RunningAHEAD - Topic: Garmin Forerunner 405 (page 4)

ijeepgirl

posted: 1/5/2008 at 11:21 PM

I've seen the 405 listed at $299.....is that not correct? And where does it say it's gonna be avail. in March??? Anyone tried calling the Garmin home office??

I got my hair highlighted because I felt some strands were more important than others. :)

Sulli42

posted: 1/6/2008 at 12:01 AM
modified: 1/6/2008 at 12:01 AM

$299.00 is for the watch only, if you want heart rate data it's an additional $73.00.

Eddy

Slow-smooth-fast

posted: 1/6/2008 at 3:20 AM

it hasnt got pace alerts or distance alerts. big let down for me.

"I've been following Eddy's improvement over the last two years on this site, and it's been pretty dang solid. Sure the weekly mileage has been up and down, but over the long haul he's getting out the door and has turned himself into quite a runner. He's only now just figuring out his potential. Consistency in running is measured in years, not weeks. And over the last couple of years, Eddy's made great strides" Jeff 14 Jan 2009

RunFree7

Run like a kid again!

posted: 1/6/2008 at 6:50 AM

Hmm this is very interesting. I haven't seen anything that is going to make me shell out the extra money yet and I have the money saved up for the 405. I actually really like the 305. The one thing that could make me change my mind is if it had a better signal. What chipset is it using?

backstretch

posted: 1/6/2008 at 5:37 PM

I think The 305 is the better watch, like someone else said wear a watch for when your not running and wear the 305 when you are training. I bet the 405 is a bust!!

"The drops of rain make a hole in the stone, not by violence, but by oft falling." - Lucretius

paavoman

posted: 1/7/2008 at 10:09 PM

It actually seems somewhat like a downgrade... But I agree with a previous poster, this appears to be a workout watch that you can wear all the time. I still have the now "ancient" 205. I don't use the pace or time alert features very often, but still, it's nice to know they're there. At least it still has virtual partner. All in all though, I still want it.

Sulli42

posted: 1/8/2008 at 12:14 AM

Quote from paavoman on 1/7/2008 at 10:09 PM:

It actually seems somewhat like a downgrade...

For those of us who use our Garmin as a training tool, it is a downgrade. Personally, I think Garmin dropped the ball on this one... they should be making better training tools not better fashion accessories.

Sulli42

posted: 1/8/2008 at 1:09 AM
modified: 1/8/2008 at 1:13 AM

There really isn't that much of a size difference. 305 - 2.1" x 2.7" x 0.7" 405 - 1.88" x 2.78" x 0.65" That's about 1/4" smaller in width, 1/16" longer in length, and less than a 1/16" thinner. This baby is still almost 3/4 of an inch thick. So basically they just altered the display (which made it less efficient), and improved the ergonomics for a better fit. It does look cool, though. I'll probably give in to vanity sooner than later, and shell out the dough. Cool

Jennicap

Ex-Smoker turned Runner!

posted: 1/8/2008 at 9:53 AM

tee hee I just sent my husband the link.... my birthday is in March and he said I can buy my garmin after we buy a house... we're going to see our house one last time on Saturday and hopefully put a bid in!!!! Just in time! Big grin

-Jen
2010 Goals! Get back into running after having my son miles miles miles!

russ1910

posted: 1/8/2008 at 2:36 PM

Quote from dgb2n on 1/5/2008 at 3:44 PM:

As best I can tell, the 405 is really for those who want a workout watch they can wear all the time. I'm sticking with my 305. My wife would kill me if I didn't wear the dress watch she bought me Seriously though, no routes (not that I use them), no pace or distance alarms, smaller display screen. Wireless data stuff is interesting but you still have to plug it in to charge it right?

Exactly...on 2nd thought bonus will be spent on something much more practical...like free range pork bellies Smile

Balancing BBQ and BQ
My 2008 Running Plan

Kerry1976

Master of the Side Eye

posted: 1/9/2008 at 1:42 PM

Quote from Eddy on 1/6/2008 at 3:20 AM:

it hasnt got pace alerts or distance alerts. big let down for me.

Yes! I noticed this immediately - I love those alerts! Also, noticed that compatibility with a Mac isn't scheduled until later in 2008. I have a refurbished 201 and will keep on using it I guess.

TRUST THE PROCESS

jeffdonahue

posted: 5/15/2008 at 2:04 PM

According to this link https://buy.garmin.com/shop/compare.do?cID=142&compare=compare&compareProduct=349&compareProduct=11039 it says that it does have pace alarms (if you are using advanced workouts)

dgb2n

Dave

posted: 5/15/2008 at 2:10 PM

Quote from jeffdonahue on 5/15/2008 at 2:04 PM:

According to this link https://buy.garmin.com/shop/compare.do?cID=142&compare=compare&compareProduct=349&compareProduct=11039 it says that it does have pace alarms (if you are using advanced workouts)

Thanks for sharing that link. When I use pace alarms (which is rare), I generally do it without going through the trouble of defining an advanced workout. I will be very interested in hearing some impressions from folks who upgraded from the 305 though.

I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

dgb2n@yahoo.com

JakeKnight

posted: 5/15/2008 at 2:11 PM

I'm curious: how many of you bashing the 405 have tried it? Or at least had it around your wrist for a few minutes and played with the features? And where's Marcus? He's had his 405 for a while now. I'd like to hear his thoughts (although I don't know if he got much time with the 305).

E-mail: eric.fuller.mail@gmail.com
-----------------------------

nunsuch

posted: 5/22/2008 at 9:56 AM

Personally, I've used and own a 305 & a 405. The 405 I'm finding is almost exactly .05 off on almost every run from the 305 - varying by length of run. My running parter also has a 405 and we are always exactly .03 off from each other starting & stopping at the same time.... My brother and his training team are experiencing the exact same inaccuracies. I've been doing a bit of back & forth with Garmin who says "the 405 is 95% accurate".... I heard another experience with the 405 stating it clocked her marathon at 26.62 miles.... not ok with me Smile

I'll update when I hear more from Garmin Smile

Good luck! Suffice to say.... the 305 is proving more accurate for me & my running partner & my brother

Garmin Forerunner 405 (Read 3619 times)