Sharing user experience
I am starting to doubt the reliablity of my Nike+Running iPod Nano.
I did a 16k run yesterday. When I looked at my running stats afterwards, it gave me quite a fast result for the run, which was quite surprising because I was trying to run slower than normal because of the heat. I even had to stop once for about 2 minutes because I fell and in the end I went up a very long steep hill which slowed me down.
I have recently done some other, shorter runs at a higher perceived effort level and I got a much slower pace for the runs I tried to do fast than the one I did yesterday.
I don't know if I am being dumb here or whether this gadget is truly not the most accurate device. All I want is a reasonably accurate reading and reliable stats so that I can measure my progress.
If you are a Nike+iPod user, have you had any similar experience, what do you think is causing it, did you try to manipulate it to get more accurate stats?
If the gadget reports you did 16km and you did 16km then the time is accurate.
I find my Nike+ to be within 1 and 3% or GPS, depending on type of run.
Thank you for your comments so far. I have a Nano with in-bult sensor, not the shoe gadget.
I guess after all this was designed for the everyday consumer rather than the serious minded runner. I really love the Nano and the features on the Nike+ Running website, it is just the stats that bother me sometimes.
Yes, I did consider getting a Garmin - it's just the price that puts me off. Maybe Santa Claus will warm towards the idea of getting me one
Glad someone else is having the same issues as me. Im not convinced by mine either but it does ask me to calibrate it every so often and therefore l dont think it's THAT far out. Obviously l know my local area and when l try to map out the route in my head l dont think it can be so far out as to give me a totally unrealistic reading. All being well it will be giving me shorter distances than what im actually running anyway.
Timi, wanna be secret santas together this year?
I used to have the Nike+ iPod kit (the one with the sensor in the trainers) and mine was useless. 8/10 times it recorded distance inaccurately, and a couple of times it picked up other people's shoe sensors instead of mine! I had to replace the shoe sensor after 3 months and when the replacement failed I decided that I'd be better off buying a Garmin instead of wasting another £20+ on a shoddy Nike sensor. I've had my 305 for just over a year now and I love it
A lot of my running buddies are raving about the Nike Fuelband but I had such bad experiences with the Nike+ that I'll never buy another Nike tracking product.
"Yes, I did consider getting a Garmin - it's just the price that puts me off."
The Forerunner 110 can be had for £100 or so. But look out for the new Forerunner 10, yet to appear in this country but pitched at £99 on the website so could be less.
The Nike+ is not at all "totally inaccurate". I have figures that can prove that it's out, but by at most 5% and that's during interval or hill sessions.
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 |