The Ultimate Running Computer

If you are a bit of a running nerd like me and you like monitoring your sessions with running gadgets, then this article might interest you. 

It is one question I face quite regularly, 'What Running Computer (HRM/GPS/Speed device) should I get?'

Now it must be noted that I maybe considered a little biased here as I have a relationship with Polar through my business (www.fitshop.com.au). However, on the other hand it might be said that I have this relationship because I like the quality and features of Polar. So despite trying to write this in a neutral manner, keep this in mind when reading the article.

I set out to look at three of the most popular top end running computers (lets call them that to keep it simple). Once I started getting the info together I realised that going into too much depth was going to be too long, so I have shortened this to provide a summary only.

What runners want in a running computer varies and this is important to keep in mind as we look at the options. Therefore, I will aim to list the pros and cons of the Polar RS800cx, the Suunto T6c and Garmin Forerunner 310XT with HRM. 

Prior to looking at the units it is worth considering the options for measuring speed when running. They are GPS and a foot pod which uses an internal accelerometer. Both have their respective benefits. GPS provides mapping abilities while the foot pod (some of them anyway) allow the measurement of stride length and frequency. While both are shown to be ~96-98% accurate, both have their limitations. GPS needs a good signal, which some struggle to get under trees or around high buildings. It must also be mentioned that as a general rule, the smaller the GPS antenna, the poorer the signal. The foot pod works by measuring the length of every stride to calculate speed and distance. It's main limitation is that it needs to be calibrated to the user to maximise accuracy. It is then most accurate at the calibrated speed, so running faster or slower and it may be less accurate. Both have slight limitations with accurate measuring speed up steep hills.

I have used both foot pod and GPS for running and prefer the foot pod. They are small and power efficient (I don't want to change or charge the battery every week) but most of all I feel they are more consistent as they don't vary under trees etc. I am sure I will cop some criticism for that as I know some runners love GPS, but as I mentioned above, each runner is different. 

Polar RS800cx

The RS800cx is the recent sibling of the RS800 so been around for a few years now and has a solid track record. When we talk about a running 'computer', this is definitely a computer. It has a huge range of features; great for the gadget freak but can be a bit overbearing for those who arn't technologically minded. While the wide range of features are a big selling point, to me the main benefits are the S3 foot pod which is small, accurate and measure stride frequency and length, and the software. The software is far superior to the Suunto and Garmin and if you want to analyse and track your training, it is perfect.

Pros

• Software is comprehensive
• Quality unit that can really take a beating (and has a 2 year warranty)
• Customisable screens and ability to upload training sessions/programs
• Small foot pod that measures stride frequency and stride length
• Accurate measure of altitude through barometric pressure
• Works with foot pod, GPS, bike speed and cadence and is water proof
• WearLink transmitter is ultra comfortable

 Cons

• On the expensive side
• If you want GPS it is a separate unit that straps to your arm
• No quite ideal for triathlon as you can't get a HR in the water and have to restart to change from bike speed to running speed

Expect to Pay

• RS800cx - $495
• RS800cx SD (with foot pod) - $595
• RS800cx GPS - $625
• Various other options

Suunto T6c

I must admit I haven't actually used the T6c but I have used the slightly older T6, a lot. I like it. It is easy to use, simple and reliable. Similar to the Polar in what it offers with various 'pods' (GPS, foot pod and cycling). The HR features arn't as complete as Polar's but its big selling point is really the estimation of EPOC which offers a measure of training load. This is especially well suited to intensity based sessions. A more thorough review of this feature that I did a few years ago can be found here. 

   

 Pros

• EPOC offers a great measure of training load for intensity based sessions (not great for long aerobic work)
• Easy to download with the USB snake
• Quality unit with a good warranty 
• New transmitter is similar to Polar's WearLink so very comfortable
• Works with foot pod, GPS, bike speed and cadence and is water proof
• Accurate measure of altitude through barometric pressure

Cons

• Price. Definitely the most expensive of the lot
• Software is still a bit limiting and difficult to use
• If you want GPS it is a separate unit that straps to your arm

Expect to Pay

• T6c - $595
• T6c Running Pack - $655

Garmin Forerunner 310XT with HRM

Garmin is the model I have had the least experience with. For the Garmin I can mainly comment based on friends reports and general feedback. I selected not to review the top of the range 405 as the unit is small and thus the GPS is less accurate and the touch screen seems to be a real pain in the bum.

There is no doubt that its selling point is inbuilt GPS at a good price. It is simply an oversized watch with the ability to measure speed without additional attachments, and that is nice. Features such as the virtual partner that you can 'race' against also offer extra benefit.

For the triathlete, GPS will give you speed across all disciplines but GPS on the bike isn't ever going to be as accurate as a standard bike sensor.

Pros

• Price
• Inbuilt GPS
• Training features such as Virtual Partner to race again

Cons

• Quality 
• Number of technical issues
• Power consumption
• Can't be worn as a normal watch

Expect to Pay

• Forerunner 310XT with HRM - $449

Conclusion

As you can see from the reviews above, there is a lot to consider and that is why it is very much horses for courses, with each runner having their own preference. 

The Garmin offers a cheaper option which also inbuilt GPS which is nice, but the smaller the GPS, the more issues with accuracy. On the other hand the Polar and Suunto are not dissimilar with features, quality and price. This isn't surprising given both are from Finland and used to share secrets. 

When directly comparing the Suunto and Polar, I prefer the Polar, mainly because of the software but the EPOC measure of the Suunto is great for intensity session. If only they could be all wrapped in one. The Garmin on the other hand, I have just never been a big fan of. To me, GPS just isn't as consistent as the foot pod and I already know where I have run so mapping doesn't interest me, but that is a story for another day. Additionally, I have had too many friends get Garmin only to have to return them due to technical issues.

Verdict: Way up the pros and cons of each to determine what is important for you.