RunningAHEAD - Topic: User opinions of the Forerunner 50?

staunen2

Otium cum dignitate

posted: 12/28/2007 at 8:04 PM

I looked at the Forerunner 205 to measure and chart distance and pacing as I trained for a Spring marathon, but decided the design was too big and clumsy. The Forerunner 50 looks like a good alternative - it's smaller and with the foot pod seems to do most of what the 205 does (and is cheaper, to boot). Are there any Forerunner 50 owners that can offer information/perspective on this before I fork out $150 for one? Thanks.

gregeekhoff

posted: 1/9/2008 at 5:44 PM

I've only had my forerunner 50 for a few weeks and I've only done a few runs, but this is my impression so far: Positives: Form Factor - I use it as my everyday watch and it doesn't look too much different from my old Ironman Wireless Synch - Really cool to be able to sit down by the computer and have it upload automatically. Heart Rate - I've never had a monitor before, but this seems accurate enough and the strap is fairly comfortable. Negatives: The display is a little hard to read while running. The top line is fine, but the bottom line is pretty small. I think they could have balanced the two out a little... The distance was way off before calibrating (7%-8%). Now it's about 1% off after calibrating. I think I can get it a little closer yet (I was running on snow and ice the day I calibrated). Overall I'm pretty happy with it. I got a really good deal on an eBay auction, so I only paid $90 for the watch with heart rate and foot pod.

staunen2

Otium cum dignitate

posted: 1/10/2008 at 8:46 AM

Did you research garmin GPS watches before getting the Forerunner 50? I'm trying to decide if I want to deal with the bulk/size of a 205/305 in order to get the extra features that come with it. Right now I can't imagine needing more than information about pace and distance, but since my budget won't allow for me to change my mind a month from now, I don't want to regret not getting a watch that I can "grow in to" if I go for the 50.

gregeekhoff

posted: 1/10/2008 at 9:15 AM

Yeah, I researched the 305 quite a bit. The two reasons I went with the 50 is the size and the foot pod. I know that the gps would be more accurate if I always ran with a clear view of the sky, but I run a lot on heavily wooded trails and didn't want to be losing signal all the time. It's also instant on - you don't have to wait for it to find satellites before you can start running.

staunen2

Otium cum dignitate

posted: 1/10/2008 at 10:51 AM

Well done finding a 50 with a foot pod for under $100 - the best I can find on-line (including on Ebay) is around $140. Since a new 205 goes for about the same, I may just resign myself to accepting the uncomfortable bulk of the thing; or maybe I'll wait and see if the new 405 drives down prices. Anyway, thanks for the info and good luck with your training.

AndyDSmith

posted: 1/15/2008 at 7:59 AM
modified: 1/15/2008 at 8:00 AM

I've had a forerunner 50 for about 2 months. I chose it over a GPS version because I run on a treadmill some of the time, and because I was interested in running cadence which you can't get without a footpod. Accuracy was poor before calibration (distance over-estimated by 8%), but has been generally very good after calibration - if I run the same route the distances will differ by very little (certainly less than 1%), and will agree with distances measured on MapMyRun. I've also run a measured 10k route with 1k markers and have got each 1k within 10m. I've had errors with distance on two runs where the downloaded data showed a load of spikes in the speed graph - it would periodically increase 50% or more for a few seconds. Both times was after I'd moved the pod to different shoes and I wonder if it's due to it not being attached firmly enough. I agree with the comments made about the display - the lower display is really too small to read easily when running.

jEfFgObLuE

I've got a fever...

posted: 1/15/2008 at 10:50 AM

I'm a Forerunner 305 owner. Don't be scared off by the "bulky" arguments. Yes, it's a big watch, but not nearly as big or bulky as it's made out to be. The only time I notice when running is when it beeps at me. As for the Forerunner 50, if all you're looking for is an inexpensive, accurate way to measure speed and distance, it's a fantastic deal. It's very accurate when calibrated. However, if you're looking for GPS mapping and/or advanced training programs/options, consider the 205/305. The GPS is an obvious difference, but I also noticed that the interval timer on the 50 is pretty lightweight (only 2 segments, compared to 9 on a typical Timex Ironman watch). My $0.02

On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

staunen2

Otium cum dignitate

posted: 1/15/2008 at 11:40 AM

Thanks - I bought a 205 last week for less $$ than I could find a 50 and am looking forward to growing in to the technology as I prep for a spring marathon.

Strings_n_88keys

meh

posted: 11/15/2008 at 8:48 AM

This item is on Woot today fro $49.99.

My stupid little mobile-friendly treadmill calculator

MrFinn

Prince of Fatness

posted: 11/17/2008 at 10:44 PM

Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 1/15/2008 at 10:50 AM:

I'm a Forerunner 305 owner. Don't be scared off by the "bulky" arguments. Yes, it's a big watch, but not nearly as big or bulky as it's made out to be. The only time I notice when running is when it beeps at me.

I have the 205 and agree 100% with this. I really don't even notice that I am wearing it.

Not at it at all.

Kerry1976

Master of the Side Eye

posted: 11/18/2008 at 2:28 PM

Quote from MrFinn on 11/17/2008 at 10:44 PM:

I have the 205 and agree 100% with this. I really don't even notice that I am wearing it.

Ditto, and I have a refurbed 201.

TRUST THE PROCESS

User opinions of the Forerunner 50? (Read 1365 times)