in: PBricker; PBricker > 2007-01-06;
| # Posted 2007-01-07 08:19:44 | |
| GlenT: | Apparently SportTracks uses a different algorithm to calculate the distance from the GPS data than the Forerunner. I've only ever noticed differences of a few hundredths of a mile, not as large as you're seeing. It's a guess, but most of the difference may come from how the Garmin vs SportTracks interpolate when the FR loses the GPS signal.
I'd think you'd want to use the shorter reported distances so that your calculated pace appears to be slower on training runs. Then you can be pleasantly surprised when you run faster than expected in a race on an accurately measured course. |
| # Posted 2007-01-07 20:14:15 | |
| walk: | I have found similar differences, as I mentioned before. The FR is usually short (as was my etrex). Training Center was usually longer and Sporttracks and Gartrip were always longer and the same. Only used Gartrip with the etrex but had the same experience with it. |
| # Posted 2007-01-08 01:55:00 | |
| walk: | More data to ponder - Today we hiked the Blue tr for a bit as will be noted next on log. Measurements displayed by the device and various aspects of different programs:
FR - 3.51 miles TC Total column - 3.51 TC graph - 3.6 Sporttrack - 3.75 Gartrip - 3.75 I'm sticking with Gartrip;-} |
| # Posted 2007-01-08 02:55:07 | |
| PBricker: | "Then you can be pleasantly surprised when you run faster than expected in a race on an accurately measured course."
There aren't many such pleasant surprises left. I'm with George: I'd rather feel good about my training. |
| # Posted 2007-01-08 18:39:40 | |
| Charlie: | Whichever distances you guys have covered, you have certainly reached the pinnacle of geekiness! |
| # Posted 2007-01-08 18:58:12 | |
| GlenT: | Old guys with high tech toys. :-) I'd contend that this is just a dot knoll on the geekiness scale however. |
You must be logged in to add a message