GPS watch - advice

[DIDSCO]

Whats the best GPS watch for running, orienteering, cycling on the market?
Any particular positive and negatives with the different options?

[Dave]

not really had any problems with the forerunner405 (Garmin).
only drawback really is having to charge it up, so If you go camping (as I'm about to) and training for a few days it wont last...

[AndyC]

I've just upgraded from a Garmin forerunner 201 to a 301 -latter has heart beat monitor and better connection arrangements to a computer.
They're bulkier than the later models but much cheaper.
Signal reception isn't as good (and disappears in "green" and where the trees obscure the sky) I'm told but they work well on the bike and in more open areas.
Battery life is claimed at 14 hours -and I've got 6 plus without a recharge

[DIDSCO]

thanks for the good advice lads

it seems like Garmin is the best.
What is the difference between the 405 and the 405cx?

[djc]

From the comparison site it looks like the CX always comes with the HRM strap and you also get calorie counting:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/compare.do? ... duct=11039

Note that Garmin have also recently introduced the 310XT which claims 20 hours of battery life and you can also jump in the pool with it:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=142&pID=27335

[Silva Surfer]

I have the 405 ( run specific ) and the 305 ( cycling specific ) Garmin GPS units.
The 405 is more accurate for running ( distance ) but hopeless for height gain as it only uses the GPS function to calculate. The 305 is accurate when cycling but less so when running, especially under tree cover ( I have no problems with it when attached to the bike though! ) however, because it uses a barometric altimeter for height gain it is very accurate. For any training runs that I do I always take, and use, both units - taking the distance from the 405 and the height gain from the 305, it's not a problem as you ordinarily carry a compass when "O"ing anyway. I haven't, and probably would not even attempt to, take both when competing in an "O" race though.

[NeilC]

305 doesn't have a barometric altimeter - there are software add-ons for Sportstracks etc though that seem to give a much more realistic figure, no idea how.

[Paul Frost]

The Forerunner 305 gets my vote (although the new 310XT locks promising).
They both have the better chip that will keep satellite lock in dense forest.
You can read my article Using GPS to record your route on the EckO website.

When camping you can charge up the Garmin via the USB adaptor in a car lighter socket.

[Silva Surfer]

305 doesn't have a barometric altimeter.

You mean Garmin are lying then?? b.t.w. it's the Edge 305 ( cycling ) I'm talking about - not the Forerunner 305 ( running )

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID ... 1#specsTab

Barometric altimeter: yes

[PG]

The Forerunner 305 gets my vote

If you don't want a heart rate monitor, is there any reason to get a 305 instead of a 205?

Garmin site specs https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=142&pID=349#specsTab seem to be otherwise the same (except for 305 having cadence sensor and foot pod options, which presumably are irrelevant for runners), both having claimed battery life of 10 hours.

[Paul Frost]

At Amazon there is only £20 difference between the 205 & 305, seems a very small price to pay for the heart rate monitor option.
Analysing your heart rate is a good measure of your performance, so I don't know why you wouldn't want it if it was available.

[Gross]

Analysing your heart rate is a good measure of your performance,

Oh no it's not It's an aid, not a measure!

[andypat]

GRoss - you are being pedantic or possibly mischeivous I fancy!

If you run the same distance in the same time then surely if your pulse is lower this is a measure of your performance not an aid to it??

I appreciate it can also be an aid if used to run within parameters, but thats not what Paul said