Garmin - which one?

4 watchers

1
2
3
4
Next
Last

Minnie Mad Oct 2010 11:02am, 22 Oct 2010 418 posts	0 Minnie Mad Christmas is coming and Santa is bringing me a Garmin, but which one should I tell him to bring? I've never run with a heart rate monitor so I'm not bothered about that - mainly I want accurate mileage and I am quite keen on the idea of having an electronic buddy to pace myself by, also I want all the data about how fast I run each mile. Thx
eL Bee! Oct 2010 11:03am, 22 Oct 2010 14,566 posts	0 eL Bee! 310XT
Hills of Death (HOD) Oct 2010 11:11am, 22 Oct 2010 22,296 posts	0 Hills of Death (HOD) yes
pink-lady-kat Oct 2010 11:13am, 22 Oct 2010 5,707 posts	0 pink-lady-kat i want a 310xt i have a 405 there nice but if you bike run swim go for the 310xt
SusiesueH Oct 2010 11:15am, 22 Oct 2010 219 posts	0 SusiesueH I wondered the same thing recently and found this thread helpful. Before I read it I assumed that I wanted the latest model (405CX or something). But then I read the thread and picked the one that gave me all the bits I needed without having to spend a fortune. In the end I ended up with a 305 which was £125 from Amazon. http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtopic.php?id=39954&page=1 The most helpful post for me was by CC2 Speedy and it said: Summary: 205 - GPS, calories, virtual training partner, view up to 4 fields at once (eg time, pace, distance). Huge. Connects to computer via USB 305 - all of the above plus HRM 310xt - slightly smaller than the 305, fully waterproof, keeps signal better, really good battery life, wireless data transfer. Otherwise the same as the 305. 405 and 405CX - (CX has soft adjustable strap). Looks a bit more like a normal watch. Wireless transfer. Short battery life and you can't turn it off, but you must turn the GPS off or it'll die on you really quickly. Bezel is difficult to operate. HRM options. 3 data fields viewable at once. Does Virtual partner etc etc. 110 - has HRM option. Looks like a 1980s digital watch. 3 fields viewable at once. No virtual partner or wireless transfer. Buttons rather than bezel. USB cable connection. Basically does almost everything the 205 or 305 does but is less bulky. Don't know about the battery life on this one - it's new.
Karen S Oct 2010 11:16am, 22 Oct 2010 657 posts	0 Karen S I'm happy with my 405 Minne Mad - however I don't bike or swim so not sure what extra functionality the 310XT has over the 405 which would be useful to me (and what the price difference is!)?
Stumpy Oct 2010 11:23am, 22 Oct 2010 11,543 posts	0 Stumpy 310xt. srsly. it doesn't throw mad wobblies if your fingers are cold or wet, whereas the 405 can be temperamental like that. 310xt would be the ideal one, but having said that (and acknowledging budget might be an issue) the 305 is good too (although battery life isn't. might not even last a full marathon for some runners). I would recommend getting the HRM or at least something compatible with it so you have the option of using it (and I find HR a very VERY useful part of it, but before I had the garmin I would also have said I wasn't bothered about it) 310xt rocks though. srsly. the battery life is FANTASTIC. it does all the virtual partner stuff. and programmable sessions etc etc and it just less temperamental than the 405 in the cold and the wet. and better suited for multisport.
sLickster Oct 2010 11:29am, 22 Oct 2010 994 posts	0 sLickster Thewre is also this thread: http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtopic.php?id=40970 It highlights the 210 and 410. I'm keen to hear what anyone's experience is of the 410...
Belper Bear Oct 2010 11:34am, 22 Oct 2010 2,396 posts	0 Belper Bear I have the 405 and am generally very happy with it. I'm considering the 310 not because of it's tri abilities but because most of my running is done in poor light and my 51 year old eyes struggle with the smaller fields on the display. I can see HR with no problem but the speed and distance fields are just too small.
Roma Oct 2010 11:36am, 22 Oct 2010 40 posts	0 Roma I have a 305 and I am a slow runner. It has between 10-12 hours of battery life, more than enough for most marathons