UKH

I run a few times a week, mostly canicross. I usually track it on my phone on Strava, but not for any real purpose, I just like to see how far I ran and if I was having a fast or a slow day. I don't train or anything like that. 

I find Strava is pretty hit or miss. I have regularly cycled the same 30km route to work and had up to 3km difference in distance. I have also found that when I have been running recently it has rarely tracked the whole route, it either starts or finishes early.

Are the watches that much better? 

If they are worth it, what features do you use and recommend looking for?

I need a small one, I'm about the size of your average 11 year old! Looking at the budget end of the market, so if the budget ones are useless then I probably won't get one.

Thoughts?

In reply to girlymonkey:

I've used a running watch (various Garmins, using a Fenix 5 now) for about a decade and just prefer the convenience.

I think the problems you're having might be more down to your phone - after all the recording can only be as good as the GPS data it's getting and that is down to the hardware in your phone, not the Strava software.

That said, all devices have glitches. My watch recorded 20,000m of elevation on a 20 mile run last week (should have only been less than 2000) and at one point during the run my watch said I was doing 80,000 vertical metres per hour! I can only assume that was an anomaly with the barometric alitmeter and not the GPS. Ironically it was Strava that fixed the problem by applying the basemap data to the run afterwards to work it out.

Anyway, being able to glance at your time/distance while running is a big nice to have. The other problem I have is the battery on my iPhone dies if it gets even remotely cold resulting in lost recordings - the watch doesn't have that problem.

The watches are generally waterproof and being strapped to your wrist you're unlikely to drop it. I've lot count of the number of times I've dropped my phone into rivers/puddles/snowbanks etc (and I only really take it out for photos).

Lastly, I wear it all day as essentially an activity tracker which gives some nice metrics that are useful for training (resting HR and general amount of non-training activity).

Yes... but. They're an indulgence and (especially the higher end ones) hard to justify unless you're using them a lot. However, today being cyber Monday might be a good time to look

In reply to girlymonkey:

YM has covered it all really.  Ive used watches for various outdoor stuff for ages and they are always pretty accurate.  

Ive just done an ebay search (sorry, UKC thinks Im trying to sell you something so I cant post a link) for a Garmin 235 and there is one starting at £56. I sold a 620 on ebay recently for £140 inc P&P. The 620 was the highest option at the time.

Perhaps take a punt on something like this....

In reply to girlymonkey:

The issue with strava on your phone not recording the whole route could be down to the phone settings. If you have power saving enabled it will stop strava to conserve power.

As per the previous post, a watch is just so much more convenient. It's on your wrist, you can look at pace etc on the run, its waterproof and on most there's no touch screen functions, just proper buttons to press.

Phones are expensive, fragile and bulky. It's fine to have a phone in a pack somewhere, but irritating to have it pounching around in a pocket or on one of those arm band thingys.

As to accuracy that's all dependent on the model, tree and building cover, how good the satellite lock is etc. However if your phone is 10% out I'd expect better from a dedicated watch.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I’m surprised that you have experienced 10% variation in distance. Strava is one of a number of platforms that will plot your run, however they all work in a similar way, matching data from the GPS device (phone or watch) to map data, which should even out rogue data readings. With watches it usually uploads to the manufacturers own platform such as Garmin Connect which if you wish you can ask to push the data on to Strava or any other platform you choose to use.

I have been using GPS watches for about 8 years, having started with a Garmin FR205. I’ve got a Garmin FR235 which was a mid range watch when it came out a couple of years ago. I’ve never experienced more than 1% difference from either certified courses or other GPS watches, except on a few ocassions where GPS signal has been lost (forests and cities).

My wife has a Garmin FR10, which was the entry model a few years ago and is small on the wrist. Just as accurate, but fewer bells and whistles. Not sure what the entry model Garmin is these days.

I had a TomTom for a while, it worked fine, but I didn’t get on with the interface.

In reply to yorkshireman:

It's a known problem with the Fenix 5 that the barometric altimeter sensor gets clogged up with sweat and grime which stops it from working

In reply to girlymonkey:

Thanks folks. I'm going to give one a go. I found an Argos outlet on eBay selling a Garmin vivosmart hr+ for £80 (new). I have taken a punt on it. Many of them are way too big to be practical for me, my wrists are really small, but this looks like a better size than many and looks like it should do the job. 

In reply to r0b:

Barometric sensors can stuff it right up. I get loads of azcent/descent when I go prone board paddling if I use the wrong mode. Each stroke goes from - 200m to +500 m as the water rushes in and gets sucked out...