Polar 625X vs Garmin vs Timex Bodylink HRMs
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2006-05-09 8:27 PM |
Master 1397 Granvile, Ohio | Subject: Polar 625X vs Garmin vs Timex Bodylink HRMs Well, I thought I had my mind made up on which HRM to get, when my husband started asking questions I couldn't answer and threw a monkeywrench into my plans. I understand that the Garmin and Bodylink give you time and distance numbers from a satellite - right? What is the technology for the 625X? Does it give you speed and distance numbers strictly on your footstrike and stride? How can this be accurate? I'd love some thoughts and opinions on what you guys think are the best speed/distance HRMs and the technology that makes them work accurately. Edited by tnickerson 2006-05-09 8:37 PM |
|
2006-05-09 11:58 PM in reply to: #419405 |
Extreme Veteran 474 Sydney | Subject: RE: Polar 625X vs Garmin vs Timex Bodylink HRMs I've got a Forerunner 305 and a 625x so should be able to help. Bought the Polar first and still love it. Clocked up many happy miles and also bought the speed and cadence for my bike. It works using an accelerometer that attaches to your laces. Seems to work pretty well. Some people think you have to calibrate it to get it to work accurately but that actually seemed to make it worse for me. There are also some well known issues with lap splits etc. Now have the Forerunner, which uses GPS but otherwise has similar features and in terms of logging, distance, pace and heart rate (the core functions) both do equally well - though the GPS is more accurate. The cadence sensor is available but have had now luck getting one (now have a Powertap anyway so moot point). Can do other cool stuff with it like map your route, set autolaps every time you go past the same point etc etc. For the Polar - Reliable, robust, comfortable, smaller - Polar PC software is better - Can use on all three legs (wouldn't use the footpod in a race, would use the marker boards to keep an eye on my splits) - the Polar strap also interfaces with my Powertap. - Looks a bit more normal than the Forerunner - so I use mine as a stopwatch in the pool etc - Works inside and out - Strap works with most gym machines (bikes, treadmills etc) For the Forerunner - Only works outside - therefore to justify my expense I have to get out on the pavement! - Love all the data capture - Love the more accurate speed/distance - Love many of the workout features - bit more flexibility to pre-define a workout If I had to just get one I would probably go for the Polar. However, if you only want it for running outdoors and aren't worried about logging pace data by second and looking at pretty charts. PS - I also bought a Timex which I had for.... ooo... all of a week before I decided I didn't like it and took it back. |
2006-05-11 4:00 PM in reply to: #419405 |
Veteran 332 Calgary | Subject: RE: Polar 625X vs Garmin vs Timex Bodylink HRMs The Polar footpod isn't just one of those old style mechanical pedometers - it is a seriously cool bit of modern technology. A set of accelerometers in the footpod measure g-forces about a zillion times a second, and use that data to calculate how far and fast it is moving. With that data, it can figure out how fast you are running. |
2006-05-12 4:16 AM in reply to: #419405 |
Veteran 249 Long Island, NY | Subject: RE: Polar 625X vs Garmin vs Timex Bodylink HRMs I have the Bodylink system and think it's great. The only thing they could improve on is the program for the system. I think it could be a bit more detailed with the info you could track. |
2006-05-12 3:37 PM in reply to: #419405 |
Veteran 119 Aurora, CO | Subject: RE: Polar 625X vs Garmin vs Timex Bodylink HRMs I've had the Timex bodylink for going on a year. It was ok... but the GPS would drop signal and/or the heart rate monitor would drop signal quite often (even after upgrading batteries in all three pieces). I just ordered and received my Garmin Forerunner 305. Some of the things I already like about the Forerunner 305 over the Bodylink are:
Edited by brockb 2006-05-12 3:42 PM |