New Timex Ironman Global Trainer GPS Watch

[grasshopper]

To be released in September. 
http://www.timexironman.com/Products/Global_Trainer_GPS.htm

[rehammes]

Looks pretty nice. It appears to have a lower profile than the garmin which would be good.  Garmin seems to be the gold standard when it comes to GPS products widely available to the consumer, so I would have to wait for reviews on the Timex technology.

[Andrew A.]

Based on what I have read, more like the bronze standard.    Timex is the Honda of sport timing, less apt to rush products to market before working out glitches and shortcomings than the competition.  However, for my purposes the FR50/60 would apparently be far better than any GPS unit.  Perhaps Timex makes an equivalent.

[Ryan]

Indeed, I've always found Timex to be the reliability king of the market. I've tried watches by other makers because I thought they had better prices or features but I always ended up back with Timex for the watch that just works. I'm pretty sure this company has proven that they won't release something until they are sure it will work.

Of course, it's true that the Garmin product line is by far the most popular GPS line in the running community but that doesn't mean a watch maker like Timex can't come in and challenge that title with the right product.

That said, I still don't think I even want to think about bothering with a GPS. Knowing myself and how much I like to play around with numbers, I think it would be more of a distraction than anything.

[Andrew A.]

I saw it mentioned somewhere that it will be priced $100 less than the comparable Garmin product. 

I am a bit of the opposite, the distance stuff just does nothing for me, estimating is reasonably close in terms of training effect.  However, I am intrigued to explore Vigil's critical zone training, which I have mentioned previously here.  The two critical zone runs are intended to be done at particular paces.  According to what I have gleaned from those who come across as knowing what they are talking about more than most, the FR50/60 (accelerometer technology, not GPS) does a far more accurate and consistent job of giving instantaneous pace feedback for the type of terrain that those runs should be done on than the GPS-based devices can, due to the underlying constraints in the technology any and all civilian GPS systems.  Distance measurement is said to be roughly equal between the two, yet like I mentioned that is really unimportant to me.  The other features in the GPS units do not interest me, either.

[Ryan]

Agree that, in terms of training effect, estimates are close enough and precise numbers can actually be harmful because they can lead to analysis paralysis. The problem I have is that I'm a numbers guy. Give me numbers and I'll dissect them a million different ways.

I know myself, I know what temptations I can't resist. Get me out on a long run and numbers just naturally run through my head. License plates, addresses, it doesn't matter. Give me too much data about the run and I'll analyze myself to death. This is why I think GPS would be counterproductive to me. It's also the reason I measure no routes in any way, whether bike, car, or anything else.

I'm not saying GPS is inherently bad. I think it could be a good thing in the right hands and with careful use and an understanding of its limitations. I just know my hands are not the right hands due to my number crunching nature.

[cesar]

Ryan , that is the reason you don't wear a watch at races?

i don't care if had a garmin to know distance at the end of the run, but during the run  that would drive me crazy because i would start to compare time with distance to know the pace i am running. Nahhh , that is not the purpose of running.

[Ryan]

Cesar, it's one reason but I think it goes beyond that. I don't tell people never to use a Garmin, just to be careful to understand what it can and can not do and of how you use it. I do tell people to race without a watch because I do see people consistently selling themselves short due to focusing on the watch more than the responses of their bodies.

[Ryan]

To expand a bit on my last post, GPS is a tool that could be helpful if used properly. I choose not to use it because, knowing my nature, I know I would not use it properly but I think, keeping certain things in mind, it can be a good tool. Likewise, not using a watch is a tool. It's actually a tool that most people never consider using. I just want to encourage people to give this tool a shot.

[Andrew A.]

That seems like a fair point.  I mean, really, I time runs to record and track the training and estimate the length only because the log I use requires that data entry.  Otherwise, I could go by effort level and duration alone, as those are really what the body feels.  Yet what is time (on a watch) but an arbitrary measure, as is distance?  To be perfectly honest, though I start and stop the watch and may push the lap button along the way, I tend to not pay any mind to what it reads until I am putting it into a log and even then I do not think about it much in terms of value judgment or quantitative analysis.  However, I have to think that if someone is thinking of dropping $200+ for a GPS unit instead of the $30 I paid for my watch that this indicates a belief that it will give them something (far) more than what little my watch does for me. 

[cesar]

Andrew,  do you wear the watch when you race?

[Andrew A.]

Sometimes I do not and other times I do. 

[cesar]

do you perform better with or without a watch?

[Andrew A.]

I have not noticed.  As already indicated, I do not look at it during runs so that would include races.  Wearing the watch is immaterial to me.

[cesar]

oh ok, in that case , not wearing it or not looking at it is the same, i thought that you check splits at every mile at races.

why do you say it's inmaterial?