 Poster: A snowHead
|
I am in the process of buying a GPS/heart rate watch for running and i am interested to see if this would be any good for skiing. I cant recall seeing any posts on this watch and it seems that most people are using phone apps or other types of gps units.
the garmin 310 is designed for triathletes and is at the higher end of their sports watch product range so i am sure it would work but interested to see if anyone has any experience of using it for skiing. Primary reason for buying the watch is for running but may as well cover the skiing option as well so if there are any other watches out there that will fit the bill for running and skiing please let me know.
thanks
Edit: for the skiing i do not need the ability to plan my route etc which a lot of GPS units give you, it is more to see where i have been and a few stats about distance speed etc. I know that this watch will do it for running as everything can be downloaded to the Garmin connect website where all your data can be stored in your opwn personal file. interested to see hwo well it works for skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
pauljames, I use a Garmin Edge 205 which is a bike biased version of one of the older Forerunners. It works absolutely fine for skiing. Here's a track from one day at Easter on Connect http://connect.garmin.com/activity/163718356
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Colin B, thanks for the link...i am sure the 310 will do what i want it to do..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
As Colin B, I have a Forerunner 305 and a Garmin Edge 500. Both are fine for taking out skiing to track where you've been. I find them better than a phone app, as GPS usage can drain a phone's battery quite quickly.
The Forerunner 305 does have a problem once you've completed 100 laps (1 mile = a lap on the way I have mine set up) in that it starts to just keep summary info on the older tracks. But I think this would be fixed on the 310, especially given that an Ironman bike is 112 miles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I use a Holux 260 Pro which is about half the price of the Garmin 310 but has very similar functionality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Great advantage of 310 over the 305 is battery life (I have both). The 310 advertises 20 hours - it`s certainly good for 15 hours. That far outstrips any other wrist mounted Garmin (or other GPS device). That said the new 910 has a similarly long battery life. The 910 might be better - unlike the 310 it has a barometric altimeter - which might be useful for skiing. It`s another tri watch - the next step up from the 310.
I also have a 610. Great for running but battery life sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jonty, and all
thanks for your input on this, i think anything above the 310 might be going into an area that i dont view as value for money and the amount of use i will put it to. I do have a question though which may change my mind.
How do the 310 and similar work out accurate distance when taking into account uphill and down hills etc and does this differ from how the distance calculations are made when the watch has a barometric altimeter or is the altimeter nothing to do with distance calculation?
hopefully that question makes sense or am i looking to deeply into the technicality of each unit.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good question.
When I`m running in the UK with a 310 or 610, the Garmin Connect software automatically corrects the elevation/s recorded by the watch - I suppose it must have terrain data centrally loaded which effectively overrides what the watch is telling it (where necessary).
Certainly so far as running is concerned the 310 seems very consistent when I run (and repeat) hilly routes. Consistency is not necessarily the same as accuracy but it`s a pretty good pointer.
How that would translate to an Austria ski slope, I`m afraid I simply don`t know. I would have thought it would be pretty accurate but doubtless some well informed individual can give you chapter and verse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Interesting so do you know if the higher spec models with the barometric altimeter use the altimeter for distance calculation or is it purely for altitude measurements ?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
The barometric pressure gauge on Garmin's bike computers (OK, I know you're looking at running watches, but I'd expect Garmin to reuse many hardware and software components) gives very strange results unless you calbrate the altitude at the start of your ride.
Barometric pressure measures relative altitude very accurately, but it's hopeless for absolute altitude measurements as air pressure rises and falls with changing weather conditions. OTOH, GPS triangulation of altitude is too imprecise to give a good measure of ascent or descent, but can be used make a reasonable assessment of absolute altitude.
If you haven't set a proper calbration point at the start of your ride, Garmin uses a slightly strange algorithm to calibrate the barometric altitude against GPS data over the first couple of miles. If a low pressure system has moved over since you last used it, the device gets slightly confused and thinks that you have an heroic level of hill climbing ability. When you upload the run/ride onto the Garmin Connect site, you have an option to correct the altitude data, presumably using accurate mapping information. That option isn't available if you're using other sites like Endomondo or Strava.
Once you calibrate the device, though, calculated ascents and descents are extremely accurate: any two Garmins will typically differ by less than 1% IME. The accuracy of temperature measurements is truly dreadfull, though - we often see 4-5 degrees C difference between devices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Is that guy for real? His specimen heart rate graph shows him exercising at a consistent 175BPM for 1.5 hours  . I'd probably die if I pushed my body that far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Johnny. That`s very interesting. Does it follow that you have to recalibrate m/less every time you step out for a run ?
175 bpm over 1.5 hours shouldn`t be too much of a problem for someone who is fit with a max HR of 195-200. I run marathons at an average HR of 170-175 and I`m old and knackered !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
My max HR is 181 (I've occasionally pushed it very slightly higher but never for more than 3-4 seconds), so a sustained rate of 175 sounded fairly incredible to me. I think that I have an unusually slow ticker, though - after an active holiday skiing or biking, my resting HR drops to the low 40s and, even after a slothful indulgent Christmas season, it never really climbs into the 50s.
Altitude calibration happens automatically if you start near a point that you've previously calibrated. However, I've heard friends complain that if you take a long pause in the middle of a circuit, it doesn't automatically recalibrate when you resume. So, if you regard your round trip to work as one long out-and-back circuit rather than as two separate circuits, the Garmin doesn't recalibrate when you leave work in the evening. If the weather has changed during the day, that can lead it to think that you've fallen down a mine shaft or climbed to the top of a skyscraper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
PJ, - it`s low 2`40`s.
The last marathon in which I recorded my HR was Berlin a few years back (2006) - it averaged 172.
My max HR was just under 200 at the time.
As I get older, my max HR is reducing by a beat or two a year. I`m probably down to about 190 -195 these days (haven`t done a MHR test for a while).
MHR isn`t a particularly good guide to speed. Lactate threshold and VO2 max provide much better indicators of potential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
jonty, jealous!!!
I was averaging 6m/ml's for 10mls when i was late teens/early 20's and did a 4'27" 1500mts when still at school..sadly the years have passed and age has slowed me down...a lot. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
but i do still get it up into the 180's for a minute or 2 at the end of a 10k run - i do feel nearly dead though 
