Sad to say but Garmin 310XT will not receive Power metrics
From Garmin:
The Forerunner 310XT will display cadence and total power and will still remain a very powerful training tool for multi-sport athletes, runners and cyclists alike. Though it will display total power, it will not show Left/Right when paired with Vector nor will this device receive the TrainingPeaks data fields update.
Well that sucks.
Here is the link to DC Rainmakers post:
www.dcrainmaker.com/2011/11/garmin-...right.html
0
Comments
That does suck. I was thinking of getting a 310XT but it appears that I will have to pay for the 910 if I want to go garmin. I've got time anyway it will be quite a while until I get off the trainer for spring sessions.
Gordon
That's exactly right. Sucks for 310 users but you can't really blame Garmin for wanting to make more money.
I have a 500 and 310 plus a 910 on order.
Damn Gman, looks like someone has been dipping into the evidence closet to fund his gadget habit!
They continue to support the obsolete Forerunner 305 and they introduce new models all the time. They have put out gajillion firmware updates on their devices over the years, and this is not such a huge deal. They know they will soon have real competitors with GPS-bearing bike/run computers..
As I commented on DCR's blog, I purchased two Garmin FR 305s, an Edge 305, two 310s, and a 705. I feel rather kicked in the teeth that this isn't good enough for them. The next time I look to either expand, replace, or upgrade, I'll not just automatically get a Garmin like I would have previously. There's no excuse not to AT LEAST put TSS/NP/IF on the 310xt and Edge 605/705. If they do, then why would I bother even really shopping around when it's time to get my currently tweens a real bike computer for their road bikes in a year or two.
I "just" switched this year from polar to garmin (having only one 310xt and one FR60 and considering an Edge 800/Powertap wheel for xmas).
Re: Why not in 705/605 i think i read in one post about Vector together with the Garmin Product Manager, that he gave a reason why it is difficult implement TSS/NP/IF for edge 705/605.
I switched mainly because the Garmin models do get additional features after they have been released through firmware upgrades and they give me more options to interact with a PC(or mac in my case), Polar is never thinking of even providing firmware for bug fixes.
Re: Why not in 310xt, I guess as the sport products at Garmin gained more momentum with in their house, the noticed that their competition makes actually money with selling new gear with new features.
I've ***heard*** the issue is that the OS and code base for the 605/705 is completely different than the 500/800.
This change happened when they went from the tcx to fit file format as there were significant changes to the entire "OS" of the devices. So in theory any device that has .fit files (310XT, 500, 800, 910XT) has the same code base and should be able to easily get the same updates with minimal extra work.
IF my understanding is correct, I personally understand and think it is fair they are not putting it on the 605/705 (sorry William) because of the extra work required. The 310XT on the other hand is .fit based so it should not be as much extra work and they originally said they were going to put it on the 310XT ... so I think they should in this case.
As others said, it is likely just a business decision to drive sales of the 910XT when it is released at the biggest time of the year for consumer electronic purchases ;-)
I wouldn't be surprise at all if the TSS/IF/NP show up on the 310 XT eventually.
@William - runners and triathletes are different therefore the products and product lifecycles are different. Usually runners find a device (or shoe) that works and stick with it until it breaks... then replace with a comparible product. Many triathletes on the other hand are willing to upgrade from a perfectly good device to a new one that has new features (shoes, bikes, wheels, etc). Plus the running market is SIGNICANTLY larger than the tri market, so many companies have different strategies the different markets and we may be starting to see that with garmin.
Really? Ok, maybe "automatically" is what makes the statement really, really true. But most people will end up with a Garmin. There just isn't much competition. Sure there are other products (Joule for biking, Timex Global whatever for running), but the reality is that Garmin is a pretty clear cut winner in terms of a family of GPS products. And frankly they're pretty good products IMHO.
TSS/IF/NP will still show up on 500 edge at some point ???
@Matt Ancona - I'm an electronics junkie. For example, I professionally or personally own within my family, 3 iphones, 2 ipads, 2 macbook pros, one very old white macbook, and 2 macbook airs. And that's not counting my wife's professional machines or the three obsolete iphones sitting in my house. Apple and Garmin have had in common that both provide updates at free or low cost of their hardware for years, and that's one thing that made both companies' products appealing.
Now, I "get it" that you can argue that an older piece of hardware won't support a new OS or a new computation. I wouldn't like it if that were the explanation for the 605/705 (because I still think this is an easy calculation...good grief!), but at least I'd understand it. My old white macbook won't upgrade to the new Lion OS. Disappointing, but ok.
I see no such reasonable excuse for the 310xt. To give this functionality to the 500 and not to the 310xt is a pretty clear and pretty obnoxious statement on their part.
It should be industry standard to support at least your current model and the one previous. Two previous?...ok, fine, maybe not. Under those rules, which I just think are good policy for an electronics gizmo company, they ought to be supporting the 605/705. You want $10 or something for the firmware upgrade? I'm more than happy to pony up if it's for substantial new functionality.
I bought a 310 xt this year when I could have done without or waited after my FR 305 finally died. I could have worked it out with my son to borrow back and forth. But one of the main reasons I went ahead and purchased is that I trusted Garmin to support that device fully even if they came out with a replacement this season. So yes, I do resent that decision on their part especially.
Hey anybody looking to upgrade their 310 to a 910, please let me know. I just dropped my 310 and broke the glass
The only issue is that many devices out there might brake before -like davids- because the design is prone to brake easy.
Mine broke after 4month, luckily I got a replacement unit by support.
I've had my 301 for a few years and to be honest, I don't think Garmin ever tested them by throwing them in a high-efficiency washer.
Well mine broke by falling/sliding of my sportbag (which was on the ground) in the changing room.
. Glad that at least the 910xt they have addressed that issue now.
That 10cm (3inch) vertical drop did it.
So now the 310xt is my bike computer only, less chances to drop, and still hoping to support TSS/IF at one day.
The 310xt gives you real time watts ( I use a Quarq PM ), got it. When you download into WKO+, does the WKO+ software spit out TSS, IF, Pnorm, etc? I understand that it isn't displayed on the face of the watch. Does WKO+ calculate all of this by default?
I ask because I'm still comparing the 310 vs the 910. TSS, Pnorm, and other variables are more for 'post ride analysis', right? Real time watts is the top priority, right? So, the 310 still looks good, UNLESS, I can't log the other variables.
Def could use IF for intervals and control, but could fall back on real time watts if that weren't available.
20% off retail for the 310xt + $50 mail in rebate has me considering this.
As a big dood (6'1", 200lbs), TSS will work out to what it needs to be, displaying or not displaying it will do no good to me. It is what it is, it'll work itself out one way or another.
I do have IF displayed, which is a function of AP and NP, but no NP displayed directly on my Joule. In actuality, I'll prob put tape over the IF at IMAZ, just because I don't want to try and "make up" the intensity that I might have lost, and booger my run.
Just my $.02.
Meaning that the ability to have all of the post ride analysis numbers on the actual ride is just cake, could be saved for later, after download.
That's how I'm reading the feedback.
Ultimately meaning, getting the deal on the 310xt might be the way to go as opposed to the Top Shelf 910xt.
And yes, Chris, there's no problem doing all the post-ride analysis. It's really just the targeting of NP that you have to figure a workaround for. The way I have taken to doing it is to estimate what my IF will be and then use that to lower the number I target e.g., shoot for 95% of the target if I expect and IF of 1.05). But it's just not as cool as being able to do it right from the start.
Do you mean VI, not IF?
For a hilly race like IMWI, I think NP is very important and is the main reason I upgraded from the LYC to the Joule.
with the joule, obviously, I have Pnorm right in front of me. Is Pnorm better to watch than Act Watts (insert question mark here, broken keyboard!)
re: [The way I have taken to doing it is to estimate what my IF will be and then use that to lower the number I target e.g., shoot for 95% of the target if I expect and IF of 1.05).] Let's say I have a 310xt, what will I have on the screen (question) walk me thru this another way. I'm not following. set me up on a training ride where I want to do, say, 2x 20's, at 95% FTP (say, 250w)
Chris,
I believe what William does is the following but he can correct me of course.
VI = NP/AP - So if you are expecting to ride an IM say Wisconsin at 1.05 VI and you NP target is 250, take 95% of that and that's what your goal AP should be or 237.5.
I don't think you are going to see the value pnorm on the trainer as typically most of my trainer rides are IF close to 1 and you get these metrics once you look at wko. For me the only time I would really want it is for FTP tests where I want to push that number as high as possible. The values is for out door rides. As Tucker has mentioned removing zeros is an option as well.
As to your question is it better to watch Pnorm or Actualy watts, I don't have an answer personally as I have a LYC so only have actual watts to look at. The Pnom becomes useful to break up rides, just make sure you don't use the pnorm to chase a goal over an entire ride. It takes a lot of effort to get that pnorm to move after 2-3 hours so if you are below your goal at 2 hour for a half or 4 hours for an IM you could mess up the run chasing that 250 pnorm.
Coach Rich broke his ride at IMWI is not several sections see his post here:
http://members.endurancenation.us/T...fault.aspx
It's your decision on weather the estimates above are close enough for you or you are willing to pay for more precision.
Gordon
Yes, Gordon and Daniela are right. Sorry for the typo. (Technically, dividing by 1.05 isn't quite the same as multiplying by 0.95, but close enough!)
Further, Gordon is also right for trainer season. AP and NP should be very close. Outdoors, seeing the NP for longer rides (and races) is a Good Thing, as Daniela notes. My little formula works fine as long as you have a good idea of what your VI will be.
239 NP and 231 AP becomes 23 and 23, giving me the impression that its dead even (question)
Chris,
The term drop the zero's is when you are coasting, for example on an IM ride if you have 10 minutes of coasting X 60 seconds (1 second recording) = 600 zero's that are averaged in your data.
When you remove these zero's the AP number increases giving you an approximation of NP which can be close in many cases.
I don't want to get in to too much detail as this is covered in the power webinar but NP takes in to account the differences in effort between say 100 watts and 200 watts using rolling averages, 4th powers and roots (check out slide 19 of session 1 of the power webinar for the calculation). A calculation the WKO does for you nice a clean.
So if you rode for 30 minutes at each of the above wattages that would give an AP of 150 but a normailzed power of 171. So having the 310XT set to remove zeros would bump up that AP.
Gordon