Garmin GPS

Depends on where you train. I owned a 205 but whenever I ran in the woods, it would always lose the GPS signal and beep all the time. I ended up not using it anymore and am looking to ebay it sometime. I'm unsure if the 305 update has improved this. Also, the 205 is quite heavy and my college teammates always bugged me about it. They called it my bomb...lol.

you need to figure out if you need hart rate bcause if not then you do not need the 305. And yes the GPS signal is much better on the 05 series.

I have the 305, love it, definitely worth the money. Any question, ask.

Aren't the 201 and 301 the alpha and beta versions without heart rate stuff while the 205 and 305 are the versions with the heart rate stuff? Isn't it the 300 series that is the new series that has better reception in the woods? Remember, you said to ask-

201 & 301 are the older series. The 301 (older) and 305 (newer) are the heart rate monitors. My friend has the 201 and it takes batteries (double or triple As) where the newer models you plug into an outlet to charge up, like a cellphone. That alone would sell me on the newer models.

205 or 305??? wrote:

Was it worth the money?

No, what the hell is the point of having an odometer?

Make sure the one you get will coordinate with your fanny pack.

I still have a 201. You can get them now for about 100 bucks or less. It is worth the money. If you don't care abgout the heart rate monitoring, you can skip the 2 upper models.

The 201 does not have batteries. It keeps a decent signal through moderate conditions (woods and buildings).

I get a kick out of people who are put off by the technology. Why the odomoeter?

Because we get tired of running the same measured routes year after year.

Because we don't like to round up our mileage

Because we sometimes like to know how fast/slow we ran instead of estimating.

I don't think it is too heavy or bulky...and I don't think it clashes with my fanny pack, fuel belt, snack bag, and gel bottles.

The 305 is great, albeit expensive. I had the first model out and it worked great as long as there weren't any obstructions. The 305 is better at tracking satellites, I believe it tracks more of them than the original. The only problem is that sometimes it takes awhile to lock on once you first start it. Once on it holds on. Oftentimes, when I have it inside my house, it holds onto the signal even while I have it charging in its cradle. It is infinitely better in that regard. It still has the inevitable problem with RF interference if you run along/under high voltage wires. It is pretty nice. With all of the time I spend/invest in training, why not invest in something that will break up some of the boredom some of the time.

I bought a Forerunner 205 this summer online (Amazon.com shop) for $168 shipped. I've had it now for almost two months.

I absoluetly love it. I live in a small town about 90 miles North of Houston. It has great signal, and I do most of my runs in a State Park or on Forrest trails. The signal is always pretty strong (around 20 ft) and I've ran this Forrest trails through very cloudy and rainy conditions. I just almost as good of a signal as when I go back to my parent's house in Houston.

As far as it's size, it is bulky but it's light. I have a very skinny wrist and honestly the watch doesn't bother me at all. I like that you can charge it up through USB connection or plugging it into the wall. And being able to download your runs to your computer and see everything there is really neat. All in all, if you're putting in high mileage then this is a great device to have. Very helpful if you're like me and do a lot of running on unmarked roads. This is a better way to get an idea how far you are running rather than just guessing off of time or getting in your car and measuring a distance. The price is right, it's definitely a great investment if you're running a lot of miles and would like to get a good reading of distance how far you are running every time.

As far as I know the Forerunner 305 is the exact same as the 205 only with a heart rate monitor hook up. But the instructional manual is the exact same for both of them. Anymore questions I'll do my best to answer.

get the 305.. there is a 50 dollar rebate floating around on powerbar.com.. search for it.

I guess I'll be the only negative here: an athlete of mine bought me a 305 and it worked moderately well for about 5 months. The reception (middle of Dallas) was okay, but much spottier than I thought a device that costs several hundred dollars should. After a few months of very light workouts (3 days a week - 20 minutes a day) it gave up the ghost. Had I paid money, I would have been livid. I give it a 3 of 5. Had I paid for it: 2 of 5.

201 wrote:

I get a kick out of people who are put off by the technology. Why the odomoeter?

Because we get tired of running the same measured routes year after year.

Because we don't like to round up our mileage

Because we sometimes like to know how fast/slow we ran instead of estimating.

Who said I was put off by it, besides you? I just question the necessity. What difference has it really made where it counts?

I have the 305, although I rarely use the HRM. It works great even on trail runs. You can do tempo runs on roads or trails. It's way off (maybe 80 meters short of a mile) on a track, but that's apparently due to the turns, so I use a standard (lighter) watch for that.

I solved the tough-to-get-a-signal issue by simply putting it outside a few minutes before I head out.

In addition to the software it comes with, I downloaded SportTracks software, which lets you do all sorts of cool things, including getting 1/4 mile splits on long runs.

I'm on my 4th Forerunner 305.

It is really cool when it works.

After about one year of use on each one, they simply die.

I firmly believe this is a poorly designed (i.e. bad) product.

The folks from Garmin used to be nice, but are no longer so when I call them (when I finally get through after the 35 minute wait). They've tried to explain away the failures with some bullshit about using it in the rain (which I do not). Something about the unit being designed to be submersible, but that raindrops are pressurized and will thus cause the unit to malfunction. They actually said this!!

Like I said, when it works, it is a really cool and useful product, but its design (as it relates to durability) is a failure.

When this one dies (which I know it will), if Garmin does not replace it again, free of charge, I'm done.

If you don't believe ME, go to the Garmin boards and see for yourself--there are countless other stories that sound just like mine.

201 wrote:

I still have a 201. You can get them now for about 100 bucks or less. It is worth the money. If you don't care abgout the heart rate monitoring, you can skip the 2 upper models.

The 201 does not have batteries. It keeps a decent signal through moderate conditions (woods and buildings).

I get a kick out of people who are put off by the technology. Why the odomoeter?

Because we get tired of running the same measured routes year after year.

Because we don't like to round up our mileage

Because we sometimes like to know how fast/slow we ran instead of estimating.

I don't think it is too heavy or bulky...and I don't think it clashes with my fanny pack, fuel belt, snack bag, and gel bottles.

How long can you expect the 201 to last? I have had mine for about a year now and the LCD readout is getting really faded. This is even off a fresh charge. Is there anything I can do or is this about par for the course? Thanks.

jpgarland wrote:

It's way off (maybe 80 meters short of a mile) on a track, but that's apparently due to the turns, so I use a standard (lighter) watch for that.

I solved the tough-to-get-a-signal issue by simply putting it outside a few minutes before I head out.

On several different occasions, I've taken my 201 to the track. I set it to meters and went around the track. The last time I did it, the unit read 399 meters. I figure that's close enough. The biggest difference I ever saw on one lap was 6 meters, and I had run around someone hogging lane one. Most of the time, it's within 1-3 meters on a 400m track

I also set it outside to get its signal when I use it. In addition, I've found that I get a better signal when I wear it on my upper arm instead of my wrist. It's obviously much harder to read that way, but that's a good thing for me as I tend to race my training if I'm using a watch.

I've never used any of the interval timers although they look interesting.

Do not waste your money on a 201 or 301. The difference in sensitivity between those and the 205/305 is night and day. The 205 can track you walking around inside your house. The chipset is that good. I've never had a problem anywhere with it, not even in the woods.

If you think you will do a lot of HRM training then get the 305. Personally I have the 205 and that's all I need. It is the most useful training tool I have ever owned, outside of my shoes and I've been running competitively for 25 years. It's so useful that when I lost the one I had, I went right out and bought another. I love being able to do marathon-paced runs anywhere while actually being able to KNOW my pace while I'm running.

If you get the 205/305, don't bother with Training Center Software. Download a free program called "SportTracks" here

http://www.zonefivesoftware.com/SportTracks/

It gives you your maps on Google Maps, not on the terrible ones that come with the Garmin software.

soccer fan wrote:

On several different occasions, I've taken my 201 to the track. I set it to meters and went around the track. The last time I did it, the unit read 399 meters. I figure that's close enough. The biggest difference I ever saw on one lap was 6 meters, and I had run around someone hogging lane one. Most of the time, it's within 1-3 meters on a 400m track

All I can say is that I've used the 305 on 2 different tracks, one completely in the open and one squarish one with some buildings nearby, and both show me short about 80 meters/1600. If you're using it for a tempo run on a track, you can calibrate it and make the pacing adjustment (such as adding 10 secs. to what it says).