Last time I was doing much running I owned a Garmin 920xt and the run pace seemed pretty consistent and stable. I’ve recently started running again and am using a Garmin Fenix 3 and the displayed run pace is all over the place, to the point of being useless. On today’s run, I had autolap set for every km, and the time varied by 5 or so seconds per km across the whole run (20km). The speed displayed however would vary by as much as 2 mins per km, so that you actually had no idea what speed you were actually running. This seems totally different to my old 920 which felt fairly accurate. Are people finding other newer Garmin better? Stryd better? On my easy runs I don’t really care about pace, but on threshold/tempo runs I want to know.
Last time I was doing much running I owned a Garmin 920xt and the run pace seemed pretty consistent and stable. I’ve recently started running again and am using a Garmin Fenix 3 and the displayed run pace is all over the place, to the point of being useless. On today’s run, I had autolap set for every km, and the time varied by 5 or so seconds per km across the whole run (20km). The speed displayed however would vary by as much as 2 mins per km, so that you actually had no idea what speed you were actually running. This seems totally different to my old 920 which felt fairly accurate. Are people finding other newer Garmin better? Stryd better? On my easy runs I don’t really care about pace, but on threshold/tempo runs I want to know.
What terrain is in the area. I have a 735XT which struggles in built up areas or where there are lots of trees. Garmin bike computer also is inaccurate in built up areas.
Good point, should have mentioned. I was mostly running in an area with few trees, and mostly single storey buildings set back a bit from the road. There’s a long section (4 or so kms) where I’m running along the edge of a beach, with houses on the other side of the road - probably about as good as you could get in terms of view of the sky, but pace varied just as much along that section. Occasionally you’d pass under 1 tree, but there would only be 1 or 2 every 500m or so.
I had a Fenix 3 and experienced the same. It pissed me off when running some tempo alongside my buddies and my watch were way off and their 720xt was more or less on point with each other’s.
My Fenix 3 should just be within 50 meters of a tree, and it will tell me I run 1-2 mins slower pr k.
It eventually broke. And as cheap as I am, I bought a used 720xt.
Now I’m a happy guy again.
Yeah, mine was jumping between 6 mins per km and 4 mins per km. Kind of pleased to know that it could just be the Fenix 3 that was crap, though don’t really want to buy a new watch, but will if I have to. May look out for something second hand as well. Pick up another 920 as that was awesome.
I wore a Fenix 3 as my main watch for around 5 years. Most places it was pretty accurate, but there were places where it just coudln’t get/keep a good signal, and would have me bouncing all over the place, so of course that woudl speed up what it thought my pace was. Some were places that made sense (busy/dense parts of Hong Kong that I’d run early in the morning), but there’s one area that’s not that dense but for whatever reason it never got a good signal in.
Are you looking at the ‘instant’ pace or using the auto lap to give pace ever km / half mile? I found pace with footpod a lot more realistic, and so have one on for whenever I’m doing intervals, but for long steady runs then I just autolap at 1km and that gives me the info I need - Turns out I can be very very consistent in run pace over a km without any interim feedback.
Both. The auto lap for pace over 1km is very consistent, the instant pace is all over the place. For long steady runs that doesn’t bother me, just for tempo runs when I find my effort can drift, or I start too fast etc. I did wonder about a footpod - I used one with a Polar 6 or 7 years ago and found it was very dependant on calibration, and I had to calibrate it at the start of every run a maybe my gait changed with fatigue level?
Garmin footpods work fine for me. They have Auto calibrate which is fine unless the start of your run is on an s shaped boardwalk like mine often was.
There’s a good programme that lets you get a really accurate calibration from a few runs.
And the Garmin one is way more sophisticated than the old Polar ones.
I have a Fenix5 and it has the same issues; pacing is all over the place. I’m using a Stryd for pace now and it works extremely well.
I use mapmywalk to determine where each mile marker is.
Then I look at my Timex Ironman watch’s stopwatch to see how many minutes it took to run that mile.
Super accurate.
I usually map all of my runs and cycling beforehand. Then I use Forerunner 620 or my newer 235. Both of those Garmin’s work generally the same in similar portions of my routes. Sometimes just taking it old school to plan out is better.
There are times where you don’t have the luxury and have to depend on the garmin to keep a good signal.
The worst results I have had with any device is the apple watch. no matter the app the miles are short and I have gone so far as to wear both watch’s to check it and on a 22 mile run I am missing 6 -8 tenths of a mile or close to a mile. frustrating but I expect it now. Sad also because I like to have the feature to call home if I need it etc.
That’s great feedback - thank you. I’ll look into a Garmin footpod, unless people think it’s worth shelling for a Stryd?
I ran along an S-shape boardwalk yesterday, but at the midpoint of my run. The first few kms are pretty much straight, whichever direction I go from my house.
I use mapmywalk to determine where each mile marker is.
Then I look at my Timex Ironman watch’s stopwatch to see how many minutes it took to run that mile.
Super accurate.
Which is great if I’m doing a long steady run, but I already know my pace stays pretty consistent so that part isn’t he issue. It’s the instantaneous pace during a tempo run that I’m interested in, and I don’t want to have to only get two markers of it if I’m doing 2km intervals. But thanks for your helpful contribution. As always.
I use mapmywalk to determine where each mile marker is.
Then I look at my Timex Ironman watch’s stopwatch to see how many minutes it took to run that mile.
Super accurate.
Which is great if I’m doing a long steady run, but I already know my pace stays pretty consistent so that part isn’t he issue. It’s the instantaneous pace during a tempo run that I’m interested in, and I don’t want to have to only get two markers of it if I’m doing 2km intervals. But thanks for your helpful contribution. As always.
For that type of run, I would do it on a track so I know exactly how many seconds for each segment.
I use mapmywalk to determine where each mile marker is.
Then I look at my Timex Ironman watch’s stopwatch to see how many minutes it took to run that mile.
Super accurate.
Which is great if I’m doing a long steady run, but I already know my pace stays pretty consistent so that part isn’t he issue. It’s the instantaneous pace during a tempo run that I’m interested in, and I don’t want to have to only get two markers of it if I’m doing 2km intervals. But thanks for your helpful contribution. As always.
For that type of run, I would do it on a track so I know exactly how many seconds for each segment.
Again, which is great if you happen to have a track near you.
I use mapmywalk to determine where each mile marker is.
Then I look at my Timex Ironman watch’s stopwatch to see how many minutes it took to run that mile.
Super accurate.
Which is great if I’m doing a long steady run, but I already know my pace stays pretty consistent so that part isn’t he issue. It’s the instantaneous pace during a tempo run that I’m interested in, and I don’t want to have to only get two markers of it if I’m doing 2km intervals. But thanks for your helpful contribution. As always.
For that type of run, I would do it on a track so I know exactly how many seconds for each segment.
Again, which is great if you happen to have a track near you.
I have seven tracks within two miles of my house, so I didn’t even think of that.
Wow!! That would make life easier, though in truth I think I’d get bored running round a track for 30mins of tempo when I could be running along beside the beach.
Yep I worked out the autocalibration was mainly the first KM. So if that was wavy then it calibrated your pace assuming a straight line and then the pace it reported was slower than I was actually running by about 20s/km. Yet was spot on when on auto cal and I was running my other default course that started ‘straight’.
The garmin pod (and stryd, etc) use accelerometers that measure the stride length, where the old gen 1 polar ones you entered your stride length, which of course did vary. The calibration is pretty minor and accounts for any odd toe flicking / scuffing that you do - it reports stride length.
Having said all of this, what you can also do is for your run intervals is nstead of showing the instant pace, show the average pace of the interval. First 10 seconds may be a bit eratic, but after that then assumign you are running fairly consistently that will give you the feedback to go harder / slower to get the average on track for that specific interval. Just a small tweak to the data field (or add average as another field).
Wow!! That would make life easier, though in truth I think I’d get bored running round a track for 30mins of tempo when I could be running along beside the beach.
There is a reason to run at a track with only a watch, just like you go to the pool and swim on a pace clock from time to time. Its about tuning in pace and perceived exertion. As you mentioned, your pace will be quite consitent on a 400m with very little feedback. After a while, you should know your pace per lap within 1 second without looking at your watch. Just peak at it at 200m and 400m and you will see how close you are. After a while you know your pace. If you are going by miles, then 8 min mile is 2 min per 400m, or 1 min per 200m or 30 seconds per 100m. I picked this example because it is an easy one, but if you’re doing 7 min miles, then its just 1:45 per 400m, or 26 seconds per 100m…you get the picture. pretty soon you know your lap splits by heart for any given pace.
This is also why sometimes you want to ride TT’s with your power meter covered over and just go by feel, and later download the file and see what you did. If you do a TT loop enough with and without your power meter, you’ll converge on almost the exact power numbers, because this is all your body and brain can sustain.
There is no way you should get bored running around a track for 30 minutes if you’re running with purpose, and tuning your pace into split times and staying on top of those 30 min should go by in a flash. If you said 90 min or 120 min, OK, I see your point, but then even repeating a pyramid like 400m, 800m, 1600m, 3200m, 1600m, 800m, 400m with 100m jogging in between each interval and you did 10km at the track totally tuned into pace. Bring your GPS on the run for fun, but you can just focus on time and track distance and ignore GPS instantaneous pace going all over the place and pissing you off (yes, I have Fenix3 and 735 and its just annoying hoping those devices give anything meaningful)