Forums >Gears and Wears>New! Garmin Forerunner 620/220
I think the biggest improvement on the 220 is the vibrate instead of beep, I can never hear the little beep on my 210
I find myself using my old 305 more than my 610 lately. I don't care for touch screen of 610. Of course, I will have to upgrade to the 610 and being a numbers freak, I will have to get the new HR strap also. It looks very comfortable. The one I have now digs into my upper ab muscles if I run more than 6 miles and scabs over. A $500 running investment on its way as a gift to myself!
I tear a paper towel in half, fold it lengthwise, and wrap each half around the HRM on each side to keep it from digging into the skin. Works well for me.
I like my 610 quite a bit, but it is annoying that Garmin has refused multiple requests to fix the "time out" problem, where you cannot leave the watch turned on and locked on to satellites before the race starts without it going into sleep mode on you. Wonder if they bothered to fix that in the new ones? Also wish it could just point in the direction of your start point, as the old 305 used to do.
I don't find this to be such a big deal. When it beeps and vibrates to warn you about the timeout, you simply touch the screen and it kills the time out sequence for another 5 minutes or so.
2018 Goals
Figure out the achilles thing...... and THEN try to get running regularly again.
No racing goals
The ability to download satellites ahead of time is very exciting (reduce time spent waiting for the lock outside!).
Finally looks like a worthy successor to my 305. My 305 has been slowly faltering, though still kicking.
I'm still rocking my gigantor 305, too. Man, that 220 looks good.
Call me Ray (not Ishmael)
Any thoughts about how to use the new "vertical oscillation" or "ground contact" data? All the other new features look great but I'm suspicious about these two. Seems like it's supposed to help with form but I have doubts.
Less vertical oscillation = good (less energy spent going up and down)
Shorter ground contact time = good (more time in the air means more forward progress)
I am someone who used the footpod to measure my cadence. It helped me to increase my cadence and stop overstriding. Now I would like to work on lengthening my stride when I am running at faster paces, so I think I could make good use of these two features.
I do suspect I am in the minority on this, but those are the two features that have me considering an upgrade from the 610.
--
Nashville, TN
It helped me to increase my cadence and stop overstriding. Now I would like to work on lengthening my stride when I am running at faster paces, so I think I could make good use of these two features.
Hmm. If you are running with a fast cadence and not over-striding, then running faster and lengthening your stride are just different ways of saying the same thing. Unless you want to increase your cadence even more, the only variable you have in order to run faster is stride length.
So, basically what you're saying is you want to work on running faster--which is the entire point of training. Personally if my goal were to get faster (and it is) then I'd focus on the basic blocking and tackling of training, versus getting into weird metrics like vertical oscillation and ground contact. My 2 cents.
And back to the original topic, although I'm very happy with my 210, that 220 looks pretty sweet and I especially love that they made it totally waterproof and that 7-days of GPS mapping or whatever that will give you instant GPS lock sounds awesome. I'm not going to run out and get one, but it's nice to know that when my 210 is ready to be put to pasture the 220 will be waiting in the wings (and will have all the bugs worked out by then.)
Runners run
Less vertical oscillation = good (less energy spent going up and down) Shorter ground contact time = good (more time in the air means more forward progress) I am someone who used the footpod to measure my cadence. It helped me to increase my cadence and stop overstriding. Now I would like to work on lengthening my stride when I am running at faster paces, so I think I could make good use of these two features. I do suspect I am in the minority on this, but those are the two features that have me considering an upgrade from the 610.
I totally agree with you. The only components of running speed are cadence and stride length. If you already have the cadence sufficiently fast the only thing left is stride length. Gotta be careful in how you go about doing it though. I just strained a calf muscle doing a stride-lengthening exercise.
It seems to me that the foot pod is of as much value as this new device. If your cadence is locked down so that it is a constant, then do you really care what your stride length is in inches (or cm) (or how long your foot is in contact with the ground) as long as you can measure the fact that you're getting faster?
Proboscis Colossus
I totally agree with you. The only components of running speed are cadence and stride length. If you already have the cadence sufficiently fast the only thing left is stride length. Gotta be careful in how you go about doing it though. I just strained a calf muscle doing a stride-lengthening exercise. It seems to me that the foot pod is of as much value as this new device. If your cadence is locked down so that it is a constant, then do you really care what your stride length is in inches (or cm) (or how long your foot is in contact with the ground) as long as you can measure the fact that you're getting faster?
Might that be where the vertical oscillation would come in? If my cadence is a constant, but I start pushing more vertically for some reason (indeed, I have noticed on some runs, the spare tire bounces more than on others), then I could feel like my stride length was the same while I was actually going slower, could I not?
That's an honest question; I'm a long, looong way from an expert on running form.
After thinking about it, for me, the main draw of these new models is the ability to download the satellite locations ahead of time. But...standing there staring at my watch for 45 secs or so isn't $200-400 worth of annoying to me. I too will wait until my 305 dies.
"God guides us on our journey, but careful with those feet." - David Lee Roth, of all people
Aren't those two statements in conflict somewhat? If I maximize my vertical oscillation won't I also maximize my time in the air which, according to one of those statements, is good? If I bounce up and down in place, maximizing my oscillation while minimizing my ground contact time I will be running fast? It's a lot more complicated than that. Ground contact is a byproduct of the type of training that allows you to run faster. You don't directly train ground contact time. I suppose a device that will tell you your ground contact time might be useful but I think race times would be even more useful. I consider myself a data junkie but this stuff is really getting out there even for me.
Here's a quote regarding ground contact time from a training peak article by a respected trainer that sounds to me to be just plain WRONG:
"Why is short ground contact so beneficial to running performance? When your foot is in contact with the ground during running, you are not moving forward. You are only moving forward when airborne. So the more time you spend airborne and the less time you spend on the ground, the faster you run."
So every time my foot touches the ground I come to a stop? What I thinik he really meant that it is your foot that is not moving forward when it is on the ground. But that is still not why reduced ground contact is associated with faster running.
They aren't in conflict; they are in conjunction. Reducing vertical oscillation while lengthening ground contact time would be getting closer to walking. Reducing ground contact time while increasing vertical oscillation would be getting closer to bouncing up and down.
Reducing both ground contact time and vertical oscillation means you are running faster.
We don't currently train to reduce those metrics, but we can't currently measure those metrics. I guess all I can say is, I will let you know how it goes
The way I look at it, I am working on my fitness (running more miles, doing workouts, focusing on nutrition, etc), but I also want to work on my running efficiency. The typical method is "run more and you will get efficient as a side effect." I think we can do better than that. You could also say "run more and you will gain endurance and speed as a side effect," but most of us believe that adding some speed work will help is get faster and adding long runs will help us gain endurance.
We had better put in a feature request for this new data. I know I'm probably going to want to chart and graph it over time because I oscillate wildly.
CT JEFF
They aren't in conflict; they are in conjunction. Reducing vertical oscillation while lengthening ground contact time would be getting closer to walking. Reducing ground contact time while increasing vertical oscillation would be getting closer to bouncing up and down. Reducing both ground contact time and vertical oscillation means you are running faster.
HEY ALL-
It seems the opinions I have read all match this one. "Less Ground Contact Time, Good."
I disagree with your assessment. - I dont know what these measurements "vertical oscillation" or "ground contact time" are exactly supposed to have as goals, but here is my opinion.
When I started reading Barefoot Step by Step by Ken Bob, he recommends increasing cadence. More steps per set distance. (imagine a wheel with 2 spokes and a sneaker on each spoke- now imagine a wheel with the same diameter but with 4 spokes. There would be more ground contact time- and less impact) He also recommends decreasing bouncing up in the air, the point is to go FORWARD not UP.
So, in my opinion, as a barefoot runner, having LOWER Vert. Osc. and HIGHER Ground Contact Time are the optimal goal. However, I will contend that when I am SPRINTING my form has to change. When I am running at full speed, I decrease my GCT. I do not KNOW that this is the optimally efficient, or injury defying form. But as with BF running, I have found that trying different things can have dramatic and unexpected results.
I believe that HIGHER Vert. Osc and LOWER Ground Contact Time would result in HIGHER wasted energy (LOWER efficiency).
I cant say what part of my training is responsible for which outcome, but the impact on my feet has noticably decreased over time, and the speed which I can run any distance is faster.
A study that shows Higher GCT (not bouncing off the ground) = lower injury. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22921763
RUN SAFE. Barefoot 1st: 6/9/13. PR: 5k=22:50 10k=47:46 HM 1:51. FM 4:28 Oct 2015 joined RUN 169!
I know I'm probably going to want to chart and graph it over time because I oscillate wildly.
I don't know much about ground running contact highs, but here's the soundtrack to your charts and graphs.