Nike and Tom Tom launch Garmin killer?

nellocono

hmmm..yeah some reviews I read said a similar thing regarding the watch calculating distances. However, it went on to say that after upgrading the software the watch seemed to be much more accurate.

I wonder did he ever upgrade the software since he purchased it?

gottarun

nellocono wrote: »

I know this is an old thread but I would like to resurrect it as I am on the market for a new watch...

Anyone got any further reviews of this? Would you recommend it over say a Garmin 110?

Depending on your budget and what you want to get from it.

I have the Polar RCX5 having recently upgraded my FR305 and I love the fact that my recording are available for my swim sessions as well as the run & bike.

On the user side of things the online polar personal trainer integrates really well with the unit. The software will adjust your training programs to suit the level of improvement that is going on. If you are overtraining reverse adjustment will be made and your effort controlled.

I have to say while the 305 is a super GPS watch and training computer, the RCX5 beats it down.

nellocono

That Polar looks like a pretty nice device but I am only in the market for a GPS for running..Considering an entry level watch either a Garmin 110 or the Nike Sportswatch.

I really just want to like the Nike watch as I think it looks pretty cool. Unfortunately there seems to be widespread concerns regarding locking on to satellites and in-accurate data reporting...:mad:

Krusty_Clown

nellocono wrote: »

That Polar looks like a pretty nice device but I am only in the market for a GPS for running..Considering an entry level watch either a Garmin 110 or the Nike Sportswatch.

I really just want to like the Nike watch as I think it looks pretty cool. Unfortunately there seems to be widespread concerns regarding locking on to satellites and in-accurate data reporting...:mad:

Would you not consider the Forerunner 305? Cheaper than the 110, but does so much more. The size isn't for everybody though.

nellocono

I think the 305 is too big and clunky...and its not much cheaper than the 110 so would opt for the 110 first...

Still not given up on the Nike yet so will hold tough for a couple of weeks before I make up my mind.

Krusty_Clown

nellocono wrote: »

I think the 305 is too big and clunky...and its not much cheaper than the 110 so would opt for the 110 first...

Still not given up on the Nike yet so will hold tough for a couple of weeks before I make up my mind.

You're right. They're about the same price. But despite it's age, the 305 does so much more. It is a lot bigger, but does so much more.
I can't see any selling points for the Nike, other than it looks cool.

TFBubendorfer

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I can't see any selling points for the Nike, other than it looks cool.

You just mentioned the one selling point that is most relevant to a lot of people. I have to admit, my own first reaction was, wow that thing looks a lot better than my 305.

tunney

robinph wrote: »

Someone didn't have a clue what they are talking about.

There are one set of US military satellites up there, plus a couple of EU and Russian ones but they don't really count. They are all transmitting a bunch of data as they fly over head, the Garmin/ TomTom/ whatever all receive this same data and use that to figure out where you are (they even all have pretty much the same hardware inside to do this).

There is no transmitting of where you are going on, the Garmin/ Tom Tom/ whatever is just like an FM Radio in that respect, anyone can pick up the radio signal bur RTE have no idea who it is that is that is doing so. The same with the GPS signals.

The EU ones is the Gallileo system, possible more accruate than the GPS system. Yanks not too happy about not having total control of all positioning systems.

Krusty_Clown

tunney wrote: »

The EU ones is the Gallileo system, possible more accruate than the GPS system. Yanks not too happy about not having total control of all positioning systems.

...and is expected to hit your patch of sky some time in 2018 (if it ever gets completed).

jimbo21

i am looking to buy my first watch for running ,Garmin or Nike+

Krusty_Clown

jimbo21 wrote: »

i am looking to buy my first watch for running ,Garmin or Nike+

Garmin.

gottarun

Given the choice - Garmin.

irlirishkev

After a few months usage with the Nike Watch, these are my thoughts.

Lots of positives. It has everything I need during a run, and gives me everything I want to look at after a run.

During a run, you can have - Time, distance, elapsed, instant pace, average pace, intervals, auto-laps, manual-laps etc..

After a run, you get the map, the breakdown of your run with split times, interval times etc, depends how you set it up.

It picks up the sat links very quick 95% of the time, and has no trouble with overcast days or running under trees etc..

There *is* a known issue with accuracy at the beginning of runs, whereby when you look at the map after your run, it might have you running on the wrong side of the road, but it will correct itself after a short period. It's never given me an incorrect distance however (when I double checked with map my run). Nike say they're working to correct this, and they have been pro-active since the release of the watch - they released a firmware upgrade to include average pace, which wasn't there originally.

Tbh, the Nike+ site is a bit pants. It's slow at times, and a bit annoying interface wise.

Overall, I love it. I never had any other GPS watch so I can't compare. It was definitely cheap compared to other GPs watches that do as much.

Not sure what else to say. Any questions, ask and I'll try to answer.

gerard65

Summary of Nike+ Sportswatch in Runners World.
Good
Picks up signal in under 10secs
Simple functionality
Large and clearly defined numbers
Useful split screen effect for rotating through date

Bad
Signal strenght is variable, even in open ground
Foot sensor is slow to kick in
Buttons not easily accessible on the run.

irlirishkev

gerard65 wrote: »

Summary of Nike+ Sportswatch in Runners World.
Good
Picks up signal in under 10secs
Simple functionality
Large and clearly defined numbers
Useful split screen effect for rotating through date

Bad
Signal strenght is variable, even in open ground
Foot sensor is slow to kick in
Buttons not easily accessible on the run.

I've never used the foot sensor so can't comment on that.
I've never found signal strength to be a problem myself
Bit confused about buttons not easily accessible. There's only 3, and they're big enough.. or am I misunderstanding?

gerard65

irlirishkev wrote: »

I've never used the foot sensor so can't comment on that.
I've never found signal strength to be a problem myself
Bit confused about buttons not easily accessible. There's only 3, and they're big enough.. or am I misunderstanding?

Runners World run alot of ads for garmin so maybe they were been overly picky.;)

jimbo21

himm still not sure what to go for ill wait and see

Krusty_Clown

irlirishkev wrote: »

After a few months usage with the Nike Watch, these are my thoughts.

Great feedback, irlirishkev, thanks!

It picks up the sat links very quick 95% of the time
There *is* a known issue with accuracy at the beginning of runs

I reckon these two points are somewhat at odds. If the Nike watch 'waited' until it was receiving data from more satellites, then it would likely be more accurate at the start of runs. Acquiring satellites very quickly likely comes at a cost to accuracy at the earlier part of your run. I wonder is Nike using this as a selling point, at the cost of accuracy?

jimbo21

what price would you expect to pay for a garmin 610 Hrm+foot pod+cadence sensor

Krusty_Clown

jimbo21 wrote: »

what price would you expect to pay for a garmin 610 Hrm+foot pod+cadence sensor

I could do that research for you, or you could just take a look at Amazon.co.uk.
Suffice it to say that it would cost a lot, maybe around £450.

Do you really need a foot-pod? Spend a lot of time on treadmills?