heart rate monitor

jwshooter

as above im thinking of buying one ,possibly from argos as i have some thing to return .

im looking for one for under 200 bucks .any ideas ?. they sell polar and garmin in argos .

thanks jw .

DJsail

If all your looking for is a heart rate monitor, Tesco sell Polar FS1 HRM for Eur30, got one for running and the T31 sensor that comes with it can be used in conjunction with my CS200 cycling computer which was going to be replaced until I found out it was compatible!:)

blorg

Indeed, if all you are looking for is instantaneous HR any reputable brand will do the job including that Polar which seems like a decent price.

The higher end ones do stuff like recording your data over the course of a cycle.

Personally I would not be without my Garmin as I also value the other features on it... Others will swear by Polar (although they are wrong.)

tunney

blorg wrote: »

Indeed, if all you are looking for is instantaneous HR any reputable brand will do the job including that Polar which seems like a decent price.

The higher end ones do stuff like recording your data over the course of a cycle.

Personally I would not be without my Garmin as I also value the other features on it... Others will swear by Polar (although they are wrong.)

I've a high end polar and a high end garmin.

Polar does some things excellently.
Garmin does other things excelleently.

Both need significant work. I'm keeping polar for some sessions, garmin for others.

blorg

I would be guessing for specific heart-rate related training the Polar is superior?

I do a lot of cycling other than racing or training for racing, touring, audax and long cross-country cycles in particular so I value the mapping functions on the Garmin, these may not be so important for others.

What functions do you like on the Garmin in particular for your own use out of interest.

RedB

jwshooter wrote: »

as above im thinking of buying one ,possibly from argos as i have some thing to return .

im looking for one for under 200 bucks .any ideas ?. they sell polar and garmin in argos .

thanks jw .

Slightly off topic but you'd get more bang for your buck buying online from wiggle or even the argos UK site if you had someone travelling rather than the local argos especially in the 200 bucks range.

austinbyrne21

Sorry for hi-jacking but has anyone any experience with the Garmin Forerunner 405? I don't need any mapping features so don't need the 705 and I want it for running as well as cycling so don't need an Edge. Any advice?

OP- I've got a Polar F6 (I think it is) and find it excellent, can't find a fault for what I need it for. Great for training within zones etc. and unlike some other similar products with awkward looking chest straps, the Polar has a very subtle chest strap.

blorg

I think the key thing with the 405 is that the screen is going to be a lot smaller and thus not able to display as much information.

Obviously would be a lot better for running though.

austinbyrne21

Blorg - That's the sacrifice alright but I don't think I'd get the benefit of the map features of the bigger Garmins. Also, is the seperate cadence device handy enough to install myself or is it a LBS kinda job?

peterako

I've bought two Polar Cycling Computers on eBay now.

One for myself (S710 with a speed and Cadence sensor) for £90 (ebay.co.uk)

One for my brother (S720i with a speed sensor) for €90 (ebay.de).

I love my S710

Maybe because I'm an information junky

Old tech now....but so am I!

I mounted all teh sensors myself.

The Speed sensor is a straight forward zip-tie job to fork and magnet on the spokes.

The Cadence...I used a small magnet removed from and old wheel spoke magnet which I have stuck to the inside exposed axel end of one of my pedals. (Sensor on the seat stay).

Easy peasy...

Peter

blorg

It's not just the mapping features though, the size of the screen on the 705 is big enough that you can display lots of stuff on it at once (up to 8 variables) while with the 405 you are going to be a lot more limited. The 305 lacks the mapping features but it had the same amount of room on the screen for 8 parameters.

I would find it annoying if I had to start chopping down the amount of stuff I could display, and the thing is these devices have a lot of interesting stuff in there.

At the moment I have it displaying:

Heart Rate
Cadence
Elevation
Grade

Speed
Average (Lap) Speed
Distance
Time of Day

If I have an end point programmed I am interested in:

Distance to Next
Distance to Dest

On the training courses there is a whole load of other stuff you may be interested in, such as your time vs goal time, how far ahead or behind you are from your "virtual partner" etc...

Battery life on the 705 is also far superior if you do longer cycles.

Having said that while it is superior for cycling you can't really run with it, so if you want that the 405 is the obvious choice.

The cadence sensor is very easy to add yourself, you just strap it on to the chainstay with zip ties and zip tie a magnet onto your crank. I wouldn't bother personally with attaching the rear speed magnet to the wheel unless you are using it on a trainer as it ALWAYS uses GPS for speed when it has signal and ignores the magnet.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Battery life on the 705 is also far superior if you do longer cycles. Having said that while it is superior for cycling you can't really run with it

On the odd occasion that I run I take my 705. Handy for speed, HR and distance. It moves around in my chest pocket, which is annoying. There is probably some sort of armband iPod thingy I could use to keep it in place. Suggestions welcome. Sorry for thread hijack.

scottreynolds

Anyone mentioed the 310XT -- a hybrid both big enoigh for cycling and 'small' enough to wear on the wrist for running. Doesn't have amps but does have mapping features (so I've been told).

tunney

scottreynolds wrote: »

Anyone mentioed the 310XT -- a hybrid both big enoigh for cycling and 'small' enough to wear on the wrist for running. Doesn't have amps but does have mapping features (so I've been told).

This is the one I have, I have issues with the recording rate and its missing some of the features for ease of use that polar have.

tunney

blorg wrote: »

I would be guessing for specific heart-rate related training the Polar is superior?

I do a lot of cycling other than racing or training for racing, touring, audax and long cross-country cycles in particular so I value the mapping functions on the Garmin, these may not be so important for others.

What functions do you like on the Garmin in particular for your own use out of interest.

Polar one is vastly superior for HR - and my polar is a few years out of date. The new Polars do beat by beat recording and measure the heart rate variability which is the best way to detect overtraining.

On the Garmin (310xt) I use it solely for running as its not going to usrup my SRMs. If I had wireless SRMs I'd get a 705 and then happy days but I don't. I had thought the pace/speed aspect was excellent but now I jsut think its better than polars.

I think if you took the Polar top end HR stuff combined it with the Garmin GPS and made it ANT+ then that would be perfect.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

On the odd occasion that I run I take my 705. Handy for speed, HR and distance. It moves around in my chest pocket, which is annoying. There is probably some sort of armband iPod thingy I could use to keep it in place. Suggestions welcome. Sorry for thread hijack.

I tried running with it (and the 305 before) in a pocket and that drove me mental. Ended up running holding the thing in my hand. Works, but I can certainly see how a watch would be a LOT nicer if running is a big part of your thing.

austinbyrne21

Just checked the specs of the 705, it does seem very impressive. As Lumen said, if there was an arm holder thingy that held it like an iPod it would be perfect. Also, what's the cost like compared to a 405?

Lumen

If you're after the 705, consider that the Edge 500 should be out around Christmas, and is an arguably better alternative if you don't need navigation.

blorg

austinbyrne21 wrote: »

Just checked the specs of the 705, it does seem very impressive. As Lumen said, if there was an arm holder thingy that held it like an iPod it would be perfect. Also, what's the cost like compared to a 405?

I don't think there is... you could TRY to fashion something out of the bike mount combined with something of your own devising but it is also a hell of a lot bigger and heavier than a 405 so not sure how well it would work with your arms moving as they do while you are running.

You could just stick it in one of those iPod mounts that go high up on your arm, but then you wouldn't be able to look at it while running, which would sort of defeat half the purpose. It would still record your workout but personally I would like to know my current heart rate, pace, distance, time etc.

Of course the obvious answer if you do multi sports is to buy both... But if you are equally into both running and cycling and can only have the one, the 405 would make more sense. I am just pointing out that it is not without drawbacks compared to the 705.

The 405 is cheaper... also consider the older Forerunner 205 and 305 which you might pick up cheaper still for the running, leaving you with enough for a 705 for the bike

austinbyrne21

Christ, that 500 looks tasty alright. I'm really coming around to the bike-only idea of these things. I suppose I can always just keep using my existing Polar for the running training. The main thing I'm looking for in a computer is that I can come home after a cycle and boom! - its on my laptop. Don't wanna be routing out maps and inputting information on mapmyride every time I go out for a spin.

blorg

If you have the Polar for running then 705 is looking like an option.

Personally I find the mapping very handy but I often do long cycles to places I am not familiar with. If you are doing laps of Wicklow you are familiar with it is not necessary at all. Note before I got the thing I did not think I would use the mapping at all but since I got it it has been great... Besides the actual maps it being able to tell you how far to your destination is a nice thing to have, I often won't be looking at the map but will have that field displayed on the main screen.