General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Garmin vs. Polar Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2008-04-24 3:22 PM

User image

Regular
107
100
Subject: Garmin vs. Polar
I'm trying to figure out which watch to get. I'm currently using a Nike watch just for keeping time but I'm trying to delve into some more specific running (i.e. heart rate and pace). The thing that I like about the Garmin is the pace alarm that lets you know if you're varying at all.

Do any of the Polar watches come with this feature?

Which watch do you think is best overall for these features?


2008-04-24 3:25 PM
in reply to: #1360147

User image

Master
1437
100010010010010025
Calgary, AB
Silver member
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
Garmin certainly has a headstart on GPS tech - is the Polar G3 even available yet (their first? GPS capable watch).
2008-04-24 3:25 PM
in reply to: #1360147

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2008-04-25 4:23 PM
in reply to: #1360147

Regular
96
252525
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
I have a Polar and any Polar that has pace measurement will have a pace alarm. That's a pretty basic feature actually. While I love my Polar I have to say that it seems that Garmin has recently got an edge on value with the Forerunner 50. It pretty much has the same functionality as the high end Polar S625x, but for much less. I think it even has running cadence which is only found in the highest end Polar model (RS800SD).

What the Forerunner 50 does not have is GPS. Lots of people love GPS for the cool maps it can generate, but frankly I see no training value in it. Depending on the course, speed and elevation can be way off with GPS. I think for running you're much better off with the foot pod (also because it measures cadence), and wheel magnet sensors for the bike. That's right the Forerunner 50, doubles as a bike computer (just like the Polar S625x).

Edited by Zeriman 2008-04-25 4:25 PM
2008-04-25 9:16 PM
in reply to: #1362688

Expert
1027
100025
Zürich, Switzerland
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

Zeriman - 2008-04-24 11:23 PM Lots of people love GPS for the cool maps it can generate, but frankly I see no training value in it. Depending on the course, speed and elevation can be way off with GPS. I think for running you're much better off with the foot pod (also because it measures cadence), and wheel magnet sensors for the bike.

 

Sorry but I do not see the point:

Why no value in it?

For me, GPS value is in the speed pace average which is something fundamental for a runner whi is training or racing. Elevation is not accurate on the GPS but do you care so much? If yes, why?

2008-04-25 9:17 PM
in reply to: #1360147

Regular
107
100
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
Wow. Great posts guys. I looked at the Forerunner 305 today and that thing is HUGE! I already have smaller than normal wrists. That thing looked like a computer on my arm! I need to stick with a "watch-like" watch. Still going to search and keep everyones input in mind.

Thanks!


2008-04-26 6:03 AM
in reply to: #1360147

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2008-04-26 7:17 AM
in reply to: #1360147

Elite
4235
2000200010010025
Spring, TX
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
Like PennState, I have all three as well.

-The Timex is old, but I never liked it even when I first got it.
-The Polar was reliable, but was hard to use and didn't have great features.
-The Garmin is great. A little bulky and not always realiable but incredibly useful.


I just ordered a second 305 for my wife, who is 5'6" and has very thin wrists. She was concerned about the bulk, but it really isn't as big as it looks and you forget about it very quickly.

To me, it's an obvious choice, but I'm sure people have had different experiences with each.
2008-04-26 11:19 AM
in reply to: #1363262

Expert
1027
100025
Zürich, Switzerland
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
PennState - 2008-04-25 1:03 PM

I have owned a Polar, a Timex and a Garmin...

The Polar was very reliable and also was waterproof.

The Timex lasted 2 months... had a hard time getting my HR reading. Least expensive though.

The Garmin 305 is what I have now...I love it. Very reliable. Able to use it on the indoor track/treadmill with the footpod, and outdoors with the GPS. Gets the HR very quickly. Motion based is a fun sight. I also use the cadence feature as well. Only drawback is that it's not waterproof.

My ranking would be:

1. Garmin
2. Polar
3. Timex

If you get the Polar with the GPS, you get something unbeatable. Number 1 for sure 

2008-04-26 11:24 AM
in reply to: #1363113

Champion
8936
50002000100050010010010010025
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
Plissken74 - 2008-04-25 9:16 PM

Zeriman - 2008-04-24 11:23 PM Lots of people love GPS for the cool maps it can generate, but frankly I see no training value in it. Depending on the course, speed and elevation can be way off with GPS. I think for running you're much better off with the foot pod (also because it measures cadence), and wheel magnet sensors for the bike.

 

Sorry but I do not see the point:

Why no value in it?

For me, GPS value is in the speed pace average which is something fundamental for a runner whi is training or racing. Elevation is not accurate on the GPS but do you care so much? If yes, why?

Likewise.  The pace/speed is rarely "way off" and corrects within seconds if it is.

2008-04-26 11:26 AM
in reply to: #1363115

Expert
924
500100100100100
Louisville, KY
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

goknights1 - 2008-04-25 10:17 PM Wow. Great posts guys. I looked at the Forerunner 305 today and that thing is HUGE! I already have smaller than normal wrists. That thing looked like a computer on my arm! I need to stick with a "watch-like" watch. Still going to search and keep everyones input in mind. Thanks!

Garmin has a newer model out now, 405 maybe?, that is much more "watch-like" in its form factor.  However, you'll pay it.  I don't remember the price, but I do remember that it was significantly more expensive than the 305.  Might be worth checking out if money isn't a concern.



2008-04-26 11:56 AM
in reply to: #1363424

Expert
1027
100025
Zürich, Switzerland
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
DerekL - 2008-04-25 6:24 PM
Plissken74 - 2008-04-25 9:16 PM

Zeriman - 2008-04-24 11:23 PM Lots of people love GPS for the cool maps it can generate, but frankly I see no training value in it. Depending on the course, speed and elevation can be way off with GPS. I think for running you're much better off with the foot pod (also because it measures cadence), and wheel magnet sensors for the bike.

 

Sorry but I do not see the point:

Why no value in it?

For me, GPS value is in the speed pace average which is something fundamental for a runner whi is training or racing. Elevation is not accurate on the GPS but do you care so much? If yes, why?

Likewise. The pace/speed is rarely "way off" and corrects within seconds if it is.

Right but I guess here nobody is racing on short distances like 2k or 1k. Starting from the 3rd or 4th km, the average pace is perfect 

2008-04-28 5:15 PM
in reply to: #1363113

Regular
96
252525
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
Plissken74 - 2008-04-25 9:16 PM

Zeriman - 2008-04-24 11:23 PM Lots of people love GPS for the cool maps it can generate, but frankly I see no training value in it. Depending on the course, speed and elevation can be way off with GPS. I think for running you're much better off with the foot pod (also because it measures cadence), and wheel magnet sensors for the bike.

 

Sorry but I do not see the point:

Why no value in it?



I did nott say there was no training value with GPS, I said there was no training value in the maps that you can generate with the GPS. A very cool toy, but just a toy.

For me, GPS value is in the speed pace average which is something fundamental for a runner whi is training or racing. Elevation is not accurate on the GPS but do you care so much? If yes, why?



Of course pace is important, but a foot pod gives you a very accurate instantaneous pace. My Polar RS800SD gives an average pace every second. With a GPS device you could get it to report the pace every second, but it would fluctuate pretty wildly. In order to get something more reliable you need to average out the pace to at least every 5 seconds.

Accurate elevation is important if you want use the running training stress features with the WKO+ software (formerly Cycling Peaks). It is basically power based training for running.
2008-04-28 5:17 PM
in reply to: #1363421

Regular
96
252525
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

If you get the Polar with the GPS, you get something unbeatable. Number 1 for sure 



For those thinking of getting the Polar GPS unit, it is important to point out that it will not generate a track file and you cannot generate a map with this device.
2008-04-28 5:53 PM
in reply to: #1360147

New user
8

Missouri
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
I have had Polar S625X for 2 years now. I really stressed over the purchase, because I was undecided between it and the Garmin 305. Both have their warts. If you want maps, go with the Garmin. If you want to swim with your HRM, go with the Polar. Also, the Polar pacing information is more real-time.

Darren
2008-04-28 7:02 PM
in reply to: #1367777

Sensei
Sin City
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

I have all three as well.  The Garmin is my favorite.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the "right tool for the job".  I like the timex in the pool (my polar is a little dated and it doesnt have all the features of my newer timex).

The garmin is great for the gym bike since it works with the treadmill and bikes if you are doing zone training and want the machines to adjust to your HR.

The Garmin is GREAT!  I wear it any time I'm doind something outside.  Which is most of the time.

 



2008-04-29 3:45 AM
in reply to: #1360147

Extreme Veteran
446
10010010010025
Auckland, New Zealand
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

My boss has the Garmin 305 and the new Garmin 405 is now available.  My boss loves his Garmin, but I've used Polar for years (since 1991!!).  My s625x got stolen a while back and I was left to weigh up which new HR to buy. 

As I'm planning on doing Ironman's I had to go with the Polar RS400sd as the battery life of both the 305 and 405 are 10 & 8 hours respectively, which realistically isn't long enough.  The RS800 G3 is apparently great, but there are only about 6 or 7 more features and I've never had issues with the footpod on my s625x so the GSP was no added bonus to me.  Also the extra $$ I've saved will go towards a tri-bike.  The software details speak for themselves and you can also use another reporting tool such as Crystal Reports to report on the data if you wish.

The only negative thing I have to say about the RS400, like some others on here, is that the strap is a little short, but is easily fixed with a velcro strap.

2008-04-29 5:42 AM
in reply to: #1360147

Elite
3658
200010005001002525
Roswell, GA
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
I use the forerunner 305 and love it. I run from time to time with a buddy who has a polar. We always compare numbers and see which watch we think is more accurate. We've been running the same 10k loop for a few years now. Back when I had a forerunner 101 it was the polar that was more accurate everytime. The 101 had a different gps antenae that wasn't very good. Once I upgraded to the 305 the polar's flaws started to show. The 305 is very close to dead on for a 10k run while the polar jumps around by as much as .4 miles but generally it is about .2 miles off during the same loop. The course is fairly hilly and our guess has been that his stride is inconsistant through out the run. Does .2 miles matter? Not to us, but if you are into the finer details it is something to consider. btw, He does go to the track and adjust his settings for the footpod regularly.


2008-04-29 6:51 AM
in reply to: #1368505

Expert
1027
100025
Zürich, Switzerland
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

brown_dog_us - 2008-04-28 12:42 PM I use the forerunner 305 and love it. I run from time to time with a buddy who has a polar. We always compare numbers and see which watch we think is more accurate. We've been running the same 10k loop for a few years now. Back when I had a forerunner 101 it was the polar that was more accurate everytime. The 101 had a different gps antenae that wasn't very good. Once I upgraded to the 305 the polar's flaws started to show. The 305 is very close to dead on for a 10k run while the polar jumps around by as much as .4 miles but generally it is about .2 miles off during the same loop. The course is fairly hilly and our guess has been that his stride is inconsistant through out the run. Does .2 miles matter? Not to us, but if you are into the finer details it is something to consider. btw, He does go to the track and adjust his settings for the footpod regularly.

Well, measurement is a science and you should you ask to yourself who is right and who is not. When you say that the track is 10k, who measured that? How much accuracy is in that? Can it be that the Garmin is perfect and the "10k" is 0.2miles away?

I would trust an average over 3-4 times Garmin 305 measurement. Not the first shot, not the second but an average and you will kill the "random noise".

 

2008-04-29 7:09 AM
in reply to: #1360147

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

IMO, if you want to buy one watch that you can wear all the time and get everything you need from, go with the Polar S625X.  It rarely leaves my wrist.  I have the foot pod and cadence/speed sensors on my bike.  It generates graphs (not maps) and can pretty much pilot the space shuttle if you wanted it to.  You can set it so that it beeps when you're in and out of your pace OR heart rate zones.  You can also download 5 different workouts in it at one time. 

I think the best benefit is that you can race and train with it very easily.  No need to wear two watches or charge it between uses.

The Garmin is a great product, but I don't think it's great for racing.  You have to remember to put it on in T1 and go from there.  I just prefer things to be "easy".  My Polar doubles as my everyday watch which the Garmin will never do for most people.  Plus the wearlink HR strap is much easier on the body.

A couple of my guys have a Garmin and love the things it can do.  But have gripes about forgetting to charge it, picking up satellites and not being able to swim with it.  They both wear two watches when racing and training.  I think it's funny, personally.

2008-04-29 7:12 AM
in reply to: #1360147

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

In response to the "accuracy" of the foot pod, I have found it to be very accurate.  I know that is subjective, but at least once a month, I check my foot pod distance vs car distance vs Mapmytri and they are usually within .2 miles for a 8 mile course.

The key is calibrating the foot pod at a speed where you will be doing most of your training.  Not all out or too easy.



2008-04-29 7:46 AM
in reply to: #1368589

Expert
1027
100025
Zürich, Switzerland
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
Marvarnett - 2008-04-28 2:12 PM

In response to the "accuracy" of the foot pod, I have found it to be very accurate. I know that is subjective, but at least once a month, I check my foot pod distance vs car distance vs Mapmytri and they are usually within .2 miles for a 8 mile course.

The key is calibrating the foot pod at a speed where you will be doing most of your training. Not all out or too easy.

 

Using always the same shoes...

In my case, I change running shoes maybe 3 or 4 times per week, depending on training session and race length. The foot pod is not the right choice.

I have both Garmin and 625SX and I wear alway Polar on Tri racing and I leave the Garmin on the bike. So HR, swim and run time is taken by Polar while Garmin tracks my bike leg very well.

 

2008-04-29 8:25 AM
in reply to: #1360147

Member
77
252525
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar

I generally love my Garmin 305 on both the run and the bike (and with the quick release kit, it can be transitioned very quickly).  One gripe I have is that it sometimes takes too long to locate satellites.  The other day I went on a group run where we basically walked out of a building and started running right away.  I missed tracking the first 5 minutes of the run while the 305 was still "Locating Satellites".  For the next group run I may use the footpod, which is generally not needed outdoors, just so I can get it started quicker.

Another minor gripe is that the chest strap tends to be a little uncomfortable when you have it on for a long time (over an hour).  If you wear it low, it doesn't track HR correctly.  Wear it higher and it always feels just a tad too tight (but if you losen it up, it drops).  Maybe this is more of a problem with my body rather than the strap.

2008-04-29 8:36 AM
in reply to: #1363115

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
goknights1 - 2008-04-25 9:17 PM

Wow. Great posts guys. I looked at the Forerunner 305 today and that thing is HUGE! I already have smaller than normal wrists. That thing looked like a computer on my arm! I need to stick with a "watch-like" watch. Still going to search and keep everyones input in mind.

Thanks!


I have SMALL WRISTS. Trust me, my wrists are smaller than yours. I think it's about 6 inches around. I was worried about the same thing... so I borrowed my boyfriends for a 2 hour run to see how much it would bug me. It didn't at all. In fact, the size was the one thing keeping me from buying one... but after the run I bought one the next day. Iit's not small, but it is light.

I LOVE my Garmin 305. LOVE IT! It's so cool to look down and to know how far I have run and what pace I'm doing. So much easier than having to go home and track my route after I'm done. I just go out and run where I want to. No need to follow a path... remember where I have been... just running.

2008-04-29 8:39 AM
in reply to: #1363426

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: Garmin vs. Polar
devilwillride - 2008-04-26 11:26 AM

goknights1 - 2008-04-25 10:17 PM Wow. Great posts guys. I looked at the Forerunner 305 today and that thing is HUGE! I already have smaller than normal wrists. That thing looked like a computer on my arm! I need to stick with a "watch-like" watch. Still going to search and keep everyones input in mind. Thanks!

Garmin has a newer model out now, 405 maybe?, that is much more "watch-like" in its form factor.  However, you'll pay it.  I don't remember the price, but I do remember that it was significantly more expensive than the 305.  Might be worth checking out if money isn't a concern.



You can get a 305 for $200. The 405 with the HR monitor is $450. HUGE DIFFERENCE. And the 405 does NOT have the multisport feature.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Garmin vs. Polar Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2