Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by glenn susse » Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:41:17


I've had my eye on the Fitsense or Nike for months, but I've held out
for various reasons.  One of the reasons is I really don't have a
reliable place to calibrate them and I'm too lazy to go find a track
where I can do so :).  I know, lame excuse.  Then I heard about the
Timex Distance coming out in April, and figured that's the answer to
the calibration problems.  Can someone list the
advantages/disadvantages, other than the calibration, between the
watches?  Thanks.
 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Joseph Meeha » Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:26:40

    The new Timex is just a small GPS unit.  It will have the same problems
as other GPS units.  GPS has two weaknesses that come into play with
runners.

    First it can be blocked from receiving a signal, during this time it
goes blind and has no idea where you are.  Trees buildings etc can block the
signals.

    Second is the sampling rate.  It measures then computes the distance
from the last time it measured.  Some units don't measure too often.  I hope
the new Timex unit has a rapid sample time reducing this problem.  It is a
problem because runners don't generally run only straight paths, and bend or
turn of your path between samples will be replace by a straight line in the
mind of the GPS.

    I do have a GPS unit and I can say from personal experience they are
good for many things, even better now that the US government has turned off
it's intentional errors.  Over long straight distances they are very
accurate and they are very good at finding specific locations from a map.
My girlfriend is into genealogy and we often are trying to find some old
grave location in the middle of some farmer's field.  The GPS takes us right
there, or close enough.  But I also know they can have problems finding and
keeping contract with the satellite and a curvy path will be under recorded.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1  It's Irish Math


Quote:
> I've had my eye on the Fitsense or Nike for months, but I've held out
> for various reasons.  One of the reasons is I really don't have a
> reliable place to calibrate them and I'm too lazy to go find a track
> where I can do so :).  I know, lame excuse.  Then I heard about the
> Timex Distance coming out in April, and figured that's the answer to
> the calibration problems.  Can someone list the
> advantages/disadvantages, other than the calibration, between the
> watches?  Thanks.


 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Ron Natali » Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:40:20

Quote:

> I've had my eye on the Fitsense or Nike for months, but I've held out
> for various reasons.  One of the reasons is I really don't have a
> reliable place to calibrate them and I'm too lazy to go find a track
> where I can do so :).

You an calibrate the FitSense on ANY length measured course you can find
or on a treadmill.  It doesn't need to be a 400m track.  While the instructions
detail only the TRAK (400M) and MILL modes, you can run a measured course,
and then go to fitsense's web page with the reported vs. actual distances
and it will give the numbers to put into the watch in SET mode.

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by SwStudi » Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:58:17

Quote:

> You an calibrate the FitSense on ANY length measured course you can find

...that was originally measured with what? ;-)

Quote:
> or on a treadmill.

Using a treadmill to calibrate another device? I'm assuming
you don't run on treadmills too often, as they are not very
accurate, not enough for calibration purposes, anyway! Also,
you run a little differently on a 'mill than the road. This will
affect the readings.

--
David (in Hamilton, Ont)
"This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality
Embrace this moment; remember, we are eternal
All this pain is an illusion."
                                          Tool - Parabola
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/swstudio/home.html

-

.

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Ron Natali » Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:22:15

Quote:


> > You an calibrate the FitSense on ANY length measured course you can find

> ...that was originally measured with what? ;-)

We've got some pretty accurately measured trains here.

Quote:

> > or on a treadmill.

> Using a treadmill to calibrate another device? I'm assuming
> you don't run on treadmills too often, as they are not very
> accurate, not enough for calibration purposes, anyway!

I used to run on them a lot, and I did the calibration on my
own before I had the chance to hit the local highschool track
and the numbers weren't much different.

Actually, the real accurate numbers for me were somewhere between
the track calibration and the treadmill.  I used the "calibration"
page on the website to refine the setting and it came up spot on
on the last 20 mile long run.

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Bump » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:08:38

The Timex apparently uses GPS for gathering information which gives it
all of the usual problems, no signal under trees, buildings, tunnels and
a degree of accuracy that will have difficulty equaling either the Nike
or Fitsense.

There are some excellent threads, quite recent in fact, on comparisons
between the two foot pod systems, both are based on the same technology
and when properly trained seem to give a 98 % or better accuracy. I
bought the Nike because of the training system, you run a known metric
course and then adjust for accuracy. Since 400 meters is only 7 feet shy
of a quater mile you can adjust any track or known course to accomodate,
because the Nike will allow you to use any distance to calibrate. The
Fitsense calls for either 400 meters or a timed treadmill training, but
does allow for manual adjustments later on, which the Nike does not.

I also bought the Nike because I belong to the run club at road runners
sports and they have a 60 day no questions asked return policy, but they
ain't getting this baby back, its just too much fun to make your own
course and still have all that ***retentive data. RRS now carries the
Fitsense as well. the Nike system is similar to their other watches and
I've been using the Triax's for over 3 years so the learning curve was
less. A lot of people don't like the Fitsense because of the styling of
the watch, which is way different but those who have them seem to like
them.

Bottom line either one should be more accurate than the Timex, until
proven otherwise, and either will be way more more useful to a training
program than a HRM.

Quote:

> I've had my eye on the Fitsense or Nike for months, but I've held out
> for various reasons.  One of the reasons is I really don't have a
> reliable place to calibrate them and I'm too lazy to go find a track
> where I can do so :).  I know, lame excuse.  Then I heard about the
> Timex Distance coming out in April, and figured that's the answer to
> the calibration problems.  Can someone list the
> advantages/disadvantages, other than the calibration, between the
> watches?  Thanks.

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by MJuri » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:13:45



Quote:
>I've had my eye on the Fitsense or Nike for months, but I've held out
>for various reasons.  One of the reasons is I really don't have a
>reliable place to calibrate them and I'm too lazy to go find a track
>where I can do so :).  I know, lame excuse.  Then I heard about the
>Timex Distance coming out in April, and figured that's the answer to
>the calibration problems.  Can someone list the
>advantages/disadvantages, other than the calibration, between the
>watches?  Thanks.

        I can't comment on the GPS units however I have the Nike Triax
and it can be calibrated on any reasonable calibrated distance. I have
calibrated mine on an indoor track 10 laps to a mile and a marked
certified mile from one of the local "certified" race courses. You
just run the distance and change the reading to match the distance.

        It really depends on your desire for complete accuracy. If you
want you could go drive a mile with your car and calibrate. The unit
will simply say the same distance as your car, which by the way isn't
to accurate.

        A question I would like to know about the GPS unit is how
accurate are they? It was my impression that GPS's were only accurate
within 10-20ft. If your running at 7MPH or roughly 8:30 you are moving
at 10.26 ft/sec. If the unit updates pace every 5 sec, rough what the
Triax does, you would cover about 51.3 ft Even if the GPS is within 5
ft thats about 10% error. I at any given time or it would report you
were running from a 7:39 to a 9:21. Wondering how the GPS actually
calculates pace? The good thing I can see about GPS is it would never
be off more than the error of the GPS. If you run 50ft you may be 5 ft
off. However if you run 50 miles you will only be 5 ft off. Not true
with the other foot units, there error is cumulative. The foot units
are also susceptable to running error's I.E. tripping, changing of
gate etc. GPS would not be.

~Matt

~Matt

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by SwStudi » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:23:51

Quote:

> I used to run on them a lot, and I did the calibration on my
> own before I had the chance to hit the local highschool track
> and the numbers weren't much different.

My apologies - I was thinking you meant just any
decent treadmill at the gym, or that type of thing.

--
David (in Hamilton, Ont)
"These roads go on forever, and so do you and I"
                               dashboard confessional
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/swstudio/home.html

-

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Dave » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:21:16


: I've had my eye on the Fitsense or Nike for months, but I've held
out
: for various reasons.  One of the reasons is I really don't have a
: reliable place to calibrate them and I'm too lazy to go find a track
: where I can do so :).  I know, lame excuse.  Then I heard about the
: Timex Distance coming out in April, and figured that's the answer to
: the calibration problems.  Can someone list the
: advantages/disadvantages, other than the calibration, between the
: watches?  Thanks.

Every time I see a thread on one of these devices, I want one.  They
sound like a lot of fun to play with, especially when you are just
going out for a couple hour run.  One of these days, I'm going to
break down and shell out the money.  If they were $100 or less, I'd
probably get one today.

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Jeff Jetto » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:45:10


Quote:

>Every time I see a thread on one of these devices, I want one.  They
>sound like a lot of fun to play with, especially when you are just
>going out for a couple hour run.  One of these days, I'm going to
>break down and shell out the money.  If they were $100 or less, I'd
>probably get one today.

Here was some of my justification for getting it, if it helps you any. :)

1. I don't have any trouble paying $100+ for a pair of shoes that wears
out in less than a year, so an investment of $200 in a device that will
last several years seems okay.

2. Compared to a lot of other sports and outdoor activities, $200 is a
bargain. We're way ahead of golfers, skiers, bicyclists, and especially
boaters. You save so much by being a runner, you owe it to yourself,
right?

3. I used to work as a musician, and currently work as a computer geek.
In either endeavor, $200 for a cool gadget is no biggie. Why should
running be any different?

Bottom line: We're used to this sport being inexpensive, so it's a little
tough to swallow a $200 price tag on anything. But, in the grand scheme
of things, it's not really all that expensive.

At least, that's what I keep telling myself. :)

 - Jeff

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Dave » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:06:11


: Here was some of my justification for getting it, if it helps you
any. :)
:
: 1. I don't have any trouble paying $100+ for a pair of shoes that
wears
: out in less than a year, so an investment of $200 in a device that
will
: last several years seems okay.
:
: 2. Compared to a lot of other sports and outdoor activities, $200 is
a
: bargain. We're way ahead of golfers, skiers, bicyclists, and
especially
: boaters. You save so much by being a runner, you owe it to yourself,
: right?
:
: 3. I used to work as a musician, and currently work as a computer
geek.
: In either endeavor, $200 for a cool gadget is no biggie. Why should
: running be any different?
:
: Bottom line: We're used to this sport being inexpensive, so it's a
little
: tough to swallow a $200 price tag on anything. But, in the grand
scheme
: of things, it's not really all that expensive.

All good points, and I love gadgets.  If I can just make it a little
longer with no new gadgets, then this will probably be my next
purchase.  The problem is, it shouldn't matter to me how far I
actually ran on my long run, as long as it's for a certain amount of
time.  Plus, I already have a pretty good idea how far I've gone.
Right now, I'm not doing any interval work, but if I started, that
would be a good reason to get one.  I watch eBay now and then for one
of these, but there are no bargains there.  I just checked, and there
is on Nike SDM Triax, and it's already up to $180.  At that price, you
may as well buy straight from Nike and make sure you have a valid
guarantee.

I am sort of going through mid-life simplification process.  Tired of
getting more 'stuff' all the time.  For example, we moved up north
last summer and my wife said I should go buy a snow blower and I just
said that I would shovel.  (A mild winter made my decision seem pretty
smart.)  I guess it's kind of strange, but better than the typical
mid-life crisis of buying a new sports car and running off with a
younger woman.

Dave

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Asya Kams » Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:33:51



Quote:
>I've had my eye on the Fitsense or Nike for months, but I've held out
>for various reasons.  
>advantages/disadvantages, other than the calibration, between the
>watches?  Thanks.

I got the Fitsense because you can download it wirelessly to your
PC, and then upload to their website and look at the pretty graphs
and various other breakdowns of your stats.

--
Asya Kamsky

"San Francisco isn't what it used to be, and it never was." -- Herb Caen

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by glenn susse » Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:55:57

Ok, I decided to forget about the Timex and get the Fitsense or Nike.
After reading all the past and present comments here as well as the
specs, it seems they're very similar except for the fact there's no
HRM with the NIke, no big deal to me.  The deciding factor is going to
be which display is easier to read.  I use weak reading glasses and
often run before dawn in the dark. [I have no problem reading the
Tiimex Ironman]  Bearing that in mind, which display do you think
would be better for me?  Thanks, glenn.
Quote:
>I got the Fitsense because you can download it wirelessly to your
>PC, and then upload to their website and look at the pretty graphs
>and various other breakdowns of your stats.

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Bump » Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:55:33

In the April issue of Running Times Roy Benson has an ad where he
mentions helping Nike design the next SDM which will include a HRM, this
was confirmed by another on this list by a Nike rep.


thread, I wear progressive lenses and can read the main display without
glasses but the fine print is probabmatic while on the run because of
the dot matrix construction of the characters. When stopped I have no
problems with even the small print. I have only seen one Fitsense and I
believe it uses LED's instead of LCD but they are of a smaller weight.

The Nike has backlighting that can be set to turn on whenever a button
is pushed or when you complete a "lap" I set my laps to one mile and it
is bright enough to catch my attention at night.

They are both based on the same technology and appear to have similar
degrees of accuracy, you probably can't go wrong either way.

Quote:

> Ok, I decided to forget about the Timex and get the Fitsense or Nike.
> After reading all the past and present comments here as well as the
> specs, it seems they're very similar except for the fact there's no
> HRM with the NIke, no big deal to me.  The deciding factor is going to
> be which display is easier to read.  I use weak reading glasses and
> often run before dawn in the dark. [I have no problem reading the
> Tiimex Ironman]  Bearing that in mind, which display do you think
> would be better for me?  Thanks, glenn.

> >I got the Fitsense because you can download it wirelessly to your
> >PC, and then upload to their website and look at the pretty graphs
> >and various other breakdowns of your stats.

 
 
 

Fitsense/Nike vs. Timex Distance

Post by Bump » Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:55:35

The irony is the technology was invented in Canada.
Quote:

> Someone asked which watch, Nike or Fitsense is easiest to read. I do not
> have a Fitsense is I can't talk about that watch. However, I do have the
> Nike and I can tell you that the center display is very large. I find it
> extremely easy to read. However, the two secondary displays (above and
> below the main display) are quite tiny. I can still read them just
> fine... but I have to hold the watch up a little higher and look a
> second longer. If I'm just looking at the main display (which I keep set
> to display pace in stopwatch mode) it only takes a very quick glance.
> Someone else can comment about the Fitsense. BTW, I live in Canada and
> they don't sell the Fitsense here because of FCC regulations... do I
> didn't have a choice. I do like my Nike SDM very much though!