Recommend a running watch to me

incentsitive · 14-11-2018 11:43am #1

I have had 2 seperate Garmin devices (35 and 235) in the last few months.

Both have been a disaster. The 235 has great features and I love it, but the GPS is not accurate enough on either device and keeps dropping (I presume).

By way of comparison, I did a 5k last night and by the end (and I know exactly where the 5k turn point is) my MapMyRun was exactly 3.11 miles, while my Garmin Forerunner 235 was at 2.8 miles.

During the recent Dublin marathon, it said I was at about 8.6 miles as I ran past the 9.0 mile mark

and the people around me said the 9.0 mile mark was what they were clocking.

I tried all the usual tricks, re-set it, changed the GPS to track every second, changed the GPS to add in GLOVASS (or something like that), etc but it didn't matter.

So it has gone back to Amazon this morning. I had an old Garmin Forerunner 305 and it was bullet proof in terms of its GPS connection.

So, I want to buy something new. I don't mind spending a couple of hundred quid as necessary.

My #1 requirement is that the GPS is reliable and tracks distance and pace accurately. After that, anything else is a bonus although I do like having a wrist based heart rate calculator (rather than a strap) and other nice features like virtual pacer.

What else do people have and how have you found it? I'm leaning away from Garmin at this point to be honest, they don't make em like the used to!

robinph · 14-11-2018 11:58am

Sound like you were just unlucky and possibly had a faulty unit, but there is essentially no difference between one watch based GPS device and another. They are all going to be about as accurate as each other. Things that do make a difference to their accuracy though are tree cover, buildings and the weather on the routes that you are running, other than that one is much the same as another.

incentsitive · 14-11-2018 12:00pm

That's the funny thing - I run fairly consistent routes, and yeah I know tree cover and buildings can interrupt the GPS and be a problem, but I can't understand why a GPS watch I bought 10 years ago is much more accurate at tracking distance than a new one I bought this year.

I could just stick to MapMyRun etc but I'd rather something on my arm for pace, etc.

robinph · 14-11-2018 12:32pm

The newer device should be slightly more accurate, but those differences are going to be minuscule such that us mere mortals shouldn't notice. If you find that GPS tracking is being inaccurate with any device then leaving it turned on for at least half an hour with a good view of the sky should sort things out, especially if you've recently travelled a long way or not turned it on for a while, as it will then download updated data from the satellites regarding their locations in the sky. Newer watches will get this data more quickly via your phone though if paired.

incentsitive · 14-11-2018 12:42pm

I tried that as it was advised by Garmin to do that (I left it on for nearly 4 hours as I played golf a month ago which was in the middle of a big field!). It didn't matter unfortunately.

BeepBeep67 · 14-11-2018 12:45pm

Some of the newer devices in addition to GPS (US) offer both GLONASS (Russian) and GALILEO (EU) and you select GPS + one or the other.
In theory, this should improve your tracking, but it's at a premium from a price perspective currently.

ariana` · 14-11-2018 12:53pm

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Some of the newer devices in addition to GPS (US) offer both GLONASS (Russian) and GALILEO (EU) and you select GPS + one or the other.
In theory, this should improve your tracking, but it's at a premium from a price perspective currently.

The Garmin 235 has GPS & GLONASS.

During the recent Dublin marathon, it said I was at about 8.6 miles as I ran past the 9.0 mile mark

OP my 235 was out by similar at that stage too and i remember thinking it was a lot at the time. But at the finish the total distance was 26.39 (i clocked 26.38 last year on the same watch), I'm happy that this was accurate as i'm sure i didn't run the blue line.

Hopefully you will get a satisfactory resolution from Amazon and find a watch that works better for you.

Edited - my brain must be on the same go slow as my legs at the moment. At 9m marker my watch was reading about 9.4!! Doh. Anyhow, hope you get it sorted, it's a strange one.

BeepBeep67 · 14-11-2018 1:01pm

ariana` wrote: »

The Garmin 235 has GPS & GLONASS.

Correct, though I get better accuracy using GPS + GALILEO on my watch

Supercell · 14-11-2018 1:09pm

Op this may be of use but is a little little dated however a lot of these watches are still sold - http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy
About something newer - http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Garmin_935
Another viewpoint - https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topics/camping-and-hiking/best-gps-watch#accuracy (though maybe the best of a bad lot).
There seems to be an element of pot luck with watches. FWIW, I have a 235 and in most races its gives me very close to the mile markers, and as I'm not running the perfect line its very acceptable to me.

incentsitive · 14-11-2018 1:32pm

Yeah I have tried both with and without Glonass, and read that fellernr article, interesting to see that so many of the commonly sold devices are so far down the list.
It is no exaggeration to say that I still think the Garmin Forerunner 305 was absolutely bullet proof and totally accurate. Normally these things improve over time, it seems as if this is going the opposite way!

BobMc · 14-11-2018 1:35pm

Dont buy anything till you read this guys reviews, he wont mess about if something is off with a particular brand or watch

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/

I've on my third garmin, never had any huge discrepancies, I'm wearing the 645 music at the moment with the others retired

oinkely · 14-11-2018 5:31pm

I have a decathlon onmove 500. It works great for 99 euro.

Recently replaced an onmove 200 which was getting a bit dodgy after two years of solid use. Still works accurately but too much sweat has seeped into the usb connection on the back and it's getting corroded so doesn't always connect properly. Definitely got 70 euros worth of use out of it though.

pgmcpq · 14-11-2018 7:01pm

With the 235 watch the Smart Mode recording is on by default. I've found that this results in poor GPS especially if you run a route with a gentle curve. Smart recording takes note every time you change direction. Problem is it does not notice the curve and so records it as a straight line effectively "cutting the corners". I have seen as much as a 1.5 mile difference over 20 miles.

Look at Settings -> Data Recording

The GPS & GLONASS is a good recommendation also.

Since making these changes I've been pretty happy with the 235.

The 35 is a piece of junk !

incentsitive · 14-11-2018 10:29pm

pgmcpq wrote: »

With the 235 watch the Smart Mode recording is on by default. I've found that this results in poor GPS especially if you run a route with a gentle curve. Smart recording takes note every time you change direction. Problem is it does not notice the curve and so records it as a straight line effectively "cutting the corners". I have seen as much as a 1.5 mile difference over 20 miles.

Look at Settings -> Data Recording

The GPS & GLONASS is a good recommendation also.

Since making these changes I've been pretty happy with the 235.

The 35 is a piece of junk !

Yeah I tried all that before I sent it back. Didn't get any improvement.

WayneEnterprise · 15-11-2018 11:55am

I've been running with the 230 for years (essentially the 235 without the HR monitor), and never had any accuracy issues. Perhaps you just got a bad unit?

The Black Oil · 15-11-2018 12:58pm

I bought a 305 in 2011. It was a little slow at loading satellites, generally, but a great workhorse. I stopped using it because it conflicted with my computer. Then moved to a 25 which was OK, but I wanted a little more and bought a 235 in Sept of this year. I haven't thrown the 305 away.

Not an expert on accuracy of GPS across devices as a whole.

Garmin 305
DCM 2016: 26.43 mi.
DCM 2017: 26.44 mi.
Connemarathon 2018: 26.42 mi.

235
DCM 2018: 26.46 mi.

I did have to change something re GPS/GLOVASS or whatever it's called. Think it was to do with the clock being a bit off. It sorted the issue.

incentsitive · 15-11-2018 1:08pm

Its gone to Amazon heaven now! I had to either send it back or waive the 1-month return period.

Back to the drawing board!!

IvoryTower · 15-11-2018 1:34pm

Most people I run with have the 235 but one of the girls in our group pace/distance tend to be a bit off with the rest of us so it wouldn't surprise me if there's the odd dodgy unit

average_runner · 15-11-2018 4:44pm

Hi OP,

Whats your budget and we go from there?

pconn062 · 15-11-2018 5:17pm

Polar M430, stopped using Garmin years ago.

jfh · 15-11-2018 9:56pm

pconn062 wrote: »

Polar M430, stopped using Garmin years ago.

What's the advantages over the garmin?
Just asking as I've had the 405 for the last 10 year & need to upgrade

skyblue46 · 15-11-2018 10:01pm

jfh wrote: »

What's the advantages over the garmin?
Just asking as I've had the 405 for the last 10 year & need to upgrade

I understand the need for accuracy, that's a given. After that what are the essentials for people. I have a Forerunner 220. It can do sessions, time, distance, pace etc. It seems more than adequate to me....

OOnegative · 16-11-2018 8:38am

In regards the DCM course markings this year, many were way out of position either being to short or to long so I wouldn’t base a watches GPS accuracy on that.

Huzzah! · 16-11-2018 9:01am

Would adding a footpod assist with accuracy?

BigAl81 · 16-11-2018 9:19am

BobMc wrote:

I'm wearing the 645 music at the moment

Considering getting this myself. How do you find the Spotify app and Bluetooth connectivity?

incentsitive · 16-11-2018 9:43am

average_runner wrote: »

Hi OP,

Whats your budget and we go from there?

Hi average_runner, don't mind spending 200-300 quid once it is a decent piece of kit. My #1 requirement is that it accurately tells the distance accurately and can do things like speed work, etc.
After that all the bells and whistles are bonuses. The annoying part is I loved the Garmin 235 interface on the laptop, phone, etc - and the phone controls, music controls, etc were all great. But if it fails at its #1 duty - "how far have I ran" then the device is a failure for me.

OOnegative wrote: »

In regards the DCM course markings this year, many were way out of position either being to short or to long so I wouldn’t base a watches GPS accuracy on that.

Yeah I get that could be the case, but the problem is that 1. people around me verified that the marker was correct, and 2. I have found it desperately inaccurate over even a mile or two.

I've used MapMyRun with voice feedback for the last couple of nights, grand for just casual running but if I start to train for something and need intervals, etc I don't think it is of any use.

pconn062 wrote: »

Polar M430, stopped using Garmin years ago.

How have you found it?

pconn062 · 16-11-2018 10:05am

jfh wrote: »

What's the advantages over the garmin?
Just asking as I've had the 405 for the last 10 year & need to upgrade

The main advantages for me are (as someone who trains off Heart rate), the wrist based HR is significantly more accurate than any Garmin I've ever used. I had a garmin 225 and 235 which both had wrist based HR and found both to be too unreliable, especially the 225. The Polar M430 is a good bit more reliable, very quick to pick up HR and GPS. I'm sure there are more up to date models but I picked that one up reasonably priced a few months ago.

Polar in general have led the way with HR tech so I've always found them to be better, if that's important to you.

incentsitive · 16-11-2018 10:29am

pconn062 wrote: »

The main advantages for me are (as someone who trains off Heart rate), the wrist based HR is significantly more accurate than any Garmin I've ever used. I had a garmin 225 and 235 which both had wrist based HR and found both to be too unreliable, especially the 225. The Polar M430 is a good bit more reliable, very quick to pick up HR and GPS. I'm sure there are more up to date models but I picked that one up reasonably priced a few months ago.

Polar in general have led the way with HR tech so I've always found them to be better, if that's important to you.

Thanks for that pconn062, did you ever do a test over 5k against something like MapMyRun to check the accuracy of the distance? I've read somebody complaining on Amazon about the accuracy of the GPS on medium accuracy mode? Is there a high-accuracy mode?

I'm definitely leaning away from Garmin at present and this sounds like a good alternative.

Thanks for the help!

average_runner · 17-11-2018 6:46pm

Keep.an eye on the black friday deals. To be honest most garmins are good including 235 but you were unlucky with yours.

I have the 935 which is high end so would recommend 645. They can still be off.

incentsitive · 19-11-2018 10:48am

Can anybody tell me if I were to buy a Samsung Watch and just use MapMyRun does my watch display the information from MapMyRun or how does this work?

Tigerandahalf · 19-11-2018 10:56am

The big problem for me with Garmin is how poor their app is. Basic things like seeing your weekly mileage (Monday to Sunday) and monthly can't be done as it shows the last 7 days/4 weeks instead.

It is also very poor with workouts created, where it won't automatically note you have done a workout and just puts up the standard 'running in Dublin' workout title.

These are small things for the app to do. I don't think there is a paid version so I see no reason why it isn't better.

I have a 230 and find it excellent (fully waterproof) but it can be a bit slow to hook upto gps especially if in a new area.

Recommend a running watch to me

Comments