Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

New generation of 'classic' footpods?
Quote | Reply
Hi

I know (according to dcrainmaker) all available regular foot pods, like the classic one from Garmin, contain basically the same hardware. Now that products like Stryde show up on the market, I wonder if there are updated versions of classic footpods (no "running power" measurements and other gimmicks e.g.) in the making or already available.

what I'm looking for is a pod that calculates cadence, and accurate pace & distance for different speeds

cheers, j
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think that there is anything substantial that improves upon cadence, pace, and distance. The secret sauce to the Stryd is that it has more accelerometer information and enough internal CPU juice to process movement in 3 dimensions to generate all of the power and metrics real-time. But, the simple task of counting steps is not improved from the old school devices.

One tip I found by accident, after I got my Stryd... There is a setting on my Garmin watch to use foot pod all the time for real-time pace. Couple this with the watch setting that auto-calibrates the stride length for the foot pod, and instantaneous pace on the watch is very good. I would have had this same benefit with my old Garmin foto pod, however.

Because of its 3D accelerometers, the Stryd probably could have even more accurate speed and distance than a classic foot pod. However, I do not think there is any data path in any watch to use advanced foot pod data for these two metrics. Plus, you would not want distance outside when you have GPS, so these would only be beneficial on a treadmill.
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thanks. so "oldschool" pods are still quite accurate at different speeds/paces? I'd find accurate & instant pace helpful for intervals & such and accuracy when I run in an area with tree cover. which Garmin watch do you use?

exxxviii wrote:
I don't think that there is anything substantial that improves upon cadence, pace, and distance. The secret sauce to the Stryd is that it has more accelerometer information and enough internal CPU juice to process movement in 3 dimensions to generate all of the power and metrics real-time. But, the simple task of counting steps is not improved from the old school devices.

One tip I found by accident, after I got my Stryd... There is a setting on my Garmin watch to use foot pod all the time for real-time pace. Couple this with the watch setting that auto-calibrates the stride length for the foot pod, and instantaneous pace on the watch is very good. I would have had this same benefit with my old Garmin foto pod, however.

Because of its 3D accelerometers, the Stryd probably could have even more accurate speed and distance than a classic foot pod. However, I do not think there is any data path in any watch to use advanced foot pod data for these two metrics. Plus, you would not want distance outside when you have GPS, so these would only be beneficial on a treadmill.
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fenton wrote:
thanks. so "oldschool" pods are still quite accurate at different speeds/paces? I'd find accurate & instant pace helpful for intervals & such and accuracy when I run in an area with tree cover. which Garmin watch do you use?
I think they are pretty good, especially if you have the Use Always setting in play. The nut is that it is limited in accuracy by the fact that your stride length will change during hills and intervals form an overall run average. But, it is still radically better than instantaneous pace from GPS. I have seen my GPS pace jump up and down by 30 sec./mile. However, pod-based pace is much more stable. So, while running an interval, maybe your instantaneous pace reading is 5% to 10% low. But, it would be consistently low for all of your similar intervals. With GPS pace, you truly have no clue how fast you are running.

I have the Garmin 735XT.
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thanks a ton, cheers :)
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There's a good discussion of the "classic" footpods here http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Footpod

And his tests have the Footpods right up there with better accuracy than a GPS watch http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [AdamML] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thanks AdamML, somehow missed your reply :)

AdamML wrote:
There's a good discussion of the "classic" footpods here http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Footpod

And his tests have the Footpods right up there with better accuracy than a GPS watch http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [AdamML] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
holy shit! that dude completely geeked out on this topic

looks like current pace & cadence (+ distance when no GPS available) from a Stryd pod in combination with a watch would be perfect. So here's me wishing a pod that can do exactly that without the other metrics like "power"

interestingly enough he mentioned something I had a gut feeling about:
"3.1 Progress of newer watches
I expected GPS watches to improve with time, but the opposite appears to be happening. With the Garmin devices especially, you can see that the older watches generally do far better than the newer ones. I suspect this is due to compromises to get better battery life and smaller packaging and the cost of GPS accuracy."


especially that every Garmin from now on will come with an integrated HRM (and it's drawbacks)
Last edited by: Fenton: Apr 8, 17 7:16
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Apart from one fundamental flaw, the Garmin FR50 was my favourite watch. Footpads only, no GPS, but the watch and strap were one unit so when the strap broke after 6 months (more than one occurrence) it had to go back to Garmin for the $50 refurb.

My only downer on Footpads is they don't tend to cope with hills particularly well (especially steep, off road ones).
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a Garmin 735 that is exact on the treadmill other than the first .04 miles (the time it takes for me to hold the button down to increase to my desired run speed.) I would guess you could set it to indoor run and then run outside. I'm not sure it would be any less or more "exact" than a foot pod.


--Chris
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fenton wrote:
holy shit! that dude completely geeked out on this topic

You're right. We should get him on slowtwitch.

The MilestonePod is right in my budget but the Stryd costs 10x more. So I'm rooting for the MilestonePod and the budget gadget which is stunningly accurate.

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Twitter
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Timtek] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just bought a milestone pod for my wife to use on our treadmill. I ran with it and it's off compared to what my garmin and treadmill say. Those 2 match so guessing that is more right. The milestone pod can be calibrated though which I haven't done yet. Waiting for her to use it and then I'll calibrate it. It's a pretty cool pod that gives a bunch of interesting info and it stores runs so you don't actually need a watch or something to use it. It'll sync with the app when you get back.


--Chris
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
exxxviii wrote:
With GPS pace, you truly have no clue how fast you are running.

Or even exactly how far:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/...es_distance_traveled
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [chriselam] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bummer though milestone doesn't give any real-time feedback + you have to use it with their app
chriselam wrote:
I just bought a milestone pod for my wife to use on our treadmill. I ran with it and it's off compared to what my garmin and treadmill say. Those 2 match so guessing that is more right. The milestone pod can be calibrated though which I haven't done yet. Waiting for her to use it and then I'll calibrate it. It's a pretty cool pod that gives a bunch of interesting info and it stores runs so you don't actually need a watch or something to use it. It'll sync with the app when you get back.
Last edited by: Fenton: Apr 9, 17 9:09
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
interesting

*unrelated* out of curiosity I took my forerunner 220 to the track for the first time today and I didn't expect any positive results, oddly enough it was spot on every 400m (counter clockwise, watch on the left arm + running close to the outer marking, so that my left arm would swing in the middle).

hope this isn't a one off

Andrew Coggan wrote:
exxxviii wrote:
With GPS pace, you truly have no clue how fast you are running.


Or even exactly how far:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/...es_distance_traveled
Last edited by: Fenton: Apr 9, 17 9:18
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fenton wrote:
out of curiosity I took my forerunner 220 to the track for the first time today and I didn't expect any positive results, oddly enough it was spot on every 400m (counter clockwise, watch on the left arm + running close to the outer marking, so that my left arm would swing in the middle).

No, this is typical. I have read that other dude's accuracy and precision comparisons, and something does not pass the sniff test. I run the exact same route 3x week with two other guys who have different GPS watches. Over hundreds of runs, my watches have had a standard deviation of <0.02 miles on the 5 mile run. Their watches are similarly precise. That is pretty freaking excellent, and does not reconcile with fellrnr's results. For example, he has the iPhone ranked pretty high relative to other GPS watches, but in my everyday use, they are crap. When I have done the same statistical comparisons with an iPhone, the SD was a little more than 0.1 miles. And further contrast to fellrnr's results, I have observed GPS watches getting more precise as newer versions are released. My 735XT is definitely more precise than the 910XT it replaced.

So, I suspect something in his protocol may amplify errors or issues that do not occur in real life use.

The other mystery in his testing and analysis (which he does not address) is the "calibrated" pods get their calibration from GPS. So, to argue that a pod is highly accurate while GPS is not is a bit of a conflict.

Something is off that needs a credible, statistics-based defense.
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree, something in his testing seems off

exxxviii wrote:
Fenton wrote:
out of curiosity I took my forerunner 220 to the track for the first time today and I didn't expect any positive results, oddly enough it was spot on every 400m (counter clockwise, watch on the left arm + running close to the outer marking, so that my left arm would swing in the middle).

No, this is typical. I have read that other dude's accuracy and precision comparisons, and something does not pass the sniff test. I run the exact same route 3x week with two other guys who have different GPS watches. Over hundreds of runs, my watches have had a standard deviation of <0.02 miles on the 5 mile run. Their watches are similarly precise. That is pretty freaking excellent, and does not reconcile with fellrnr's results. For example, he has the iPhone ranked pretty high relative to other GPS watches, but in my everyday use, they are crap. When I have done the same statistical comparisons with an iPhone, the SD was a little more than 0.1 miles. And further contrast to fellrnr's results, I have observed GPS watches getting more precise as newer versions are released. My 735XT is definitely more precise than the 910XT it replaced.

So, I suspect something in his protocol may amplify errors or issues that do not occur in real life use.

The other mystery in his testing and analysis (which he does not address) is the "calibrated" pods get their calibration from GPS. So, to argue that a pod is highly accurate while GPS is not is a bit of a conflict.

Something is off that needs a credible, statistics-based defense.
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There's a beta firmware for realtime. I got it to use with Zwift running and running social app.


--Chris
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [chriselam] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nice! now we only need ANT+ :)
chriselam wrote:
There's a beta firmware for realtime. I got it to use with Zwift running and running social app.
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
looks like the new Stryde Live might be what I was initally looking for
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/...sight-strydlive.html
https://www.stryd.com/live

...oh my, just when I bought an old Garmin Pod. anyways, hope they'll go down with then price, other than that it looks pretty good
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The major issue I see with the Stryd Live is the battery-life; they don't state a value on the webpage, which leads me to think it's not significantly better than the normal Stryd (i.e. stated at 20 hrs but reported much less). The traditional ones e.g. the Garmin have a coin-cell that you only need to replace every 6-12 months and that definitely beats charging up my shoes every week!
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [awenborn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ok, this might be an isuue, on the other hand no calibration and switching between shoes

awenborn wrote:
The major issue I see with the Stryd Live is the battery-life; they don't state a value on the webpage, which leads me to think it's not significantly better than the normal Stryd (i.e. stated at 20 hrs but reported much less). The traditional ones e.g. the Garmin have a coin-cell that you only need to replace every 6-12 months and that definitely beats charging up my shoes every week!
Quote Reply
Re: New generation of 'classic' footpods? [Fenton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fenton wrote:
I agree, something in his testing seems off

exxxviii wrote:
Fenton wrote:
out of curiosity I took my forerunner 220 to the track for the first time today and I didn't expect any positive results, oddly enough it was spot on every 400m (counter clockwise, watch on the left arm + running close to the outer marking, so that my left arm would swing in the middle).

No, this is typical. I have read that other dude's accuracy and precision comparisons, and something does not pass the sniff test. I run the exact same route 3x week with two other guys who have different GPS watches. Over hundreds of runs, my watches have had a standard deviation of <0.02 miles on the 5 mile run. Their watches are similarly precise. That is pretty freaking excellent, and does not reconcile with fellrnr's results. For example, he has the iPhone ranked pretty high relative to other GPS watches, but in my everyday use, they are crap. When I have done the same statistical comparisons with an iPhone, the SD was a little more than 0.1 miles. And further contrast to fellrnr's results, I have observed GPS watches getting more precise as newer versions are released. My 735XT is definitely more precise than the 910XT it replaced.

So, I suspect something in his protocol may amplify errors or issues that do not occur in real life use.

The other mystery in his testing and analysis (which he does not address) is the "calibrated" pods get their calibration from GPS. So, to argue that a pod is highly accurate while GPS is not is a bit of a conflict.

Something is off that needs a credible, statistics-based defense.
Well, he lists his protocol and adheres to it. It's up to you to give credence or not. I have a F3, a Stryd and a Garmin footpod and my limited, non-scientific testing over a few thousand Km aligns with his results: Stryd uber alles, Garmin footpod much better than GPS but not as accurate as the Stryd or as responsive on pace changes or as stable under steady pace (treadmill). GPS on Fenix3 better than nothing but only good for ballpark. Internal accelerometer completely all over the place - actual 5:00/km pace reported anywhere from 4:10 to 5:30.
Quote Reply