
     
  3. Why not? I guess the important part of my message was "considering".
    The site I'm looking for would ideally give information on who would
    get what out of owning one of these gadgets.

    You suggest I would get nothing out of any of them - duly noted. Any
    other opinions out there? I've seen too many people running with some
    sort of hrm to believe that they are utterly worthless. Perhaps wildly
    overpriced for the benefit, though.

    Cheers!
     
  4. On 2005-07-06, Minister Hugo <[email protected]> wrote:

    > You suggest I would get nothing out of any of them - duly noted. Any
    > other opinions out there?


    A GPS is good for preventing you getting lost in the woods (except the timex
    one, which ironically doesn't display the primary information one gains through
    GPS -- your position). What a GPS is designed for, and what it's good at,
    is telling you where you are, not how fast you're going.

    As far as measuring distances is concerned, there are two primary reasons
    people measure courses:

    (1) for the purpose of logging mileage. In this case, an estimate is
    usually good enough. If you run at an effort level that usually produces
    7:30/mile for 1hr, it's reasonable to put "8 miles" in your log book. If
    you want an objective take on "effort level", you can use also a HRM.

    (2) for the purpose of racing, or measuring distances for interval workouts.
    In this case, you need a very accurate course, because even a 1% error
    is substantial (about 3.5-6 seconds per mile). GPS doesn't cut it, use
    a (preferably calibrated) bike odometer instead.

    > I've seen too many people running with some
    > sort of hrm to believe that they are utterly worthless.


    HRM, maybe. I've heard Alan Culpepper and Bob Kennedy both used heart rate
    monitors.

    GPS, no. How many top athletes have you heard of using a GPS ? I haven't
    heard of any.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  5. True Grit

    True Grit Guest

    >Why not? I guess the important part of my message was "considering".
    The site I'm looking for would ideally give information on who would
    get what out of owning one of these gadgets.>

    Just look at the HUNDREDS of threads that has been on here, and you'll
    see the general consensus agrees with me.


    >You suggest I would get nothing out of any of them - duly noted. Any

    other opinions out there?>

    None that count.

    >I've seen too many people running with some sort of hrm to believe that they are utterly worthless. Perhaps wildly

    overpriced for the benefit, though.>

    So you could tell by looking if they were elite runners, or just
    joggers by looking at them? Amazing.
    Some people like to "look cool" like they are actually doing something,
    this accounts for 40% of the HRM you see. The rest are elites or
    racers, and the remainder are the dorks that try to make something as
    simple as putting one foot in front of the other, as rocket science.
    Spend you money on good shoes, and stop pretending to be"Joe pro".
     
  6. > I've heard Alan Culpepper and Bob Kennedy both used heart rate
    monitors.>

    Yes, two elite runners, just as I said.
     
  7. True Grit

    True Grit Guest

    >Some people like to "look cool" like they are actually doing something>

    And the "nike crowd" is included in that group.
     
  8. Dan Stumpus

    Dan Stumpus Guest

    "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
    and instantaneous and average speed, as well as distance, and you can upload
    the workouts to some pretty cool software.

    There's a new unit (Garmin 301) which has a heart monitor in addition to
    GPS.

    -- Dan
     
  9. 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/
     
  10. In article <[email protected]>, Minister Hugo wrote:
    > Newbie here. I've been running for a few months and am considering
    > picking up some sort of hrm/pedometer/gps system to carry with me. Is
    > there a site that any of you can recommend that does
    > comparisons/evaluations of this sort of thing from various
    > manufacturers and price levels?


    I haven't seen any decent sites giving comparisons, so here's my 2c:

    For distance logging and mapping, I'd go for the forerunner 201. It's
    cheap and fairly light. The timex bodylink doesn't do any mapping and
    you have to strap on all sorts of gizmos to be able to download to
    a PC, and you can't even transfer lap data, never mind positions. If
    you want do add HRM data then either get the 301 or 201 plus a cheap
    Polar or similar, but something that has download capabilities.

    For distance logging and pacing then I think the Suunto t6 is the
    best. I can set a 20s/mile pace window alarm and the alarm hardly
    ever goes off. It also has a barometer so you can get good altitude
    traces and climb/descent logs. It also has a HRM. You might also
    consider the s625x and the triax elite amongst others.

    The downsides of GPS are that you have to wait to get a lock before
    you can start your run, pacing is useless and altitude measurement is
    miserable. You also need a reasonably clear sky view.

    The downside of accelerometers is that you need to calibrate them
    and the calibration factor is usually a function of speed (as well
    as terrain, shoe, etc). I know that makes them sound like a pedometer
    but they're much more usable than those.

    If I'm running a new route I use my 201. For my daily runs I use
    the t6 for hassle free data logging.

    Paul
     
  11. rick++

    rick++ Guest

    I've heard of gizmos at ski resorts that will capture all your
    ski runs for a day, then draw you a map and print a time table.
    It could be nice to have one these for running, capture a month's
    worth, them dump them into a computer.
    It could keep track of the duration, path and speed of your runs.
    I presume they exist for runing, but arent quite
    watch-size yet.
     
  12. True Grit

    True Grit Guest

    >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
    and instantaneous and average speed, as well as distance, and you can
    upload
    the workouts to some pretty cool software.

    There's a new unit (Garmin 301) which has a heart monitor in addition
    to
    GPS.>

    Just as I said "cool toys".
     
  13. Dan Stumpus

    Dan Stumpus Guest

    "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote

    > 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.


    When Guillermo and I talked, we compared elevations (we were about 600' up a
    mountain) and my barometric altimeter watch and his Garmin were within 10'.
    I guess we just got lucky. I've since looked up some stuff, and verified
    that elevation in the inexpensive Garmins can be off by 100' in many cases.
     
  14. Donovan Rebechi's electric buttplug gives great directions. Contact him
    for more info.
     
  15. Thanks for all of your replies. Certainly gives me more to think about
    as I *consider* picking one of these gizmos up.

    BTW, the trolls seem hungry. Luddites.

    Cheers!
     
  16. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Minister Hugo wrote:

    > Thanks for all of your replies. Certainly gives me more to think about
    > as I *consider* picking one of these gizmos up.
    >
    > BTW, the trolls seem hungry. Luddites.


    What trolls? You mean Donovan? Sometimes his harsh tone comes across as
    trolling. I think he means well.

    tkb
     
  17. On 2005-07-07, TenKBabe <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Minister Hugo wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks for all of your replies. Certainly gives me more to think about
    >> as I *consider* picking one of these gizmos up.
    >>
    >> BTW, the trolls seem hungry. Luddites.

    >
    > What trolls? You mean Donovan? Sometimes his harsh tone comes across as
    > trolling. I think he means well.


    Don't know what the state of your killfile is, but I suspect he's talking
    about either "CrabbyBeach", "bagpip", "TrueGrit" or "Lance Armstrong" (who,
    despite the variety of names, are all the same guy)

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  18. > I suspect he's talking about either "CrabbyBeach", "bagpip",
    > "TrueGrit" or "Lance Armstrong" [...] all the same guy


    And all along I've been thinking they were individual dwarves: crabby,
    pippy, gritty, army - and sneezy, grumpy, donnie.
     
  19. The Vicar

    The Vicar Guest

    "Charlie Pendejo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >> I suspect he's talking about either "CrabbyBeach", "bagpip",
    >> "TrueGrit" or "Lance Armstrong" [...] all the same guy

    >
    > And all along I've been thinking they were individual dwarves: crabby,
    > pippy, gritty, army - and sneezy, grumpy, donnie.


    i find they have distinctly different personalities. i think TrueGrit is
    the nasty one. the rest of them are at different levels of sexual
    frustration.

    >
     
Loading...
Loading...