Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- From: Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net>
- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:18:37 GMT
Tony S. wrote:
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message news:u0_yl.84400$4m1.66425@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tony S. wrote:
Interesting. I don't know how 10,000 would rate for a longer trip. Is the memory card standard and swapable? For a 150 mile trip (I probably will only to a leisurely 1/2 of that this time) would be 66 track points per mile. I'd like more than that, I think, but since I'm going to be on marked trails anyway, I could live with that. Still, to be able to upload and see a more detailed course would be better.
That's about one point every 80ft/25m. Keep in mind the precision for these things is about 10-30 ft radius, so there's a question as to when more frequent becomes noisy. They record when there's variation, like curves. I just looked at a couple of my tracks, and straight trail sections get recorded no more than every 50ft, more like 30ft. Tight switchbacks, it's more like every 10ft, but I doubt you'd be doing 150 miles of that type of trail.
If you're just looking at analysis, then more data can always be processed. But if you're looking at maps, you can't tell an 80ft section on a 150mi map.
On my recordings ("most frequent" setting), I get about one point every 3-5 sec running. The only time I want more is when I'm mapping a trail with poor sky visibility and short switchbacks. (The borough's map does drew a line straight up the cliff, but there's probably about 8 switchbacks in there.) I stand at the tip of the switchback for a few seconds to be sure it gets caught.
The FR305 can be set to once / sec. It can handle more than 10,000 track points, but I think it would be too hard to use for what you want - awkwardness of waypoints and short bettery life without charger. Waypoints can be used, but they're buried a couple layers down in the menus, iirc. The lap points do show up on its screen, but they don't download to most mapping software that's not designed to handle FR305 data.
I think both use regular batteries. I know the 60 uses 2 AA, and lithiums work great - maybe 30 hours, but I never remember to keep track of when I put the batteries in so lose track after a few weeks. I know I use it 13 hrs straight at RP, and probably 10-20 hrs after that.
The green in me would be having me using NiMH rechargable batteries. More weight, yes.
Probably a lot more weight. Heavier and shorter life, I think. I got some to use in gps and headlamp, but not sure I ever did. I think the ultra runners up here who have compared said the NiMH don't result in same light quality from lights as lithium do, so I'm assuming would have shorter life in gps. The performance dropoff with lithiums doesn't happen for awhile, but when they go, they're gone - not the slow fading of capability you get from when you turn other batteries on. Lithiums don't lose significant charge like rechargeables and most primary batteries. That's their beauty for emergency purposes. Also, when they're dead in gps and headlamps, I use them to power my battery-operated kitchen clock - for at least 6 months.
For perspective, I'd be surprised if you needed more than one change of
lithiums for 150 mi at 3mph = 50 hrs, although you might want another
change in your last drop bag. I'm sure I get at least 20 hrs, and probably close to 30 hrs per battery set, but I have WAAS disabled, 70% backlight. Not sure how technical your terrain is whether you'd be going slower than 3mph.
....
Also, the Etrex and 60csx listed above have barometric altimeters so you get better hill data. The Edge is the bike equivalent of FR and it does have the altimeter in it. It's form factor is like the Etrex, but I think might have rechargeable batteries.
Excellent, that might mean I can leave my Polar s625x at home.
Barometric altimeters in gps units should be better than those in hrm's since they supposedly self-correct when weather changes. When I have both my 60csx and Polar 625 with me on long runs when weather moves through, you can see the difference in the elevation profiles.
Yea I heard about spot before and I'm going to check it out, thanks. I have to do my research now, but you've headed me squarely in the right direction, thanks so much! Spot might be enough for me, since emergency capability is the most important thing, and after-the-fact mapping is the main GPS need I foresee right now. But if Spot only had a long/lat readout display it would be ideal, since I could use that to locate myself if necessary - doesn't look like it has that.
I might add that Spot has been somewhat spotty in its reliability.
Meltzer has issues on the AT. I don't know that there were any issues
with the ITI folks - just misinterpretation of signals, but not sure.
The Iditarod used these folks for tracking http://www.ionearth.com/
but not sure what products or services they really provide. Very slow web site or not liking my browser, so you'll have to check it out yourself.
Dot
--
"Often, quantity of miles is not the answer, but rather quality, i.e.
making your training specific to your goals.... The key was specificity
of training balanced with the volume." - Scott Jurek (quoted in Trail
Runner 49:16, Dec 2007)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- From: Tony S.
- Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- From: Dot
- Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- References:
- Good GPS for multi day?
- From: Tony S.
- Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- From: Dot
- Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- From: Tony S.
- Good GPS for multi day?
- Prev by Date: Re: Training week ending March 29 2009
- Next by Date: Re: Training week ending March 29 2009
- Previous by thread: Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- Next by thread: Re: Good GPS for multi day?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
