Garmin GPS

A tip to those who experience spotty signal and poor measurements with the X05 series: make sure you've acquired a strong signal before you press Start. If you're locked on to more than 3 satellites you'll have a better signal, and better data. I usually leave my device outside to acquire signal for 5 minutes while I'm getting ready for my run.

measure 4 measure wrote:

this is what gives Garmin owners a bad name - measuring your run on a track - duh! Do you measure your logs when you take a dump?

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I took it to the track out of curiosity to see how accurate it was.

On other occasions, such as the last time I had it at the track, friends wanted to see how it worked and whether it was accurate.

The track is a poor place to test out its accuracy due to the frequent turns. GPS technology works by adding up the distances between points. This naturally functions much better on a straighter course.

Check out deals online. I just got my 305 for under $210 and it's awesome. Definitely an upgrade over the 205. Strong signal reception. The only beef I have is that it's harder to customize your workouts for distances that would require it...example, you can't set it to run 1000m repeats because it won't let you set your interval distance to .625, only .62. Not that huge of a deal unless you're anal like me.

Ivan wrote:

Check out deals online. I just got my 305 for under $210 and it's awesome. Definitely an upgrade over the 205. Strong signal reception. The only beef I have is that it's harder to customize your workouts for distances that would require it...example, you can't set it to run 1000m repeats because it won't let you set your interval distance to .625, only .62. Not that huge of a deal unless you're anal like me.

A kilo is closer to .62 than .625 anyway...but, that extra digit would let the precision-hungry folks get that much more out of it. Personally, I liked using metric.

I used the Garmin 305 to set up three seperate trail race courses and numerous other running and the piece worked so well! I loved it. I used my friends watch, but now I am thinking about getting the 205, since I don't need the HRM. Good feedback from everyone thus far.

Ivan wrote: it won't let you set your interval distance to .625, only .62. Not that huge of a deal unless you're anal like me.

I assume the entire market for these wrist computers is people who are anal like you. Which works out well enough, since that's a hell of a lot of runners these days judging by this board.

Thanks for all the imput, I think I will try to find a 205 online since I don't need a HR monitor, and that seems to be the only advantage to the 205. I think in an ideal world I would just go out and run until I felt it was enough, no watch or measured route, and work-out or run harder whenever I felt good on a run, kinda make up a workout spur of the moment. But I must admit the technology intrigues me and I think it will be fun to see my pace at an exact moment and compare that to what I would normally feel like I was running.

Well worth buying and an excellent training tool if you use it properly. From my experience about a half of owners do not use (or know about) all the functions. Best advice is to read the instruction book and find out exactly what you can do. The best function is virtual partner where you set your time or distance and pace and you keep up with the display virtual partner. This is excellent for threshold runs and helps you run at even pace. When you race with this function just programme in your goal pace and run it evenly and watch all those fast starters disappear into the distance only to reappear a few miles later. IMHO A Garmin + Dr Daniels Running Formula is an unbeatable combination.

205 or 305??? wrote: I think it will be fun to see my pace at an exact moment and compare that to what I would normally feel like I was running.

Hey, seriously for a moment (though I also seriously am kinda anti-tech when it comes to running) - get the Garmin if you think you'll dig it. Who am I to talk anyone out of it.

But be aware "instantaneous pace" is not going to be very accurate. It's the one feature I'd find intriguing, but I understand it's pretty unreliable without "smoothing" which makes it no longer your instantaneous pace but rather your average over X time period. I suspect if you really want to know your pace right now probably the foot pod accelerometer doodads do a better job of that than the GPS ones.

Maybe some users can confirm or deny.

I am using the 205, it's very much lighter than the older models. i feel like it fits well on the wrist also. i've had it work very well, great battery life and it is as accurate as claimed.

i like it very very much!!

Thanks for the 2 posters who mentioned Sport Tracks. I downloaded it and I'm loving it!

So "smoothing" is a setting they have in an attempt to give you a more accurate pace reading? How inaccurate is the instantaneous pace? Are there different interval settings for "smoothing"? If anyone has some insight to this that would be great. I must admit it would sure be nice to have a device that would allow me to do tempo runs on random trails or fields without having to find accurate sectioned roads or bike path mile markers.

Good luck with that, scarecrow.

if Haile can use one and find it useful, then seems like a good idea to me.

in fact, many elites use these---keep in mind, they are not 100% accurate, but a good tool to use for things like tempo runs and marathon pace work

will wrote:

that extra digit would let the precision-hungry folks get that much more out of it.

Having that extra digit would be useless, since it is no where near that accurate. For any run longer than a mile, they might as well drop the hundredths digit as well.

FYI..... wrote:

if Haile can use one and find it useful, then seems like a good idea to me.

in fact, many elites use these---keep in mind, they are not 100% accurate, but a good tool to use for things like tempo runs and marathon pace work

Sure they do. I'm sure Haile and many other elites have tried on a fannypack at one time or another, too.

dukerdog wrote:

will wrote:

that extra digit would let the precision-hungry folks get that much more out of it.

Having that extra digit would be useless, since it is no where near that accurate. For any run longer than a mile, they might as well drop the hundredths digit as well.

If you haven't noticed, they're not that concerned with accuracy, otherwise they wouldn't use a flawed technology to begin with. It offers a nice sense of precision without actually giving it. It's just a tradeoff.

please dont squeeze the garmin wrote:

But be aware "instantaneous pace" is not going to be very accurate. It's the one feature I'd find intriguing, but I understand it's pretty unreliable without "smoothing" which makes it no longer your instantaneous pace but rather your average over X time period. I suspect if you really want to know your pace right now probably the foot pod accelerometer doodads do a better job of that than the GPS ones.

Maybe some users can confirm or deny.

I can confirm. I never ever use the "instantaneous pace" fields. It is notoriously inaccurate in the few times I've tested it.

For me, the last mile split is all the feedback I need anyway.