Shock as two wrist experiment exposes under-recording of mileage.
My three year old Garmin 305 recently started showing signs of its age, so I bought a 110 as back up.
I've been wearing one on each wrist for the last couple of runs just to check whether my suspicions that the 100 underecords distance are correct. And boy are they. This morning for instance my 305 showed I'd run 5:29 miles, whereas the 110 showed 5:06. This is a well plodded run for me (Peckham to Fetter Lane via Tower Bridge), so I know the 305 is more accurate.
Has anyone else found the 110 underrecords? I wonder whether it copes less well with built up urban areas and the occasional dip under railway arches?
I'm slow enough I don't need the watch to GPS watch to make me feel any worse about my lack of athletic prowess.
Are you wearing both on the same wrist?
On my 305 the GPS antena is on the bottom of the watch so when worn on the left wrist the antena will point to the sky when I'm running. If I wore the 305 on my right wrist the antena would be pointing to the floor instead therefore wouldnt be as accurate.
Separate wrists (left 305, right 110)
"Fast update": that sounds interesting. How do I find that? via the menu?
Good point. The 110 looks better. The 305 is like a badly fitted pacemaker.
PS Love the dogs in your picture btw. Are they Greyhounds? I had a couple until recently
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |