New Garmin (Page 2)

That's kinda my thinking. I don't want to keep buying stuff every few years. I do have a HRM ($100 Timex Ironman), but I really want the Garmin so I can run wherever I want without having to either pre-map the course, or try to do it later. That's annoying. But I want to make sure I know EXACTLY all of the scenarios I'd want it for - like a longer race; do I want the GPS capability there too? Since my current HRM is wearable in the water. But I want to avoid having 6 different gadgets to cover all the carp I may want.

I agree. Even in races its easy to track which part was biking and which part was running if you just stop the watch for a second to "mark" it. Do you have the bike mount? Does it work well? I actually just ride with it on my wrist and glance down once in a while but the bike mount looks kinda handy...

No, I don't have it. Just demonstrating that it does exist.

If you put the GPS in your swim cap or tri-top/shorts rear pocket (some even come with zippers), there's a good chance you will get very good GPS tracks. If you also wear your heart strap on your back instead of chest, you will probably get decent HR data too (unless your swim position is really bad).

Here's what I find interesting about it:

- It's thicker than the 305. I guess this is expected since they moved the antannae & increased battery life
- it supports ant+ power meters. IMHO, this is a big deal
- Wireless sync sounds cool, but I always charge my 305 via USB while downloading
- I'm pleasantly suprised at the cost. I thought it would be in the $450 range

Ok BTers educate me about the forerunner models.

I have an REI gift card and I've been kicking the idea of getting a Garmin. I already have a polar R400 that I use to track running pace distance and power meters (don't use a HR anymore at all) so I dont really need it I guesss, but still I am always getting new toys!

Anyway, one thing it always turned me away from the forerunner was the water restitance issue; I mean, I dont specifically want it for simw training but it would be neat to be abe to track distance for OWS or not have to use two different watches.

Another thing I heard is that the they don't track live pace very well, is that true? I love the polar because it tells you your pace all the time and that is great for specific training. What about using it as a GPS to navigate while riding? IOW, can I load a route on the garmin and just follow it trhough my ride (I have a tendency to explore and ended up lost!). I was leaning to the 405 but I've heard many people like the 301 much more, even those who have both. I guess they have different features?

Thanks for the info in advance!

These quotes about how the systems "don't track" HR info while swimming, or implying that the watches "know the difference of the environment" are misleading.  It's not that the HRM strap can't measure the HR.  The issue is that the watch can't get a strong enough signal to receive the info consistently.  Wireless signals as these frequencies are very quickly absorbed by water.  Hence, if your 305 is under your swim cap, it can read (and record the GPS signal) since it is not getting absorbed by the water.  However, the GPS signal and/or HR strap transmission can't penetrate the couple feet of water to be picked up consistently by the watch while you're swimming.  (think: surface of water down to wrist in middle of the pull; or chest strap to outstretched arm during the catch)

(If you really need to track HR while you're swimming, you can look at the Suunto T6C and the optional memory strap.  It solves this problem by storing the HR data into memory on the HR strap itself, not the watch.  Later (not real time), you can download that data to your software and integratie it with your other workout data on your computer.)

X2 on the "you don't notice it"...I am also very small wristed and now have 40 something eyes, so if it were any smaller, I might not be able to read all 4 screens!!!

Very cool.  I love the form factor, the battery life and the water proofing.  I have the 305 and will live with that, but those are the features that are missign from the 305.  I end up wearing two watches in my longer races.  One for total time (Timex), and one for the run (305).

Jorge - I think you would be very happy with the 310xt.  I know Garmin will say that the HR and GPS tracking won't work in the water, but if you stick it in your swim cap, you can get very good measurements in OWS.  I would bet that even on your wrist, it may be spotty, but you still will get some good information.  Secondily, I disagree with the accurate pacing.  Although, its not instantaneous, it is very, very close.  I do all my running based on pace, and it works great.  Is there some lag, yes.  Is it noticiable? not really.  And you can load routes beforehand and follow them.  Although, the older models do not work with the power meters, the new one will.

To Jorge...

I also agree that the Garmin's pacing data is pure CRAP.  It's never given me an accurate value...ever.  If you're trying to pace off your Garmin you are going to get very very very frustrated.

But I would like some of the posters who say "the 405 doesn't have the features the 305 does" to expound on these features.  Others seem to like the 405 just fine so there is obviously a discrepancy somewhere.  Kind of like when Office 07 came out...people hated it just because they didn't know how to use it.  Is this the case with the 405?

To everyone in general...

Why does everyone make such a big deal about "racing" with the Garmin as if they can't race without it?  Is it because it's your only HRM?  If so, buy a cheap polar to wear for races.  Races have a set distance, so you don't need GPS to tell you how far you went.  And you can wear a waterproof Polar for the whole race.  I think wearing something as bulky as a Garmin would annoy me during a race.

The only argument I can come up with for wearing it in a race is to see your current pace so you can pace a longer race accordingly. But since that has proven to be a crap-shoot, I'm not sure it's worth it. Like I said earlier, I use it for a training tool.

In my Feb. marathon, I ran side-by-side with a girlfriend for the first 8 miles. We both had the exact same Garmin 405 on - I wanted my mile splits for historical purposes. Every time we'd look at our pace (and we started doing it just for kicks at one point), mine would consistently be 1-2 minutes slower pace than hers. Not sporatically - I mean I can see if I swang my arms crazily or it was just "off" once or twice-, but consistently. For 8 miles. Side by side. We ended up with the same splits in the end, but the "current" pace is crappy technology.

That was sort of my thinking. I'm definitely getting ahead of myself, since I have yet to even do an Oly (though I plan on doing a few this year), but I do have a couple of longer running races in my future, and assuming those go well, plan to do more. But I can always just wear my Timex HRM, look at my bike computer if I want my pace, and look at mile markers on the run. And just use the Garmin for training, or for road races only (and not assume they are 100% accurate).

And the ant+ technology on the 405 that automatically downloads to your computer when you get within so many feet of it.

My wife has the same issue. I just noticed this on the Garmin site. It is a small strap for the HRM. Gonna get one for her and see if it helps.

Sure,  you're right it's just as effective to wear a regular watch and a pace band (talking running here) but it looks soooo cool to upload the race after i am done! i love to see the map and my splits afterward. It's alot more detail than chip timing alone will often give.  *giving away my nerdiness*

I just ran a 30k road race  and i can say that on average the pacing info was good.  I always use auto-lap because it verifies the pacing information (i have it beep and tell me every km how much time that km took).   I definitely used it to pace to my PR.  (yay, still high from it)

 Awesome! Thanks!! I had to rig mine up to wear too!!