|
The following test was conducted in 2006. The FOOT POD's have moved on CONSIDERABLY since then. We use both GPS and FOOTPOD for races from 5K to full marathon. Are they any different, is one better than the other ? Not really. If you don't need to see your TRACK on a MAP, then get a discrete FOOT POD. If you want to see where you've been on a map, get a GPS.
The NEW Suunto Foot POD, 2011, is the same as the Garmin one. Both made in the same factory. Both will give 98% accuracy for 98% of runners, straight out of the box
 
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
|
