Garmin 305 Review by Nancy Toby

Testing the Garmin Forerunner 305

My training buddy David kindly let me borrow his Garmin Forerunner 305 ($247 and up) and I tested it out on our local high school track. It's a wrist unit that combines readings for time, position via GPS, and heart rate (with chest strap). I was able to get it up and running quickly with just a few glances through the manual.

I put it on the "running" setting, wore it over to the track, started up the timer and ran a mile (4 laps), walked a quarter mile (1 lap), reversed, ran a mile including three 50-yard pickups, and walked a quarter mile.

Loading the data analysis program onto my computer was seamless and I was able to look at the charts (YAY! CHARTS!) of my workout easily within five minutes:

First impressions:

• Manuals and setup are surprisingly easy and user-friendly.
• The wrist unit feels a bit big and clunky, but I could get used to it.
• There is some 50 feet of play in the position data, even though I ran in the same inner lane every lap.
• Total distance ran a bit high - distances measured around the track ranged from 0.25 miles to 0.28 miles. It probably would work better in straight-line running. It really got mad when I reversed on the track.
• The heart rate meter was a little flaky at times (notice some anomalous readings in the red line, plus it started beeping at me for low heart rate once while walking), although it did find the 3 brief periods of elevated heart rate in the pickups I did in my last 3 running laps (while the pace data was too variable to pick out these increases).
• The pace readings were a little high because the unit was measuring distance about 6% long.

Still, it was fun to play with (I love CHARTS! Even though it seems to auto-calculate the axes to include the anomalous data spikes, and they don't seem to be user-scalable) and I think it would be helpful for heart-rate based training - especially for running on local roads and doing followup post-run data analysis. I also think it would be fun to use during races. There are tons of features that I haven't tried yet - like the virtual running partner to help you pace yourself with, or using it on the bike. I wish it were waterproof enough to use during pool swims or open water swims, too.

I may just buy one for myself as a reward toy for reaching a weight loss goal. But that will have to wait a while until I actually reach said goal, about 25 pounds from now.

Would you like to read more from The Nancinator?  You can find her at Nancy Toby's: Run Big!

Comments

[sascha]

Yeah, I hate my Garmin 301. Like you said, the heart rate monitor is flaky, the heart rate strap is like something out of a torture chamber and the wrist unit is the size of a Volkwagon. The mileage is never even close to correct either and you lose GPS signal when someone looks at your crosseyed. The only improvement I see here is that the wrist unit is a bit smaller. I'll take my Polar footpod technology calibrated against the track any day.

[Gavin Nunns]

I used the Timex GPS system for a while and have gone back to my trusty polar 625 with a footpod.

GPS tends to be heavy and unreliable. Saying that testing GPS around a track and comparing it to a foot pod is a little harsh on the gps system because due to the sampling rate when you are making a lot of turns the distance traveled can be completely out of wack.

[SimplyStu]

I'm so surprised when people say the GPS is not accurate. I have done 100's of runs and bikes with it and it is almost always spot on. I did five 1/2 marathons and was always inside of 1/10th of a mile at the worst. I just love my FR 301. It is my best pal. I guess for flat out track and speed work I might agree, but for longer bikes and runs it is just spot on. I have a few routes I have put markers on and I'm always inside of 5 or 6 steps. Maybe I live under big satellites in Wisconsin??? :)

[ShirleyPerly aka Humble Triathlete]

I too am a big fan of GPS. I've run a lot of marathons all over the U.S. (incl. Alaska and Hawaii) and have gotten very good results from my trusty old Garmin Forerunner 201. In general, the results have been within .2 to .3 miles of 26.2 but I know I don't always run the course the way it's measured and sometimes the courses have sharp turnarounds that will introduce errors.

I have had problems acquiring satellite signals when in heavy treed areas or amongst lots of very tall buildings. This was a problem at the start of one race because there was no data to deadreckon with. Otherwise, occasional signal losses during a course of 26.2 miles have not mattered much to me.

TBH, I wouldn't expect GPS technology to work well on a track.

[Nancy Toby]

We have another older GPS unit, but until this year a lot of my run training took place on a rail-trail underneath power lines, or in wooded areas - and the GPS signal was always wacky there. At least I had a signal this time!

[alloneync]

ENTER HERE
http://fghh.info/videoarhive.html

Some free videos:
[url=http://fghh.info/1.html][img]http://fghh.info/img/27.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://fghh.info/2.html][img]http://fghh.info/img/115.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://fghh.info/2.html][img]http://fghh.info/img/9.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://fghh.info/4.html][img]http://fghh.info/img/117.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://fghh.info/3.html][img]http://fghh.info/img/100.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://fghh.info/6.html][img]http://fghh.info/img/76.jpg[/img][/url]