8,153
edits
Changes
From Fellrnr.com, Running tips
Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:Polar M400 Review}} The {{Polar M400}} is a disappointing watch, with poor GPS accuracy and no support for Cadence. Even at its low price point it I don't t..."
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Polar M400 Review}}
The {{Polar M400}} is a disappointing watch, with poor GPS accuracy and no support for [[Cadence]]. Even at its low price point it I don't think it offers good value for money. It's quite possible that Polar will address some of these issues with firmware upgrades, but for now I'd avoid it. If you're after a midrange GPS watch, I'd suggest looking at the [[Garmin 610]]. While it's an older watch, it offers far more features than the M400. The Garmin 220 is more expensive, but offers better functionality.
[[File:Polar M400.jpg|none|thumb|200px|The {{Polar M400}}.]]
=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.
* 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 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]]. 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 has lost over a mile. This is the worst a level of error I've seen, even worse than the [[Garmin 620]] before Garmin fixed their problems with a Firmware upgrade.
** It looks like Polar are using a different GPS chipset in the M400. The V800 uses the SiRF chipset, where the M400 uses [http://www.u-blox.com/en u-blox].
** I have seen the Polar M400 losing satellite signal with the message "There's no GPS signal". This occurred under conditions where another device is doing fine and there are not circumstances that would cause a problem.
** The accuracy you might see with the M400 on your runs may vary from my testing. If you look at the [[Detailed Statistics for GPS Running Watches| detailed statistics]] you'll see that the M400 does quite well in straight lines. This is true of nearly all GPS watches, as running in a straight line is not difficult, and even here the M400 does worse than most devices.
* The second major problem with the M400 is the lack of support for [[Cadence]]. To me, this is unforgivable as Cadence is a critical aspect of running. I could even argue that it's the most important feature of a running watch. Even though the M400 has an internal accelerometer, this is not used to display cadence. Cadence may become supported in the future, but even then the options here are currently quite limited.
* 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. I'm assuming the M400 does the offline calculation, as Polar claims acquisition "as fast as in 10 second" and validity for up to 3 days, which matches the u-blox figures for offline mode.
* The M400 uses Bluetooth sensors rather than the more common Ant+, limiting the choice and quality of sensors.
* 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.)
* There is no vibration alert, something I miss.
* There is no support for displaying a map or outline of the track you've covered for navigation. There is a rudimentary "back to start" functionality that gives you an arrow pointing back.
* 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|V̇O<sub>2</sub>max]] 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.
* If you're not wearing a Heart Rate Monitor, the estimate of calories burned while running is overinflated.
=Comparison Table=
{{:Best Running Watch-table}}
The {{Polar M400}} is a disappointing watch, with poor GPS accuracy and no support for [[Cadence]]. Even at its low price point it I don't think it offers good value for money. It's quite possible that Polar will address some of these issues with firmware upgrades, but for now I'd avoid it. If you're after a midrange GPS watch, I'd suggest looking at the [[Garmin 610]]. While it's an older watch, it offers far more features than the M400. The Garmin 220 is more expensive, but offers better functionality.
[[File:Polar M400.jpg|none|thumb|200px|The {{Polar M400}}.]]
=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.
* 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 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]]. 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 has lost over a mile. This is the worst a level of error I've seen, even worse than the [[Garmin 620]] before Garmin fixed their problems with a Firmware upgrade.
** It looks like Polar are using a different GPS chipset in the M400. The V800 uses the SiRF chipset, where the M400 uses [http://www.u-blox.com/en u-blox].
** I have seen the Polar M400 losing satellite signal with the message "There's no GPS signal". This occurred under conditions where another device is doing fine and there are not circumstances that would cause a problem.
** The accuracy you might see with the M400 on your runs may vary from my testing. If you look at the [[Detailed Statistics for GPS Running Watches| detailed statistics]] you'll see that the M400 does quite well in straight lines. This is true of nearly all GPS watches, as running in a straight line is not difficult, and even here the M400 does worse than most devices.
* The second major problem with the M400 is the lack of support for [[Cadence]]. To me, this is unforgivable as Cadence is a critical aspect of running. I could even argue that it's the most important feature of a running watch. Even though the M400 has an internal accelerometer, this is not used to display cadence. Cadence may become supported in the future, but even then the options here are currently quite limited.
* 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. I'm assuming the M400 does the offline calculation, as Polar claims acquisition "as fast as in 10 second" and validity for up to 3 days, which matches the u-blox figures for offline mode.
* The M400 uses Bluetooth sensors rather than the more common Ant+, limiting the choice and quality of sensors.
* 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.)
* There is no vibration alert, something I miss.
* There is no support for displaying a map or outline of the track you've covered for navigation. There is a rudimentary "back to start" functionality that gives you an arrow pointing back.
* 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|V̇O<sub>2</sub>max]] 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.
* If you're not wearing a Heart Rate Monitor, the estimate of calories burned while running is overinflated.
=Comparison Table=
{{:Best Running Watch-table}}
