Changes

[[File:Polar M400.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The {{Polar M400}} .]] I was initially very disappointed with the {{Polar M400}}, but over time I've come to appreciate the M400 more and more. There are a number of factors, not least of which is that it now sells for far less than its release price, making it a disappointing watchlot more competitive. Its [[GPS Accuracy]] has also improved, with poor GPS though it still mediocre. This accuracy and no problem is offset by its reasonable support for the [[CadenceStryd]] Footpod that is extremely accurate. The main competition the M400 faces is the [[Garmin Vivoactive]]. Even at The Vivoactive is a better watch in virtually every respect, except for its low price point it Stryd support. In order to get the Vivoactive to get pace and distance information from Stryd you have to turn off GPS, while the M400 can use Stryd for pace and distance whilst still recording a GPS track.* '''How far did I donrun?'''t think it offers good value for moneyThis is the most basic question, and the M400 has poor GPS accuracy, but this can be offset by using the Stryd Footpod. It's quite possible that Polar will address some of these issues with firmware upgradesmay seem odd to spend more on a Footpod than the watch, but for now I'd avoid itargue this is actually a reasonable compromise. If * '''How fast am I running?''' Knowing how fast you're after running can be a midrange 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 watchsignal alone tend to have serious problems with current pace. With the Stryd Footpod, you can get extremely accurate pace information, but without it, the M400 is pretty hopeless. * '''Where am I? 'd suggest looking at ''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? '''[[Garmin 610Cadence]]''' '''is one of the most critical and often overlooked aspects of running. While it'If you get your Cadence right, many other things naturally fall into place. The M400 has support for other [[Footpod]]s an older watchbesides Stryd, plus it offers has support for Cadence from the internal accelerometer. There are no Cadence alerts which is a shame, but typically 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 features functionality than the M400, including Connect IQ that allows for expanded functionality through downloaded apps. The Garmin 220 Vivoactive is more expensivea vastly better activity tracker, but offers especially when combined with a good Connect IQ watch face that gives you better functionalityfeedback 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 [[File:Polar Stryd]] Footpod for extremely accurate distance and pace information, but they have different trade-offs. The M400can still record a GPS track whilst getting distance and pace from the Stryd, where the Vivoactive has to have GPS disabled.jpgOn the other hand, the Vivoactive can display the Stryd estimate of [[Running Power Meters|none|thumb|200px|The {{Polar 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]] .

* 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 R]] 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 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.

* Unlike the [[Polar V800]], the M400 has poor [[GPS Accuracy]]. While I rely on detailed measurements and statistical analysis to evaluate GPS accuracy, it's worth mentioning that on one 18 mile run the M400 * Polar has lost over added support for a mile. This is the worst a level of error I've seen, even worse than the [[Garmin 620Footpod]] before Garmin fixed their problems with a Firmware upgradeversion 1.4 of firmware, but this is problematic. ** It looks like The Polar are using a different GPS chipset in Stride Sensor is fully supported by the M400, with automatic calibration and it will display stride length as well as cadence. The V800 uses the SiRF chipsetHowever, where the M400 uses [http://www.u-blox.com/en u-blox].** I have seen the Polar M400 losing satellite signal Stride Sensor is huge and heavy when compared with the message "There's no GPS signal"modern Footpods, weighing over three times as much as a Garmin Footpod. This occurred under conditions where another device is doing fine Because of its size and there are not circumstances that would cause weight, it requires lacing into the shoelaces, making it a problemreal pain to move between shoes.<jfs id="B00CCASIMS" noreferb="true"/>** The accuracy you might see with the M400 on your runs may vary from my testing. If you look at [[Stryd]] Footpod and the [[Detailed Statistics for GPS Running Watches| detailed statisticsMilestonePod]] you'll see that work well with the M400 does quite well in straight lines. This is true of nearly all GPS watches** Some third party Bluetooth Footpods, as running in a straight line is not difficultlike the "i-gotU" will pair with the M400, but then won't display cadence and even here prevent the M400 does worse than most devicesfrom recording any distance travelled. ** The second major problem Adidas miCoach Speed Cell will work with the M400 is the lack of support for [[Cadence]]. To me, this is unforgivable as Cadence is a critical aspect of runningbut it's not easy. I could even argue that By default itwill pair with the M400, but you can's t set the calibration factor nor can you set the most important feature of a running watchM400 to use GPS for pace/distance. Even though You have to pair the M400 has an internal accelerometerwith the Polar Speed Sensor to activate the menu items you need to configure the Adidas Footpod, this which is not used to display cadencefar from ideal. Cadence may become supported in However, the future, but even Adidas Footpod is then the options here are currently quite limiteda reasonable size and provides cadence (though not stride length). <jfs id="B00FEJ7FBO" noreferb="true"/>.

** 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. I'm assuming With version 1.4 of the M400 does firmware, the offline calculation, as Polar claims acquisition "as fast as in 10 second" and validity for up synchronization software was updated to 3 days, which matches indicate that the u-blox figures for offline mode. * The M400 uses Bluetooth sensors rather than the more common Ant+file had been downloaded, limiting and the choice and quality of sensors. * The M400 watch will only upload now indicate how long the data to the Polar websitefile is valid for. Polar has introduced to the export of TCX format dataHowever, but this export is incomplete (no laps)even with version 1. You can work around this by using 4, the open source projects [https://github.com/pcolby/bipolar Bipolar] and [https://github.com/profanum429/v800_downloader M400_downloader], but this TTFF is a far cry from the open approach that Garmin has takenstill slow compared with competing devices.* 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 support for displaying a map or outline of I've found the battery on the M400 seems to run low far earlier than the track youclaimed 8 hours. I've covered for navigationhad the low battery alert after only 4 hours, though I was using the backlight. There I've also found that leaving the M400 in the state where it is a rudimentary "back ready to start" functionality that gives you an arrow pointing back.* The polar website has some basic functionality, but it has with the GPS signal acquired, the feel of an unfinished beta release rather than a complete solutionbattery will run down quite quickly. This feeling Slower marathon runners could have problems with the battery life of being unfinished extends to the watch itselfM400, but at least Polar are giving a timeline and it could not be used for new functionalitymost ultramarathons.

* If It's a minor problem, but if you're not wearing have a Heart Rate Monitorstrap paired with the M400 but don't have it on you, the M400 will wildly overestimate your calories and effort. =What's Missing=While I don't consider these missing features as 'cons', it's worth understanding the features that are missing compared with other watches. * '''Altimeter. '''GPS is far less accurate vertically than horizontally, so a barometric altimeter can provide a much better idea of your ascent and descent. It can also be useful for navigation if you're ascending or descending a mountain. In some races I've been far more interested in how much ascent is left rather than the distance to the top.* '''Navigation.''' The navigation capabilities are useful if there is a risk of getting lost. I've made good use of this feature when running in an unfamiliar city, or when running remote trails. There is a rudimentary "back to start" functionality that gives you an arrow pointing back, but that's a poor substitute. * '''Downloadable Apps'''. Smart watches have got is used to the estimate idea of calories burned while a device that can be extended with new functionality, and this concept is being introduced to running watches.* '''Extended battery life'''. Some porches can extend the battery life by turning the GPS reception off for short periods. This can dramatically reduce GPS accuracy, but it's a useful trade-off for some ultramarathons.* '''[[Firstbeat| Training Effect]].''' The Firstbeat Training Effect gives you a sense of how hard each workout is, and this sometimes includes the time for recovery.* '''Graphs'''. Instead of simply displaying a numeric value for things like heart rate, some watches will display a graph of the value over time, giving you a sense of how things are progressing.* '''Running Dynamics'''. Some of the newer Garmin watches can show and record Vertical Oscillation (VO) and Ground Contact Time (GCT). * '''Alerts'''. Some watches will alert you when a metric is out of range. The alert for [[Cadence]] is overinflatedreally 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. =GPS Accuracy=For quite some time, the M400 had the worst GPS accuracy of any device I've tested, but recent firmware upgrades have improved matters somewhat. The GPS accuracy is still rather mediocre at best, but at least it's not as appalling as it once was. It looks like Polar are using an unusual GPS chipset in the M400. I've not seen any other device using the u-blox chipset, and the replacement for the M400 (M430) returns to using the same chipset manufacturer as the [[Polar V800]] which has outstanding GPS accuracy. The firmware upgrade is also fixed the problem where the M400 would report losing satellite signal with the message "There's no GPS signal". This was occurring under conditions where another device is doing fine and there are not circumstances that should cause a problem{| class="wikitable" |- valign="top"[[File:BridgePolar M400 v1.9.600.jpg|none|thumb|x300px|Here's the tracks from the M400 with the 1.9 firmware. This diagram has tracks color coded 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. ]]|}=Visual Comparison={| class="wikitable"|- valign="top"|[[File:Polar M400-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Polar M400 top]]|[[File:Polar M400-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Polar M400 side]]|[[File:Polar V800-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Polar V800 top]]|[[File:Polar V800-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Polar V800 side]]|- valign="top"|[[File:Suunto Ambit3-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Suunto Ambit3 top]]|[[File:Suunto Ambit3-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Suunto Ambit3 side]]|[[File:Suunto Ambit2-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Suunto Ambit2 top]]|[[File:Suunto Ambit2-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Suunto Ambit2 side]]|- valign="top"|[[File:TomTom Cardio Runner-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|TomTom Cardio Runner top]]|[[File:TomTom Cardio Runner-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|TomTom Cardio Runner side]]|[[File:Garmin Epix-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Garmin Epix top]]|[[File:Garmin Epix-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Garmin Epix side]]|- valign="top"|[[File:Garmin 920XT-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Garmin 920XT top]]|[[File:Garmin 920XT-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Garmin 920XT side]]|[[File:Garmin 620-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Garmin 620 top]]|[[File:Garmin 620-side.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Garmin 620 side]]|- valign="top"|[[File:Leikr 1-top.JPG|none|thumb|150px|Leikr 1 top]]|[[File:Leikr 1-side. JPG|none|thumb|150px|Leikr 1 side]]|}