Considering a garmin

I have the 305 and it's good. Good coverage in wooded areas and it's nearly dead on. As long as you don't mind the size, id recommend it. Most people I know who have a garmin have this model.

Although recently, after about 6 months of ownership, sometimes it doesn't turn on. It works the next day but maybe once every 2 weeks, it just doesn't work.

That being said, I would still recommend it

+1 for FR305

I have a 305 and use it mostly when I have to travel for work. I'd say it's amazingly accurate - at the very least it is as accurate as you seem to want it to be. I am not particularly anal about distances, etc, though- I never wear a watch unless I am doing a workout or I need the Garmin to know how far I have run. It's nice to be able to get an accurate tempo in on some random road you've never run on before. I've never had trouble in the woods, either.

The only annoying part about the Garmin is waiting for it to find the frikking satellites before you start running. Other than that, it's pretty handy. I can't comment on its durability, really, because even though I have had it for a few months I only use it 1-2x/week.

I smell a bit of a troll. I apologize if I am incorrect!

Thanks for all the replies! The 305 sounds good then. My only other concern is battery life...something that makes the 310XT sound good. But is the 310XT also more accurate?

yadot333 wrote:

I smell a bit of a troll. I apologize if I am incorrect!

Believe it or not, I'm actually not. The other garmin related threads on the main page made me think about asking the question, though.

I have used one for a number of years; add 2-3% to each mile has been my experience. 5.15 miles garmin = 5 miles actual.

Jzs wrote:

I have used one for a number of years; add 2-3% to each mile has been my experience. 5.15 miles garmin = 5 miles actual.

I tested my garmin by running around a track on the inside lane and it came to 402m, which considering i wasn't hugging the inside of the lane is pretty accurate. It's really consistent on runs and even when it loses signal in the woods it catches up quickly and the distance is still accurate. The pace isn't reliable though, it usually gives me a maximum pace of about 3.30/mile in the woods where it loses signal and then compensates to catch up.

wowser wrote:

Jzs wrote:

I have used one for a number of years; add 2-3% to each mile has been my experience. 5.15 miles garmin = 5 miles actual.

I tested my garmin by running around a track on the inside lane and it came to 402m, which considering i wasn't hugging the inside of the lane is pretty accurate. It's really consistent on runs and even when it loses signal in the woods it catches up quickly and the distance is still accurate. The pace isn't reliable though, it usually gives me a maximum pace of about 3.30/mile in the woods where it loses signal and then compensates to catch up.

What about on trails with lots of curves/switchbacks etc?

baby nats wrote:

Thanks for all the replies! The 305 sounds good then. My only other concern is battery life...something that makes the 310XT sound good. But is the 310XT also more accurate?

The 310XT is not more accurate, but it is waterproof.

I would advise against getting a Garmin GPS unit for what you need. In fact, I think that most people who get them do so only because "GPS" sounds so nice. For most people, an accelerometer based system (other than Nike +, which is not as accurate) is a better idea.

An accelerometer based watch, mainly the Garmin FR60 or Suunto t3c Running Pack:

1. Costs far less ($200-270 with heart rate)

2. Doesn't need to be recharged every few runs

3. Is at least as accurate as GPS (each has its own types of inaccuracy, but both are at least 99% accurate, especially if calibrated)

4. Are waterproof

5. Aren't huge

buy a garmin 305 and you won't regret it. they are on sale until sunday at best buy for $129

lower end garmins, nike's stuff, etc are pedometer not accelerometer.

Garmin 305 is very accurate, but has a few design flaws, (speaker holes in the back are not waterproof, so over time they die due to sweat build up, generalization of course) but with that being said if it is under a year old they will replace it for free, and if it's over a year old its only 80 bucks to replace aka "repair".

The battery life is great, a full charge will last me 4 to 5 hours, i run 2 hours a day, so i only charge it every 2nd or 3rd day so the 310xt probably isn't needed unless your an ultra guy.

Dollar for Dollar i can not think of a better investment, becuase my first Garmin lasted me 2 years. I paid 150 bucks for it through Walmart, and i have used it for every run. Compare that to the price of shoes or anything else we runners buy, and cent per mile it beats them all hands down.

It makes you go a little OCD but when I travel out of town or even go exploring in town, its nice to know I'm still putting in the same amount of mileage/pace. Also if I go for a bike ride or hike it also has it's place.

If used correctly it can sharpen your Kung Fu, meaning if you run by feel, and only look at pace for gee wiz information, you start to know what your paces feel like, and over time your pace will drop but your exertion feels the same, which is a good sign of fitness.

With that you can go to the dark side and run every run at the same pace no matter how hot, windy, how many cheeseburgers you ate, or how much you slept last night, and if you fall into that kind of runner, well it probably won't work out for you.

Right now the 305 is so cheap, it would be foolish to pass it up if your interested.

It's been a reliable tool.

Posted NYCM @ 26.22. Amazing considering the buildings and bridges.

It only bugs me that I paid $279 for a 305 around 2 years ago.

rankler wrote:

An accelerometer based watch, mainly the Garmin FR60 or Suunto t3c Running Pack:

1. Costs far less ($200-270 with heart rate)

2. Doesn't need to be recharged every few runs

3. Is at least as accurate as GPS (each has its own types of inaccuracy, but both are at least 99% accurate, especially if calibrated)

4. Are waterproof

5. Aren't huge

It would be nice to see an objective review of one of these acceleration-based devices. It is very difficult to measure distance from acceleration data, so I am dubious about statement #3.

dukerdog wrote:

rankler wrote:

An accelerometer based watch, mainly the Garmin FR60 or Suunto t3c Running Pack:

1. Costs far less ($200-270 with heart rate)

2. Doesn't need to be recharged every few runs

3. Is at least as accurate as GPS (each has its own types of inaccuracy, but both are at least 99% accurate, especially if calibrated)

4. Are waterproof

5. Aren't huge

It would be nice to see an objective review of one of these acceleration-based devices. It is very difficult to measure distance from acceleration data, so I am dubious about statement #3.

Thanks everyone for the help. No, I'm not an ultra guy so it's probably not worth it to get the 310xt. I borrowed a 405 to try on some trails yesterday (they're MTB trails so they have constant changes in elevation and switchbacks underneath heavy foliage). I think the terrain/foliage threw off the mileage/pace - i think it cut off a lot of corners while underneath the foliage because both the pace was low and mileage took forever to go up - but when I was running on the same trail (very similar terrain) through sections of the trail with a clear view of the sky, my pace suddenly dropped down to 6:45-7:15 from 8:15 or so. I would have expected to be around 7:00-7:15/mi on average - I ran what should have been 10 miles on the trails and the 405 showed it to be around 8.6. I'm pretty sure the garmin is wrong in this case, but luckily these trails are marked (the MTBers measured them using their bikes...).

Either in this case, the 405 was inaccurate, or I'm just much much slower than I think! Or a combination. I have borrowed the 405 before and had much better results on roads and on the C&O canal - which also usually has a much better view of the sky.

I apologize for the poor grammar/run-on sentences, but I'm at work and need to get some stuff done. Also, it's early and the coffee hasn't hit me yet.

The 405 is accurate enough to certify a course.

RunnGuru wrote:

The 405 is accurate enough to certify a course.

Now THAT is trolling.

Smart approach by the way. When you hijack another thread it's slightly less obvious than when you start your own.

5 / 10

What you are describing is one major advantage that accelerometers have over GPS. GPS is NOT good at providing real-time pace (I have many, many examples of this- I work at a run shop with a very heavy Garmin saturation among our customers and this is by far the most common complaint). Suunto t3c, Polar RS300SD, Garmin FR60 are much better at providing real time pace.

Accelerometers, on roads and other relatively flat surfaces, are just as accurate as GPS in my experience. Give or take .2 miles for a 15 mile run. On trails and on extremely hilly terrain (anything that will force you to change your stride), the accelerometers are not as accurate. Not terrible, just not as accurate. To be fair, GPS isn\'t exactly stellar under those conditions either.