Current ipod/nike+ user, thinking of moving to nike+ sportswatch gps?

7 messages
05/05/2011 at 11:51

So I've been a happy nike+ (and ipod nano) user now since 2007 and its been a great tool for helping become a better runner, fitter, more focused and acheiving goals. I cant recommend it enough. I've spent a lot of time calibrating my sensor to get it as accurate as possible and managed to run the recent reading half marathon with the nike+ distance matching the mapmyrun distrance to around 99.9% accuracy....although I ran the VLM a month later and according to nike+ I ran 28.9 miles rather than 26.2....now this could have been because I spent the entire race weaving, overtaking and taking every corner as wide as possible (charity place meant I started down the back with the slowies), so my gait kept changing, but obviously this meant my pacing was way off.

So the obvious move for me to try and get more consistant accuracy would be to go to a GPS watch, in particular the new nike+ sportwatch GPS (with tomtom gps). 

Has anyone else made the move? I've read reviews and it seems just as accurate as the garmin 110 and obviously I have 4 years worth of nike+ running data I could stay with if I switch to the nike+ watch. Is the GPS more or less accurate than a properly calibrated nike+ shoe sensor? The downside I see from the watch is currently when im running, I hit the ipod button my ipod and I get spoken feedback over my music (distance, time, pace) rather than need to look at the watch (and take my eyes off the road), which could be difficult during the night runs. Is this sacrifce worth it for the increased accuracy?  It might seem a minor quible but I'd rather not waste £180 if its not going to give me greater accuracy.

The other idea is just continue using my current ipod/nike shoe sensor for training (since its accurate) and just bust out the nike GPS watch on race days? But if im doing that I'd want it to be more accurate over marathon distances for example. 

 And im aware if I had an iphone (which has gps and the nike+ app) I could have the best of both worlds, but I have a work blackberry that wont be changing any time soon. Unless anyone has heard about apple putting gps in the new nano or touch?

05/05/2011 at 11:58

I did an upgrade on my Ipod touch 3rd gen ( i think)  and now the Nike+GPS app works on it....I have no idea how.....though the route shown on the map is sometimes off, but the mileage etc is always right. I ran with my husband and his Iphone with the same app and they were identical results.

 With regards to the mapping/route bit of it, if i am running along streets it is ok ( i guess it might be bouncing off wifi signals)  but run in Windsor great park it gets a bit confused.

 Hope thats of somehelp to you.though i secretly covet the watch

05/05/2011 at 12:13

Hmmm see I have a touch but everywhere i've looked says it doesnt have a GPS sensor. Although its only a 2nd gen. Thanks, I might look into that. I think im probably asking for too much, but didnt think I was alone wanted a nike/apple/gps hybrid set up. 

Its the shame the nike+ sportswatch doesnt have the ability to talk to your ipod wirelessly (like the old nike+ remote watch did) and let you use them both in tandem. So when its raining I can hide the ipod away and use the watch for the pause/stop/change tracks and still get all my spoken run feedback. I spoke to the nike people at the VLM expo saying I thought they missed a trick with that (since the wireless technology is there as both devices can talk to the polar heart rate monitor) but they explained that the nike+ ipod side of things is actually an apple owned project, rather than the nike+ sportswatch and sportsband is a nike project and the two teams are working in parallel making devices now.....I assume because nike want a bigger cut of the nike+ hardware profits? 

05/05/2011 at 12:24

actually just found my own answer, there is no gps chip in a touch because all the usual map apps need an internet connection to work, but you can buy a case that has a small gps chip that turns the nano into a sat nav, which in turn I'd hope gives the nike+ app GPS.

http://gps.about.com/od/mobilephonegps/a/iPod-Touch-GPS.htm

The case (similar price to the watch though :/ http://about.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=796497006/search=magellan%2Btoughcase)

Otherwise when you run, its tracking you using wifi hotspots (which is actually pretty clever....it just wont work in a field)

07/05/2011 at 18:27
Like you, I was a happy Nike + user, although I used the Sportband rather than the iPod (hate running with music). I upgraded to the Sportwatch pretty much when it came out. I also have a Garmin 405 that I've had for a few years and never really used - I find it too complex and I don't like the Garmin website; conversely I really like the Nike website - it's simple, fun to use and motivational.

I'm very happy with the Sportwatch - I didn't have huge problems with the Sportband, although it did struggle over extended distances (as you've found with the Marathon) and if my pace fluctuated. It seems to pick up the GPS signal about as quickly as the Garmin, holds it well (you can use the footpod as 'insurance' in case it loses it) and is very reliable. One of the main issues I had with the Sportband was that it was flaky - I would frequently get messages saying there were no runs to upload etc. I connect to the USB port using the cable supplied (not just plugging the watch into the computer) and this is a really nice, secure link.

The data downloaded is similar, allows you to build on what's already there and gives mapping of your routes. Again, much simpler than the Garmin - I think this is a good thing, but if you're a stats freak then you may prefer the Garmin.

I've just bought the HR strap that goes with it, which links and works well. I am however about to post a question on the forum - I haven't been able to figure out how to set HR limits/alarms on the watch. I assume there must be a way, otherwise this would be a massive hole in the functionality.

Overall, I like it alot. If you're already a fan of the system, it's great - simple, accurate and builds on what's already there. My upgrade from Sportband to Sportwatch is much more like for like than going from a Nano to the Sportwatch however.
07/05/2011 at 18:52
I have the heartrate monitor as well, and as ive run with both the nano and a touch, I can pretty confirm it doesnt let you set limits or give any feedback about levels (with the current software anyway). So the only way you can use it whilst running is if you know what differant rates mean when you check your status. To be honest I've used it for about 4 months and havent really found it to be that useful.....sort of interesting after the event, but the patterns are what I'd expect....its been nothing more to me than a fairly useless gadget. I hit the button, it tells me how faster im going, how far and what my heart rate is....which is what I'd expect because if im doing a tempo run, its higher, if im on recovery its lower....but you never get any instructions about it or told to ease off or speed up.
08/05/2011 at 12:55
Wayne - thanks for the info. Looks like I've wasted £45 ! What a crap system ! Hard to imagine a more basic requirement for HR training than to be able to set an upper and lower limit and be notified when you go outside them......

Still like the watch, just slightly less !

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
7 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums