By Keith Schlottman
Look around you at your next group run or race, and you will
notice that nearly every runner is wearing a GPS watch or carrying a
GPS-enabled smart phone. As you run, you may be entertained (or annoyed)
by a cacophony of musical beeps and digitized voices alerting the athletes
about paces, distances, and even making motivational announcements.
Chances are, if you are a runner, you also bring a GPS along on your run.
Stephanie with
her new GPS watch at a TRP group run
It wasn't so long ago that runners ran without GPS. Although
the US began development of the Global Positioning System in the 1970's, the first running watch
with a GPS receiver did not hit the markets until 2003. Prior to then, we
used stopwatches to keep time but distances were generally just estimated from
a map, or if you were an experienced runner, you might guess at your pace.
In 1984, Timex came out with an LCD watch targeting runners, and the Timex Ironman series dominated runners' wrists for the
next couple of decades.
When Garmin released the first few GPS watches, they were bulky and anyone brave enough
to wear one received a lot of smirks and oddball comments as fellow runners
wondered why someone would use such a funny-looking watch. I used a
Garmin 201, which took up much of my forearm and created an odd feeling of
weight imbalance on the run:
My trusty '201
was a bit large
The Garmin 201 also took about 5 minutes
or more to acquire a signal, and the charging system was a bulky cable with an
RS-232 connection. But I loved it! Garmin had an optional software
system that you could download the run data to for analysis. As a bona
fide data junkie, this was treasure to me - the ability to examine split
details, elevation gains, and distances at such a detailed level was simply
fantastic.
Back then the GPS data was far less
accurate. The government actually had a program called Selective Availability which created an intentional
error in
GPS accuracy, based on the premise that only the military needed precision.
Some claimed that we didn't want the "bad guys" to be able to
precisely target a missile strike using the GPS system. This meant that
my data often showed oddities, for example I might run a loop with the same
start and finish point, yet the data would say I had climbed 300 feet and
finished on the next street over! Fortunately, in 2000 the SA system was
abolished and our running watches are now much more accurate.
My Timex Ironman
GPS collected plenty of data
Nevertheless, there is no way to make a
GPS 100% accurate, and even with modern tools that attempt to correct for
things such as ionospheric shifts and receiver quality, our current running
watches will never give a perfect data set. The error in GPS readings
typically ranges around 1 - 2%, which means that when your GPS watch reads one
mile, you might have actually gone as much as 50 - 100 feet shorter or farther.
Although current GPS watches often give distance readings to 3 decimal
places, you should not treat them as perfect to that level of precision. The same applies to elevation. When you run the San Francisco Marathon in
July, your GPS will do a fairly good job of showing you how flat the course
actually is once you’re done – but it won’t be perfectly accurate.
When you race with your GPS, you will
almost always find that your watch shows a different distance than the race's
advertised distance. For example, you might race a 5k, which technically
should be about 3.10686 miles, but when you finish your watch displays a
different reading. Be careful about claiming "the course was
long", or "the course was short", based on only your GPS.
If the race manager uses their own GPS to measure out the course, you can
be certain the distance is off. But if they obtain USATF Course Certification (and the best races always are Certified
distances), the measurement process is different. In fact USATF
regulations prohibit course certification based on GPS.
My latest GPS watch is a Garmin FR620.
It's far lighter and thinner than my previous watches, and has modern
features like a touchscreen, Bluetooth and Wifi connectivity - a super toy for
a nerd! But despite the impressive specs, it's still not perfect.
Sometimes the readings are misleading. The photo below shows a mile
split from a track workout in Flagstaff last year, but it does not represent my
true mile time - what the watch does not show is that this is a combination of
200 meter speed intervals.
Reviewing mile
splits on GPS watches is so easy
There are other limitations as well,
including the occasional failure of signal acquisition. Last year I
completed the Boston Marathon only to discover my GPS said I had run only 17
miles - it lost satellite signals partway through the race, and never
recovered. And most runners with GPS have experienced a dead battery more
than once. This is especially true with smart phones, which can fairly
rapidly lose power when running continuous GPS.
So they are not perfect, but GPS can be
both fun and useful as a training aid. They can encourage you to run
farther - I recall that my first GPS caused me to realize that my regular
3-mile route was actually only 2.8, so I lengthened it. They can provide
a long-term data set to help you understand and objectively observe trends,
including mileage as well as pace trends. The software tools available
now are extremely powerful. Online logging systems like Garmin Connect,
Strava, Training Peaks, etc. allow you to analyze the data in ways that would
make a mathematician proud.
There are many GPS watch options currently
available
Keith Schlottman is a
2015 San Francisco Marathon Ambassador who lives in Tucson, Arizona. He looks forward to testing his GPS accuracy
for the 4th time on the SFM course this year. If you’d like to join him, use discount code
TSFM2015KEITH to save $25! Keith
co-leads the Tucson Runners Project, a free running group for runners of all
abilities, with his fiancé.