No announcement yet.

GPS foot pod

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GPS foot pod

    After reading DC Rainmaker's review of the watch I nearly went to Amazon's site and purchased it on the spot yet a single nuance stopped me; no GPS functionality. It's got about everything else: HR monitor support, Tanita BC-1000 support, running and cycling cadence pod support, waterproof, nice big display, wireless connectivity... the list goes on and on and it seems like the sole functionality missing is GPS support. The FR60 is not the only watch without GPS and if this idea comes to fruitation even watches WITH GPS can benefit from it.

    We already have foot pod support to detect running cadence that wirelessly transmits data to the watch, why can't we have a similarly-sized foot pod that serves as a GPS unit for non-GPS equipped watches? Furthermore, the GPS reciever in such a pod would likely be larger than the reciever within most of the watches offered so the pod could also serve as a more accurate reciever for the watch. Lastly, the pod could even fit a barometer in it for even more added-value.

    While not as stylish as a 405 or 110-series, I find the FR60 to be a nearly-perfect running watch and the addition of a GPS foot pod to the Garmin lineup would certainly push the FR60 into the "perfect" category.

  • #2
    Couple things:

    1. As far as the GPS 'Footpod'/pod - Suunto & Polar already make such things. Some of their units support corresponding GPS-accessories that can be paired & provide distance/pace etc...

    2. Barometer wouldn't be pratical. Barometers utilize air-pressure, in order to get that you need some sort of 'opening' on the unit, this would severly hinder its water-resistance.

    But yeah, the FR60 is sweet.


    • #3
      [QUOTE=RAYROBINSON0311;63809]Couple things:

      2. Barometer wouldn't be pratical. Barometers utilize air-pressure, in order to get that you need some sort of 'opening' on the unit, this would severly hinder its water-resistance.

      Why is this? I have a Suunto X10 (Water resistant up to 100 meters/300 feet) and a Suunto T6c (Water resistant up to 100 meters/300 feet). Both have barometric altimeters!

      Why does Garmin make the 405/405cx/410 series only iPX7 resistant and not recommended for swimming? Why can't Garmin include a barometric altimeter in their running watches as they do the Edge series? I had a 405CX and returned it, the battery life was too short, the altitude and altitude differences were not correct in real time, you have to wait until Garmin Connect corrects the altitude values to get correct vertical and the 405cx did not have sufficient water resistance.

      I like Garmin products, I have an Oregon 450 but I am not willing to sacrifice the usability of my Suunto T6c for mapping. I do wish I had a device that would do it all. I realize the 310XT is closer but I want a device I can wear everyday.


      • #4
        I wrote a long reply & my browser crashed...

        Long story short:

        Garmin is shockingly...a business...they're trying to push you to a higher-end, more expensive product to get additional features. Its not evil or greedy, its called business.


        • #5
          I was primarily responding to your comments regarding a barometer/altimeter where you stated this would be impractical and it is not. Other manufacturers have no difficulty with an altimeter and waterproofing.

          I realize Garmin is a business but... the waterproofing on the 310XT is sufficient for swimming. The FR60 is waterproof to 50m and 405 series is not. This is a shame, the 405 series cannot be used for windsurfing, kayaking, etc as the force of water hitting the watch will damage it. I said it before, I do not understand why Garmin cannot provide better waterproofing. The altimeter would be great, it would make the watch more usable but I can understand reasons why one is not present-cost, size of unit, etc. What would compel me to purchase a Garmin? If the 410 were waterproofed for swimming I might consider it. I am not the only one here that thinks a 3rd generation 400 series is a moderate or minimal improvement over the last model. If the FR60 had an altimeter I might also consider purchasing one, I am surprised they left this out.