Considering a garmin

Unfortunately, not in my area :(

runr over wrote:

umm wrote:

Try looking around online for coupons and discounts. I once found this ridiculous deal off of Costco.com. The Forerunner 305 was knocked down to just about half the price, and then I found a coupon for a $50 dollar rebate! I ended up spending only $120 to get it... not to mention, this is the Forerunner 305 that came with the heart rate monitor. I have had it for 2 years now and it's been as consistent as I could've ever hoped for. It was a worthy investment.

I love my Garmin Forerunner. fyi, the 305, model w heart rate, is on sale this week at Best Buy for $129

In certified 5k-10k road races, my garmin 205/305 is maybe 0.02-0.05 mi long in the 5K and less than 0.08 mi in the 10K, although I don't have alot of comparative data. The difference includes both gps error and runner error. But the Garmin is always long.

Accuracy drops off in the woods on trails, especially NE mtb trails which are very, very curvy. The gps just isn't accurate enough to capture these and the 1s feature doesn't matter (the error is in pinpointing location). The error is a combination of the trees and the curviness of the trails. Regardless, there is no real distance along a trail. A bike wheel will measure small ups and downs that a runner doesn't see, plus running trails (at least technical ones) often requires lots of sideways motion to avoid roots, rocks, holes, mud, etc. I think the gps is actually short on these but it's hard to verify with something else (see bike wheel issue). Use the gps to give you a number but don't be obsessive over the accuracy.

[quote]Alben W. Barkley wrote:

Wow, amazing, thanks a million for taking the time to answer so thoroughly and knowledgeably! One last thing, do you happen to know much about the Tech4o Accelerator watches from Silva?

[quote]

Tested one of those too. The Tech4o watch does use an accelerometer, but not in the way you'd think. It measured acceleration of your arm and uses that to count arm-swings, thus indirectly counting strides. Then it multiplies by an approximate stride length. Essentially, it's a step-count pedometer on your wrist.

talent evaluator wrote:

I kid you not, if you look closely you can see Anthony Edwards and Robert Carradine wearing Garmins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3njjD41f48

Nooooooooooooooo, but thanks for the clip. Yes, I am a bit of a nerd. Just fine with it.

I don't own a Garmin or any other type of watch that measures distance, etc, but one of my training buddies has used both a Garmin and a Suunto with an accelerator. He said the accelerator was far more accurate on trails than the GPS unit, especially if the trail had a lot of switchbacks.

Again, I don't have personal experience with either but that's what he told me.

What do people think about the 405 in comp to 305?

I have used just about every Garmin GPS that has come along, and I have found that they have consistently improved with each update. Satellite tracking time has decreased and accuracy has improved. I agree completely with Middle Professor about the accuracy of the units in races. I have worn both the 405 and now the 310XT in numerous certified 5K and 5M race courses and they always track .01-.02 miles long (total) over 5K and about .02-.04 over 5M. I have never been sure if this is due to a Garmin issue, or due to the fact that I am not precisely running the measured course route. I am more than satisfied, however, with this level of accuracy. The nice thing about the new 310XT is that battery life is truly exceptional. Since I run before dawn, I always leave the backup light on and I still find myself getting a good 13-14 hours from it. The 405 needs to be charged far more often. The 405 also has a real problem with sweat and humidity and the bezel is truly worthless under these conditions. You have to lock the bezel and then the utility of the unit is more limited than with the 310XT. The 405 is lighter, however, and generally more comfortable to wear.

There is no question that dense foliage overhead will interfere with tracking, so if you anticipate doing a lot of trail running in wooded areas, you will be covering more distance than the Garmin indicates. It does attempt to make up for poor tracking when there is a break in the coverage overhead, so you will see your pace pick up suddenly at times when satellite tracking resumes, though I always get a boost from seeing my pace drop to 6:00/ mile when I know I am nowhere near that. It reminds me of a time when I truly could run that fast on a training run! On especially winding trails then, it will not track so well, shortening the distance more than you actually have run since corners will be cut off. It thinks you have run a straight line.

The real value, however, to me of GPS is that we all have our favorite running routes that we do each week. I find my Garmin tracks these precisely week after week, so that the comparisons you can do are quite realistic and valuable in assessing your fitness level over time. The various other devices that are available like the foot pods, etc., which can be accurately calibrated, I have found often need to be recalibrated from time to time. It may be a few days before you realize that something is not quite right and go ahead and recalibrate. Also, everyone tends to calibrate on a treadmill, which is really inaccurate, or on a fairly flat measured course. If you then run on a trail or hilly route, inaccuracy creeps into the measurements, far more than occurs with GPS. I much prefer the accuracy of GPS, which has its faults, but seems to me to be more reliable and consistent overall.

Thank you for all of that! Have you tried the 405CX? is that more accurate? Why does it cost $100 more?

I have not used the 405CX. As far as I can tell, Garmin claims that the 405CX is "more accurate," though accuracy has never been an issue for me with the 405, having used it all over the United States during my travels. They also added a comfort strap for smaller wrists. I know several women who complained about the 405 in that it could not be tightened sufficiently. When it bounced around, the bezel would go crazy unless locked (you have to wear one of these to know what all that means, but it makes the unit pretty inoperable and can last for a few minutes, even with the watch dried and off your wrist). There is also supposed to be a better calorie counter (not exactly my highest priority). I think that's about it. Not worth 100 dollars.

By the way, there has been some concern about the heart rate monitors with the Garmin. I have used both the older version and the new soft strap model and both have worked fine for me. The soft monitor, with a smaller plastic section, is far more comfortable.

The Tech4o costs quite a bit less (obviously sans HRM, but I don't really see much use for HR) than the Garmin FR50/60 and the Suunto t3c; is the performance better, worse, or about on a par with those two?

rankler wrote:

[quote]Alben W. Barkley wrote:

Wow, amazing, thanks a million for taking the time to answer so thoroughly and knowledgeably! One last thing, do you happen to know much about the Tech4o Accelerator watches from Silva?

[quote]

Tested one of those too. The Tech4o watch does use an accelerometer, but not in the way you'd think. It measured acceleration of your arm and uses that to count arm-swings, thus indirectly counting strides. Then it multiplies by an approximate stride length. Essentially, it's a step-count pedometer on your wrist.

If you know anything about step-count pedometers, you would know it's not even close. We're talking 98-99% accuracy for t3c or FR60, compared to 90% accuracy AT BEST for a step-count pedometer.

Thanks once again for the elucidation!

No problemo.