login
Forerunner 220 vs 15
-
No new posts
 2014-07-07 1:17 PM |
 DC |  Subject: Forerunner 220 vs 15I'm leaving for a month-long work trip & need to get one of these ASAP, as in today. My trusty FR 410 died today. I would REALLY (REALLY) appreciate thoughts on one over the other. I of course have read Rainmaker's reviews. Do you think the "extra" run features of the 220 (e.g., added data fields) really justify the added cost. While I have been running for years, at the end of the day, would knowing more than how far & how fast really improve your running!? Thanks in advance. |
| 2014-07-07 1:26 PM in reply to: Guest |
Expert  3145    Scottsdale, AZ | Subject: RE: Forerunner 220 vs 15 I'd go 220 simply because of screen size, ability to view more than 2 fields at once, ability to set up interval based workouts (if needed) and auto sync. It does not have running dynamics, that is the 620. |
| 2014-07-07 1:57 PM in reply to: thebigb |
| DC | Subject: RE: Forerunner 220 vs 15 Originally posted by thebigb I'd go 220 simply because of screen size, ability to view more than 2 fields at once, ability to set up interval based workouts (if needed) and auto sync. It does not have running dynamics, that is the 620. Thanks man. I pulled the trigger on the 15  Garmin gave me a substantial credit on my old FR. Had to act on the fly. |
| 2014-07-07 3:08 PM in reply to: Porfirio |
Expert 3145 Scottsdale, AZ | Subject: RE: Forerunner 220 vs 15 I'm sure you'll be more than happy with the 15 as well. Enjoy! |
| 2014-07-07 5:48 PM in reply to: Porfirio |
Elite 7783  PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: Forerunner 220 vs 15 I realize I'm too late to the party. I have a 220 and my wife has a Forerunner 10 that I've used a bunch of times (pretty close to the 15 minus a few things). Hands down I would pick the 220. The instant GPS lock and extra data fields do it for me, I also like the size better. |
| 2014-07-08 8:49 AM in reply to: axteraa |
| DC | Subject: RE: Forerunner 220 vs 15 Originally posted by axteraa I realize I'm too late to the party. I have a 220 and my wife has a Forerunner 10 that I've used a bunch of times (pretty close to the 15 minus a few things). Hands down I would pick the 220. The instant GPS lock and extra data fields do it for me, I also like the size better. Not late at all. Thank you for sharing. I may consider sending the 15 back for the 220. 1. Faster GPS lock; 2. Data fields; 3. Size (presumably easier to read?). These three are what I'm looking at. Debating on whether they are worth double the cost. |
| 2014-07-08 9:31 AM in reply to: Porfirio |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: Forerunner 220 vs 15 Originally posted by Porfirio Originally posted by axteraa Not late at all. Thank you for sharing. I may consider sending the 15 back for the 220. 1. Faster GPS lock; 2. Data fields; 3. Size (presumably easier to read?). These three are what I'm looking at. Debating on whether they are worth double the cost. I realize I'm too late to the party. I have a 220 and my wife has a Forerunner 10 that I've used a bunch of times (pretty close to the 15 minus a few things). Hands down I would pick the 220. The instant GPS lock and extra data fields do it for me, I also like the size better. I wouldn't say it's any easier to read. The ability to customize the data fields is another one. On the FR 10 at least, I can't just say that I want Time and HR on screen 1 and Pace and distance on another. There is a pre-determined combination of data fields that are available. If you like the combinations they offer, then it works fine but otherwise you are stuck. From a simplicity point of view, it's a nice watch if that's what you are after. I sometimes wear it when I go for a run where I only want to know Time and Distance and don't want to see any pace information at all. |
| 2014-07-08 11:15 AM in reply to: axteraa |
| DC | Subject: RE: Forerunner 220 vs 15 Originally posted by axteraa Originally posted by Porfirio Originally posted by axteraa Not late at all. Thank you for sharing. I may consider sending the 15 back for the 220. 1. Faster GPS lock; 2. Data fields; 3. Size (presumably easier to read?). These three are what I'm looking at. Debating on whether they are worth double the cost. I realize I'm too late to the party. I have a 220 and my wife has a Forerunner 10 that I've used a bunch of times (pretty close to the 15 minus a few things). Hands down I would pick the 220. The instant GPS lock and extra data fields do it for me, I also like the size better. I wouldn't say it's any easier to read. The ability to customize the data fields is another one. On the FR 10 at least, I can't just say that I want Time and HR on screen 1 and Pace and distance on another. There is a pre-determined combination of data fields that are available. If you like the combinations they offer, then it works fine but otherwise you are stuck. From a simplicity point of view, it's a nice watch if that's what you are after. I sometimes wear it when I go for a run where I only want to know Time and Distance and don't want to see any pace information at all. Just downloaded the manual. I think (THINK) you can customize the data fields in the FR 15. If this is true, the deal is sealed (by the way, I like that this manual is only 8 pages compared to multiple pages of the FR 410). |
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 |
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK