FulghamNicholes41

Why the New York Times GPS running article missed the boat

Yesterday the New York Times published in print and online a rather bizarre article on GPS running watches, one that essentially concluded that they were an �unreliable running partner�. Now my goal isn�t meant to defend GPS watches, but rather clarify a lot of oddities and inconsistencies in the piece, and why I believe the New York Times missed the boat entirely.

Not all watches are created equal

The article starts off describing the basic features of most GPS watches in the market, such as displaying pace, distance and time � all of which represent the primary reasons that most people pickup a GPS enabled watch. From there the author goes into a singular test case where she and a friend met up on a run this past Sunday in the following scenario as a basis for much of the remainder of the article:

The challenge here is that I�d ask first � what were the watches in question? What brands, devices and software versions? For example, was the one that was off by .42 miles (97.3% accurate) an older model from 5-6 years ago, or was it more recent? Who made it? What firmware version?

In the world of GPS watches, the reality is that not all devices are created equal. As I�ve shown before in four posts of accuracy tests, some units do simply perform better than others. Sometimes that is correlated to price, and other times it�s tied to the GPS chipset used and/or the firmware. To base the entire article (and all GPS watches in general) on what appears to be a single watch on a single run being off seems a bit of a stretch. For example, when the Timex Global Trainer first came out, there were indeed accuracy issues with it. On average, it was 2.5% off (short) � was her watch a Global Trainer? Or perhaps, it was an original Garmin FR610 � which also had issues early on with some routes showing about 2% short. Yet, both have been fixed by their respective companies (June for the FR610, August for the Global Trainer).

I found it strange that the author didn�t note the brand, nor contact them for an official reason, explanation, or PR response. Isn�t that the most basic journalistic thing to do?

In my mind, this is no different than saying �cars are unreliable�, because your particular car is in the mechanics shop. As in fact the author noted, her friends route was just about spot on, within .08 miles after 19 miles � or 99.58% accurate.

For more information on this topic please visit the following: Polar RC3, Polar RC3 GPS and Polar RC3 GPS watch