310 review /power data comparison

Triathlon Forum
1

Had my 310 for a couple of weeks now. I think it was from the second batch released. Had read a lot of negatives about it and thought I would chime in now that I have had time to play with it a bit.

BAD stuff - I had an initial problem with transferring the data which was solved by doing a hard reset. I am told that new firmware will resolve that issue generally. I had a 405 and still have a 205 for context. As others have mentioned, the USB stick thing kinda sucks. It is a bit finicky as mentioned above. You have to plug the thing in anyway to charge it so I really do not see the benefit of the wireless transfer. Also, when using the USB stick thing the data does not go directly into wko+ so there is an additional step exporting it from the garmin training center. Not a big deal but annoying.

GOOD Stuff:
Size/Wrist band etc - It is smaller feeling than the 205 and more comfortable as the device does not wrap around. The band feels plenty secure to me and I have had no issues. I have also had no problems getting my wetsuit top off over it the few times I have done it. Will give that a real world test at Timberman on Sunday.

Power Data - I have a 2008 wireless PT hub and ordered the ant+ updater. Super easy to do, took about 30 seconds after I had the cover off. Sucks it cost $99 but such is life and I think they are sending me a T shirt. The PT computer update also has some new features and “learned” the garmin HR strap really quick.

The 310 recognized the PT hub immediately and has done so every time I have used it. Picks it up faster than the PT computer does. I have had no issues with a loss of connection no matter where the 310 is. I do not have a bike mount and have been wearing it on the inside of my left arm so that I can see the data without having to look down at my stem when I am in the bars. Even when I have been off the bike but within 10 feet or so it has not lost its connection. Not sure if the PT hub has a stronger signal than the Cinco or what but that issue has not been a factor.

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v5206/16/85/1472635246/s1472635246_30533396_4036366.jpg

The only difference between the “real time” power data displayed on the 310 vs the PT computer is that is seems as if the 310 lags about a second or so behind the PT. Not really significant but noticeable. The downloaded data is seemingly identical between the 2. Here are some laps that I recorded this morning:

Power-Tap #7:
Duration: 9:56
Work: 139 kJ
TSS: 9.3 (intensity factor 0.751)
Norm Power: 237
VI: 1.02
Pw:HR: 4.89%
Pa:HR: 17.34%
Distance: 3.352 mi
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 336 233 watts
Heart Rate: 96 151 142 bpm
Cadence: 36 110 85 rpm
Speed: 7.6 25.8 20.2 mph
Pace 2:19 7:55 2:58 min/mi
Crank Torque: 0 587 234 lb-in

Lap 9:
Duration: 9:53
Work: 138 kJ
TSS: 9.3 (intensity factor 0.752)
Norm Power: 237
VI: 1.02
Pw:HR: 5.68%
Pa:HR: 15.82%
Distance: 3.302 mi
Elevation Gain: 360 ft
Elevation Loss: 346 ft
Grade: 0.1 % (14 ft)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 337 233 watts
Heart Rate: 96 151 143 bpm
Cadence: 36 173 85 rpm
Speed: 5.1 25.5 19.9 mph
Pace 2:21 11:47 3:01 min/mi
Altitude: 159 266 208 ft
Crank Torque: 0 587 235 lb-in

Power-Tap #9:
Duration: 10:35
Work: 127 kJ
TSS: 8.7 (intensity factor 0.702)
Norm Power: 221
VI: 1.1
Pw:HR: 11.91%
Pa:HR: 14.22%
Distance: 3.312 mi
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 329 201 watts
Heart Rate: 112 151 138 bpm
Cadence: 32 201 80 rpm
Speed: 4.3 31.7 18.8 mph
Pace 1:54 13:48 3:12 min/mi
Crank Torque: 0 752 216 lb-in

Lap 11 :
Duration: 10:34
Work: 127 kJ
TSS: 8.7 (intensity factor 0.702)
Norm Power: 221
VI: 1.1
Pw:HR: 12.3%
Pa:HR: 12.4%
Distance: 3.263 mi
Elevation Gain: 341 ft
Elevation Loss: 204 ft
Grade: 0.8 % (136 ft)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 329 201 watts
Heart Rate: 112 151 138 bpm
Cadence: 32 173 80 rpm
Speed: 7.3 30.9 18.6 mph
Pace 1:57 8:11 3:13 min/mi
Altitude: 248 396 343 ft
Crank Torque: 0 755 217 lb-in

** yes I know that I am worthless and weak and was noodling around this morning**

I think that the “differences” between the files are the result of the fact that I can not hit the lap button on the 310 and press both buttons on the PT computer at the same time. I have no idea what Pw:HR: and Pa:HR: mean so I can not comment on whether the differences in those values matter.

It is really easy to scroll through the screens on the 310 while riding and depending on the number of fields displayed you can make the power number pretty big and easy to see. I will likely race Timberman this weekend with Power big on top and then speed and cadence on the bottom row occasionally switching and looking at HR and avg power for the laps.

Overall I am happy with it. Wish list would be something smaller or at least thinner, the ability to display NP and TSS on the fly and a battery that lasts like a regular watch.

2

I really like the wireless transfer. You plug in transmitter and do…NOTHING! Your data is online in seconds.

Why do you use WKO+? I played with that and it kind of sucks huge. So does training center. But people keep using those programs so I’m wondering if I’m missing out on something?

The CinQo is what it is; and the Garmin is what it is. So I’m not sure it’s comparable to powertap.

3

I really like the wireless transfer. You plug in transmitter and do…NOTHING! Your data is online in seconds.

Why do you use WKO+? I played with that and it kind of sucks huge. So does training center. But people keep using those programs so I’m wondering if I’m missing out on something?

 What is it about WKO+ that you don't like? Is there something else you prefer?
4

I want to know what WKO+ offers that I can’t get for free on Garmin Connect or using another program. I am not all that interested in the normalization functions of the WKO+ software and that appears to be its primary selling point. What am I missing?

5

What I use it for is looking at average and normalized power for a ride as a whole or segments of a ride based on time, distance, or other criteria. Training Center doesn’t allow me to select a piece of a ride for analysis; does Garmin Connect allow this? Since you say you’re not interested in the normalization feature, you may not be missing anything by not using WKO+.

6

Do you have a power meter? If not than I see your point. If you do have a power meter and do not care about Normalized Power than I think you are missing the point of training with power.

I could really care less about “normalized graded pace” for running.

I do use the performance manager charts as well as the 28 day power charts.

7

Does the 310 have the capability to read elevations?

8

Thanks guys. I appreciate your advice.

I do not think that Garmin allows you to take an average of a segment of data stream, as you suggest. To get around this I just hit the lap button when I work at a different intensity that I will want to view on my computer at a later time. I also sometimes just have the Garmin note every mile so I can view each distinct split. So it’s kind of a user workaround but I think it gives me the data that I need to know for workouts and races. I’m a bit more laid back about the numbers though. I don’t care if my number matches a powertap or SRM…I just want a number that I can use to guage my output against myself.

I use a CinQo powermeter and really love it !!!

9

yes
.

10

Any idea if garmin’s other heart rate straps (from 405 for example) work with the 310?

11

The HR straps from the 305 (both FR and Edge) work with the 310, as do the PT Ant+ straps.

12

jebus. We need a single post to explain all of this.