RunningAHEAD - Topic: More accurate? Garmin 305 or my Honda Accord?

gobux1972

posted: 1/31/2009 at 4:18 PM

As the subject state, which is more accurate my Garmin 305 or my Honda Accord? Here is the story: I drove the route I way planning to run, it measured 1.6 miles in my Accord. When I ran the route, my Garmin said I had only run 1.53 miles. So which do you folks think is more accurate? If you need more info please ask away.

Bramsey89

posted: 1/31/2009 at 4:19 PM

Quote from gobux1972 on 1/31/2009 at 4:18 PM:

As the subject state, which is more accurate my Garmin 305 or my Honda Accord? Here is the story: I drove the route I way planning to run, it measured 1.6 miles in my Accord. When I ran the route, my Garmin said I had only run 1.53 miles. So which do you folks think is more accurate? If you need more info please ask away.

Im about 65% sure that the 305 is more accurate.

2009 Goals: Run 5x a week, Iron Horse Half-Marathon on a 6-month C2HM Program that completely made up and is probably unhealthy.

Trent

Good Bad & The Monkey

posted: 1/31/2009 at 4:20 PM

Do you mean accurate, or precise? What is the gold standard against which these should be compared? What does RunningAHEAD's map say?

I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.

Poor baby

zoom-zoom

rectumdamnnearkilledem

posted: 1/31/2009 at 4:22 PM

Quote from Bramsey89 on 1/31/2009 at 4:19 PM:

Im about 65% sure that the 305 is more accurate.

Ha! Regardless, the Garmin costs nothing to measure a course with, but the Accord is a pretty wasteful means of measuring any course.

Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to

remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.

~ Sarah Kay

egge0080

Arrogant Bastard....Ale

posted: 1/31/2009 at 5:18 PM

What does a Garmin 305 cost $200? At current rates of gas in my location rounded up to $2.00 a gallon, I can get 100 gallons. Multiply that by a small car 30mpg and you get 3000 miles that is quite a few routes. Over 1500 of the less than 2 mile variety. (This calculation assumes that buying the Honda Accord was not solely for the purpose of measuring ones' running routes, but also includes getting to work, running errands with family, taking family vacations to places near and far, etc all of which far exceed the distances used for distance measurements. Also, does not include minor wear and tear on car that results from use, including such routine maintenance as a 3000 mile oil change. Please keep in mind that the calculation provided does not imply that using a car is the best method of measuring distances. Author recommends the above mentioned RunningAhead mapping utility, a bike odometer, or a general understanding of time run/estimated running pace as a means to determine the overall distance run over a car or Garmin.

zoom-zoom

rectumdamnnearkilledem

posted: 1/31/2009 at 5:23 PM

Heh, it also assumes that the Accord would get 30mpg driving a running route with stops and turns, which I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't. I'll bet 25-27 is about the best it could do under those circumstances. Tongue

Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to

remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.

~ Sarah Kay

Ennay

A Saucy Wench

posted: 1/31/2009 at 5:58 PM

Did you run your route on the middle of the right lane of the road and make all the turns at the same radius as you did in your car? (If you did you are insane and asking to be splattered by a truck) Are your tires precisely the diameter they are claimed to be (wear and tire pressure - which varies with temperature- can affect tire diameter as can replacing them). In short, your Garmin has many fewer sources of error, I'd go with it. For better numbers - in the US a car speedometer/odometer is only required to be accurate to within 5%. A Garmin claims - oh crap I cant remember, but less than that. Much less.

I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

"When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

mgerwn

Hold the Mayo

posted: 1/31/2009 at 6:50 PM

Quote from gobux1972 on 1/31/2009 at 4:18 PM:

As the subject state, which is more accurate my Garmin 305 or my Honda Accord? Here is the story: I drove the route I way planning to run, it measured 1.6 miles in my Accord. When I ran the route, my Garmin said I had only run 1.53 miles. So which do you folks think is more accurate? If you need more info please ask away.

The Garmin. It is using state of the art technology intended for military delivery of ordnance, with a slight (intentional) positioning accuracy error of about 50 feet. Ennay has the goods right on the car odometer. On a 1.6 mile trip your coar could be off by as much as 0.08 miles. Plus, your car only reads in 0.1 mile increments. Depending on the mechanism or sensor in the wheel or drivetrain, the odometer may increment the moment your car gets to 1.55 miles.

"You're Not Winning"

Connecticut Runners' Forum on RunningAhead

dfffff

posted: 1/31/2009 at 7:29 PM

My answer is that it doesn't really matter. It's about 1.5 miles. Taking your measurements out to hundredths of a mile is pointless unless you're measuring out a race or an interval loop.

r2farm

flatland mountaineer

posted: 1/31/2009 at 9:46 PM

The Garmin should be more accurate, it is waas capable. I'd have to look to see if you have to enable the waas differential but wass is sub meter capable in our farm guidance equipment. Don't sweat it if your route shown on the garmin softawre is off abit the mathematics used in calculating distance will minimize those errors. For kicks I should test my 305 against the $$$$$ gps in my tractor with the subscription based differential and advertised 4-6 in accuracy..

The whole world said I shoulda used red but it looked good to Charlene in John Deere Green!!

Support Ethanol, drink the best, burn the rest.

Run for fun? What the hell kind of recreation is that? quote from Back to the Fut III

perfesserr

Imminent Catastrophe

posted: 1/31/2009 at 10:40 PM

Garmin. Your car is calibrated for the average tire diameter. Different size (or worn) tires (tyres, for you Brits) will give different readings. Plus, 1.6 vs. 1.53 is hardly significant. Run 100 miles and compare, then you'll have something to talk about.

"Able to function despite imminent catastrophe"

"To obtain the air that angels breathe you must come to Tahoe"--Mark Twain

"The most common question from potential entrants is 'I do not know if I can do this' to which I usually answer, 'that's the whole point'.--Paul Charteris, Tarawera Ultramarathon RD.

√ Javelina Jundred Jalloween 2015

Cruel Jewel 50 mile May 2016

Western States 100 June 2016

mikeymike

posted: 2/1/2009 at 11:16 AM

For training purposes there is no difference between 1.53 miles and 1.6. And really, you probably ran neither of those distances.

Runners run

ymmv

posted: 2/1/2009 at 1:53 PM

A true geek would upload the Garmin track to a run-mapping site, then zoom waaaay in to see how closely the garmin track followed the actual road. That's what I'd do, anyway...

milktruck

an amazing likeness

posted: 2/1/2009 at 2:19 PM

Drive it twice, or three times in the Honda -- see how close the results are to each other. Run it twice, three times with the Garmin -- see how close the results are to each other. From this test of repeatibility you can decide which is more accurate. Or...or even better -- put the Garmin on the dash of your car and have them compete with each other.

_{Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.}

Minderbender

posted: 2/1/2009 at 3:51 PM

Which one is easier to strap to your wrist?

More accurate? Garmin 305 or my Honda Accord? (Read 1455 times)