Runners - Garmin? Polar?

[Slow Reflexes]

Other?

I want a heart rate monitor. I want GPS. I think I want an FT60, but I also don't wanna (can't) spend $350-$500 (with GPS and footpod).

If I could get most of the functionality for under $200, I'd be most pleased. Closer to $100 would be even better.

Any advisement from those with some experience?

[Groovey Records]

save your knees ride a bike


Thats good advice

[68 Shovelhead]

I would like one of these for training myself so I'll be watching this. Obviously Polar is known for making heart rate devices and Garmin is known for GPS technology. I would tend choose Polar, but I have no interest in a GPS on my heart rate monitor. Why would you need that, how far you going on your runs? I train mostly at the gym...

[boomboomba]

Why do you want GPS?

Heart rate monitor, I use a polar, basic model.

I also have a GPS data logger that I use when doing photography. Cheap.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...gger_with.html

Maybe a two part inexpensive solution for you, depends why you need GPS.

[Slow Reflexes]

I don't really "need" GPS, but I always run outside and I'd like to be able to run wherever I feel like going while still knowing how far I've gone.

I do also ride a bike; it's a completely different workout.

My only knock against Polar is that most of them don't have user-replaceable batteries. The FT60 does.

I'll have to consider the two-piece solution - I imagine I'd have to come up with my own data compilation program, though.

[E5RSY]

Originally Posted by Slow Reflexes

I don't really "need" GPS, but I always run outside and I'd like to be able to run wherever I feel like going while still knowing how far I've gone.

Just make your run based on time, then. If I know my normal desired mileage takes me an hour to run, I just go a half-hour out, half-hour back. Doesn't matter where I am.

For planning a new run route somewhere, GoogleEarth is a good scouting tool. It has a nifty measuring tool, too.

I think a GPS for running is extreme overkill.

My 2 centavos.

[Slow Reflexes]

Originally Posted by E5RSY

...GoogleEarth is a good scouting tool. It has a nifty measuring tool, too.

I think a GPS for running is extreme overkill.

My 2 centavos.

Yeah, I understand that. My issue is that I'm tired of having to plot my course out and try to remember exactly where all my mile markers are. I used Google Earth to do exactly that on my usual waterfront path loop, but after a year and a half I'm kinda tired of being locked into that course.

I'm also trying to improve performance - a half-hour run isn't always going to be the same distance, since I don't always run exactly the same speed.

Certainly the heart monitor is the primary thing. I will probably end up with that alone if I can't get the whole package at a palatable price point.

[Slow Reflexes]

Well, after some poking around I've had a revelation: Apparently the "footpod" things are much more than just glorified pedometers. They actually are highly sophisticated multi-axis accelerometers that do an extremely good job of calculating actual distance traveled.

I was more than slightly skeptical until I saw a review/test that had two Garmin units (a 301 and a 205) compared with a footpod-equipped Suunto. The user wore all three at the same time, ran a premeasured course, and while the 301 was woefully inaccurate (due to flaky signal) both the 205 and the Suunto were spot-on.

Other reviews comparing the relative accuracy of footpods vs. GPS have shown that the accelerometer technology is in general significantly more accurate and consistent for measuring distances - so unless you just REALLY want a map, you'll get better results from the non-GPS units.

I was surprised, anyway.... looks like now I just have to determine which of the non-Garmin devices I want.