What is it?

The Garmin Forerunner 305 (FR305) is a GPS-enabled speed/distance monitor (SDM), with built in heart rate monitor. Garmin introduced the Forerunner range of GPS-enabled SDMs back in 2003, with the FR201. They followed this up with the FR101 (a cut-down version of the 201 without integral rechargeable battery and PC connectivity), and the FR301 which added an integrated HRM.



I bought a 201 in early 2004, and found it to be an excellent training aid, though not without some flaws, most notably with poor GPS reception around tall building or under tree cover. Nonetheless, it was a faithful companion on most of my runs, and helped me monitor aspects such as the distance of my runs, and the speed I was maintaining during them.

In 2005, I was enlightened to the possibilities of improving training with the use of a heart rate monitor. I obtained a mid-range Polar HRM, and used this to ensure I was not running too hard on my easy days, and was running hard enough on my hard days. Unfortunately, this meant that I had to have two different gadgets with me on my runs. Thankfully, I don’t bother with music on my runs, otherwise I would have looked like a mobile branch of Dixons with an Mp3 player strapped to my arm along with the FR and HRM!

Garmin announced the FR205 (same as 305 sans HRM) and 305 devices earlier this year, touting their more ergonomic form factor and improved GPS reception as being major improvements over the x01 units. I decided to take the opportunity of upgrading my 201 + Polar HRM combination with a FR305.

How does it perform?

One concern I had about the FR305 was how it would feel on my wrist, as my wrists are pretty skinny, while the 305 is like a (very) chunky watch. So, the first thing I did with my 305 was try it on for size. As it happens it is very comfortable, and also lighter than I expected.

The next question was just how much of an improvement over the 201 is the GPS reception with the 305. To answer this I decide to strap on both 201 and 305 for my next run, which happened to be an 18-mile pre-FLM long run. The final mileages recorded on the two devices were within a couple of 1/100ths of a mile of each other. Loading them into some mapping software, however, showed that the 305 tracked the route more accurately. The 305's HRM seemed consistent with readings I would have expected from my Polar (no I did NOT wear two HRMs together!). The route I took on this run was not particularly demanding, i.e. only light tree cover in places and no buildings higher than standard houses.

I do many of my midweek runs starting outside my office, which is a large 8-story building. The 201 had been notoriously slow at acquiring the GPS signal outside the office, and poor at retaining the signal in its vicinity. I was hopeful that the 305 would improve on both of these aspects. However, it seems that it is no faster at acquiring the signal; the signal retention is slightly better when running past the building, but far from perfect.

Many of these work runs go along the local canal towpath, which has enough tree cover to cause the 201 problems i.e. I would always have to correct the track after loading it into mapping software. The 305, though, does much better at tracking the towpath route accurately, only rarely needing the route to be corrected retrospectively. Thus the claims for improved reception under tree cover seem well-founded.

The HRM performance has been flawless so far. This compares favourably with the Polar HRM, which could be quite temperamental if the chest strap was not quite tight enough or the electrodes not damp enough. The Garmin chest strap is also every bit as comfortable as the Polar Wearlink chest strap. My only two gripes about the HRM are that (1) the HR alarms stop sounding after about 5 beeps – I would prefer them to continue until I am back in my target zone; and (2) that the Karvonen method is not used in calculating percentages of max HR. I have written to Garmin about (1), and I understand that they intend to fix this behaviour in a future firmware release.

Having an SDM and HRM combined in one unit gives the opportunity of having quite sophisticated training aids built in, such as interval timers based on distance covered, or HR targets, or time, or a combination of these. Then there is a feature called Courses where you can record a route on one run, and then race against your performance on that route again in the future. And the Virtual Partner feature from the old x01 devices is retained, being renamed Quick Workouts – this allows you to set a goal of running, for example, a certain distance in a certain time, and the device then keeps you informed of how you are performing against the target. The Advanced Workouts feature allows you to configure all sorts of sessions such as pyramids, speed-play … the possibilities are near limitless. I’ve not yet had an opportunity to try all of these features but, those which I have, I have been impressed with.

The FR305 is supplied with Training Centre (TC) software to load on your PC. This allows you to upload your runs into TC for retrospective analysis. It also allows you to define Advanced Workouts on the PC for loading into the FR, which is easier than setting them up on the device itself. The SW is not very feature-rich, and doesn’t allow you to edit the runs when there have been problems with the GPS reception. I have been using a program called SportTracks (http://www.zonefivesoftware.com/SportTracks/index.html) for about a year with my Polar and FR201, which does allow editing of routes on maps and aerial photos (which are automatically downloaded from Google Maps), along with quite sophisticated analysis tools for your runs. You can even export your runs into Google Earth and then do a virtual fly-through of the run in 3D!



There are a few weaknesses with the FR305 which are worth mentioning. The calories algorithm seems to produce some very high values compared to the algorithms in the Polar HRM and elsewhere. E.g. It reckons I burn over 200 calories per mile! This doesn’t worry me too much, as I can adjust this to a more realistic value in SportTracks, and I don’t really track calorie usage much anyway.

The elevation readings from the FR305 are, while better than the 201, unreliable. I think that this is to be expected from most consumer GPS devices in anything less than perfect GPS reception conditions.

Some days just seem to be poor in relation to GPS reception. I noticed this with the 201, and have experienced one such day with the 305, where the recorded route was much lass accurate than usual. I think this is probably due to atmospheric conditions, thus not really a flaw with the FR305.

Conclusions

I reckon the FR305 is an improvement over the x01 range of Forerunners. Whether it is enough to warrant the upgrade probably depends on how much of your running is done under tree cover, and whether the new workout features are of interest to you. For me, it has been worthwhile to merge the SDM and HRM features into one unit. It has been financially justified as I took advantage of an offer of a free pair of shoes from Sweatshop, and managed to get a decent price for my FR201 and Polar HRM on eBay. The addition of SportTracks software is the icing on the cake.

If you haven’t yet tried any of these devices, you might just find that they provide you with that bit of motivation you need to go for a run when it otherwise seems more attractive to sit in front of the telly on a rainy evening!