UKC

I'm looking for a minimalist super small watch that tells the time, stopwatch, and records my route via gps. That's all. It's for races, when all the other stuff doesn't matter, but I'd like to record the route for after and check my time.
Any suggestions?

In reply to JuneBob:

I use the Garmin 10. Their basic model. Does everything I need it to. However, does depended on what you mean by minimalist super small. The 'female' version is smaller, so that could be an option. I wear my wife's sometimes, but only at the weekend...

In reply to JuneBob:

Another vote for the Forerunner 10. Cheap, basic and easy to use

In reply to plyometrics:

My Garmin 10 used to take bloody ages to secure at sat signal. Ended up running without it on countless occasions. Recently replaced it with the 235 - great watch.

In reply to JMGLondon:

Interesting. We've got 2 and both generally hook up in about 10 seconds.

235 looks cool though. Too many bells and whistles for me mind!

In reply to plyometrics:

The 235 is actually a pretty simple watch. I wanted to start measuring heart rate but really dislike wearing the chest strap so it was the best solution for me. I also use Garmin so the wireless sync is useful.

I think my 10 was a bit duff.

In reply to JuneBob:

Thanks for the suggestions. I saw the TomTom Spark too - that looks pretty minimal - 47g, and just gps and a watch.

In reply to JuneBob:

Ok, I'll be using this for ski mountaineering races too, which may go over the 5hr mark which is the battery life of the garmin 10 with gps enabled, so that may not be the watch for me.

In reply to JuneBob:

Garmin 220 maybe? Quite heavily discounted now the 235 is out, has more features than you need but is pretty small and light.

In reply to JuneBob:

Forerunner 10.

Got me through 3 months of marathon training without missing a beat. Works abroad too.

Does all of what you want. Records the route and can be uploaded to their website (your account) and overlaid on good maps.

In reply to r0b:


+1 for the 220.

I get a real world 8ish hours out of the battery during GPS tracking. Simple to use, (once you decrypt the manual), and does pace alerts, you can configure the displays, set up intervals etc. It's a bargain now prices have dropped.

In reply to JuneBob:

here you go
http://www.runnerinn.com/running/garmin-forerunner-220/126613/p?tqw=

In reply to JMGLondon:

I read this is a lot of reviews but I've only had it happen to me once in 9 months

In reply to JuneBob:

Fitbit Surge has GPS and will measure your pulse without needing a belt. Can't remember if it has a stopwatch. Very minimalist except for the price!

In reply to JuneBob:
Garmin 10 and strava..

In reply to JuneBob:

I think the 220 is overkill for what you need.

+1 for the women's Garmin Forerunner 10 or 15 (same as the 10 but with heart rate capability). The women's version is smaller which is nice. One thing to note though is that it's not bluetooth to your phone so you need to download your route etc with the custom cradle. That might not sound too bad but can be a pain when you're travelling and don't have a computer with you. It also means it can't do live tracking which bluetooth ones can.
Mine's never had any problem with satellite aquisition or anything else for that matter.

In reply to JuneBob:

If the Garmin 10/15 does not have a long enough battery life for you, and the 220 is too complicated, then you could go for the older 210 ( 8 hour battery ) which you can pick up for about £90 these days ( eg Sweathshop ).

It's not as small as a 10 or 15, but then the reason the 10/15 is so small is the small battery.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Disagree.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only three things that are crucial for racing:

Pace in large digits (110 falls down on this as you can't reconfigure the display)
Distance/time (what running watch doesnt have this anyway!?)
Bluetooth for immediate upload for strava-bragging purposes (once back to the car and the phone).

Joking a bit about the last one but seriously (and I have a 110) the cable connector for the 10/110 is a crap way to upload, the connection is flaky, and I have to hunt round the house every time i want to sync (i.e. nearly every day!!)

Actually sod it, I can't stress enough how important bluetooth connectivity is!!

Further:
the 10 is bulkier that the 220.
the female version is smaller, yes, but only comes in "girly" colours
As others have mentioned, the 220 is really cheap now (John Lewis seem to occasionally do it as a special buy, might be worth checking)

I don't know how the 10 or 220 compares, but the 110 is really slow to pick up a signal - I've lost count of the number of times I've had to set off without a signal.

In reply to Stig:

220 is very quick to get a GPS lock in my experience. Iain's right in that it has a lot of extra features the OP won't use, but as you say the configurable display is really good.

In reply to Stig:

I just think the 10 is VERY user friendly, very simple, gets signal quick from my experience (I used my wifes lots), and just gives you simple basic data the OP wants at a great price.

I almost bought one but have the 410 as you can get them cheap and they have more functionality. I do want a 220 and it is a better watch, but for what the OP wants I think the 10 is a superb option. Its light, you don't notice it. As a simple basic GPS watch I really do think its a great addition by Garmin.

In reply to JuneBob:

Do you think the weight saving will make a difference to your performance?

In reply to davegs:

Hehe, nope - it's just I don't wear a watch normally, and I don't want to suddenly have some enormous chunk of stuff on my wrist. Furthermore, most have many features that I don't need that add bulk and, more importantly, expense.

I went for the basic Spark. So far I'm very happy with it.

In reply to JuneBob:

Been using a garmin 225 for a wee while - impressed with it so far.

In reply to JuneBob:

Thanks to everyone for all the replies. As I mentioned above, I went for the Spark. I'm very happy with it. I just completed Pierra Menta, and except for accidentally pausing it briefly on the last day. During last week, I recorded two consecutive training days at altitude in snow and cold adding up to 8 hours of gps usage in 48 hours between charges.
For the race I charged each night. Each race day was 4-5hrs, in temperatures down to -15. It worked perfectly, and uploads directly to strava with the correct settings on my TomTom page.

A barometric altimeter would be a nice addition, but that's for another time.