Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The graphs the software produces are excellent, but it would be nice to be able to print them so you can compare performances on the same route, more easily.
As I said, these are just niggles. The whole bundle is excellent. Although I had to justify the purchase on the grounds of simultaneously having a birthday and some back-pay.
It is a real pain not being able to print though, you can't even copy and paste the graphs!
One way round the printing Jelly Bean, is to press the prt scr key on your keyboard. This captures the whole display to the clipboard. You can then paste into WORD or other program and use the crop tool from the picture toolbar to get rid of all but the graph. A bit long-winded but it works.
Looks like we'll have to make do with the Training Centre software for now.
It works fine, and as someone else said on another link you can charge it up on the USB cable, or just get a UK-US plug adapter -it states in the guide that it can handle 110-240v
Is the charger the same on the 301 and the 201. I have lost my 201 charger and thought that if I bought a 301 ....
the prairie site is really cheap, but how much did you pay for carriage? Did they add on any hidden extras?
Thanks,
Giles
Another runner with a 201 recorded 26.3 at the finish which is what one would expect. I can see how a loss of reception can give a lower reading of distance between 2 points but not how an over measurement can occur.
Before I get onto Garmin about this, has anyone got any idea how this can happen?
positional error is pretty much random but it could have accumulated in a funny way.
you're going to complain to garmin about 99% accuracy?
Running a longer line doesn't account for the pace inaccuracy or the failure of the hrm. How does another runner using the same satelites get a different and relatively accurate result?
I set the 301 up for a run of 26.4 miles to allow for both inaccuracy and running a longer line. I expected to stop the workout on the line with a little to spare, it completed the workout at 41k.
I ran a half 2 weeks ago and completed the 13.1 miles 30 seconds from the line. at my pace that equates to roughly 0.045 of a mile before the finish. It's not unreasonable to expect twice the discrepancy at twice the distance but 15 times as much is not on. This equates to 6-7 minutes out at the end of a marathon!
The 301 is supposed to be a pacing and measuring tool if it can't do either consistently it's useless.
"How does another runner using the same satelites get a different and relatively accurate result?"
ermm.. quite easily?
Ok. How does another runner get a different distance recorded by as much as 0.82 miles ed, 0.1 maybe? Well how? Running line won't account for that sort of difference.
Yes I've got the log.
If you look at the recorded route in the training centre, it seems as though the position will sometimes zig-zag around, hsving an inaccurate position when you turn a corner, and then correcting itself when the signal strengthens (if the signal is weak). Either way this results in it thinking you've run a greater distance than you actually have.
For example, the half-marathon I did last w/e was recorded as being 13.4m. This seems to be due to the position jumping around under tree cover.
I think you need to add at least a mile on to the distance you program into the virtual partner to account for this, but obviously this isn't ideal, given that the 301 will still be thinking you're running faster than you actually are...
I guess the differences in recorded distances between runners is probably accounted for by the strength of the signal they get, dependent upon the line they take, or positioning of the forerunner on their body.
and each unit has to do its calculations based on the signals its getting at any instant in time, there's no reason two units sat next to each other would be calculating perfectly in sync.
The map is not sufficiently detailed to indicate any anomalies but nothing stands out. Surely the route you run is not matched and corrected to a map, that could lead to massive inaccuracies should a runner go off road for example. What about the hrm, looking at the graph there are periods of 20 mins or more with no signal?
ed why wouldn't two pieces of kit on the same course give similar results? In fact that's exactly what they should do isn't it? What we're talking about is one unit being out by .92 miles at 41k and the other being .1 mile out at 42.195k that's a huge difference is it not. The difference of .41 miles at 9k is 7.3% not 3.6%, that's not an acceptable margin of error. At that rate if one were using the 301 only as a measuring tool you'd be just as accurate stretching a bit of string over a street map!
I would guess that the unit is susceptible to outside interference (although it would have to be a mobile source in this case) which can be the case, especially with power lines or is faulty!
One thing I did notice was that when the unit was turned on it showed 13 hours of power but at the end of four hours of use indicated a low battery. How does that compare with other users experience? Not much use for doing an ironman!
http://www.footy.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/forerunner.jpg
and you'll see what I mean - the yellow line is where my 301 thought I was running at the weekend... as you can see, it thinks I was zig-zagging around a fair bit
one other option is that it was picking reflected signals up which would also cock things up.
unless you can show that the two units followed the same route with the satellites in fixed positions and the same amount of blockage from other runners etc its a bit difficult to debate why they read differently.
one thought is that if the signal is poor and the position is zig-zagging, the longer you take the more the accumulated error.. so who took longer to get round?
I've looked at the graph up close and pace and elevation are all over the place. I think what I need to do is go out on one of my regular routes where I run on the same side of the road consistently and then compare elevation graphs. If there's a serious discrepency between the two then the unit is probably faulty.
footy, I'm still no wiser but I see what you mean...I think.
The price of my 301
The base(shop)price converted from CD$ when I ordered was £128.
I paid $35CD for postage to the UK which included insurance. So that converted to £146 in total.
As I said the postie caught me for vat = £35(which you may not get caught for) which took the grand total to £181.
The customer service was first class, e-mailing me back within the hour each time I had a question.
Any other questions, e-mail me and I will try and answer them.
Cheers
Dave