I'm researching heart rate monitors, primarily for running but if I get one, I could use it for cycling. For running, the high-end running-specific Polar ones seem appealing. The cycling ones have diff. features.
Do you use one? Can you recommend one? Advantages/disadvantages? What do you tri-athletes use?
Thanks in advance.
Recommend a Heart Rate Monitor
Tue, 08/15/2006 - 1:20pm
Tue, 08/15/2006 - 8:27pm
#1
Heart Rate Monitors
How much information do you want? How much do you want to spend? My wife just bought a HRM for $29. It gives, her time, average heat rate, and maximun heart rate. I had been using a Polar 150, which also includes a bike computer, these can be programed to give a lot more info and run around $79. Being the gadget freak that I am though I just bought a garmin edge 305. This is a GPS with heart rate monitor and cadence monitor built in. It could also be used for running though if that is your primary use their forerunner 305 might be better suited to your purpose. The GPS does a pretty good job of giving you your speed and distance as well as your heart rate, and all can be downloaded to the included training software for record keeping and comparisons.
Tue, 08/15/2006 - 9:28pm
#2
unfortunately garmin dropped the ball with the edge 305...
"...it uses barometric pressure to gague altitude (the edge 205 uses gps for altutude). not sure why they did that. stuipid move if you ask me.
http://www.garmin.com/products/edge305/spec.html
Edge series comparison guide
Here's how the units are different:
Edge 205:
Altitude: GPS based
Elevation profile: no
Cadence: no
Heart rate: no
Edge 305HR:
Altitude: barometric altimeter
Elevation profile: yes
Cadence: yes with purchase of speed/cadence kit
Heart rate: yes
Edge 305CAD:
Altitude: barometric altimeter
Elevation profile: yes
Cadence: yes
Heart rate: yes with purchase of heart rate monitor kit
Edge 305 Bundle with HR & CAD:
Altitude: barometric altimeter
Elevation profile: yes
Cadence: yes
Heart rate: yes
"
Wed, 08/16/2006 - 2:56am
#3
Drop the ball? Please explain
drop the ball? Please explain. I have the forerunner 201 GPS (altitude calculated via GPS) and it is terrible at estimating altitude and especially grade. The barometric altimeter combined with instantaneous speed via a wheel sensor means that finally those %grade numbers will be meaningful.
The only thing that holds me back from upgrading to an edge is the battery life and I'm saving for something to measure power. Perhaps with a meaningful %grade number i can estimate my power output?
Wed, 08/16/2006 - 6:06am
#4
analyticcycling.com
great site
Tue, 08/15/2006 - 11:02pm
#5
gps?
ps, speed and distance are measured by wheel sensor...heart rate is also not tied to gps (which on the edge 305 really only tracks your position).
(see url in my other post for details)
don
> The GPS does a pretty good job of giving you your
> speed and distance as well as your heart rate,
Wed, 08/16/2006 - 4:18am
#6
From the 305 manual
The speed data from the GSC10 is only recorded and used for disance calculation when GPS signal is weak or GPS is off.
Thu, 08/17/2006 - 12:07pm
#7
interesting...didn't know this...
...is the manual available in pdf?
don
Wed, 08/16/2006 - 4:21am
#8
Polar 725X
I bought a Polar 725x (on eBay) a couple of months ago, and I have been very happy with it. Although it has bike speed and (optional) cadence, I haven't bothered to hook them up, using my current bike computer. The watch is clear and easy to use and (with an IR extra) provides great graphs on my computer, showing HR, altitude and time, and showing max HR, average HR, ascent and calorie consumption. Altitude is barometric, and may or may not give correct absolute readings, but relative altitudes seem quite correct; one thing I miss is a % grade readout. It also has a $350 ish power attachment that attaches to the chain stay, but I know nothing else about it. It has plenty of zones, stopwatch functions, and an optional running sensor.
Wed, 08/16/2006 - 5:47am
#9
Polar 725
"Just a couple of quick comments, John. First, ditch your old computer and use the 725 for speed measurement. That way you can add a speed curve to the workout plot in the software -- this is very useful!
Second, you can easily get % grade in the graph by ""selecting"" the part of the ride in which you're interested (a blue bar along the X-axis indicates what part of the exercise is ""selected""). Then right-click on the selection, choose ""selection info"" and one of the data points will be % grade. You're right, you can't see % grade on the fly, but at least you can get a reasonably accurate gauge of a hill after-the-fact.
I find the barometric altimeter in the Polar to be remarkably accurate and consistent -- much more so than I expected. Just make sure you calibrate it at the start of each ride."
Wed, 08/16/2006 - 10:04pm
#10
grade
Followed your instructions, but % grade does not appear. This must be because I am not using the bicycle (here odometer) functions. You can't get grade without distance forward as well as distance up, and I am not measuring distance forward.
Thu, 08/17/2006 - 4:51am
#11
Exactly (nm)
Tue, 08/22/2006 - 2:32pm
#12
barometric drift
"When reviewing on my laptop the downloaded data from my Polar 720 after doing laps in the park, I often notice a considerable ""drift"" in the altitude of the park for each lap. As the weather changes, the barometric pressure changes, and so the Polar altitude data will have a corresponding error. My solution on long rides is to adjust the altitude data by the difference in recorded altitude at home (my start point = my end point)day, that could be considerable.
BTW, if you don't need to download your Polar data via Nokia cellphone, buy the older, and otherwise identical Polar s720i"
Tue, 08/22/2006 - 4:43pm
#13
Powermeter function
While on the subject of these upper end Polar monitors, can anyone comment on the reliability and other features of the powermeter function that can be purchased as an add-on? Any comparison with Powertap, et.al. would be most welcome as well.
David
Tue, 08/22/2006 - 5:22pm
#14
which is why barometric pressure is not the ideal way...
...to measure altitude. gps is better (if it's available/works). garmin had it right with the edge 205 (uses gps for altitude)...they dropped the ball when they switched to barometric pressure for the edge 305.
don
Wed, 08/23/2006 - 9:35am
#15
ideal = both ?
Hmm, gps still has the problem of short-term precision, so the ideal case seems to be to have both with barometric as the primary sensor and recalibrate the barometric pressure via statistical analysis of gps-barimeter difference over time. Could also have the additional benefit of warning you of sharp pressure changes indicating upcoming thunderstorms and alike ... :-)
Wed, 08/23/2006 - 9:40am
#16
interesting...you should email garmin...
...they do respond. :)
don
Tue, 08/22/2006 - 10:16pm
#17
Why use a HRM?
Why do you think you need one? It won't make you a better/faster rider.
Wed, 08/16/2006 - 8:30pm
#18
Polar S625XT
Thanks for the comments.
Price isn't an object. I'd prefer the HRM features are practical and useful and not nice-to have options. Don't need GPS.
I was looking at the Polar S625XT ($250 on Ebay) which is designed for running. Doesn't seem to be any true running/cycling HRMs.
Thu, 08/17/2006 - 4:01am
#19
the same?
I always thought from the brochures that the 625 and 725 were actually the same, but the 625 came with the running sensor, and the 725 with the bike sensor, although now the 625 has that T added (don't know what it represents).
Thu, 08/17/2006 - 3:37pm
#20
Who are you kiddng? You need GPS more than anyone else I know. :) Get the running HRM and use your bike computer for the rest. You won't use all of the other functions that a Polar cycling computer has on it.
