Suunto T4

Summary | Full Review | Reader Reviews | Gallery | Specs | Discussion
Suunto T4

Our Review

In the past, Suunto watches have offered excellent technical detail, but probably more information than the average runner would need. The T4 looks and feels different, and is a more running-focused product. Once you’re used to the logic of a Suunto model, the display and operation is easy to use. ...  Continue reading

Reader Reviews

4 user reviews of Suunto T4 See all

Overall reader score
Good piece of kit but compromised by poor finish and high cost of replacing flimsy strap which WILL break. Continue reading...
Probably best left for 'lifestyle' fashion rather than fitness purposes! Continue reading...
A very useful training tool, possibly let down by some of the attachments Continue reading...
A very good and fashionable HRM that has great features and compatibility with other Suunto products.

Twin with the Foot POD for the most benefit to your training. Continue reading...


Hi - I was thinking of buying a GPS watch for a friend at Xmas...Could anybody advise me which one is the most reliable and will work well in Central London. Someone told me that in big cities the signal gets losts quite often. Looking forward to reading your replies...

Posted: 12/12/2006 at 09:28

I would like to know about GPS watches as I'm thinking of getting one for Christmas. I don't run in town but I do run in the country where the GPS signal is a bit patchy. Can anyone help? Thanks. :)

Posted: 13/12/2006 at 13:26

Well, reading the Garmin threads you might think you would need to have your head examined to buy one...

I've had both the Polar S625x (which is not GPS) and the Garmin Forerunner 205 (which is GPS).

I didn't have the problems with the Garmin that others have described and found it did what it claimed to do (except measure altitude accurately, and as a keen fellrunner that was a bit of a drawback). I did find it awkward and un-intuitive to use (a bit like a Garmin eTrex GPS that I once owned - was forever pressing the wrong buttons by mistake), it was very bulky and kept needing recharging.

I pretty quickly went back to the Polar which I have found more running-orientated than the Garmin - a personal view admittedly. Its barometric altimeter is pretty accurate and I would be happy just to have it as a HRM with altimeter, but the footpod when calibrated is also reliable.

Now of course Polar have brought out the RS800SD and I really need one of them... pity pockets aren't deep enough.

Having said all that, I think it can be quite easy to get distracted by all the gadgetry and forget why you are out there running in the first place - most of the time I leave the gadgets behind and just use my Timex Ironman watch. You only have to read some of the other threads to get a sense that perfectly pleasant runs are being destroyed by frustration and irritation at malfunctioning gadgets! (I should know, I've been there!)

Posted: 13/12/2006 at 19:55

I'm thinking of getting one for myself. I'm in Central London too, and am looking for something that's suitable for ridiculously thin wrists. I like the idea of uploading information to computers but haven't spotted any watches that are mac-compatible yet. Any ideas gratefully received.

Posted: 16/12/2006 at 14:32

tricky_vic, I think the thin wrists might rule out the newer Garmins - mine proved to be like having a laptop on my wrist! The older x01 series might be more suitable and I think they came with a more adjustable velcro strap. The Polar S625X is about the same size as an ordinary digital watch, if a little bit thicker. Not sure about the new RS series.

Posted: 16/12/2006 at 19:49

Thanks greyhound. I will check out the Polar S625X. I also have an extremely stupid question - how do footpods differ from pedometers in terms of how they work?

Posted: 18/12/2006 at 00:37

I wouldn't pretend to understand the technology other than that they use accelerometers in the footpod to measure motion - rather different from a pedometer that uses a simple pendulum. TheDynastream website gives a bit of info - they make the technology that Polar licence for their footpod in the S625X.

Interestingly I note on their front page that Garmin have just bought them over - are Garmin seeing the limitations of their GPS systems for running??

Posted: 18/12/2006 at 07:57

BTW - not a stupid question at all - a very sensible one IMHO!

There is other stuff elsewhere on the web about how they work - they do have their limitations - a degree of variability between shoes ad terrain - but I have been pleasantly surprised by my Polar.

Posted: 18/12/2006 at 08:00

Garmin now have a footpod for the F305.

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 11:24

I'm like greyhound - have used both the 625 and the Garmin 205/305. I didn't like the Garmin - it was slow to pick up a signal, unreliable and pretty clunky compared to the Polar (both in aesthetics and software/function). I ebayed the Garmin and have stuck with the 625. Having said that, I pretty much never use the footpod and just use it as a very good HRM.

I've just succumbed to gadget lust and have just bought a Polar RS400 - like greyhound I liked the look of the RS800 but just couldn't justify the price. I'd recommend the RS400 over the 625 - it's easier to use and is more geared to running. Only thing it's missing is an altimeter (helps understand why heart rate is going up/down when you've downloaded to the PC).

I think Garmin have brought out the footpod to allow the unit to be used indoors (e.g. on a treadmill) where GPS would be useless.

It really boils down to what you like to do - if you want good pace & distance information go for the Polar, if you want distance and the ability to download your route to a map then Garmin. Like most runners I know I tend to have a certain number of routes I use 90% of the time, which is another reason I don't really bother with speed/distance measurement.

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 13:19

It sounds like at present there aren't any watches that come with Mac-compatible software. So at the moment I guess I may as well go for one without the computer software bells & whistles.

I like the sound of the Polars. I do want speed/distance, and footpods sound good as I often run in woodland and near tall buildings.

Does anyone still use these watches without software or I am just an old granny?

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 13:57

I found the 625 pretty difficult to use when I programmed it through the watch - much easier with a PC. The RS400 has a far better watch interface and I think you could easily use it without a computer.

Don't know much about Macs but did read on here that the newer ones with Intel chips can run PC software ?

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 14:19

I believe that's true about the new Intel Macs. I have a 2 year old G5 that I think I could get PC emulator software for but I'm no computer whiz, and know that'd I'd get trapped in computer hell rather than be out running!

With footpod the RS400 is £264.50, but the RS200 is £154.50. Comparing the two, the only significant difference I can see is that the RS400 comes with the PC software.

Does anyone have any experience of the RS200(SD?

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 16:14

I've just found and read the very helpful RS200 thread - think I'm going to plump for this, although I'm very keen to try it out first on my preposterously thin wrists. Don't want a bangle slipping up and down!

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 16:31

I think the main difference between the RS400sd and the RS200sd is the recording rate.
The RS200 records only at the end of a lap & average over the lap, while the RS400 records at settable recording rate (1, 5, 15, 60 seconds).
If you're not going to upload that data into a computer program to see your HR graph, I doubt you'll gain much more insight for your extra £100+.

RS200sd can be found for around £120 while I assume the fairly new RS400 will be close to RRP.
I've got the RS200sd, find it easy to use and read data from even without PC and I'm not convinced I could have justified paying double for the RS400sd and having more data to not do very much significant with ;-)

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 16:45

Thanks Imski!

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 16:50

sports tracker should work on your mac & that can read polar data & out put graphs & such

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 17:40

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 17:42

If you want to, even your Palm can read Polar files - mySportTraining will download from my Polar, and amazingly even though I think it's only designed for basic HRM info it turns out graphs of altitude and pace.

I must admit that I generally don't download much detail onto the PC - largely because my old PC is gathering dust since I moved over to an Apple iBook G4! And apart from drawing graphs, I don't think I'm missing out much. I'm not a great fan of electronic training diaries - I've got 20 years + recorded in old school excercise books and it's too late to change now! The Polar software does seem very sophisticated, though to be honest I simply download data onto the PC to look at the graphs etc an print out for my paper log - useful for identifying where everything went wrong in your last race!

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 20:04

I really hope this question does not lead to Impulse Purchase Syndrome, but could you say in what ways the RS400 is better for running than the S625x, Recovery Runner?

(Hastily locks away credit card and throws away key...)

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 20:40

Glad I locked away the Visa card.

Just looked at the Polar pdf, "The RS800SD story"

customisable screens...
R-R variation...
stride length...
I'm sure it's more accurate than the S1 footpod...
look, you can even change the batteries yourself...

think I'll have to go and lie down for a bit

Posted: 19/12/2006 at 20:56

Thanks for the info Kieren and Greyhound. Bought the RS200SD today from Run & Become and will be unleashing it on Christmas Day.

Can't wait!

Posted: 22/12/2006 at 18:06

Summary | Full Review | Reader Reviews | Gallery | Specs | Discussion