Changes

Polar M400

2,278 bytes removed, 11:50, 20 May 2017

no edit summary

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Polar M400 Review}}

[[File:Polar M400.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The {{Polar M400}}.]]

The My initial disappointment with the {{Polar M400}} has changed over time. There are a number of factors, not least of which is a disappointing watchthat it's now on sale far cheaper than its release price, with poor GPS accuracy and limited support for making it far more competitive. Its [[CadenceGPS Accuracy]]has also improved, though it still mediocre. Even at This accuracy problem is offset by its low price point it I don't think it reasonable support for the [[Best Running Watch| offers good value for moneyStryd]]Footpod that is extremely accurate. If you're after a midrange GPS watch, I'd suggest looking at The main competition the M400 faces is the [[Garmin 610Vivoactive]]. While it's an older watch, it offers far more features than the M400. The Garmin 220 Vivoactive is more expensivea better watch in virtually every respect, but offers better functionalityexcept for its Stryd support. For a simple evaluation of a In order to get the Vivoactive to get pace and distance information from Stryd you have to turn off GPS watch, I look at how well it while the M400 can answer some basic questions:use Stryd for pace and distance whilst still recording a GPS track.* '''How far did I run?''' This is the most basic question, and the M400 has stunningly bad poor GPS accuracy, but this can be offset by using the Stryd Footpod. It may seem odd to spend more on a Footpod than the watch, but I've had the M400 be out by d argue this is actually a mile on an 18 mile run, which could really screw up your marathon trainingreasonable compromise. * '''How fast am I running?''' Knowing how fast you're running can be a nice to know, or it can be vital for your training or race performance. Because of the nature of GPS, watches that rely on GPS signal alone tend to have serious problems with current pace. Without With the ability to display current [[Pace From A Stryd Footpod]] while getting all other data from GPS, combined with such poor GPS accuracyyou can get extremely accurate pace information, but without it, the M400 can't answer this questionis pretty hopeless.

* '''Where am I? '''The M400 has only a simple "back to start" arrow, which is better than nothing, but remember this is an "as the crow flies" direct path, not a backtrack.

* '''What's my cadence? '''[[Cadence]]''' '''is one of the most critical and often overlooked aspects of running. If you get your Cadence right, many other things naturally fall into place. The M400 has limited support for a other [[Footpod]]s besides Stryd, no plus it has support for Cadence from the internal accelerometer, and . There are no Cadence alerts. It's better than nothingwhich is a shame, but it's not greattypically this feature is only available on more expensive devices.

The M400 is not a good choice for ultrarunners, as its battery life is too short. See [[Best Running Watch#Watches for Ultrarunning| Watches for Ultrarunning]] for more details.

{{BuyAmazon|AZID=B00NPZ7WNU|AZN=Polar M400}}

=Should You Buy The M400?=

I think that in most cases, at this price point you should buy the [[Garmin Vivoactive]] over the M400. The Vivoactive has far more functionality than the M400, including Connect IQ that allows for expanded functionality through downloaded apps. The Vivoactive is a vastly better activity tracker, especially when combined with a good Connect IQ watch face that gives you better feedback on how you're doing. You can even use the Vivoactive on an ultramarathon by [[Charge On The Run]], something that much harder with the M400. Both watches will support the [[Stryd]] Footpod for extremely accurate distance and pace information, but they have different trade-offs. The M400 can still record a GPS track whilst getting distance and pace from the Stryd, where the Vivoactive has to have GPS disabled. On the other hand, the Vivoactive can display the Stryd estimate of [[Running Power]] far better than the M400, and it can record this power estimate along with other metrics such as Ground Contact Time. Therefore, I'd only recommend someone buys the M 400 if they really want to record the GPS track whilst getting pace and distance from a Stryd Footpod, otherwise by the [[Garmin Vivoactive]].

=Polar M400 Pros=

* The user interface is nicely designed and intuitive; the buttons, display, and the menu system combine aesthetics with usability. The M400 has five hard buttons, which I much prefer over a touchscreen interface, especially when wearing gloves or in the rain.

* The support for [[Stryd]] is pretty good. As noted above, you can get pace and distance information from the Stryd whilst still recording a GPS track. The Limited navigation features mean that the GPS data is of limited use while you're running, but it does allow you to see where you went afterwards. You can only get the Stryd estimate of power through the cadence field, and that feature might disappear in the future.

* Like the [[Suunto Ambit2]] and [[Polar V800]], the M400 can be configured via the website, which is easier than fiddling with the watch itself. Most of the options can be also set on the watch, which means you're not stuck if you're away from the Internet.

* The M400 provides more information when you press the lap button than most other watches.

* The M400 can act as a simple activity monitor, but it only has only an internal accelerometer which provides poor accuracy. If you need an activity monitor, I'd recommend the [[Basis Activity Tracker]] which has sensors for heart rate, skin temperature and perspiration.

* The cable to charge and sync the M400 is a standard micro-USB that's waterproof. Most watches use a specialist cable that's expensive to replace if lost.

=Polar M400 Cons=

* Unlike the [[Polar V800]], the M400 has poor [[GPS Accuracy]]; see below for a detailed discussion.

* Polar has added support for a [[Footpod]] with version 1.4 of firmware, but this is problematic.

** The Polar Stride Sensor is fully supported by the M400, with automatic calibration and it will display stride length as well as cadence. However, the Stride Sensor is huge and heavy when compared with modern Footpods, weighing over three times as much as a Garmin Footpod. Because of its size and weight, it requires lacing into the shoelaces, making it a real pain to move between shoes. <jfs id="B00CCASIMS" noreferb="true" n="Polar Stride Sensor"/>** The [[Stryd]] Footpod and the [[MilestonePod]] work well with the M400.

** Some third party Bluetooth Footpods, like the "i-gotU" will pair with the M400, but then won't display cadence and prevent the M400 from recording any distance travelled.

** The Adidas miCoach Speed Cell will work with the M400, but it's not easy. By default it will pair with the M400, but you can't set the calibration factor nor can you set the M400 to use GPS for pace/distance. You have to pair the M400 with the Polar Speed Sensor to activate the menu items you need to configure the Adidas Footpod, which is far from ideal. However, the Adidas Footpod is then a reasonable size and provides cadence (though not stride length). <jfs id="B00FEJ7FBO" noreferb="true" n="adidas miCoach Speed Cell "/>.** Even though the M400 has an internal accelerometer, this is not used to display cadence.

* The M400 claims to have more rapid initial satellite acquisition than earlier watches, but I have not found this to be the case.

** In my testing, I found "Time To First Fix" (TTFF) on the M400 is comparable or slightly slower than the older [[Garmin 610]]. (I tested after a 4+ hour gap since the last fix as most devices will reacquire rapidly if the gap is shorter.)

** Polar states they use [http://www.u-blox.com/en/assisted-gps.html AssistNow], a technology from u-blox] which does satellite prediction. AssistNow can use a downloaded prediction file or simply calculate the positions offline. With version 1.4 of the firmware, the synchronization software was updated to indicate that the offline file had been downloaded, and the watch will now indicate how long the file is valid for. However, even with version 1.4, the TTFF is still slow compared with competing devices. * The M400 uses Bluetooth sensors rather than the more common Ant+, limiting the choice and quality of sensors. This is likely to change over time as more devices are produced and compatibility issues are resolved. * The M400 will only upload the data to the Polar website. Polar has introduced to the export of TCX format data, but this export is incomplete (no laps). You can work around this by using the open source projects [https://github.com/pcolby/bipolar Bipolar] and [https://github.com/profanum429/v800_downloader M400_downloader], but this is a far cry from the open approach that Garmin has taken.

* Like the Polar V800, the M400 uses visual tricks to appear smaller than it is. The watch is curved, so the first part of the watch strap is really part of the watch body. This can cause problems for runners with smaller or larger wrists. I have to wear the V800 and M400 over a wrist sweat band as my writs are quite small. (I have no problem with watches that appear to be bigger, like the [[Garmin 310XT]].)

* There is no vibration alert, something I miss.

* I've found the battery on the M400 seems to run low far earlier than the claimed 8 hours. I've had the low battery alert after only 4 hours, though I was using the backlight. I've also found that leaving the M400 in the state where it is ready to start, with the GPS signal acquired, the battery will run down quite quickly. Slower marathon runners could have problems with the battery life of the M400, and it could not be used for most ultramarathons.

* The polar website has some basic functionality, but it has the feel of an unfinished beta release rather than a complete solution. This feeling of being unfinished extends to the watch itself, but at least Polar are giving a timeline for new functionality.

* The M400 will give an estimate of [[VO2max|V̇O₂max]] if you're wearing a Heart Rate Monitor, but I didn't find its estimate as accurate as the [[Firstbeat]] software used by Garmin and Suunto.

* It's a minor problem, but if you have a Heart Rate Monitor strap paired with the M400 but don't have it on you, the M400 will wildly overestimate your calories and effort.

* '''Alerts'''. Some watches will alert you when a metric is out of range. The alert for [[Cadence]] is really useful and one of my favorite features. (Of course the M400 doesn't even support Cadence.)

* '''WiFi/Bluetooth Uploads'''. While the automatic upload of workouts via WiFi or Bluetooth to a Smartphone is nice, the upload will typically only go to the manufacturer's web site.

{{BuyAmazon|AZID=B00NPZ7WNU|AZN=Polar M400}}

=GPS Accuracy=

The For quite some time, the M400 has had the worst GPS accuracy of any device I've tested, worse even than the Garmin 620 was before the but recent firmware fixes upgrades have improved things. * Both Trueness and Precision are remarkably poormatters somewhat. The M400 GPS accuracy is nearly always giving a shorter distance than I actually ranstill rather mediocre at best, over 250 feet/mile short on average. * The M400 does a better on repeatability, which is a measure of how likely but at least it is to give the same indicated distance on a particular part of the course. This tends to give an illusion of being correct, 's not as appalling as it is easy to mistake consistency for accuracyonce was.* An out-and-back turnaround is challenging for any It looks like Polar are using an unusual GPS watch, and this often shows up the difference between a good and bad a device. A really good GPS watch will typically be out by 2 to 3%, but the M400 does particularly badly with an error of over 13%. * Running chipset in a straight line on the other hand, is a fairly easy task for most GPS watches, and hear the M400 does vastly better than in other conditions. However, when itI's compared to ve not seen any other devices, it's still one of device using the worst.* Rather strangelyu-blox chipset, the M400 does remarkably well going under the bridge. It's almost like it does better without the GPS signal than with it. If you look at the image below and compare it with the V800, you can see replacement for the M400 does much better when emerging from under the bridge.* While I rely on detailed measurements and statistical analysis (M430) returns to evaluate GPS accuracy, it's worth mentioning that on one 18 mile run using the M400 has lost over a mile. This is the worst a level of error I've seen, even worse than same chipset manufacturer as the [[Garmin 620Polar V800]] before Garmin fixed their problems with a Firmware upgrade. (I tested the M400 with version 1.4 of the firmware and the which has outstanding GPS accuracy is unchanged.)* It looks like Polar are using a different GPS chipset in the M400. The V800 uses firmware upgrade is also fixed the SiRF chipset, problem where the M400 uses [http://www.u-blox.com/en u-blox].* I have seen the Polar M400 would report losing satellite signal with the message "There's no GPS signal". This occurred was occurring under conditions where another device is doing fine and there are not circumstances that would should cause a problem.

{| class="wikitable"

|- valign="top"

|[[File:BridgePolar M400v1.9.600.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|This image shows Here's the tracks from the M400 with the 1.9 firmware. This diagram has tracks color coded for with green indicating good accuracy through to red indicating poor accuracy, and the lap markers as blue dots.]]|[[File:BridgePolar M400.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|For comparison, this is the M400 with the earlier 1.4 firmware. You can see a few tracks where the M400 has shifted out of position even though the shape of the course is maintained. The blue lap markers are quite spread out, suggesting some positional accuracy problems. You can see from the green lines going under the bridge that the M400 does quite well in that situation, and there are no sudden changes in position on emerging. I suspect this is because the M400 is doing a lot of smoothing, which works well in that situation. The middle segment that is quite curved is nearly all red, and this is one of the areas where the M400 is a smoothing too much and cutting the corners. You can see the M400 does worse here than in the sharp turn to the right of the image. ]]|- valign="top"

|[[File:BridgePolar V800.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|The Polar V800 is one of the most accurate devices I've tested, and you can see that the majority of the tracks are green indicating good accuracy. Notice the problems the V800 is having at the bridge. Rather strangely the lap markers are far more spread out than I would have expected on a device this accurate. ]]

|- valign="top"

|[[File:AccuracyPolar M400.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|This is a detailed image of a small zigzag in my course, that shows up how well a device is tracking. You can see a mixture of colors from green indicating good accuracy through to read indicating poor accuracy. Notice that the M400 is typically tracking the shape of the six ag but is often out by a fair distance. If you were to shift the tracks so the blue lap marker was positioned over the red spot that indicates the true map position you'd probably find things lined up much better.]]

|[[File:AccuracyPolar V800.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|The Polar V800 follows this small zigzag quite well. The overwhelming majority of the lines are green indicating a good accuracy, even though the lap markers are quite spread out. ]]

|- valign="top"

|[[File:ZigZagPolar M400.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|Here is the zigzag with the M400 tracks color-coded for direction, with green coming from the right, blue from the left. Typically GPS watches record tracks that have the green lines shifted slightly down and to the left, blue up and to the right. However the M400 appears to be a little more random than that.]]

|[[File:ZigZagPolar V800.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|As you would expect from a device as accurate as the V 800, the tracks are close together and follow the line of the zigzag nicely.]]

|}

=Visual Comparison=

|[[File:Leikr 1-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Leikr 1 side]]

|}

=GPS Anecdotes=

The image below is from the 2015 Thunder Road Marathon, where I wore the M400 along with the [[Suunto Ambit3]], [[Garmin 225]], and [[Garmin 920XT]]. You can see that all of the watches struggled in the high buildings, but the M400 does particularly badly. The M400 lost signal about the 24 mile mark, so its track is missing from the end of the race. This is obviously a single sample, so don't read too much into it, but this does line up with the more rigorous testing of [[GPS Accuracy]].

[[File:TRM.jpg|none|thumb|800px|A comparison at the Thunder Road Marathon, with the M400 in yellow, [[Suunto Ambit3]] in red, [[Garmin 225]] in green, and [[Garmin 920XT]] in blue.]]

=Comparison Table=

{{:Best Running Watch-table}}

• ← Older edit
• Newer edit →

Fellrnr

Bot, bureaucrat, administrator

8,153

edits