467 of 489 people found the following review helpful
Does what it says it does well,
pros-quick satellite fix, very clear display, waterproof, shows the info you need not what you don't, uses buttons instead of bezel controls, uses USB instead of wireless connection.
cons-fairly expensive, GPS loses some accuracy under heavy tree cover.
This watch is especially good for two kinds of runners: those who run on trails, and can't easily lock in distances (and thus pace); and those who travel, but still want to run outside, rather than on hotel treadmills. In both instances, this watch will give you accurate distance information, as well as pace and heart rate. The other big improvements that I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews are that unlike the 405, it has reverted to button controls, and also to a direct USB cable connection to your computer for uploading run information. Garmin is not advertising these changes, since they are ostensibly steps backward from the 405's bezel controls and wireless connection, but these were the sources of most of the complaints about the 405--especially problems with the bezel once it got wet with sweat or rain. This is no longer an issue.
You have to wonder whether some of the people writing these (one star) reviews actually run--or whether they work for Polar or Timex? The watch gives you distance, time and pace, as well as heart rate information, as you go. For most easy or long runs on trails or the road, this is all you need. On the track, you know the distance, so if you're doing intervals, just use the stopwatch. The only scenario where the lack of 'current pace' could be a problem as far as I can see is in doing tempo runs, if you do do them by time (say 20 minutes easy, 40 minutes tempo, 10 minutes warm down) instead of by distance, as I do them. By time, you could get a situation where your first and last miles of tempo running get mixed in with running at an easy pace, and the pace data would be useless. Still, if you set the autolap function at .25 miles, very little of your run is going to be logged inaccurately (at most the first and last quarter mile in that tempo workout). Similarly, if you happen to be changing pace lot during a run and want immediate feedback, the watch does give you that. So-called current speed on a GPS watch is always somewhat of an estimate anyway, since it is plotting your location between two points, measuring the time it took you, and then doing the math. There's really no such thing as an instantaneous current pace calculation, and if you have your watch set on .25 mile autolap, that's not much more than the distance that would actually be used for a current pace calculation otherwise.
One criticism: although the satellites initially lock onto my watch after an average of 30 seconds and seem to give very accurate distance ad elevation information (the latter on the Garmin Connect website), there is one part of my usual run under heavy tree cover where it seems like the satellites lose me for a tenth of a mile or less, which makes the data for that mile always come out slower than I'm actually running. It makes up the difference on the next mile, which makes that one come out too fast. Both are off by around 15 seconds/mile, and this is a bit annoying. Although I can do the calculation to average the two and see that each time they basically come out even, it seems that Garmin should have come up with an algorithm for the watch's software that would compensate for such discrepancies within the mile where they happen, rather than giving inaccurate information for two consecutive miles.
Bottom line: this watch gives you a lot of useful information, and even more when you download it to the Garmin Connect site. Unlike other Garmin watches, it doesn't give some extra cycling information and the heart rate monitor doesn't work in the pool, so it's really a watch for runners, not triathletes. But for semi-serious to very serious runners, it gives you everything you need, without the bells and whistles--and the headaches--of the 405.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 11, 2010 11:55:54 PM PDT
D. Loeser says:
I agree the product is just as you described. It is so simple and easy to use, and it serves it purpose. I do find that garmin connect could be better, for example an inside run using hear rate only loads on to there site in a cheesy fashion. For that reason it would be nice if there was an option for a foot pod. I did notice on the watch there is a thing in the crystal above the heart of a shoe, so perhaps future software updates would allow a foot pod to work.
Your review is accurate and anyone giving it a one star rating is foolish or employed at Polar.
Posted on Jun 24, 2010 7:38:08 AM PDT
The point of the current pace is to know how fast you are running without having to do any calculations. You can also speed up or slow down without having to wait until the end of the lap. Also, current pace is measured over time, such as 5 seconds, so your claim that a .25 mile autolap is "not much more than the distance that would actually be used for a current pace calculation otherwise" is inaccurate, unless you can run a 5s quarter-mile. For reference, I have a Forerunner 305, and the 101 before that, never a Polar like in your conspiracy theory.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2010 10:45:24 AM PDT
The point is not that I run a 5s quarter mile. But, on one hand, it's that any 'current pace' taken from such a small slice of data is going to fluctuate pretty wildly. On the other hand, and this is more significant, if you seriously cannot wait for the 2 minutes or less that it takes to get your 400m autolap pace, you are actually short-circuiting the most important piece of training equipment you have--your brain. Running coach Greg MacMillan has written a nice article on this subject, available at:
Posted on Aug 27, 2011 5:20:00 AM PDT
good point that negative reviews being planted by the competition- sadly true of lots of products here and on other sites.
Posted on May 15, 2014 10:58:30 AM PDT
Pietro Brezzo says:
Not fair to mention that the heart rate monitor does not work in the pool. I have the 910xt and the heart rate monitor doesn't work in the pool or in open water swims.
Posted on Jul 3, 2014 8:27:01 AM PDT
Mr Parrish says:
Well written review.
It is NOT waterproof though! It will die in the pool. It's "resistant" ---rain and water splashes. NOT swimming.
It's in the owners manual, I don't have the link saved on my phone, but I promise, its NOT! If you want true waterproof, give up the HR monitor and get a Garmin 10.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›