UKH

What do people think is the best GPS (or not) watch for monitoring my running? Oh and under £100. And if you have any preferences why?

I would quite like to log my runs o Strava too but I don't have a smart phone that is good enough to monitor my runs , plus a mainly run in the Peak off road in all conditions so not sure I want to carry a phone anyway.

Cheers

Simon

In reply to simon1965:

Garmin Forerunner 10 is your best buy under £100.

In reply to richardr:

Yeah nice little watch.. Simple to use.

In reply to simon1965:
Would agree with the Forerunner 10. Easy to use and will record all of the basic statistics, ready to be analysed when plugged into your computer if you wish. Had mine for almost a year now and haven't found a fault.

In reply to IainRUK:

Cool thanks. Can I add more runs to Strava with that?

In reply to simon1965:

I use a Garmin 110. The functions are very simple (it doesn't do virtual trainers, lots of fancy splits etc) which suits me as I'm not very serious about running. The battery life on the 110 is supposed to be 8hrs which is better than the 10 model (4hrs as far I remember reading?). Downsides to the 110- it's quite slow to locate satellites. It seems to take ages sometimes (up to a minute), I really dislike the way the connecting cable goes onto the watch and it seems quite dated from the fuctionality of the menus etc. It does the job though for my purposes. I haven't used the 10 to comment on it, but I was a bit concerned that the 10's battery might pack up on longer runs...

In reply to Wee Davie:
I've used the 10 for 5 hours continuously before, without it being quite fully charged beforehand. Don't think it would have lasted more than 30 mins more though it has enough battery for a few decent runs before it needs charging.

Simon, I know it's available from the Strava store if it helps. I don't use Strava myself so have never checked compatibility.

In reply to simon1965:

yeah sträva works no problem.

In reply to ColinVern:

yeah i used my missus's hiking this weekend, 5-6 hours seems fine.

In reply to simon1965:
This site is excellent - have a look before you buy. And after - he explains things better than the garmin manuals (if you can find them)

having difficulty pasting in the link - be back soon

In reply to Chris the Tall:

dcrainmaker?

In reply to simon1965:


http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2012/08/garmin-forerunner-watch.html

Sorry for the delay, combination of iPad being difficult and small dog being annoying. And then UKC not allowing me to post an edit

Have to say I've been very happy with my forerunner 220, but it's over £100. Wireless upload is a very good feature, particularly if are into Strava and want instant gratification! Couple of other features I've found really useful. Auto lap - so every Km it buzzes and shows me my time for that km. Measures cadence and stride length - something which I'm trying to work on after advice from a physio following recent back problems

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Agree with the 220. Over the OPs price point unfortunately, but incredibly quick satellite lock and good enough for my needs. Love the bluetooth as well.

In reply to richardr:

I am pretty happy with my forerunner 10 (in lime green but a longer battery life would be nice.

In reply to Ridge:


This is my next watch.. looks to have it all as a basic runner.. In the US we pay $200 barely £120 for it.. in the UK its more than that in the £'s value..

I looked at TomTom but reviews weren't great..

DCrainmaker is worth a read..

In reply to Morgan Woods:


I have this one...

You look a girl..

I was lecturing to 30 students on evolution.... 'any questions?'

'Are you wearing a girls watch?'

'ermm.. yeah it's my wifes running watch..'.

In reply to IainRUK:

i have shorts that match....i mean you gotta accessorise :p

In reply to simon1965:
You should have had a proper look at mine yesterday Its a 110. I paid £130 but that's for the one with HR which as I said I don't use (but still worth having as I might in the future).

I don't know anything about the 220 but it sounds like, for me, I would happily pay the extra. The biggest downside of the 110 is the need for a wire to upload data. I am hopeless with stuff so I have to spend 10 minutes hunting for the wire that I have carefully placed somewhere. Secondly, the contact with the wire is poor and you have to fiddle with it to get it to work. Finally, it takes ages to get a sat lock outside my house - maybe it's just where I live, anyway it's annoying.

Wireless upload is a bottom line for me in the future, both for watch and bike computer, purely as someone already said for the desire for instant access and review through strava.

Can someone tell me if the 220 uploads instantly to strava or do you still need to go through Garmin Connect?

Having said all that I do like the look of the orange Garmin 10

In reply to Stig:

If you use Garmin Connect you can now get it to automatically sync with Strava and Endomondo. Super easy!

In reply to Guy:


Yeah since I got my Fenix 2 I've been loving the wireless upload and Strava sync. However I find that it struggles on long runs (3 hours+) and can quite often go all Sunday (usually my longest run) without properly uploading which is quite annoying. Anyone else had this? Garmin aren't much help.

In reply to yorkshireman:

Not sure how the Fenix works. My 220 bluetooths to either my android phone or ipad.

After the run and I've saved the run on the watch:

Turn on bluetooth on the watch, turn it on on the phone, open the Garmin connect app (need a 3G or wireless connection), there's a 5 to 20 second delay then the watch syncs, (takes a couple of seconds). I have Garmin connect synched with strava, and as soon as I open the strava site the run is there.

Apparently it can do it in real time as you run so people can watch your progress via Garmin connect, but I've never bothered (usually no 3G signal where I run).

In reply to IainRUK:


Think I paid about £160, it's certainly sub £200 on wiggle etc.

In reply to simon1965:

Forgot to mention in my last post- I also use the Garmin 110 for cycling and needed decent battery life for that reason. I probably couldn't use the 10 for the 5 hr plus length of some of my road bike activities.

In reply to simon1965:

Going to disagree and say you don't need one save your money! I don't have one and it hasn't stopped me from running fast(ish).

In reply to Humperdink:


Nobody strictly needs one but I think the OP wants one. If he has the money to spend then he just wants the best advice on how best to spend it. I recently read 'Running Free' by Richard Askwith (who wrote 'Feet in the Clouds') and was mostly unconvinced by his straw man approach to minimalist running (although I enjoyed reading large parts of the book). I agree we shouldn't be a slave to times and stats, but for me seeing where I've been and logging times is part of the enjoyment. Also since I've been using the watch ensure I'm training properly (speedwork, intervals etc) I've definitely got faster.

Equally I love running in the mountains alongside my dog on days where I don't even look once at my watch. So its not either, or.

In reply to: Ridge


Yeah its exactly the same - the problem seems to be getting the long run to fully upload to GC on my iPhone - I get a connection error but only on really long runs. I wonder if its something to do with the servers being busy (Sundays, lots of races, lots of long runs). Bloody annoying though.

In reply to yorkshireman:

Apologies, it was meant slightly tongue in cheek (and I was going to offer an alternative on how to spend his money - £100 would buy quite a lot of beer For me I go down the track for reps or use a loop which has be measured out by someone else (using a trundle wheel!) and logging times for me is racing as personally that's where it counts. Anyway as you said its not either /or and if GPS watches encourage people to run then who am I to argue!