garmin indecision
Replies
-
since the halfs i do usually involve a lot of elevation change, i like to train with it. scuppernong blue trail and lampham black, nashotah, high cliff, devils lake all are hilly and challenging. plus i don't stay in WI and am usually in the mtns in the nw. one of my dreams is to do the columbia gorge dog leg and to do moab races
so, yeah, it's kinda important
It'll still track elevation changes with the GPS/satelite signal. I've seen some debate about which is more reliable, but nothing overly conclusive (to me).
Barometer is more reliable than GPS for altitude (and storm warnings). It's not even close.0 -
One last thing...
We are, what, 2 months away from black friday? Garmin typically runs deals around then.
But based on your list, I wouldn't even consider the vivosport. I'd probably go with the vivoactive 3, but I don't really love any of them based on everything you're wanting to do with it. None of them have hiking or trail running activity profiles (though I'm betting you can add it to the vivoactive).0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »since the halfs i do usually involve a lot of elevation change, i like to train with it. scuppernong blue trail and lampham black, nashotah, high cliff, devils lake all are hilly and challenging. plus i don't stay in WI and am usually in the mtns in the nw. one of my dreams is to do the columbia gorge dog leg and to do moab races
so, yeah, it's kinda important
It'll still track elevation changes with the GPS/satelite signal. I've seen some debate about which is more reliable, but nothing overly conclusive (to me).
Barometer is more reliable than GPS for altitude (and storm warnings). It's not even close.
Does the magnitude of elevation change matter? i.e. is barometer far superior if elevation change is only 500' vs 5000'?0 -
i think i can add it with the active.
i will probably go in and do some of it manually because i track the shoes too. and the weather and type of trail determines my shoe. even road running my trail shoe is my only waterproof, perfect for snowy and rainy runs
atm, my elevation change for runs specifically geared toward that is between 200 and 600' if that matters to those advising
(so far
)
as far as black friday. i don't think my smart is going to make it that long. i charged it all night and the battery is half dead already0 -
since the halfs i do usually involve a lot of elevation change, i like to train with it. scuppernong blue trail and lampham black, nashotah, high cliff, devils lake all are hilly and challenging. plus i don't stay in WI and am usually in the mtns in the nw. one of my dreams is to do the columbia gorge dog leg and to do moab races
so, yeah, it's kinda important
So all of my marathons and ultras involve significant elevation. 1200 metres tomorrow.
Barometric elevation Vs geospatial elevation is meaningless. The only reason I can see for barometric elevation is the experimental power estimation for running, but in unconvinced by running power as yet.
Fwiw, given the three devices that you're looking at, you've got entry level and mid range devices. Personally the FR235 is the best of the three but if you're hard over on the barometric then clearly you'll be happier with the entry level device.
In terms of battery life, a 12 hour battery will be fine. The question to ask is whether you can charge it on the fly, rather than worrying about life. Drop bags can contain a power bank!
Essentially your requirement looks like it needs a 635 or a Fenix.
I use a 735XT, which is capable of a 50 miler.3 -
-
no, the 235 and the active i can get for 250 US dollars and that is the top of my budget.0 -
Seems like you are more advanced in fitness than entry/mid level devices are designed to provide. Is there a chance that you can save up for something that would fit your level (or even beyond)?
Also, have you looked at Suunto?
Many utra marathoner's use them as well as Garmin.1 -
i may be more advanced in fitness but i don't know how advanced my needs are as many of the basic trackers have what i am looking for. my VSHR+ has what i like which is why i've been considering the vivosport. i've been a little spoiled with the touch screen, altimeter, etc
i've heard of Suunto but they just never show up as high as garmin on the lists and i'm already in the garmin world. like i'm already into Canon and it would be weird to switch to Nikon. I don't have a big enough reason yet to make the move
one thing that has been lost is that the active is a touch smaller and i have delicate wrists and i kinda like having them as an all day item. the active is smaller. though the 235 is more functional.0 -
i may be more advanced in fitness but i don't know how advanced my needs are as many of the basic trackers have what i am looking for. my VSHR+ has what i like which is why i've been considering the vivosport. i've been a little spoiled with the touch screen, altimeter, etc
i've heard of Suunto but they just never show up as high as garmin on the lists and i'm already in the garmin world. like i'm already into Canon and it would be weird to switch to Nikon. I don't have a big enough reason yet to make the move
one thing that has been lost is that the active is a touch smaller and i have delicate wrists and i kinda like having them as an all day item. the active is smaller. though the 235 is more functional.
I have been in the Garmin world since April of 2015, and although I have tried several other devices (including Suunto), I have always come back to Garmin. They are king of the features IMO.
In your case, I would go with the vivoactive 3 then. More features, barometric altimeter, and better GPS battery life.1 -
can anyone make a case for the training features that the 235 has that the active does not? have they made a large difference in your training?0
-
can anyone make a case for the training features that the 235 has that the active does not? have they made a large difference in your training?
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/catalog/product/compareResult.ep?compareProduct=571520&compareProduct=5299880 -
i know the data, i'm looking for the anecdotal
what difference has it made in a person's training0 -
i know the data, i'm looking for the anecdotal
what difference has it made in a person's training
Even though I'm kinda a techie and data geek, when I run a training plan (not much anymore
), I run training plans off coach instructions, and don't bother to code a bunch of detail into my devices . . . even if the devices are capable.
What's your training style? (Rhetorical question, no text answer needed.) Would you use the features?2 -
-
NorthCascades wrote: »since the halfs i do usually involve a lot of elevation change, i like to train with it. scuppernong blue trail and lampham black, nashotah, high cliff, devils lake all are hilly and challenging. plus i don't stay in WI and am usually in the mtns in the nw. one of my dreams is to do the columbia gorge dog leg and to do moab races
so, yeah, it's kinda important
It'll still track elevation changes with the GPS/satelite signal. I've seen some debate about which is more reliable, but nothing overly conclusive (to me).
Barometer is more reliable than GPS for altitude (and storm warnings). It's not even close.
Does the magnitude of elevation change matter? i.e. is barometer far superior if elevation change is only 500' vs 5000'?
For hiking, I have a screen set up with my total accent and decent, and the barometric and GPS altitude. The GPS number jumps around like a random number generator, within about 100 feet of the truth. The baro number reflects small changes like from an undulating trail. As long as I calibrate the barometer, it's stunningly good.
Also, when you can't see the sky, longer hiking in deep woods, a barometer can give you some warning of an impending storm.3 -
For backpacking/hiking get a GPS with an altimeter. Much safer, more reliable, and all around better fit for the activity.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »since the halfs i do usually involve a lot of elevation change, i like to train with it. scuppernong blue trail and lampham black, nashotah, high cliff, devils lake all are hilly and challenging. plus i don't stay in WI and am usually in the mtns in the nw. one of my dreams is to do the columbia gorge dog leg and to do moab races
so, yeah, it's kinda important
It'll still track elevation changes with the GPS/satelite signal. I've seen some debate about which is more reliable, but nothing overly conclusive (to me).
Barometer is more reliable than GPS for altitude (and storm warnings). It's not even close.
Does the magnitude of elevation change matter? i.e. is barometer far superior if elevation change is only 500' vs 5000'?
For hiking, I have a screen set up with my total accent and decent, and the barometric and GPS altitude. The GPS number jumps around like a random number generator, within about 100 feet of the truth. The baro number reflects small changes like from an undulating trail. As long as I calibrate the barometer, it's stunningly good.
Also, when you can't see the sky, longer hiking in deep woods, a barometer can give you some warning of an impending storm.
Again, does any of that matter? Depends on the type of hiking I suppose.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »since the halfs i do usually involve a lot of elevation change, i like to train with it. scuppernong blue trail and lampham black, nashotah, high cliff, devils lake all are hilly and challenging. plus i don't stay in WI and am usually in the mtns in the nw. one of my dreams is to do the columbia gorge dog leg and to do moab races
so, yeah, it's kinda important
It'll still track elevation changes with the GPS/satelite signal. I've seen some debate about which is more reliable, but nothing overly conclusive (to me).
Barometer is more reliable than GPS for altitude (and storm warnings). It's not even close.
Does the magnitude of elevation change matter? i.e. is barometer far superior if elevation change is only 500' vs 5000'?
For hiking, I have a screen set up with my total accent and decent, and the barometric and GPS altitude. The GPS number jumps around like a random number generator, within about 100 feet of the truth. The baro number reflects small changes like from an undulating trail. As long as I calibrate the barometer, it's stunningly good.
Also, when you can't see the sky, longer hiking in deep woods, a barometer can give you some warning of an impending storm.
It's worth remembering that we're talking about an entry level device, not a top end device that's really aimed at the outdoor sports market. Whilst altitude is useful as an input to navigation, the other limitations of the VA3 make it a novelty on that device.1 -
can anyone make a case for the training features that the 235 has that the active does not? have they made a large difference in your training?
I used to use a 210XT and now a 735XT. For stay pace sessions losing a training plan has little value, but for speed focused training it's a game changer. When a speed session is minimum 60 minutes and more regularly 90 minutes with multiple changes of pace of HR range the watch giving the directions means I'm not having to think about it, just run.
For longer "steady paced" so 16-30 miles I'll sometimes set it up for Jeffing, again not having to think about it makes a difference.
If you're really interested in being a regular marathon runner, the 235 is the only suitable watch from those three. If you're interested in Ultras then that's only marginally suitable and you'd really be looking further up the range.1 -
I had the Forerunner 235 and loved it until it broke.
That was pretty upsetting. But while I had it, I really enjoyed it. I kind of miss it, actually. 0 -
IMO biggest selling point for Garmin over Suunto is that they are fairly ubiquitous, so most training sites are set up to auto-pull your data from the garmin server without any action needed by you. Suunto will generally require you to manually upload the file.3
-
The Garmins last forever. You can usually get a great deal on used ones that still have years of life in them. As a plus Garmin support is amazing so if you do have a problem with a used one they will happily help. There are some great triathlon and ultra gear swap sites on FB. Here are just a couple of examples if you're interested.
Athena Gear Sell/Swap/Give
https://www.facebook.com/groups/808811822554228/
Cycling Running Triathlon Buy/Sell/Trade Colorado
Trail and Ultra Running Gear - Buy/Sell/Trade0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »since the halfs i do usually involve a lot of elevation change, i like to train with it. scuppernong blue trail and lampham black, nashotah, high cliff, devils lake all are hilly and challenging. plus i don't stay in WI and am usually in the mtns in the nw. one of my dreams is to do the columbia gorge dog leg and to do moab races
so, yeah, it's kinda important
It'll still track elevation changes with the GPS/satelite signal. I've seen some debate about which is more reliable, but nothing overly conclusive (to me).
Barometer is more reliable than GPS for altitude (and storm warnings). It's not even close.
Does the magnitude of elevation change matter? i.e. is barometer far superior if elevation change is only 500' vs 5000'?
For hiking, I have a screen set up with my total accent and decent, and the barometric and GPS altitude. The GPS number jumps around like a random number generator, within about 100 feet of the truth. The baro number reflects small changes like from an undulating trail. As long as I calibrate the barometer, it's stunningly good.
Also, when you can't see the sky, longer hiking in deep woods, a barometer can give you some warning of an impending storm.
Again, does any of that matter? Depends on the type of hiking I suppose.
Probably not, for most people. It's amazing how good we are at following a trail even when it looks like the rest of the ground. Most people are out for a view, or to be among nature, not to collect data. And most people probably don't care what their exact elevation is at any given point. I did Tiffany Lake and Honeymoon Pass yesterday, I ran the watch as a data recorder.
Where it's been useful for me is mostly on backpacking trips, multi-day hikes with camping in between. Campfires are illegal above 4,000 feet. In a white out (fog) you can find your position on the map from your altitude, but that's because our trails and routes don't undulate they go straight up. And you can usually tell when a storm is approaching because the air pressure will drop precipitously. Outside those three things, it doesn't matter, and GPS is close enough for the first two.
But if you're a numbers person, barometers are just crazy accurate.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions