thanks for the heads up; I'll avoid updating mine for now.

We have been sitting tight. First for the product release. Then for the fake sw upgrade and now for hopefully the correct sw update. Loosing confidence and patience w garmin.

Yeah. I typically am a Garmin lover but I am frustrated by this as well. I just yanked my 305 off ebay as I will use it for runs for now since I am someone who does care a lot about current pace. I will use the 910xt for swims but its one hell of an expensive swim watch.

What is worse about it exactly? I just updated but havent used it again yet

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18295
Gustav Larsson supporter

Did you double check on the watch that the firmware actually updated? Meaning, what version on the watch does it show?

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

What's now worse? I used it 3 times for today and yesterday for workouts.

So ..................... what's worse?
I heard the update made things better.
Not so?
-YT

Curious. I do not understand the importance of current pace being an issue. Not flamin at all. If the current pace was absolutly spot on, would you be constantly changing your effort if it was changing lets say between 5 seconds? Is it something you use to change your effort with? Or is it you just like to know all the time, more than knowing what your exact pace for the last .10 mile was?
Thanks, i is really important for some so I am curious. For me, if my pace is that important I just look at splits, however small they may be, but I would not be changing my effort for any pace with in a tenth of a mile, Think that woud screw with my head to much.....Thanks

Where does it say? did not see it when I first turned on, thanks

Under Settings > then About Forerunner. May be called system within that.

Either way, you're looking for this screen:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/...%25255B11%25255D.jpg

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

Thanks

I just received mine yesterday, applied the update before my first workout and used it for a run today, works like a charm, though the TGT was a bit more intuitive.

2.40

It is important to me. Currently it bounces around all over the place. I can tell by pace if I am going to blow up. Perhaps I am too anal about numbers but I'm not sure the other info is really that important compared to current pace. The other stuff is just for analysis post run. In a 5k race, it is really easy to get the adrenaline going and go out way too fast. With instant pace, I can typically race better by going out slower and then pushing later. I am a creature of habit and like 1 mile splits and current pace. I don't want to have to monkey around with shorter splits so the watch can be helpful-this is a complete waste of time for me.

Thanks. I was just curious......It would drive me nuts. Obviously because of complaints it is very important for a lot of people. Thanks again

Yeah, maybe it shouldn't be that important to me...I'm not the greatest athlete and have a lot to learn so am open to suggestions....Thanks

For me, and I repeat only for me. Think most would not do what I do. But I go by effort and look at pace just as a guage. So in a 5k I would not even look till a mile in, then I would be happy or sad from my time, but if my effort is where it is supposed to be and hr, I let pace fall where it may. On my bike for a race I never have mph on the screen. Just hr time and distance.
I imagine for most having that instant pace to adjust for your goals is a great tool. I was just curious so that is why I asked. So thanks again.

Makes sense if you have good self awareness of effort. I'm not sure I am there yet and maybe using the watch as a crutch for this is hindering this awareness. As I am upping my run mileage lately, I am running more by HR trying to keep 155 or below so I have a lower likelihood of injury as mileage increases. Thanks for your perspective.

I don't want to dissuade you or anyone else from using the features you like. But I think that in the long term, you will be a better runner (particuarly a better racer) if you learn how to pace yourself without the instantaneous pace feature. It is, in a sense, a crutch

Don't get me wrong, I use the Garmin per-mile splits myself in some races. One could say that they are just a less-frequent crutch. So in that sense, I'm a hypocrite. But I also had 25 years of racing in me before I ever even put on a Garmin. I had enough 5ks where I went out like gangbusters so I was forced to learn how to pace myself, even with all the adrenaline flowing, even without a GPS telling me how fast I'm going right then.. If I had had that watch back when I started, I don't think I ever would have learned. Having a less frequent update forces you to pay much closer attention to how you are feeling, because you aren't going to be able to get that confirmation number for another mile. That's a really good thing for your racing.

...and now I see Kenney basically said the same thing while I was typing all that...

Learn to stop looking at your watch so much and run by feel. Do you ever see any elite runners looking at the instant pace from their watch?

Most will only have a watch that they have to manual hit the lap button at a mile marker to see how fast or slow they were in the last mile, and compare that to the effort they were putting into that mile. Some days you just don't have "it" and should not try to stay at the pace that you had planned.

Good points and I agree.

Well I am in my fifties. By this time a great advantage is that your body automaticlly seems to know what effort for the distance. To many times I changed my effort for time goals and screwed up. Again, that is just me though. For an IM for the bike I will just have hr and distance on my computer and am either pleaently surprised of disappointed at mile 56. First time I will look at time.
I do not think you are using the watch as a crutch. You are using the tool correctly. There was nothing for me to use years ago for current pace, so I learned with different tools, that all.

I think to be fair, it depends on the distance of the race. As noted, in my longer distance training lately, I am going by HR. I am concerned that in a 5k race, you can adjust too late by waiting for a mile to check pacing. An example is a local race where I followed a tall guy in a Fleet Feet Racing singlet as he could "part the seas" . I usually run 7 min miles for a 5k. I looked up at mile 1 and ran a 5:25. By then, it was too late. My friends ran by me at 1.4 miles and could see I was done. Good lesson learned and not the end of the world. Part of the fun is learning. I would like to do longer races as I have been doing some training rides with a friend training for IM Couer d Alene. He has a very good coach. We rode 50 miles and he had to keep in a certain zone. It was great. We then ran 4 miles off the bike and I didn't even feel like I had worked out. Thanks for the input. I'm trying to get better at this and have a long ways to go.....

I struggle to see the need for instantaneous pace myself, so the views in this thread are becoming quite interesting. To me, it doesnt seem worthwhile in a race provided you have experience actually racing. In a 5K, for example, you just learn how to pace yourself for X number of minutes after youve done it a few times. At that point, you should really be racing by feel anyway...dont let yourself get caught up in hitting perfect splits (for a marathon or something, splits are much more important in the first half of the race. But there is also lots of time to correct once youve seen a mile split) and if you get caught going out too fast, put your head down, gut out whatever you can, and learn for next time. Obviously people have different opinions on this, but just my thoughts....

And if you can run a mile in 5:25 at all, Id think youd be able to run better than 7s for a 5k, no?

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18295
Gustav Larsson supporter

No unfortunately not faster than I said. I even seem to be getting slower for the first time in a long time as I am increasing my mileage

If you want more accurate instantaneous pace, get a footpod. Then you also get the side benefit of having your treadmill workouts recorded.

good idea. Thanks

Agree, everyone has to use training tools the way that works for them. In a way, I actually like that pace is unreliable presently - I'll explain. Because it was so wildly unreliable I have setup the watch to take mile splits and I have lap pace on my main screen. So, if I'm to be running at a given pace I can see how I'm trending for that given mile. For long steady pace runs or intervals with steady pace -- it's forced me to think longer term instead of in the moment. That said, I would REALLY like the instant pace feature to work similar to how it does on the 310xt. Why you ask? Short paced intervals. Right now, if I'm supposed to do 30s to 2m intervals @ better than 5k pace, as an example, it makes it much harder (e.g. not possible) for me to see what I'm doing for that effort to make sure I'm appropriately pacing. The only way that I can think to do this now, and it's a pain, is to create a workout, with said intervals, and then the watch would calculate the lap (or interval) pace.

In short, I can get by -- but would really like to see Garmin get this right.

I think the other big benefit of the instantaneous pace is if you set up a workout in the device and use pace for the gauge for various parts of the workouts. I thought about doing this but with the instant pace broken I decided against it and just current lap average. I just keep looking every so often during the tempo miles to make sure I'm on track especially at the beginning when I tend to feel fresh and go faster and of course towards the end.

Good luck.

I have been going back and forth between this and the 610. I got the 610 and it is great. I know it says don't swim with it, but I know of a bunch of people that wear it swimming with no problems.

Anyway, great watch and incredible run pacing.

Anyone need a 305 while they wait for the 910xt? I am going to get rid of it now that the 610 works so well.

I just got my 910xt and it will not take a charge. I e-mailed support and they told me to reset it, which I have done several times. I have tried to charge it in the wall and off the computer. It just vibrates and says "charging" but never goes anywhere. I was hoping someone might have some insight or ideas since this is the first Garmin I have owned that has the clip-on charger. Thanks in advance for any help, I just want to use my new toy. :)

Are you sure it is not already fully charged? Mine was charged out of the box.

As for instant pace. I use it all the time. Works for me, I don't see why people seem so keen for others not to use it. It's not like I spend my time staring at the watch and going slightly faster or slower to hit a certain pace. It's not really that much different from the small increment average pace that others talk about except that it is current.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

This was on another thread:


Try hard resetting the watch after the update. See if that helps.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

Thank you. I will try it.

I received the update, it def fixed a problem with where the Speed/Cadence sensor wasn't giving me mileage indoors when using with my Quarq. I haven't tried instant pace yet

I'm also in my fifties and got a late start to running (early 40s), and even later into triathlon. I started with the Garmin 301 many moons ago and it never trusted the current pace. I now have the 910xt and really like it, but continue to use the running in a very similar way. Here are a couple of things that have worked really well for me.
- I always display current average lap pace which really tells me the most about my pacing. Just this morning, I was finishing a 20 mile training run with a couple of friends. The goal was to do the last 5 miles at a 6:45 pace, so every 50 yards I would check the average lap pace to see if we were going too fast or slow and we would adjust accordingly. It works like a charm. Tough workout though!

- During races I sometimes set the lap distance to .25 miles instead of 1.0 miles. This way I get more frequent updates - kind of like running mile repeats on the track and checking your watch every 400 meters to see if you are on target pace. Of course you can set it to every 200 meters if you want. One of the best things about the 910xt is the vibration alerts !!! You don't have to remember to look at your watch (sometimes it is hard to hear the beep), the vibration is a great reminder and tells you that you just hit a lap (whatever the distance).

- I also display total average pace for the run. This tells me during if I am still tracking to my pace target for the entire workout. I targeted between 7:45 and 8min pace for the first 15 miles this morning; the first were a litte slow (uphill), but then averaged out nicely as the run progressed.

I use the same settings on the bike. The total average pace is a real motivator for me at the end of a ride to try to get my ride pace up (or at least not lose too much on the last hill to my house).

So far, I'm really impressed with this watch. Great in the pool and on the bike. I look forward to some of the upgrades - I think they can really add a lot of nice features in software updates AND on the Garmin Connect web site.

Ran a hard 5k today and just used the lap pace. Worked out well. Thank you to all for the suggestion to not get too caught up on instant pacing.

The whole "you don't really need that feature anyway" is the ST answer to Steve Jobs' "you're holding it wrong."

If the device is purported by the manufacturer to have a feature and it doesn't deliver that feature, it's the manufacturer's failure. Whether the feature is important to you is irrelevant.

Who claimed that the feature not working was not the manufacturer's fault?

This has just come up in several threads, and the universal answer has been "you don't want/need that anyway." Statements like that just seem to ignore the fact that Garmin delivered a watch with a feature that doesn't work. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

You are

To clarify, so I dont sound so glib. I might not have felt compelled to start a thread titled, "You dont need the instant pace feature on a Garmin" but when I see the outcry about a "feature" I feel is pointless and counterproductive even when it does work, I also see an opportunity to perhaps convince someone to ditch it.

Doesnt mean I let Garmin off the hook for it. They are so embarrasingly bad about their software. Thats far from the only bug in the 910 software. They couldnt even get the light button right.

I think it is a good tool for longer distances, when I do long runs it's nice to know what kind of a pace I am at for that particular mile. 14.6 miles in, when my form and feel are sloppy anyway, looking down to see I'm still on or off pace sure as shit beats doing math while I'm running. To instantaneously give you your pace 10 steps into a mile is a pretty damn good feature if you ask me. The best place to get a feel for your pace is the track though. When I stopped using music and started listening to my body while I was running intervals and tempos I got a better understanding of how to run even splits. I can easily tell when I'm running a minute and a half faster than I should be, thank you Baynard Stadium track sessions. And I didn't have to pay $450.00 for that. Just bought a bottle of water and ran.

---

When asked what irks him he replied,
"Cheats, smokers and arrogance. In that order."
-C. Stoltz

No you are not reading too much into it. I agree 100%. I used instant pace on my fr305 for years and it always worked great. I figured this was an upgrade and am pretty disappointed. I like to know how fast I am running now, not how fast I ran 10 minutes ago. If I am climbing a hill, I like to know how much the hill has slowed me down. In fact the whole reason I initially bought my fr305 is to be able to determine how fast I was running. At any rate, it worked great on the 305 so it was my expectation that it would work on the 910. As I mentioned earlier, the fr305 had a smoothing filter option which was configurable. Not sure if it was this smoothing filter that helped. Now, with the SW update it is much better then earlier but still a bit jumpy and less accurate as the 305. I hope Garmin fixes this, at least to be as good as the cheaper 305.

Instant pace works fine on my 910XT with the new update.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

There was the notion that the faster you ran the more accurate the instant pace. Could this still be true with the sw update? So maybe, us slower runners are still seeing some accuracy issues. I run somewhere between 9 and 10 min miles. It seemed like when I was at the 9 range it was ok but when i slowed down to be closer to 10 min mile it started showing 11 and sometimes 12 min miles. I know I am not that slow.

Doubt it.

FWIW, I had no plan for my run this morning, so I decided to run miles at various steady paces to check the SW update. For me, the pace issue was fixed. Prior to the update I was seeing +/-1:50/mile. Mile splits still came out accurate and commensurate with RPE. Today, with miles between 6:00 and 9:00 I saw a consistent variance of +/- 5s/mile on instant pace with less frequent pace changes on screen. Tested miles at 30s/mile increments on a known course with checkpoints for each mile. Splits and distances were still accurate. This is exactly what I've seen over the past year with a FR610.

Thank you. The hard reset after the software really helped and I would recommend this to anyone who has done the update and still has not had the problems solved.

Guys,When I first got my 910, the instant pace was useless. I uploaded Version 2.4 and did my first run with the new software yesterday and it worked perfectly. If anything, I would say that it is better than my 310 on instant pace. No more large jumps at all. That being said, I rarely use instant pace but its still good to know its no longer an issue.

I posted this on another forum as well, but wanted to post it here to:

Just downloaded the update and have a swim workout scheduled for tomorrow morning; however, not by backlight doesn't come on.

I've tried powering down and turning it back on to no avail - any suggestions?

Thanks,

twomarks

I don't think it was *just* instant pace that was busted in the first firmware. My initial runs with the 910xt seemed to short me distance in a big way, too. The couple since the update seem to be right in line with my 310xt, though. Both still short distance a LITTLE on singletrack trail runs, but it seems they all do. The early firmware was about 15% shorter than even normal, though.


--Donnie

I just went to swim, pushed power and it vibrated and did not turn on. Before this it showed 3 bars of power. When I got home, I put it in the charger and it said 3% charged. Maybe it just needs charging....

I saw a big improvement w the sw update but still a bit jumpy compared with the fr305. The 305 had a smoothing filter which prob helped. My bigger issue now is the slow map redraw. I was following a course on the 910. The trail had lots of twists n turns and the 910 couldn't redraw fast enough to keep up. 4 out of 5 times I looked, it was busy drawing. So pretty much useless again. The 305 worked like a charm.

As the instant pace feature on the 910 has frustrated me until the latest update, reading this thread has frustrated me even more. Two points to be made here. First, it does not matter if you think IP (instant pace) is a worthwhile parameter that should or should not be used. Garmin included on the watch, so it should be functional. Period. It has worked with other GPS products by Garmin, so what makes the 910 an exception? Secondly, IP is the only GPS pacing parameter that can even remotely be used to run steady pacing. I learned to run pacing decades ago on a track without GPS. My guess is that the majority of you who claim IP is useless would not know the difference between a 6:00 mile pace and a 8:00 mile pace....let alone a :10 difference. Go learn to pace run before you ramble on about the virtues of IP.

---

Doug Kugley
Fast Splits Coaching
http://www.fastsplitscoaching.com

Doug, I agree with you RE learning to pace: I learnt by racing and training track for many years. However to claim that IP is the ONLY real assistant to pacing is a bit short sighted. Average pace, average lap, last lap average and even some simple math whilst running a distance can be helpful, though not instantaneous.

I'm yet to try the update but hope it fixes my IP readings too.

Not really short sighted if you think about it. Yes, calculations and "feel" would work. However, I am focused on parameters indicates on the watch to accomplish this purpose. The other pacing parameters you mentioned are nice and useful for specific purposes. However, in the majority, they are focused on past effort versus actual effort. This really doesn't adequately teach you how to pace. Average pace does not promote steady pacing. It merely tells you how fast to run based on how fast you have previously been running to reach a target end time. If running an even and steady pace is the goal, this misses the mark entirely.

---

Doug Kugley
Fast Splits Coaching
http://www.fastsplitscoaching.com

Doug, I am curious to learn then, how did you learn to pace yourself on the track? Because as far I’m aware, before gps, there was only one way to pace yourself on track and that was against the clock. Run a set distance on the track, check your watch to see if you were on target, then change your pace accordingly (or not if you were on pace). If you learnt this, then using average paces and previous lap paces and times is a direct application of track pacing and a suitable method of pacing in general. Part of the skill of pacing, and improving your ability to pace is reduce the need to check your pace, if at all.
 
Call me old school, but checking your watch every 10s or so to make sure your instantaneous pace is correct defeats the untamed background of running. Yes, live pacing is great. Yes, live pacing will greatly assist you in running a steady pace. But will it really help you when it counts in a race? Variations in speed in distance running is what can defeat an athlete that is not capable of great changes in speed. Will it help when doing a training run to a set pace? Yes, but again, one needs to learn what happens when you run above threshold or a set pace for too long and how that affects the goals of a run.
 
Learning to run an even and steady pace can be sought through various mediums, including using a gps. However using any measurement will give the same reactions from athlete who is running at the time:
-          Check watch for time/distance/IP/average pace
-          “Am I running too fast, too slow or am I on pace?”
-          Adjust pace accordingly.

That explains my point exactly. When you learn to pace on the track, you pace yourself off of very small intervals such as a 200m mark. You then correlate the effort to the pace. This way you will learn to basically run 8 consistent 200's consecutively. Avg pace won't do that. For example, if your goal is a 6:00 mile, ideally you would like to run 90" quarters or 45" 200's. If you go out and run a 70" quarter, avg pace will then only show you are on your target of 6:00 pace if you slow down to ~96" quarters for the next three. Correct pacing is learned within each mile as opposed to at each mile. This essentially is as close as we were able to get to IP prior to GPS technology.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about watch checking...GPS or not. Once you learn proper pacing, you will be able to modulate your effort and by virtue pace based on feel.

You learn the effects of above threshold efforts by knowing your threshold and knowingly running above it for appropriate efforts. It is far more beneficial for the athlete to know this and build a workout to encompass this instead of having it accidentally occurring.

I never suggested GPS technology was the only way to learn steady pacing, nor the most effective. I only suggested IP was the only way to effectively use the GPS tool to do this.

My point in this whole exchange is the IP is the closest thing the GPS unit will provide to correlate body feedback to actual speed. Steady pacing is not really about adjusting to what has or will happen; it is about the current.

---

Doug Kugley
Fast Splits Coaching
http://www.fastsplitscoaching.com

I would agrue that the fundamental problem is the implementation of IP, and not the actual use of IP.

Meaning - look at power meters. Most modern power meter head units nowadays offer 1s,3s,5s, and 30s lagged power (smoothed power). Essentially, show the average over the last 30s worth of effort. 1s = Instant, and most folks would agree that in the case of power meters, that's useless due to variations you see. These variations aren't actually as visible in running as they are in power.

But, many who train by power end up using a combination of 3-5s and 30s power. Which, effectively give you what you're noting on a track at 200m intervals.

To date, the closest option we have is oddly enough the Timex Global Trainer (7s smoothed pace), and the older FR305's that could do a bit more smoothing.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

Thats exactly what i have been wondering about. Why the heck did garmin remove the smoothing filter that is available on the 305. I have the 305305305 with the least filter chice and its great. What r the chances that garmin will put that filter onthe 910

I agree they need to have a 3-5 second smoothing option. The instant pacing feature by itself is too stochastic.

dcrainmaker - any idea why the 910 IP function is far less stable than the 310?

---

Doug Kugley
Fast Splits Coaching
http://www.fastsplitscoaching.com

It will if you set auto lap length to 200m.
Display last lap pace, et voila.

Btw, if you're moving at 6:00, what's the instantaneous pace of your wrist as it moves from by your waist to in front of your chest? Or back again?

Understood. However, that is compensating for essentially what IP should be doing. Again, IP should work. Period. As far as the comment about arm movement, that has never been an issue with the 310xt.

---

Doug Kugley
Fast Splits Coaching
http://www.fastsplitscoaching.com

Granted. But that's different from this statement



which appears to be total nonsense. If, as you say, you learned to run steady pacing using 200m times then your Garmin can do this for you without using the IP parameter.

Again, IP should work and according to some people with the new software it does work, but it's rubbish to say that people can't run steadily without it.

My IP seems to work perfectly and I haven't upgraded the software yet. However, my battery keeps running out fast (less than a day, or after 1-2 workouts). How do I turn the GPS off when i'm not using it without going to settings each time to do it? If I lock the keys will it stop the watch for searching for satellites?

Not sure if this counts as "without going to settings" but if you press "mode" and then "gps" and then "gps status", change enabled to "no".
Should take about 8 seconds to do, less if you're wearing an aero helmet.

Press enter twice and you get the option to turn off gps. I usually do this while it searches for sat.

You used to be able to turn it off from the quick, Sport-selection menu. But they removed that option when the 310 came around. Annoying.

Do you think that the recording method (smart vs one sec) has anything to do with ip accuracy/stability?

Has anyone tried walking and testing the ip? I still think that the lower speeds are still an issue and for some reason at faster speeds the ip is better.

I think this thread needs to back away from the philosophical questions about the merits of using technology to determine instant pace. This thread is about a device with an advertised feature that is inferior in functionality to the same feature on an older model.

I think our frustration can be boiled down to this. Garmin got this feature right with the 305. With the 910xt, not so much.

I personally think that the problem would go away if the 910xt had the pace smoothing option that the 305 has. I have an open incident with Garmin support and have suggested as much.

I have also read that the problem doesn't exist as bad at much faster paces (6:00 minute miles, etc). Is it possible that Garmin only thought "serious" athletes would be buying the 910xt and decided not to test at the pedestrian 9:00 and 10:00 minute mile pace?

I agree and i too raised the filter option to garmin. Lets hope.

Ok, I get it, I'm slow.

I received my 910xt with the first shipment from Garmin. Wore it once, pacing was WAY off, by about 1 minute. I have IP next to AP. AP was dead on, IP was all over the place.

Contacted Garmin, they told me to reset my watch outside to mfg settings and leave it outside for 30 minutes to re-do satellites. Went for a run the next day, same issue.

I performed the update last week. Ran the next day, same issue.

I don't think it has anything to do with arm swing as I performed that test with my arm stationary at 90 degrees. Still off.

I was averaging 7:30 pace and it was reporting anywhere from 8:30 to 9 pace the entire time. My 310xt is correct 95% of the time. Same routes. Only variable is the watch.

I agree, I suspect it's the data smoothing that is missing.

At first I thought this did not work at all but now I see that it only works in a very specific situation.

Right after you turn the watch on, before it has locked on to satellites, this feature works once (actually you only need to hit Enter once, not twice). The "Use Watch Indoors" menu comes up. But that's it: This is the only time you can ever call up this menu.

• If you inadvertently hit "No" the first time, hitting Enter will not bring it up again.
• Once the watch locks on, hitting Enter will not call up the menu.
• If you do turn the GPS off this way, hitting Enter will not let you turn it back on.

Unlikely. If anything, I would expect the opposite. That's who their real target market is.

On a whim, I tried to see what it was like running with this field after I updated my unit to the latest firmware. I was doing a run around 7 minute per mile pace. I noticed two things

1. Oh God,, what a tortuous, joyless experience running would be if I needed to use this feature, even it it worked properly. It reminds me off the time I briefly tried to run by heart rate, only far more tortuous
2. It still did not work for me even after updating and resetting. I ran two miles at 7:20 and then 7:02 and the watch almost never dipped below 8:00 / mile pace. After that I just stopped looking at it.

I'd suggest it's really just a simple math issue. If you run at a 6/minute mile, the differential percentage wise converted to minutes/mile is less than that a 10/minute mile. Meaning, 10% of 6:00/min/mile is 36s, whereas 10% of 10:00/mile is 1-minute. Usually computers are fairly predictable in nature, and don't teld to hold grudges against slower runners (I know, the opposite of the ST forums...). ;)

That said, tonight I ran my run using instant pace on the FR910XT without too much issue. It was +/- about 5-10s at any point. Doesn't of course solve those that for some reason the update hasn't fixed, nor does it address the larger philosphical issue of the best way to smooth data. But, a data point it is.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

People like you are the reason I have only posted a handful of times on these boards. I'm not trying to use my watch to learn steady pacing.... been done decades ago. Furthermore, I never said you can't run steady without it. I merely stated that it was the only true parameter on the watch that truly promoted steady pacing. So, Johnny IQ, can you run steady paces with IP? Yes. Can you run steady paces with Avg P? Yes. Can you run steady paces with Avg LL? Yes. Can you run steady paces with a Timex 50 lap watch? Yes. Moreover, can you run steady paces with no watch at all? Absolutely. The statement I made was in response to people saying IP was useless and who cares if it works anyway. Obviously, those people don't understand how to use it. That was the point I was trying to promote. I stick by what I said and could care less whether you agree or not. I'm out and back to a more pleasing world without mouth breathing ST Message Board guy.

---

Doug Kugley
Fast Splits Coaching
http://www.fastsplitscoaching.com

I am getting fed up with Garmin. I had an issue regarding slow course re-draws while mtn bike a twisty course. So the 910 couldn't re-draw the course fast enough as I was biking and therefore most of the time I was starring at a blank screen with the word "drawing" or something like that. I just did a side by side comparison between the 305 and 910 with the exact same course. The 305 draws the course in approx one second, the 910 takes over 30 seconds. This is RIDICULOUS GARMIN. Get your act together. The 910 was supposed to be an upgrade for me, it feels more like a downgrade.

Mine is working like a charm with the new update as well.

Got my 910 on Sunday, have now used it for 1 each SBR.

First started out w/ an easy warmup jog with the dog. I had it set to autopause and there were a lot of stops with the dog, the distance seemed short, perhaps it loses a bit with each autopause. I've since turned off that feature, my runs are generally uninterrupted and I don't really care about accurate pace when I run with the dog.

On my run, IP seemed OK at first when I was running on a wider street with few trees. When I got on a narrower street with more trees it seemed to jump around a bit. In general, the IP seemed to be a bit slower than my actual pace, typically read 8:00-8:30 and my actual pace for the run was 7:51. I have a mile I measured on Google Earth and it came within 1%, which is as good as could be expected. Halfway through my run I switched to a screen that showed lap pace and that's what I'll use for now. The downloaded trace seemed spot on for the run, I was very pleased with it.

Next was a mountain bike ride on hilly singletrack. I don't push the speed on the MTB, I tend to hit the uphills hard and concentrate on riding safely the rest of the time. Still, my average speed of 6.8 mph was even slower than I expected, slower than my run, LOL. I'm actually a passable cyclist but you'd never know it from this ride. The downloaded trace tracked my ride reasonably well but accuracy definitely seemed a bit lower than the run, my route doubles back over the same trail and there was a definite offset on those sections. Good enough for my purposes, after all I've never known my speed or distance before on the MTB but I'd like to have seen a bit better accuracy. Zooming in I'd guess that it was reading a bit low as there were a lot of short straight sections on the trace that didn't capture a lot of the little jogs you do on singletrack. There was a lag in speed, so I think I'll get speed sensors for my road & tri bikes.

Last night did a pool swim. It was crowded so had to circle swim. A short workout, only 2300 yards as I got there late. All of the lengths were spot on except two where I experienced interference due to the circle swim. On one I had to turnaround short of the wall as two swimmers were standing there and as might be expected it missed that turnaround so I was 25 yards short. On another I overtook a slower swimmer and almost stopped then switched briefly to breast stroke, she was close to the wall so no point in passing. The garmin split that length into two so I got back my 25 yards. I did like the 13 seconds it gave me for 25 yards, I wish. The various metrics confirm what I already knew, my stroke sucks and I have my work cut out for me. I think this will be really useful for a relatively inexperienced swimmer such as myself as I can experiment with my stroke and look afterwards to see what is fastest, especially since the lap clock has been broken for 3 months now.

Overall a really fun toy.

Here is the pace graph from Garmin Connect for my run this morning. You see that the Avg Pace is 8:16/mile which is correct. What is odd is all that pace data that is slower than 8:16/mile while very little if any is faster than 8:16/mile. One would think that an average pace would have an equal amount of time slower as well as faster. I think this graph does a good job of illustrating the problem with the 910xt instant pace. Yes, this is with the 2.40 firmware. I even did a full reset of the device and left it outside for 30 minutes.

http://imgur.com/gfY3H

Yeah, that graph looks funny.

---

--
MyGearGarage - Track all your gear!

Re: distance with GPS units on mountain bikes, here's the deal: Even the best units still don't get nearly as good position data due to tree cover. They're light years better than just five years ago, though, so they fool you into thinking your data should be good. When you combine that with singletrack that winds close to itself and does a lot of switchbacks, it's going to short you distance when only using a GPS for distance. The frustrating thing is you can't just assume it's X percent short on trail, since for each given trail it's going to be a bit different.

The fix is to put a speed sensor on the wheel and make sure it's calibrated properly to the tire diameter. You'll start getting much more consistent distance data. The problem here is that it's mountain biking and those sensors are fairly easy to knock out of alignment. If one is knocked completely away from the magnet, it will switch and use GPS data for distance. What sucks is when it's knocked just far enough away to only register occasionally. Then it doesn't switch and you get *bad* data. As in you're distance will be WAY low and there's no easy way to fix it. I've had that happen a few times.

But to me, it seems more useful to have a speed sensor on a mountain bike than a road bike. The GPS units are pretty good in the road situation since there's less cover and you're turning less, though I understand if you want it REALLY accurate you might as well. But you're never going to be nearly as far off on the road as you will on the trail.


--Donnie

I may have missed part of the convesation.

But as a note, you can always turn on/off the GPS via the standard Mode > GPS > GPS Status > Enabled/Disabled.

This is in addition to the 'quick-off' option for indoor folks who turn it off immediately upon turning on unit.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

Im not sure about anyone elses but I just took mine out for a quick run after the update and the data looks really good on the IP. I was checking as I went and it was much more stable than before. I am not sure if you can go here but here is the link to the run and you can see the graph for the pace is pretty dang consistent
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/153582320

True I was just lamenting the fact that they removed the GPS quick on/off option from the sport selection menu. it use to be there on the 205

I can't seem to find the quick off method. I go through the settings menu. How does the shortcut work?

---

------------------------
Loud pawls save lives

I've also had great results with instant pace since the update.

There is a difference between average pace and average moving pace. The 8:16 may be your average moving pace. I think there is / was a setting where you can dictate what is the minimum pace to be included in the pace calculations. Not saying that is the issue but it might be.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

All I know is that all my mile splits were less than 8:30, I never stopped, and instant pace was over 9:00 pretty much the entire time.

I posted a while back with the issues I was having pre-update (same as everyone else re actual pace). I said I would repost so ....

Again, wearing the FR305 and the new 910XT on the same arm I went for a run this morning. I updated the firmware on the 910XT to 2.4 a couple of days ago.

The instant pace is still not as smooth as the FR305 which, again, was more stable. I put this down to the FR305 having the smoothing options: Most / More / Less / Least. I have the FR305 set to 'More'.

The 910XT has improved considerably though. The Actual Pace might jump a little, but nowhere near the amount it did before and is at least useable. Readings on the 910 were now the same or somewhere within a range of 10 seconds either side of the 305. I assume that this much smaller range would be nailed with the option to smooth pacing. Why it is not included with the firmware update is anyones guess, I assume the number of people claiming 'much better but still needs work' will mean that they will at least look for a future upgrade and maybe they just pushed this initial fix out quickly to relieve the number of forum posts on instant pace woes.

Overall, much better, useable, but still needs the pace smoothing option for the actual pace to be as sweet as the 305.

Aside from that I am really happy with it. The swim mode is fantastic. Nailed every length and has already given me some insight into the fact that as I get tired my stroke rate goes while my speed goes down. If there was a mode to correct that as well as body position then I would be happier still.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

As soon as you turn the watch on five bars appear as the watch looks for a signal.
If you press enter at that time you get the option to turn off GPS.

I just got through looking at the intervals from yesterday's swim workout and noticed the exact same relationship. At the beginning of the workout I was swimming fast and easy with a low stroke count and at the end I was swimming slow and hard and flailing like a paddle boat. I think the ability to analyze my swim workouts is giving me insights that are starting to translate into better form and faster times in the pool. Now I just need to work on holding that better form for a longer duration. We will see.

---

Panabax

We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.—Robert Wilensky

That is great! Thanks a lot.

---

------------------------
Loud pawls save lives

I kind of had that feeling but to see some hard evidence means that the changes you make, you make with more conviction.

I can imagine the thrashing is even more tiring than the faster, lower stroke rate anyway. Just a case of mind over matter at that point. My end of set splits dropped immediately from 1:40's to 1:30's. per 100m. That alone is worth the value of the entire watch!

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

I still have the Instant Pace problem with my 910xt after the firmware update. My 305 is rock solid on instant pace; the 910xt is +/- 1 min/mile. It's the parameter I reference the most frequently when running and it's frustrating that my old 305 is more usable and accurate.

That's where my frustration is as well. You would think that on their flagship product (the 910xt) they could get a feature working at least as well as it does on a lesser product (the 305).

Its worse than the 305 in other areas too. My beef is course draw time. When following a twisty course, by the time it updated (drawing) the course I missed the turn. I did an experiment, the 305 and 910 with the same course. The 305 drew it in about 1 or 2 seconds. The 910 took about 30 seconds. That is either an inferior product, design or designer.

I tried the swim function for the first time this morning and thought it was horrible. Possibly because it was losing the satellite signal during the swim. Did yours keep the satellite connection through your entire swim? The pool I use is in an LA Fitness and they have a window at one end but not the other and I would lose signal at the far end of the pool. I was disappointed as it was telling me my strokes per length was 6. Now that would be awesome if it were true but I know I was averaging around 17 SPL. It also added a few lengths to the number I actually swam. It is pretty sad that I cannot even use it to count laps for me.

Someone else mentioned the 910XT losing distance especially on trails and I had the same problem. I did a 50K (31 miles) a couple of weeks ago and lost close to a full mile on the run. My distance showed 30.08 whereas a all of my friends were right around 31 using 305's and 310xt's.

I am very disappointed in this GPS. I have been a huge fan of Garmin products in the past but they really dropped the ball on this one.

Why were you using the GPS function in the pool? There is an option for "Pool Swim" which is far more accurate for swimming laps. In the 8 swims I've done with the 910xt, it has only added about 125 yards total. Most of the time it is because I did something like adjust a pull buoy or stopped and didn't push the lap button before moving my arm.

Any GPS will be affected by blocking access to the sky, but again, I ran a half marathon a few weekends ago that was 90% tree covered and had no issues with locating satellites or missing distance.

lol!

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Try 'Hard Reset' after the update. My instant pace was like that prior but is ok now. Still not as rock solid as the 305 but then the smoothing option has not been added yet.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com