One of our beloved readers wrote us last week because she wanted to know how we got all those nifty charts in the Early to Rise, Early to Run post. I think I wrote only briefly about our secret before: Stephen and I both have Garmin watches. Stephen has the insane, GPS-enabled Forerunner 405CX. I have the smaller, female-friendlier FR60. We both love our watches for different reasons, so I thought I'd post about the features that we love . . . and some that we're not so keen on.
For the longest time, I was a total Zen runner. I didn't wear a watch. I didn't listen to music. I ran free of all distractions. And I loved every minute of it. When I started training more seriously (mostly more miles), I wanted to know more about my pace. So, I bought a Timex Ironman Triathlon watch. I trained my way to the Philly Marathon with this baby -- simply recording my long run times in minutes and seconds. I still wear it during the day (in fact, I'm wearing it right now), but its days as my stopwatch are over.
For Christmas this year, Stephen's parents bought us both the Garmin Forerunner 405CX. We couldn't have been more thrilled! Stephen was upgrading from a striped-down Nike timer . . . and he was psyched to get the GPS going. I was excited, too. However, when I took the behemoth out of its box and slapped it on my wrist . . . I found a problem (for me, at least). It was HUGE! We're talking GIGANTIC. I felt horrible about it, but I knew at that size, I wouldn't use the thing for more than a couple runs. To me, it felt the way those police tracking devices look. And I've done nothing wrong!
Anyway, here's the skinny on these two particular Garmin watches. We hope you find this information helpful as you search for the timepiece that works best for you. (Timepiece? Are we in the year 1810???)
405CX: Everything you'll ever need . . . just really big.
Stephen's watch does everything. It tells you where, when, and how you ran. Reporting spans pace, splits, location, elevation, you name it. It's just made for a man. Or an elephant. Or a sea cow. (OK. Maybe not, neither device is totally waterproof.) But if you don't mind its mammoth size, you can get some pretty amazing, more-than-you-ever-wanted-to-know reports.
Stephen's dashboard comes complete with a map, which is pretty cool. So, he can see in great detail every turn he took (even when he crossed the street!) during his run. With all that fabulous ability comes a price, however. Not only in the overall cost of the thing -- but Stephen must charge his watch after every single run. It dies otherwise, so there have been many occasions when he's in the middle of a workout, and the watch just stops working.
It is indeed the coolest thing EVER to see the elevation chart when he's finished (especially if I go with him, because then that's MY elevation chart, too.). It can also be overwhelming at times. At least for me, knowing all this information might make me shy away from doing more of the epic runs, that is, if I know exactly how epic they are. Anyway, he gets all the same reports I get, too (more about that below). Everything about his pace and distance and then some. (I chose not to include absolutely all of his dashboard because these screen shots are somewhat difficult to see. You get the picture, right?)
FR60: Useful reports. Comfortable fit. Not entirely accurate?
I love the FR60 because it's not much larger than my usual watch. The band is slightly less bendy than I'd like, but I've gotten used to that. My watch comes complete with a shoe buddy that hooks to my sneakers -- it's what enables the thing to track my distance/pace/etc. Yes. The FR60, since it has no GPS capabilities, is entirely based on strides. To set it up, you must either go to a track to calibrate . . . or in my case, it seemed to work right out of the box (it's an auto option, or something like that).
The only problem I've found with this whole method of tracking is that it isn't always reliable. For example, it works accurately for the bulk of my training -- the runs when I keep the 8:15 to 8:20ish usual easy pace. But during a race, when my pace quickens . . . the watch often reads that I've run much longer than I actually have. ("Much" is a slight overstatement -- but, for example, at our last half marathon -- 13.1 -- my watch said I ran 13.25. It's a big difference if you are a stickler about that sort of thing.)
Here are the reports I get on my dashboard. There are many. And they are useful. I just don't get the handy-dandy map or elevation charts. But, if you're good without those, all this information is great, too. Overall, I feel like I know enough to train my heart out, but there sure are some days I wish I knew the REST of the story . . .
There's no clear winner in this head-to-head as everyone needs/wants something different. And that's OK. There are also a multitude of other options on the market. (Did I mention there's a hefty price difference between the two as well? The 405CX will run you about $370 versus around $200 for the FR60.) So, do you research. Ask around. There's also no harm in trying it out . . . and if you don't like what you find, take it back. It's an investment, so there's no shame in making it a wise one.
We'd be interested to see what others do to track/time/train. Do you wear a watch? Are you totally against it? Hate Garmin? No matter what you do, just leave a comment or email us! And with all this talk about time, if you haven't participated in the Respect the Marathon? discussion yet, you're missing out. Head over there now.
Like what you just read? You can subscribe to the feed of these posts or follow us on Twitter or Facebook to be the first to know what the (never home)makers are up to. And we’ll love you forever!
27 comments:
I have the Garmin 305 and was shocked at the size when I took it out of the box the first time. But since I begged for it, I use it, and the size really doesn't bother me! Also, that's interesting the 405 must be charged after every run, I can go for a week or two even with long runs. It's been especially useful for marathon training, before that it was just fun to look at all my data.
Well, let's be fair here. First, for a GPS-enabled watch, the 405cx is quite small. And if we are comparing apples to apples, The 405cx does not rquire the additional foot pod to monitor speed and distance, as does the FR60, which means an extra piece of equipment with the FR60 to keep track of and switch from shoe to shoe. Plus, you mention the price, but the FR60 is more like $120 just for the watch, and you still need to buy the additional foot pod to the tune of another $100. Without the $100 foot pod, the FR60 is nothing more than a watch with a heart rate monitor. So, it's $220 for the FR60, versus $370 for the 405cx. Granted, still a $150 difference, but we are really comparing apples and oranges too. The GPS-emabled 405cx is going to be VERY accurate no matter what type of running you are doing, what the terrain is like, or how much your stride rate changes. You just take it out of the box and go! With the FR60, it is based simply on stride rate, much like a pedometer is, and you must calibrate it on the track to even ensure fairly good accuracy. Like you mentioned, it will do fairly well for those easy, consistent pace runs, but the amount that it is off will grow exponentially with every mile. And the accuracy will get worse if you try to use it for a tempo run or fartlek workout, as your stride rate changes quite a bit during these runs. Not to mention that if you run on hills or changing terrain, it will cause your stride rate to change, sometimes dramatically, thus lessening the accurracy even more.
It really comes down to what you want the watch to do. If you are looking for a watch to give you a general idea of your speed and distance, and you aren't going to do alot of varying types of workouts and runs on different terrains, then the FR60 is great. If you want a really accurate watch to monitor speed and distance over all types of runs and workouts and no matter what kind of terrain, then you need to go with the 405cx. Plus, the amount of feedback you can get from the 405cx and features for pacing, training, elevation loss/gain, tempo runs, interval workouts, etc, is much greather on the 405cx. For me, the extra $150 was a no-brainer. But I am sure the decision NOT to spend the extra $150 for all the above reasons will be a no-brainer for others. I will agree, the 405 does not fit a small wrist very well. But considering everything that watch is, I feel your opinion of it's size is a tad harsh ;o)
Oh, and the 405 does not need to be charged after every run. I will go 3 days on one charge usually and it will last longer than that if you are not running that long. But I also don't see where charging it every couple days is a big deal. I mean, we charge cell phones and things on a daily basis. So ya plug it in at the end of every couple runs? Not a big deal.
Thanks for your passionate response, Anon. And you're right -- the $100 is a typo. I meant $200.
However, I do feel the size is a deal breaker for me. I can't imagine wearing it every run. I'm pretty serious about my hill workouts and pace, too. But for whatever reason, it was a big issue for me.
As far as the charging issue, Stephen just feels like the watch is expensive, and it shouldn't require charging so often.
Thanks again for the info!
Yeah, it all comes down to trade-offs. If you want a GPS-enabled watch with no extra foot pod, then it has to be on the larger side of watches. And if you want all that, but want it as small as possible, then you have to deal with certain things like charging it more frequently.
Have you tried Polar HRMs with food pod? I'm personally much more interested in measuring calorie burn and heart rate accurately... what would you recommend for that?
Ha! How do you know a runner when you see them in the summer? Look for the Garmin tan on their wrist.
I love this post because right now I just have a straight up Nike stop watch. It's fine for the time and to see how long I've been running, but that's it. I wanted to look into getting something a bit more high tech, so I appreciate this review!
Thank you thank you thank you! When your blog popped up (I read waaaaay too many sitting at work all day...don't tell my boss!) I said, 'OH! This is for me!!' :)
This is very helpful. I have been thinking about getting an ipod...I have a sandisk sansa now that I like, but the holder is big and bulky and while I normally attach it to my pants I've just purchased some really awesome runner's tights and they don't attach so well. I have seen those lovely little ipods attached to people's arms and I grimace with envy, and I've heard that they have some awesome tracking tools nowadays as well. I'm going to look into both options, but this really helps. Thanks!
My husband bought me the Garmin Forerunner 305 for my bday and I'm in love with it. I don't have to charge it everyday (it can go 10 hours before needing charging) and I can get all the maps, charts, and courses that I was looking for. I really wanted something that I could use for both biking and running (and this watch has a mode for each) which I love. I also really wanted to be able to see elevation changes for my bike rides, since it's obviously much harder to bike up a hill than on a flat course.
I think the maps on the 405 are fancier than on my 305, but so far I couldn't be happier with my watch. :) I'm looking forward to taking it with me this coming winter while I ski (it has a other/skier function). :)
Bre @ http://theredbungalow.blogspot.com
Really great post! I've been thinking about getting a garmin lately for the same reasons you were. Could you take a picture of both watches on your wrist? I'm having a hard time visualizing the size and haven't been able to find an on-wrist picture.
Thanks for writing about the FR60! We have the 405 and I have been curious about what the difference is. It sounds like the 405 is the right fit for us.
Like anon, I can use my 405 for a few days without charging too. I haven't had it die on me. I do know people who have had water damage to theirs! (they don't have the CX, nor do I)
I use a Timex sports watch I bought at Sports Authority for $25.00. It's just a regular digital watch with a timer function, but it's petite, water resistant, and runs on a regular battery. What works for me is just knowing how fast (or slow) I ran a certain distance. I use mapmyrun.com to determine the exact distance of each run and I follow the route precisely so I always know how far I went. Also, for safety reasons, I leave the mapped out route active on my laptop before I head out so that in case something happens to me, my husband would know the exact route I was following. mapmyrun also provides elevation. So I am not knocking the Garmins (and similar models) at all--I think they are super cool and I would probably use one (if it was small enough because I am totally with you, Ashley, on the whole size thing)--but the fancier models are beyond this average runner's needs.
such an informative post! Thanks for sharing all the details - i am going to be purchasing a Garmin this year and will most definitely be referencing this post when I get closer to purchase time when I'm making my decision. So informative.
I just purchased a Garmin Forerunner 405cx plus used it during my very first half-marathon. Their Virtual Partner tempo function was effective simply because I started off much too fast and the watch kept telling me to reduce speed and this ended up being perfect because I have a tendency to head out too hard.
I know this is a few weeks old...but I just had to add my 2 cents and my experience with both a GPS unit (305) and the FR60. First, it always irks me when people provide analysis on the footpod units when they haven't actually ever used one. People, the new footpods are definitely NOT an old style pedometer. They are far more accurate than most realize. Do a little research on the internet and you'll find significantly more "suprised" folks than disappointed.
With that said, there are definite downfalls of each device. With respect to accuracy, sorry Ashley, but a 3/20 of a mile off a half marathon is not that bad. That's roughly 60' per mile. You do realize that that's 1%? That's about 200 meters over the course of a half marathon...a half lap around a track. Come on! I regularly see differences equal to or greater than that on my 305 running the same routes...as well as comparisons to my running group friends, who all also have 305s. There is NEVER agreement between two GPS units running the same route in our group. Secondly, you said yourself that you didn't calibrate it. So...why knock the FR60? Are you seriously complaining about a 1% difference in distance than what you THINK you ran? Give me a break.
Now for a real life example of one of the problems with GPS. I finished a short sprint triathlon this weekend. The run was a 5k. The path was a twisty winding paved path around a lake along with about half the course on neighborhood streets. The gps measured my 3.1 miles as 2.85 miles!! Talk about inaccurate! I was pacing myself thinking I had another half mile to go when the finish line popped up around the corner. What a waste! The reasons for the inaccuracy? 1) twisty path. The gps draws straight lines from point to point. If you have a curvy path, it will lose the corners, measuring your run much shorter. I've also seen this problem on running tracks...where the corners are straightened. (You can easily lose 60' per mile with a GPS unit running in on an oval track, particularly if you run the curves tight and fast). 2) The sporadic tree cover on the run caused the GPS to lose the birds for short periods of time. Even a 10 or 15 second loss can result in 20'-30' or more of running distance instantly, depending on how curvy the path your running happens to be and how fast you are. The faster you are and or the more curvy the path, the more distance the GPS will lose. Add in trees or buildings...forget about it!
A couple of more points with regard to GPS to keep in mind. You WILL lose satellite coverage in very heavy cloud cover or rain. You will also lose coverage during solar flares. The next couple of years are going to be really bad for solar flares, with NASA predicting significant activity. Even land based electronics are expected to be affected...satellite based technologies will suffer even more. So, if that matters to you...
As for commentors and posters...if you're going to offer an opinion or comment, at least state that it's an uninformed opinion. Better yet, if you haven't used a product, just keep your opinion to yourself. There's nothing worse than an opinion formed out of ignorance.
For reviewers, sorry Ashley, but if you don't calibrate it, don't complain. Also, if you're going to be disappointed with a 1% distance error on any device, your expectations are a bit high...or you really haven't spent enough time with a GPS enable device. Or maybe you live in straight, open country where the GPS does excel at accuracy. Either way...neither device should be used if you're wanting dead-on exact mileage. They simply won't and can't provide that. If 60 feet on a mile really matters to you...then you're WAAAAY faster than me or anyone I know. Even if you're a 6 minute miler, that's only a 4 second difference. Please!
Thanks for your thoughts, Anon.
Another consideration with regard to the .15 mile discrepancy on the half marathon: It is a mistake to assume that the half marathon finish line is exactly at the distance it's supposed to be. Also, if done properly, the distance is measured as the exact shortest distance possible on the course. This means the measurement is in straight lines and cutting the corners exactly on the inside boundary of the course. Few, if any, ever run a properly measured course exactly in the shortest distance possible. Therefore, basically everyone runs slightly further than the precise distance of the race. For example, if you're running a race on streets, if you run on the outside of every corner instead of the inside, you add several feet to the total distance traveled -- at EVERY turn. (A gps does cut some of the corner off, so one of the weak points of a gps could, I suppose, be considered a positive.)
Let me make this easy. Consider a common 400m track. Tracks vary in lane width and number of lanes, but we all know that a 400m track is measured on the inside lane and that each successive lane out from 1 is further in distance around. To be more precise, it's approximately 8 meters further per lap for each lane out. So, one time around the track in lane 8, for example, is actually 56 meters farther than lane 1, for a total distance for the lap of 456 meters. Considerably further than lane 1. Carry that forward to a full mile (4x around) and you've run 1824 meters, 224 meters further than if you were in lane one. Lane 8, depending on the track, is usually about 8 meters or so out from lane 1. That's all it takes. Only 8 turns (2x per lap, 4 laps) taken at a distance of 8 meters from the measured benchmark and the accumulated "error" is over half a lap further. Carry that forward to a half marathon, and you've just run 3k further than you thought you did. How about tacking on a 3k to the half marathon for running on the outside!
So, in short, unless you ran on the inside and ran the shortest measurable distance in your half, you DID run further than 13.1 and your footpod was probably accurate.
It's a matter of perspective. Sometimes we geek out too much on tech stuff and lose perspective on what we're doing and why we do it. I'm not knocking tech, but when we start niggling over 60 yards of distance discrepancy after a 13.1 mile run, maybe it's time to pull out the old Timex Ironman and give tech a break.
Again. Thanks. If you read some of our other posts, you see I don't really care THAT much about how perfect it is -- I was just trying to distinguish between the watches. Give my opinion.
I most often use my Timex watch to time my races now (see recent Boilermaker post). But I appreciate your detailed perspective!
Hi Ashley, I know this is an older post, but I had a question here. I'm relatively new to running (just finished my first half marathon!), and I've been interested in these watches. However, for my training, I've been using my Android phones and one of the many running apps you can download to track your progress. I've been using Buddy Runner, but there are quite a few out there.
My question is, am I missing some functionality with these apps that I would get from one of these watches? Buddy Runner tracks my pace and splits, along with my elevation and exact route. After a run, I can go to the website and see all of that information along with a map of my run. It also lets me compare my performance to past runs, which has been really great to see as I've been improving.
Anyway, I love gadgets, and these watches look pretty cool, but I'm not sure it's worth the money if I'm able to get the same features for free through an app (free if you don't count the cost of the phone, that is). Should I stick with what I have, or am I missing something awesome by not having one of these watches?
Matt,
To me, it seems that the applications are giving you some great data. I don't see why you'd need to get the watch. However, I don't have the "fancy" watch . . . so I'll ask Stephen tonight and see what he says!
I received the 405 last May upon finishing grad school as a "graduation present" from my in-laws. It was very unexpected and a very nice surprise! And something I would not have bought for myself. I bring it with me on all my runs and bike rides. I agree about the size issue... My wrists are barely 5.5" around. My husband swapped out the plastic wristband for me though and put on the smaller of the velcro bands and it fits fine - though of course the face of the watch is still big. Doesn't bother me though.
All GPS watches have some degree of error, you can't rely on them totally-
I just ran in the Philly Rock n' Roll half yesterday which involved a lot of turns through downtown (and through a tunnel - lost reception briefly there) and according to my 405, my 13.1 was more like 13.38. I know some of it is that I did not run the shortest distance around curves, I moved around people, and I moved around near water stops.
In comparison, my out-and-back half marathon along the boardwalk at the Jersey shore in April came up at 13.14.
I have found the HR data to be helpful too. When I first got the watch, I found out I had been running all my runs too hard... I then backed off a little bit. I've seen my HR improve!
Anyway, while I wouldn't have dropped all that cash on this watch myself, I am happy to have it and enjoy using it, especially for interval runs/speedwork - as I don't have a track I can use for pre-measured distances. Also, I'm a data-nerd.
Thanks for the info, RunningOnCoffee -- and congrats on your recent race! That's awesome :) We're running the Philly Marathon again this year. Love running that town <3
Ashley,
thanks for the great review - you covered everything I was really interested in! I'm curious if you are able to edit the maps for the 405 - I currently use Runkeeper on my iPhone and can fix up the GPS-induced errors it makes by just joining points every 10 seconds...if you can do that through Garmin as well I reckon I'd be pretty much sold on it, despite the size (you're right - it's huge - I was shocked! I notice there's NO marketing shots of it on people, I think we can figure out why!).
Cheers!
Stephen just said no, you can't go in and change the maps. And then he said he hasn't had any GPS errors -- so it may just be more correct. Stephen also notes that he LOVES the watch and says you should totally give it a try :)
Thanks for that! With the Aussie dollar being so strong against the US at the moment, I'm definitely tempted...just need to beef up my wrists!
@Cat- I love my FR405! Here's what it looks like on a 5.5" wrist circumference: http://running-on-coffee.blogspot.com/2010/09/apple-smoothie-and-4-mile-run.html
I use the velcro wristband that was included because I can get a snugger fit. The face of the watch is about 1" across; the diameter including the touch bezel (the silver ring around the face) is about 1.75".
Post a Comment