running watch

shadowcreaper · 26 Oct 2009 at 18:35

hi all

I starting to get into my training and i need a running watch as i finding a normal time watch isnt good enough.

heres what i would like on the watch:

:Time(allways helps)
:distance i runnning
:min per mile
:not HUGE size dont want to carry a small pc on my wrist

also but not as important

: ability to set min per mile speed, with warning if i go below ect.
:memory of how fast i running a lap dont need that much memory.

Also any comments from yourselfs if you have any, is there a market leader that stands above rest ect?

Volcs · 26 Oct 2009 at 20:23

Couple of my mates use Garmin ones and are pleased with them - you're looking at £250-300 though for GPS tech.

firstborn · 26 Oct 2009 at 21:58

Garmin foreunner series, you can get the 205 for £140 which will do all you ask. I have a 305 and a 310XT as want a heart rate monitor

Volcs · 26 Oct 2009 at 22:24

Didn't know they'd dropped in price so much - I might be keen on one at that price.

shadowcreaper · 26 Oct 2009 at 23:28

i have seen the 205 my mate has one but is VERY big, and like he said its pretty unpleasant to do proper training with being such a large square size.

any others? 405 and other 405x thing look quite good.

Dolmio Chips · 27 Oct 2009 at 13:25

I've used the Forerunner 305 and now have the 405.

The 405 looks more like a normal watch than the massive 305 and seems to find the Satellites a lot quicker than the 305.

The bezel control system is a bit fiddly at first but is fine once you get used to it.

I would definitely recommend the 405, you can pick one up for under £180.

firstborn · 27 Oct 2009 at 13:51

shadowcreaper said:
i have seen the 205 my mate has one but is VERY big, and like he said its pretty unpleasant to do proper training with being such a large square size.

any others? 405 and other 405x thing look quite good.

Well then you're probably ruling out GPS based devices. The forerunner 50/60 is a lot smaller and get pace/distance info from a footpod, not as accurate as the GPS devices but accurate enough.

As for the 305/310 being very big and unpleasant to do 'proper training' with, the number of these devices you at the start of a race would point towards your mates experience being the exception rather than the norm.

[DOD]Asprilla · 27 Oct 2009 at 13:57

I've got a Forerunner 50 with HRM and Footpod & Mrs Aprilla has a Forerunner 405 with HRM. I've calibrated mine against her's and it's now accurate to about 5%. It was about 10% out when it came out of the box.

Without GPS that's about as accurate as you are going to get.

shadowcreaper · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:07

we talking a lot about garmin arent there any major brands/ ones that are as good if not better?

on GPS issue all the reviews i have seen state that the 305/310 isnt as accurate as the 405 as it has better gps signal, so seems the better than the 300s.

still trying to find others which proving hard as garmin seem the most common

simpletom · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:57

shadowcreaper said:
we talking a lot about garmin arent there any major brands/ ones that are as good if not better?

on GPS issue all the reviews i have seen state that the 305/310 isnt as accurate as the 405 as it has better gps signal, so seems the better than the 300s.

still trying to find others which proving hard as garmin seem the most common

Garmin do seem to provide the better GPS watches. The 405, although expensive, is easy to transfer to computer using the wireless dongle. It is also relatively discrete.

I have used a Timex Ironman with the seperate GPS unit. It functions well but the GPS part, which straps to your arm, irritated me on my longer runs.

The one thing I did like about the Timex watches was their ability to predict your finish time over a set distance. That was funky.

[DOD]Asprilla · 27 Oct 2009 at 20:21

In terms if gps watches Garmin have the advantage since they are primarily a gps company. The 405 acquires a lot quicker than the 305 (which my wife's PT has) and tends to maintain signal better under trees and in built up areas.

However, most people agree that if you want to make an adjustment on the rum the the 305 wins hands down as it's larger, has better buttons (with feedback as opposed to just touch) and can fit more on the screen. If you are using a 405 you have to set it up how you want and then just use start and stop.

Altitude generally isn't very good on either of them.

simpletom · 27 Oct 2009 at 20:25

[DOD]Asprilla;15189218 said:
In terms if gps watches Garmin have the advantage since they are primarily a gps company. The 405 acquires a lot quicker than the 305 (which my wife's PT has) and tends to maintain signal better under trees and in built up areas.

However, most people agree that if you want to make an adjustment on the rum the the 305 wins hands down as it's larger, has better buttons (with feedback as opposed to just touch) and can fit more on the screen. If you are using a 405 you have to set it up how you want and then just use start and stop.

Altitude generally isn't very good on either of them.

Not quite. You can switch display between three groups of three as well as the HR and virtual partner screen.

Having info on the fly is all well and good if you're taking it easy but if you're putting some effort in/racing then all you need is pace, time and km/mile splits.

The 405 does not have a map feature on the watch, though. You can see where you have been by importing to sporttracks when you get home.

[DOD]Asprilla · 27 Oct 2009 at 21:44

I didn't mean that you couldn't make changes on the 405 I meant that it's hard to do whilst you are running along because it uses touch rather than buttons; it's fiddly and you get no feed back. I use a 405 on a regular basis.

I tend to set it up to scroll info on a 5s loop.

firstborn · 27 Oct 2009 at 22:50

[DOD]Asprilla;15189856 said:
I didn't mean that you couldn't make changes on the 405 I meant that it's hard to do whilst you are running along because it uses touch rather than buttons; it's fiddly and you get no feed back. .

That's my opinion after using a 405 and the reason I went from the 305 to 310XT.