Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has anyone used the "Forerunner 201"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Has anyone used the "Forerunner 201"?

    Its the newest GPS device...its on www.gps4fun.com and many other sites. If anyone has had any experience or info on that give me a reply!!

  • #2
    Re: Has anyone used the

    >Its the newest GPS device...its on www.gps4fun.com and many other sites. If
    >anyone has had any experience or info on that give me a reply!!

    Turns out the review I gave here was for a Forerunner 201:

    http://trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/discus ... sage=39107

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Has anyone used the

      Actually the GPS forunner 201 or any GPS device is more accurate than your wheel or brains could ever measure. GPS is used all around the world for the accuratest measurements. 99% accuracy with no losses of signals equals a mesasurement of up to 150feet (give or take) accuracy. I think that's better than some wheel. GPS measures EXACTLY the trail you run. Your friend probabaly got a lower reading because he didn't exactly run where the course was measured. For example not staying on the exact line the course was measured could give you different readings because the GPS device is measureing each step one takes. I haven't had a problem with measurement on my GPS device and I've only lost a signal once since i bought it (the forerunner 201) 2 months ago. Overall I think its the grandpa's of running who do'nt like the new technology. Its a very useful device! 99% accuracy is what claims and for me its been accurate on every run. I usually run a little bit more than it says just in case its wrong. I've been useing GPS for my runs for the past 2 yrs and since then I've ran 26:22 for 5 miles and in high school I ran 4:21 mile. It hasn't hampered my performance but improved my overall 5 mile time.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Has anyone used the

        99% accuracy with no losses of signals equals a
        >mesasurement of up to 150feet (give or take) accuracy.

        Trouble is that he lost the signal the first time he used it several times resulting in a 4% error rate.

        I think that's better
        >than some wheel.

        Are you familiar with how they certify courses? They use "some wheel".

        GPS measures EXACTLY the trail you run. Your friend probabaly
        >got a lower reading because he didn't exactly run where the course was
        >measured.

        Wrong. Believe me, the group I run with is intimately familiar with this course.


        I haven't had a problem with measurement on my GPS device and
        >I've only lost a signal once since i bought it (the forerunner 201) 2 months
        >ago.

        Well, maybe he just got a bad one. It was the first time he used it. And last-it's been returned.

        I've been useing GPS for my runs for the past 2 yrs and
        >since then I've ran 26:22 for 5 miles and in high school I ran 4:21 mile. It
        >hasn't hampered my performance but improved my overall 5 mile time.

        Good for you but if you think that the GPS got you those times...My pbs in my pre grandpa days were better than that so using your theory, I would have been faster with a GPS? I don't think so.

        Why were you asking for people's thoughts on them in any event? You seem to have made up your mind on the product. And this is for a product that you indicated on another thread that you were just THINKING of buying.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Has anyone used the

          I think that's better
          >than some wheel.

          http://www.rrtc.net/book/manual.pdf

          Note page 5.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Has anyone used the

            If you look at the date on my original thred it goes back to Jan 27 and the reason why i've made up my mind is because I have had the thing since. I just ended up seeing my thred reposted and thought I'd comment on it. Did you ever think that when measuring with your "wheel" that your measure a specific line in which that line represents the 5 mile distance. If you friend was running slightly inside that line for 5 miles his GPS may read slightly shorter or if he ran slightly outside of that line he may run a little farther. Unless he ran exactly on the line that was measured for the whole 5 miles you'll get a reading close to (150ft. plus or minus, but most of the time minus) what your "wheel" measured. Read about GPS and if your intelligent enough you'll learn that its a highly accurate system used to navagate even our military. Another thing i wasn't saying that because of the GPS system i am now a better runner. I was just informing you that I'm not another crappy runner but a good athlete who uses GPS and has found that it hasn't hampered my trainning in 2 years, I use it everyday and still I am improve and not because of it.


            Read...
            http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/
            or
            http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/manual.html

            If your still not convinced then your just hard- headed because this technology has been proven over and over to be very very accurate. Up to 150ft. plus/minus. The other reason why somtimes its not accurate is because people who buy the devices don't spend time to read the manuels and learn how to work or understand GPS. With it later not working for them so they bring it back complaining.

            Also I've always seen people 40+ years old cower away from technology mainly because their brains can't think that fast. Some 40+ yr olds can do it and I think that's great. But those who cower away are just too lazy to learn new things, to lazy to open their steel-headed minds. Its a shame some of them critizie technology and it only proves that their stubborn idiots.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Has anyone used the

              >If you look at the date on my original thred it goes back to Jan 27 and the
              >reason why i've made up my mind is because I have had the thing since. I just
              >ended up seeing my thred reposted and thought I'd comment on it. Did you ever
              >think that when measuring with your "wheel" that your measure a specific line
              >in which that line represents the 5 mile distance. If you friend was running
              >slightly inside that line for 5 miles his GPS may read slightly shorter or if
              >he ran slightly outside of that line he may run a little farther. Unless he ran
              >exactly on the line that was measured for the whole 5 miles you'll get a
              >reading close to (150ft. plus or minus, but most of the time minus) what your
              >"wheel" measured. Read about GPS and if your intelligent enough you'll learn
              >that its a highly accurate system used to navagate even our military. If you
              >still think GPS is not accurate then your just another idiot. Another thing i
              >wasn't saying that because of the GPS system i am now a better runner. I was
              >just informing you that I'm not another crappy runner but a good athlete who
              >uses GPS and has found that it hasn't hampered my trainning in 2 years, I use
              >it everyday and still I am improve and not because of it.

              I think I can handle the intricacies of how to measure a course and the impact of tangents etc. The
              bottom line is that .19 miles(the difference in the case discussed) is 1003.2 feet. A few feet here or
              there compared to the wheeled off route is not going to produce that kind of error. I am also familiar
              with how a GPS works. I own one but you wouldn't catch me running with one. Not necessary. I
              own it for other reasons. Don't need any lessons in technology either. Thanks anyway. You'll have to tell me precisely what you did mean by this line then:

              "It hasn't hampered my performance but improved my overall 5 mile time."

              Shouldn't I approach that sentence as a strict constructionist?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Has anyone used the

                "A few feet here or there compared to the wheeled off route is not going to produce that kind of error."

                You never know...depending on how far off he was running from the wheeled line it may be off by some. Knowing that he lost reception there would be no doubt that there would be substantial error. It also depends on where you wear the Forerunner 201, if he had worn it on his wrist there's more of a chance of loss of signal. If worn on the shoulder there's less of a chance it would lose signal and plus less of a chance that it would measure the arm swing. In his case I think maybe a little of both wearing the GPS device on his wrist and not running on the exact line the course was measured in could have added to the distance. if anything maybe you should measure your course again and see what you get..

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Has anyone used the

                  >"A few feet here or there compared to the wheeled off route is not going to
                  >produce that kind of error."

                  You never know...depending on how far off he
                  >was running from the wheeled line it may be off by some. Knowing that he lost
                  >reception there would be no doubt that there would be substantial error. It
                  >also depends on where you wear the Forerunner 201, if he had worn it on his
                  >wrist there's more of a chance of loss of signal. If worn on the shoulder
                  >there's less of a chance it would lose signal and plus less of a chance that it
                  >would measure the arm swing. In his case I think maybe a little of both wearing
                  >the GPS device on his wrist and not running on the exact line the course was
                  >measured in could have added to the distance. if anything maybe you should
                  >measure your course again and see what you get..

                  A selective response. Course is fine and you are just making my case with all of the potential errors that could be produced by the product.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Has anyone used the

                    I'm saying the error is in the person useing the product. GPS is 99% accurate and I'd rather be able to run a 10 miler knowing i ran a 10miler than have to wip out my little Wheelie and measure the whole ten miles walking. I'd rather use the GPS and just run a little extra knowing that its 150ft. off usually. The product does have error, because its not perfect. But its 99% accuracy is better than other SDM's on the market.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Has anyone used the

                      Just think what those 250(or whatever the number was) guys who qualified for the OT in 84 could have done with all this technology.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Has anyone used the

                        >I'd rather be able to run a 10 miler knowing i ran a 10miler than have to
                        >wip out my little Wheelie and measure the whole ten miles walking. I'd rather
                        >use the GPS and just run a little extra knowing that its 150ft. off usually.

                        But aside from the technical trivialities, why? What purpose apart from obsessive-compulsiveness, is served in your training by making sure you get within 150 feet of a 10 mile training run, even if it is a tempo run?

                        Are you training to race or training to record the details to the correct decimal in your log book?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Has anyone used the

                          Its a shame
                          >some of them critizie technology and it only proves that their stubborn
                          >idiots.

                          Boys, boys! Let's be civil here- I am not sure what the problem is- so someone swears by the new technologies (except maybe spellcheck?) and either is or knows someone who ran a race, or trail, and got a different reading than what was advertised, having been wheel measured? So?
                          My understanding is that races and records go by times on the track, and only places count once you go off-roading on your feet. When I do training runs, I write down an estimated time (not F.A.T.) and figure an estimated distance. When I want to pretty much know how far or fast I ran, I hit the track. If I run a trail race and get beat, my watch, GPS, sundial, calendar, spyrogyrometer, or whatever does nothing to change the fact that someone ran either faster or smarter (or shorter, within the legal limits of staying on course) than I did.
                          Did I miss something here? (And here I must admit, I might be considered "old" by a few of you
                          in this discussion.)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Has anyone used the

                            Did I miss something here? (And here I must admit, I
                            >might be considered "old" by a few of you
                            in this discussion.)

                            Maybe by Big Al, possibly by Asterix and certainly not by me. Big Al's stereotypical comments are examples of ageism at its worst.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Has anyone used the

                              haha Ageism! Yes I am a Ageist!! I just ticks me off when I hear people compalin about technology. Wheather that's haveing to send a paper via-email or having to live with new technology. Some older people accept technology, learn and live with it like me, others complian because their stubborn.

                              Anyways this whole thread's point was about how bad or good GPS devices are. As a athlete myself GPS takes the guess work out of having to guess how far or how fast I ran. I go out run for about an hour and 5 minuets and after I look at my watch I see that I ran 10+ miles at a certain pace. Knowing that GPS has been for me 99% or better accurate I find it motivates me because it tells me how much I've been improving. I go to Mammoth and run any odd trail and it helps in telling me how far I've ran without having to guess by effort, how tired I am on that day, guessing how much downhill I was running, or that maybe since I was at high elevation I possibly would run as far. GPS just tells me, beeps when its time to turn around and then at the end gives me accuracy of up to 150ft. more or less. I just strap it on my arm and run and after I'm done it says how far I've ran. Better than guessin how far i've ran and adding in all the different factors in to how far the run was.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X