Garmin 405 reviews?

Garmin wrote:

Will it work in fairly wooded trails?

...Unless they improved it then no. (Ive had mine for a year and a half) It still works but it is definitely not accurate in the trails. It also messes up in the rain/snow so I never wear it then (even when its slightly precipitating) but other than that it works really good out by my house (country roads) and even in the city (I go to college in Louisville,KY)... I'd say it is a good purchase/gift.

Second. Generally it underestimates the distance traveled by 1% or more, but that's still a pain in the ass.

For sure. I LOVE mine.

It DOES work in the rain and snow, and when it si cloudy. It works on most trails, but might cut the distance short if you take extremely sharp turns frequently at a fast pace.

good

Cool. I'm excited to get it going. Most of my runs are road, but I have one trail run I do that I have been dying to know the distance on. Figure it won't be any more off then my estimation has been.

Thanks for the feedback guys. My wife wasn't sure if I would like it, and quite honestly, I wasn't sure she should have spent the $300 on it or whatever, but it now sounds like a solid purchase.

I've been using a 405 since July. As others have mentioned, if you are running routes with a lot of cover overhead (e.g., forests, tall buildings etc) accuracy can suffer. But for situations where there's good line of sight with satellites I've found it to be very accurate (e.g., within 50 metres on an accurately measured 10k course). I never have a problem with the bezel in wet conditions as I just lock it before I set out.

Get the 310XT. Incredieble battery life without the whacked out bezil.

Is within 50 meters really all that good? I mean, if I'm tempoing at 5:20 pace, that will put one mile at 5:10 and another at 5:30... pretty significant difference that could definitely mess you up.

I think I'll probably end up using it just to get a relatively accurate measurement for easy days and not rely on it for splits on a tempo or intervals or anything.

Fair assessment?

Love it... won't run without it anymore.

I run about 50% trails and 50% roads and i think it works great on both. I live in socal though so there aren't a whole lot of trees on the trails that I run.

I have been demoing a 405 from the store where I work and I have not been overly pleased. I feel that if there is any cloud cover or medium foliage overhead, then the accuracy is severely weakened. It constantly reads a little on the short side unless the sky is completely clear.

It has some really nice features, however, I haven't been totally happy using the product. I find myself constantly frustrated while using it especially when attempting a tempo run and relying on its fluctuating accuracy.

And the percent accuracy feature is a joke. How can you prove the accuracy of something with the thing you are proving the accuracy of?

I was a lot happier with the FR 60. The accelerometer is at the very least consistent. Even without calibrating our store's demo model, I found that it was within .03 miles per mile when I took it to the track. Does this change in different environments? I am not sure, but it seems a hell of a lot more consistent than the GPS. And it is a lot cheaper.

I dont know what kind of clouds and trees some of you have, but I take my 405 on runs in snow, light rain, and through canyon areas that are very tight with no reception issues.

Garmin wrote:

Is within 50 meters really all that good? I mean, if I'm tempoing at 5:20 pace, that will put one mile at 5:10 and another at 5:30... pretty significant difference that could definitely mess you up.

I think I'll probably end up using it just to get a relatively accurate measurement for easy days and not rely on it for splits on a tempo or intervals or anything.

Fair assessment?

I'm also wondering this, as I'm considering getting one just to get tempo splits on an unmarked bike trail...

Garmin wrote:

Is within 50 meters really all that good? I mean, if I'm tempoing at 5:20 pace, that will put one mile at 5:10 and another at 5:30... pretty significant difference that could definitely mess you up.

I think I'll probably end up using it just to get a relatively accurate measurement for easy days and not rely on it for splits on a tempo or intervals or anything.

Fair assessment?

I use a 305 and I'm pretty sure they have similar accuracies. On last night's tempo run, the Garmin was ticking off miles within a few feet of the mile marks on the path. Most people find it to be "good enough" for training. You just need to be careful if using it for racing and build in a cushion of a few seconds per mile or you'll find yourself behind pace. The Garmin will measure more race courses long and will therefor show your pace as faster than it really is. Still it's a great tool.

I have a 305 and have had no prob with reception in the woods or on any trails. I can even get a signal inside my apartment.

Garmin wrote:

Is within 50 meters really all that good? I mean, if I'm tempoing at 5:20 pace, that will put one mile at 5:10 and another at 5:30... pretty significant difference that could definitely mess you up.

I think I'll probably end up using it just to get a relatively accurate measurement for easy days and not rely on it for splits on a tempo or intervals or anything.

Fair assessment?

It is NOT good at pace. It is good at giving you run totals and that type of data, but the instantaneous readings like pace are very inconsistent. If you are running at 5:30 pace, readings swinging from 5:00 to 6:00 are not uncommon. By the end of your run, the total distance will even out and be very accurate though. You can improve this by changing some settings to make it update from the satellites more often, but it still isn't that great.

Accelerometer based tools (footpods) tend to be more accurate for instantaneous pace, but the small error will add up over the course of your run, so the total distance can be off. You can buy a footpod for the 405 to improve this.

Finally, if you have an HRM for your tempo runs, then your pace is rather irrelevant. You should have a HR zone to aim for, as that is way more accurate of a workout than pace. The 405 can then tell you how far/fast you ran that segment in (very accurate here because it is totals here, not instantaneous), and you can compare to see that you are improving over time. Quite frankly, the HRM part of the 405 is far more useful as a training tool than distance/pace when used properly.

if you dont lock the bezel before you head out into wet conditions it is a pain in the ass because the precipitation f***s it up. i know it was said already but it ticks me off because im lazy and forget to lock it.

I had a garmin a few years ago and it was fun to use but it conked out and I am more than happy to just mapmyrun when I get home and just guess on the mileage when I run trails.

What I did do is get a cheap heartrate watch at Wal-mart that you have to push the button with your finger while it is on the opposite wrist. (actually uses electro cardiogram)

I look at my heartrate every 10-20 minutes just to make sure I am running near the effort I want. It only takes a few runs to see what the different rates should be. For me, when I want to do an easy run, I make sure my heartrate never goes over 130. After a while, you can almost guess what your heartrate will be before you take it.

I run with the 305 and took it out a few weeks to a 10 mile trail loop we used to run in high school cross. Even with all the foliage (you can barely see the trail on google maps in the winter) the data field never ticked over 24 feet for accuracy.

OK,

My next question. How do you use this thing? Literally.

Go to GPS, turn it "on"?

Then go to training and click the start button?

When walking to work this morning I did just that, and it didn't output any distance (the timer was ticking but the Distance read 0.00).

A bit confused and the thing didn't come with very good directions...