We are often asked, which is better, GPS based speed and distance monitors, like the Garmins, Navman and Timex ranges or Foot POD (accelerometer / inertia devices) like the Polar RS200SD, Polar S625X, Nike CV10?

The answer is, generall; don't worry about the system / technology being used to calculate speed and distance, try to concentrate on the features of the unit, and how they apply to you.

Also, consider the environment. If you are running mainly in wooded areas, or around built up towns, you should avoid GPS systems (except the newer Garmin Forerunner / Edge 205 and 305). The GPS based units will generally struggle when they loose visibility with approx 60% of the sky. If most of your running is suburban / rural, with good visibility of the sky, then GPS is great. It can be used while running, skiing, cycling, windsurfing, sailing or just walking. Foot Pod units only work for walking and running, about 4mph to 15mph (the Suunto T6 and Polar S625x can also be used with optional wireless bike speed kits to provide cycling speed)

Test Run conducted 20-3-6 ; Sandringham Forest, Norfolk.

We recently performed a test run around Sandringham Forest. The run was spent mostly under tree canopy. About 75% of the run was on trail, soft ground, the other 25% on tarmac.

What was on test (all worn by one tester at the same time)

A Garmin Forerunner 301 GPS with heart rate chest strap

A Garmin Forerunner 205 GPS (no HR data)

A Suunto T6 with foot pod and chest strap (yes, that's right, we wore 2 x chest straps)

We were not trying to break any records, just run at "average" pace for about 2 miles. The run had been measured on an OS map (and a piece of cotton) to 2.08 miles.

Summary results:

The Garmin Forerunner 301 (same aerial as in 101 and 201) struggled with the trees. It was about 12% short in total distance and frequently displayed "weak GPS signal" on the display

The Garmin Forerunner 205 was spot on, 2.08 miles to the inch. The biscuit trail map, seen here Garmin Forerunner 205 map, clearly shows that it did not fail to get a fix once throughout the run, compare this to the map from the Garmin Forerunner 301 map here.....

Please remember. This was an extreme test, running in an environment where we would NOT recommend using GPS. The Garmin Forerunner 101/201/301 are 100% suited to running in areas of good sky visibility, suburban streets, open fields, occasional trees etc... but this is fairly dense pine forest. Garmin met their claims that the Forerunner / Edge 205 / 205 have improved aerial technology.. that can clearly be seen here.

The Suunto T6 proved that foot pods are just as good as GPS when it comes to pace setting and recording distances. The Suunto T6 lap / split times are almost identical to the Garmin Forerunner 205 lap / split times, and the total distance was also 2.08 miles. The tester is a NEUTRAL runner and has not even calibrated the T6 foot pod to suit their running style. For more information on FOOT PODS, and how they work, please click here "FOOT PODS information". Also, the T6 provided us with a measure of EPOC, just how hard that run was based on heart rate variablilty, heart rate training and science made easy.

Please click on the images below to see, in more detail, the downloaded graphs from this test run. The graphs marked (A) show heart rate and pace curves, plus textual lap / split timings. The graphs marked (B), for Garmin only, show the mapping data donwloaded for this test. The other graphs © are extra graphs that can be extracted from the Suunto T6 software

Safe to Shop? YES
Hacker Safe.. and more