I’ve decided that I need a GPS watch, mainly for running but I might use it on the bike as well for some Strava action.

I’ve narrowed it down to two options a Polar SC3 or a Garmin 610. The Polar is quite a bit (€100) cheaper but is missing some of the functions of the Garmin, although I don’t know if I need any of the missing stuff. The major advantages I can see for the Garmin is customisable display and wireless transfer to the PC. I aren’t tied into either brand, I have a handheld Garmin GPS which I’m happy with and have always used Polar HRMs without any problems. I’ve read the reviews on DCrainmaker but am still undecided.

The other thing which muddies the waters is I have read lots of people saying that a footpod can be better than a GPS, especially in woods and I do have problems with my Garmin losing satellites in the woods sometimes. If a footpod is better, then the pendulum swings firmly over to the Garmin, the Polar footpod is a monstrosity.

Any real world opinions?

I am in the same boat. The garmin looks good. The location and elevation features look good fir navigation purposes. The lack of definitive waterproof rating is a bit of a let down though. I know someone who really likes theirs.

I have a Suunto Ambit which replaced my Garmin Forerunner (I had a few of these over the years) and I use my GPS for training everyday (running) and my opinion is dont bother with a HR feature I suspect 90% of people (like me) dont really benefit from it and you will probably get fed up with the belt etc.
Also I dont think a footpod is necessary. They may be more accurate but I have raced with mine on and found the GPS more than accurate enough and the same runs come out almost exactly the same distance every time.
I would go for a customizable display though I have changed mine occasionally to show different things.

I fancy the Ambit but its a bit pricey, also Suunto are only issuing firmware upgrades for the Ambit 2. If I had the money I’d get the Ambit 2 as it is waterproof, has a good battery life and is a fully fledged navigation computer but is beyond my budget and needs.

I was thinking of getting the forerunner 210 as i only want the simpler features, but think that the 610 may bring out the inner geek in me. As mentioned the navigation features are useful to have in case you get lost and according to DC Rainmaker is better for the bike. For all my needs and budget the 310XT is what I should go for, but its just a bit big for my liking.

Just to throw a curveball the TomTom run (not the Nike one) picks up satellites much more quickly than the others.

Thanks for the replies.

Surfer, it’s interesting your views on HR use, I’ve pretty much always use a HR monitor for training (and do now) the belt doesn’t bother me. I’m guessing for tempo and intervals you run to a specific pace?

Pieface, I do seem to be in the same position as you and are coming to the same conclusions. One thing I would say though is that I’ve read a few bad review of the 210, charger connection issues being the main problem. I’m not too worried about navigation or bike use so much, I have a Garmin Dakota for that, it’s just a bit bulky for running with.

I’m going to have a look tomorrow and try some on. I’ll probably end up buying something completely different and doubt I’ll get out of the shop without some new shoes!

I have a Garmin 410, touch bezel rather than touch screen of the 610, i looked at both but the only real difference in functionalty is the training and virtual partner.

Cant fault it, its always accurate on GPS, that the reason i went GPS, so you don’t have to bother with footpods etc.

Garmin connect (the online one) is good too, i think its much better than the Polar software but it is a while since i used Polar so may have changed

The Ambit2 looks very nice, but as stated make sure you the 2 not the one as the software support looks very poor for the original.

DCRainmaker link

Surfer, it’s interesting your views on HR use, I’ve pretty much always use a HR monitor for training (and do now) the belt doesn’t bother me. I’m guessing for tempo and intervals you run to a specific pace?

IME people seldom have the information or will to make them work effectively and IMO you need to collect a lot of information over a long period of time both HRM and other. I suspect there is little benefit unless a large number of variables are monitored and consistent, Of use for very elite athletes little benefit fo the rest of us IMO

Wot surfer says re HRM. I bought a 310XT a few years ago which I think has been excellent but the HRM strap just gathers dust. If I’m doing interval training, I just do it by pace. I find the workout builder on Garmin’s website excellent (took a bit of getting used to but once you know what you’re doing, it’s a doddle…expect a few, erm, dodgy workouts for your first few). It’s fine on the bike – there’s a handlebar mount which is expensive for a bit of rubber but it works well and helps you to look awesome. 🙂

It feels a bit chunky now compared to the lighter sleeker models out there but I still really like it. And in two weeks time, it’ll finally get the “T” part of the model name used. 😆 😳

I found the theory behind HRM training a bit of a bore and far too sophisticated for the fairly below average level at which I compete.

The HRM data is another stat to spur you on though maybe…

Generally though the HRM straps are cheaper to buy as a bundle than individually so if you think you will use one its cheaper.

Have you considered the Tomtom multisport watch? I’m after a watch for riding+running, that also needs to be waterproof’ish. Tomtom comes up cheap and its very straight forward to use. My only gripe is it requires a dock to transfer the data – wifi/bluetooth even micro usb would be a lot better. It comes with a bike mount too.

I’ve just bought a FR610. Great piece of kit and perfectly wearable as everyday watch. Getting into Garmin connect and it looks useful. VR runner is actually really good. Set its lap pace and tells you how far ahead/behind you are. Got a PB on a regular run by running against it. Great watch.

Got a PB on a regular run by running against it. Great watch.

My old Garmin had that feature and I found it really useful. Set if for a distance and time and it races against you. Keeps you focused.

I used to have a FR210, and now use an Ambit2S. Both are fine for running, OK for cycling, and of course only the Ambit can be used for swimming. Neither has the virtual partner feature, which is a pity as I can see it being useful. No major problems connecting the USB with either of them, as long as you’re careful hooking the watch up they work fine. Both have the major advantage of looking like normal (albeit large) watches, unlike the 310 and 910 – you can wear them to work without looking like a weirdo.

Why did I change from the Garmin to the Suunto? Two main reasons: waterproofing and battery life.

* The FR210 is showerproof, but you can’t go swimming with it – a bit of a pain if you’re on holiday and fancy a run in the morning followed by a swim. I haven’t really used the swim features yet, beyond a test to see if they work (they do). I’m toying with the idea of doing an ironman next year and it’ll come in handy for that if I do.

* Battery life is a bit more obvious, you can set the Ambit to record GPS data every minute which gives you about 20hrs of battery life, doing long road rides (>7hrs) I’ve run out of battery on the FR210.

I haven’t used a footpod, apparently with the Ambit if you use one the device then ignores the GPS, which seems a bit stupid. The Garmin is better at this, and only uses the footpod for cadence and you’re in a tunnel or whatever. I do quite a bit of treadmill running so will probably end up with one anyhow. (Also: note that both the Garmin and Suunto models use ANT+, while Polar uses its own comms protocol – ANT+ is better supported, and has a wider range of manufacturers with cheaper products – you don’t need to use the Suunto footpod for example, any ANT+ footpod will do).

I generally use the HRM, but more out of interest than as a training aid. The only time I really use it to help training is when I do intervals on a turbo, out and about I find my HR is all over the place and isn’t much use.

(Incidentally I still have the FR210, I just haven’t got round to selling it yet. If you’re in Madrid and are interested…)

I ended up getting the Polar for two reasons. Firstly it felt better than the Garmin on my wrist, the strap felt nicer. Secondly I got a blinding deal, €189 because it was the display model vs. €299 for the Garmin.

It was quite amusing watching the shop guy nervously watching me whilst I checked both of them for GPS lock outside the shop, you could almost see his brain ticking over wondering if he could catch me (I would bet he could).

And with the money I saved, I managed to get some new racing flats 😉

I needed an Ambit a couple of years ago, and it has been the best investment in training and general outdoor toyage that I have ever owned.
The current version of software has improved vastly from the original that was excellent, but benefits from the additional features now installed.

I haven’t used anything other that Suunto watches for HRM, so cannot comment on anything else. But, those that don’t use HRM for training and competition are really showing their ignorance.
It is well worth getting a lactate test to find your personal training zones. Few un-coached athletes use Zoned training and recovery in their schedules. If you are serious about getting faster and stronger, it is a phenomenal tool.

I’ve run with Garmin Forerunner watches for the last few years. First a 305, then a 410, and now a 610.

310 died after a few years, but was great. Reliable reception, if a little slow to pick up, but great for workout planning and execution.

The 410 is a horrible piece of shit. The touch bezel is the most unusable user interface I have ever come across. It’s single redeeming feature is the ‘Simple Workout’ where you can just bang in a distance and pace and go for it. Also the reception under tree cover is a bit pants. I generally run to average lap pace (over 1 mile), and it noticeably drops under cover or even tall buildings. Makes city races difficult to pace.

Just bought a Forerunner 610 and run with it twice so far. Interface-wise, vastly better than the 410. The touchscreen works great as long as you remember it actually requires pressure, unlike modern smart phones. Sadly, Garmin have omitted the ‘Simple Workout’ from this one, but it has everything else. Vibrating alerts are nice as well, if you feel self-conscious about your watch beeping all the time, like I do. It also has 1 second recording, which is perfect if you do train against heart rate.

On the heart rate topic, I find it’s horses for courses. I use pace for intervals and most tempo runs, but heart rate for long runs and recovery runs. Intervals are often too short to get your heart rate in the right place, so paces from McMillan give better targets. But HR is great for long runs and recovery to make sure I don’t run too fast. Zone 2 all day long. The 610 also has something called ‘Training Effect‘ which seems an interesting way of measuring the result of a workout. The calorie measurement in the 610 (and 410 for that matter) is much more accurate than the 305 thanks to being based on heart rate plus speed and distance, and not just speed and distance. Another reason to wear the HRM than just HR.

But, those that don’t use HRM for training and competition are really showing their ignorance.

If you mean me then its not ignorance. I understand the science very well. Plus training and racing are two very different things and I dont know a single serious athlete (distance running) who would use a HRM during a race, can you name me a benefit?
There is benefit for athletes who are able to analyse all of the variables otherwise it gives little usable information for the “casual” athlete and useful information has to be captured over a very long period of consistent and structured training. Few runners do that hence the benefit is lost, I wouldnt even call it negligble it can even be counter productive misreading output.
In practical terms most runners such as myself (reasonable club standard over the years) have a couple of chest straps in a drawer somewhere. I have been lucky enough to have training partners over the years who have a number of British vest amongst them (i even trained a handful of times with a couple of Olympic African distance runners one of whom was a world record holder 8)) I dont recall any of them ever really using HR in their training so my comments are based on experience.
Maybe you should us me what you glean when you monitor the information every day? How does it shape your training? Do you do all of your running on the same surface etc? or like most of us is your training over various terrain at varying paces?

But HR is great for long runs and recovery to make sure I don’t run too fast.

I would go along with this to some extent but during longer runs your HR drifts plus on a practical note if you train with others on long runs, which is typical, then you would likely benefit more by allowing your pace to rise if the pace increases. What do you do if you are in a group running at a pace that suits your HR and the rest of the group raise the pace? Do you fall of the back to stay within your preset limits or ignore your HR? It makes for lonely training if you do.

I would go along with this to some extent but during longer runs your HR drifts plus on a practical note if you train with others on long runs, which is typical, then you would likely benefit more by allowing your pace to rise if the pace increases. What do you do if you are in a group running at a pace that suits your HR and the rest of the group raise the pace? Do you fall of the back to stay within your preset limits or ignore your HR? It makes for lonely training if you do.

I’m aware of the upward drift of heart rate on long runs. Most of my training is solely training due to when I can fit it in. Long runs always are. Club sessions twice a week, one of which will be time-based intervals, and the other a medium run (6-8 miles) at each runner’s steady pace. The run leaders will move around the group keeping everyone together. But my training group is only around 8 people, all of a similar ability, so it doesn’t get too fragmented.

For experience, I know I have a tendency to run my long and recovery runs (when marathon training) too fast, so I find heart rate a useful check on my exertion level in the way that pace isn’t always. In a race, yes, I completely agree with you, it’s either pace-based to achieve a target, or on feel.

I’m one of those runners who you regard as analysing all the variables. I’m a bit of a stats geek, so I have all my data from several years, and it’s very interesting to see the physiological changes I’ve gone through. I’ve now hit a point where I’m less reliant on heart rate as a measure, because I know what my body is doing at various paces and what I can do, but as a beginning I found it invaluable to make sure I didn’t over-do it when I shouldn’t but also worked hard enough when I needed to. It certainly meant I could ‘train as hard as you can consistently train’.

What do you do if you are in a group running at a pace that suits your HR and the rest of the group raise the pace? Do you fall of the back to stay within your preset limits or ignore your HR?

So how do you deal with this? I suspect you deal with it the same way I have always done in the past and as long as the pace is manageable stay with the group. If I was wearing a HRM it would have told me to slow down and run the last 10 miles alone!

Back to the original question, GPS watches are ace.

My running past consisted of 4 mile wheezy loops as a very recreational jogger, but a few months I joined a club and bought a FR210. Progression has been dramatic and I’m well and truly bitten by the bug.

The watch is simple, but it’s been perfect for me and meets the needs of several of the more experienced and capable runners in my club. I wasn’t too bothered by the HRM as it seemed like more faff that I wouldn’t know how to use and an encumbrance.

I’m very much a novice and much of this is new to me, but so far I’ve only been interested in lap pace and distance. I have also used it on the bike with one of the cheap mounts from Amazon, and it was fine for speed and distance.

I tend to do most of my training with the club with intervals and track sessions paced by a group and longer runs kept in check by our ability to sustain a conversation. The watch is useful to track in real-time and get my geek on when I upload it.

The more I run, the more I enjoy running. What once was inconceivable now seems doable and while the watch has helped understand more about how I’m doing, being with people who are stronger and faster is what’s made the biggest difference to me.

Bit of a ramble, but might be of use. I’m off for a jog then going to buy some trail shoes!

get the garmin. I have two watches with gps and hrm and the garmin is awesome.

I used the watch for the first time in anger yesterday for a semi-offroad half-marathon (some tarmac, some pavé and some gravel tracks). It was 50:50 open heathland and the rest was fairly dense pine forests and the GPS measured 21.07km so (assuming the course measurer was right) that’s within 30m of the full distance, I’m happy with that!

The main features I used on the watch were the km splits and average pace, it helped trying to keep to my average through a tough headwind spell around 15-16km where I was stuck in no-mans land between two groups, looking at the data at home I was over 190bpm for those few km. As per Surfers comments earlier, if I’d been sticking rigidly to a HR I would have had to ease off quite a bit and would have lost some time.

I ended up with a PB for a half’ as well, just missing a sub-90mins by a second grrr.

Regarding the Ambit 1, I think sunnto are still supporting it, take a look at:

http://ns.suunto.com/pdf/SuuntoAmbit/AMBIT_Maintenance_and_Upgradability_Announcement_07052013.pdf