I ended up returning mine because of the running paces that I'd get. Anywhere between a 3:30 and 12:00 mile on flat roads with nothing overhead. Maybe that's an issue with all GPS devices and maybe I was looking for a reason to not like the watch, but that pushed me over the edge with it.

Don't think, problem solved


No GPS device works correctly on a track, pretty much common knowledge


So you can't swim in a straight line to save your ass. What makes that a Garmin problem?


The 910 has its short comings, agreed, but what you just listed are not.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I have had several Garmin watches. The 910xt seems to be the worst.
It can be relatively precise sometimes, but does not work well near my house. (Poor satellite reception?)
A common entertaining philosophical question I ask myself is:
What if my Garmin were right?

What does it say about physics if:
1) A counterclockwise loop is longer than a clockwise one?
A different directions around a loop is a different distance. One way around the track is further than another. Running around the block on the same curb is different depending on the direction.
2) Consecutive loops get progressively shorter in terms of distance?
Ever have the feeling that each loop is longer than the last? Well according to Garmin the opposite is true. That's why if you run the first 1 mile lap in 6:20 and the second (identical lap) in 6:20, you will slow from 6:30 pace (wrong to begin with) to 6:40 pace. (The loop got a little shorter).
3) The slower you go, the longer the distance between two fixed points become?
At approximately 5:30 pace, two points that are 1607 meters apart are (according to Garmin) 1598 meters apart. At approximately 9:30 pace the two points are only 1490 meters apart (according to Garmin).

I wish I had taken more theoretical physics but I think these Garmin observation (if correct) would predict :
1) That it is possible to have a circle with a diameter which is a negative number. A counter-clockwise loop of 1M diameter might have a clockwise diameter of -3 M.
2) If you keep running in a circle at a constant speed, eventually you will reach a point where the loop is expanding faster than you are moving. Thus allowing you to move forwards and backwards at the same time.
3) It should be possible to run so slowly, that again you are getting further away from both your destination and your origin simultaneously. (Traveling in a strait line).

Pretty trippy eh?

The funny thing is that tomorrow there will be a post about xxx course being wrong "because my Garmin said do."

Well, A. I always wondered why people use gps in workouts where you know the distance... in a pool, on the track.... Yes, you may need it for track splits, that's what the lap button is for (and sure it isn't set for yards? cuz 400M and 440yds and all, just saying). B. GPS units, all of them, are notoriously inaccurate in the water, since half your stroke is underwater, and your line may not be straight (and again, who cares, it's a set course, it is what it is).

Agree with the above that of the issues with the 910, track and water accuracy aren't them

They all have issues and won't trust any of them in open water. For track workouts, use a foot pod. That might increase the accuracy.

---

---

SmartBikeTrainers.com || YouTube || My Twitter

On of the things about technophilia is that rather than accepting what should be an obvious defect in a device, we go looking for explanations as to why the technology is really correct after all.
(What fun was my previous post).

Here are some practical tips (recognizing that Garmin 910xt does not work well near my house):
1) A 800M counterclockwise loop is correct.
A straight line will have me running 20 seconds per mile slower than I really am.
2) Your first mile will be the fastest - unless you seriously increase your speed, or you decrease the diameter of the loops you are running.
3) Every where you go is different. The 910xt can work well in someplaces.

Why doesn't a gps watch work for a track workout? Even with 1 second readings?

I always thought my 910 worked fine on the track, am I missing something? Maybe its been close enough that I haven't thought it to be off???

I didn't say they don't work for track workouts, just adding a footpod will increase its accuracy.

---

---

SmartBikeTrainers.com || YouTube || My Twitter

Garmin watches trace ones movement relative to satellites.
The more satellites, the more directly overhead the more precise the Garmin will be. This means that for many people Garmin will actually be precise (even on a track).
On the other hand, if there are only two satellites and they are located in the same direction (let's say to the far north), a loop will become distorted/distended. The software does not seem to know how to adjust for this. It seems to compensate as time goes on.
But this compensation has the effect of making consecutive loops get shorter or consecutive miles "get shorter."

The a-typical ST response. Nothing constructive, just smart-ass condescending statements. Although I find his statement about not thinking rather interesting. Never really heard somebody say 'don't think', but I guess that explains a lot about society.

My 910 distance and gps work fine. I have checked it against an 800 bike computer. Even on a track, no issues. The pace is also great, but I use a footpod. That clears up pretty much anything. The only lack of faith I have is knowing one button push and it could crash causing me have to send it in. Last track workout I hit the lap button and boom. A week later I have a refurbished unit. Time before that it was hitting the up arrow. Time before that the mode button. Time before that putting it on the charger. I'm actually kinda intrigued to know whats coming next.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Your user name should be changed to AutomaticJackASS

That must be the reason why you troll threads to add useless responses. I am sure your friends, or lack thereof, must really appreciate your educated comments.

"Don't think..." at least you practice what you preach.

"...pretty much common knowledge..." it was accurate with my previous polar device when I did track workouts and it happened to be on while I was doing the workout so that's how I found out.

"...can't swim in a straight line..." its pretty much common knowledge that most people don't, that is why they sight and just don't keep thier head down from point to point.

Your comments lack original thought but I guess that is what is to be expected that someone that can't come up with an original thread of their own.

Best of luck in life to you. I am sure you need it more than I do.

Please post links to these workouts. I'd like to see them and may be able to offer some tips.


/as mentioned, OWS is tough for watches to get right on the wrist. I am actually surprised you as close as you mention! Try putting the watch in your swim cap so that it stays above water more. That will help a lot.

Perhaps the Garmin is incredibly accurate. Actually if it wasn't for the known elevation issues that might not have needed to be in pink. Unless the swim was in glassy water with no swell one could argue the that swell itself could potentially add considerable distance to the GPS course length. Naturally though you would not actually have to swim that far because the buoyancy would counteract the gravity, so the ascents & descents are for free.