Home > Consumer Reviews > Garmin Forerunner 305 GPS Receiver With Heart Rate Monitor

I like this thing quite a lot. I've had it for about three weeks, and have used it on 12 workouts so far. I use it primarily for running, with biking a secondary usage. The main reason I wanted it was for the instantaneous readout of distance, running pace and heart rate, the latter needed for the speed work I want to do this running season.

The core functionality (distance and heart rate monitoring) works perfectly. There's none of the signal drops I've had with other heart monitors. Once the satellites are initially acquired, I've only had one dropout when I was outside. The initial acquisition of the satellites can be quirky and can take some time. The accuracy (according to the readout) is +/- 25ft, depending on how many satellites can be found. I've compared the distance measurement on the GPS with a known, measured distance on one of the trails I run on (the Chicago lakefront path). The GPS always increments a mile when I'm within 5 or 10 feet of the mile marker sign on the path. Well, I guess that's the least I should expect from a $350 GPS unit! Of course it's bigger than a normal running stopwatch, but that hasn't bothered me at all. The heart rate strap is also very comfortable and well-designed.

The display is crisp and has one outstanding feature: The information presented on the various pages can be completely user-customized. The default screen layout is rather poor, but in just a few steps I could replace it with the information I wanted to see while I run. There are almost 40 different data fields you can choose from for display. Examples: current pace, average lap pace, average run pace, heartrate, distance.

The only disappointment is the point-in-time (instantaneous) pace measurement: It varies wildly during a run. I see swings as big as +/- 3 minutes/mile. I'm a marathoner and I know my pace is fairly consistent during a run. I just looked at my run today, and according to the data the first mile varied from 5:57/mile to 12:06 mile. I suspect the problem is either in the averaging algorithm (too short a distance?), or in the uncertainty that results from different satellites coming in and out of view. The variations seem to get worse under tree cover compared with an open area. Luckily there's a lap-average pace that can be presented, and at least that value is useful and more accurate. The bottom line is that you can't look at the watch and say "right now I'm running 9 mins/mile". There is the ability to specify a pace smoothing factor, but I have it maxed out and still see the variations. The elevation readout also seems inaccurate, but that isn't important to me.

Upload of workout data to the PC software (Training Center) is transparent. The PC software is very good for presenting time/distance/pace/heartrate/calorie data. However the maps it shows are very crude. I've worked a bit with one of the online, subscription services (MotionBased). That looks really good and provides some additional functionality beyond the included Training Center software, although I still haven't decided if it's worth the $$$ yet for long-term data storage. MotionBased allows export to Google Earth, and it's tremendously cool to see your running path superimposed on a satellite image. You can recharge the unit through the USB port on your computer, although it's slower than using the dedicated recharger.

I had hoped that owning this device would prove motivational for me, and indeed it has. I can't imagine running or biking without it. Updating my training log is trivial now: Plug this thing into my computer, and it's done. My hope is that a future software update will do something about the pace calculation (maybe a few additional levels of smoothing?). If so, the Forerunner 305 would earn 5 stars+++.


Positives:

Flawless heart rate sampling
Great distance measuring and lap-average pace calculation
Seamless integration with a PC
Fully-automatic training log update
User-customizable display


Negatives;

Wildly-varying pace readout.

With a few one-star reviews, I was a bit hesitant to order this. Now, after two weeks of use (10 runs of 2 to 2.5 miles each), I have no regrets with the purchase whatsoever.

I haven't had any of the problems reported by any of the one-star reviewers. It syncs to the satellite in a reasonable* amount of time, seems to track my pace very well, tracks distance well, and the heart rate monitor seems WAY more accurate than the dedicated exercise machines at my local gym.

*by reasonable, it does take a minute or two to sync to the satellites each time. That's the only thing I could possibly think of improving, but it's not a big deal. Being the super-impatient person I am, I often turn on the watch, set it on my front porch, go back in and change into my running outfit, and by the time I come back out it's ready to go.

I haven't seen the pacing issues others have reported. I'm a beginning runner... but if I keep a solid pace... it reports about 10mins/mile... if I push a little harder... about 9mins/mile... if I let up... about 11mins/mile. It seems very consistent over my entire 2-2.5 mile run.

I have a 2.1 mile run where I've done the same exact route about 6 times... and when I compare the maps of each run... they overlap almost exactly.

I have thyroid and heart issues, and this watch gives me the confidence to know I'm not exceeding my max hr for too long (I can easily get into the 180's) and gives me the feedback and stats to keep me motivated.

Last but not least, I've bought dozens and dozens of items from Amazon over the years, and this is the first review I've taken the time to write - hope that gives you an indication of how happy I am with this product. ;-)

This is a definite improvement over the 301. I had several complaints with the 301:
(1) The heart rate monitor did not track well, and would often jump up to 240, which was a problem when looking at average heart rate later;
(2) The tracking was bad sometimes in the woods, where I run (it could vary half a mile on a four-mile course, and even worse, the elevation could spike 1,200 feet at times and completely change the profile of the run);
(3) The unit was not ergonomic, the buttons were difficult to push, and the screen was hard to see; and
(4) It took forever to acquire the satellites.

The heart rate monitor comes with a new sensor that is more flexible, comfortable, and offers more reliable data. The tracking is much better and more consistent. The unit is much more like a watch, the display is great, and the buttons are much easier to push while on the go. However, it still takes a while to acquire the satellite signal. It is a bit improved, and is not dissimilar from other Garmin products, so I'd have to say that it's OK.

The BIGGEST improvement is that this model is more like a typical GPS in that it offers many different modes and screens to track various types of information (one can toggle between three different screens). For example, on one screen, I have the current time, sunrise, sunset, and running time. On another screen I have the grade, altitude, average pace, and current pace. On yet another screen I have heart rate, calories, distance traveled, and heading. It is totally cool.

I use this thing for running, biking, rollerblading, mountaineering, skiing, and just about everything else outside. I am really happy that I spent the money for the upgraded version.

I got my first Garmin 305 about 2 months ago. The first day I got it the Enter button stopped working. I returned the Garmin 305 to the dealer and was quickly shipped a new one. I am currently using the second Garmin, however the heart rate monitor function on the watch stopped working about 2 weeks ago. I contacted customer support and they said they would ship me a new one, however they only shipped a new chest monitor instead of the watch. Needless to say I still have the problem. Calling customer service is EXTREMELY painful. The wait time is 30-35 minutes just to talk to someone. I have tried to call morning and afternoons and it does not change the wait time. (I am actually on hold right now as I type and am going on 25 minutes.) I should have known not to give my old Polar to my wife.

The 305 functionality, when it works, is very cool. Mine locks in on satellites within 1-2 minutes and does a good job measuring average pace per lap. I love the auto lap function which I have set at 1 mile. The instant pace is off due to the delay in tracking with the satellites. It is actually showing my pace delayed about 10-15 seconds. I have gone to just using the average lap pace and it gives me what I really need to know. The only problem I have besides the heart rate not working at all, is the distance tracking on one particular trail I run. The trail has a lot of tight switchbacks and the area is covered with trees. The distance registers about 1.5 miles short on a 12 mile loop. It does work well everywhere else I run.

New update: I finally got through to customer support and they are making me send my watch in for service. Maybe I'll enjoy just running with no data for a while, yeah right!

I have had my Forerunner 305 for almost 3 weeks now. Previous to this I used a Polar S150 (wired bike mount) for several years and a entry level Polar before that, so I am used to basic heart rate monitor but not advance data recording or GPS.

I have tested the Forerunner 305 running, biking and swimming and have been generally very impressed.

General: The concept of acquiring satellites before I get going took a little getting used to. After the first couple of times I generally get satellite acquisition within about 30 seconds as long as I am outside or in my enclosed front porch. I set the unit down so that it is completely stationary while acquiring satellites. I get spotty to no reception indoors. The heart rate monitor functions well in comparison to my Polars. I have only had erratic heart readings at the end of one bike ride (fixed by adjusting the strap), which is better performance than I generally would get with the Polars (Except for Swimming, see below). The grade measurements are so erratic as to be totally useless. I have had the grade measurement vary from 8% to 25% back down to 5% within one minute of sustained climbing on the bike. I believe this is due to a poor averaging algorithm (2 point average as opposed to smoother averages involving more points). This is something I intended to test once I figure out how to access the raw data. Data recording is interesting, but is highly dependent on the software used to analyze it. Training center software is decent but unsophisticated (lack of user configurable option is disappointing in a $300+ product). Motion Based has been fun to use, especially the map player. As noted in a previous post of mine errors in distance calculations arise due to Motion Based insistence on connecting erratic track points recorded when you are standing still.

Running: To this point I have done about half a dozen runs of 3-3.5 miles each on a couple of different courses. Mostly I run on trails with trees (no real leaves as of yet) with some street and open field running mixed in. Generally in the trees I average an accuracy of about 25 ft, which I consider to be pretty good. The tracks and distances are both reproducible to within this approximate 25 ft range. I have found the "instantaneous" pace to be somewhat erratic but generally within approximately 5% of the short term mean. The auto stop feature (I have it set to stop if pace falls below 30 min mile) working decently on the run but occasionally does not register that I am stopped. Overall I am very excited to easily track my running distance and have a pretty good idea of my pace.

Biking: Used for approximately 10 bike rides both on and off road. Despite some concerns that the antenna faces the wrong way when mounted on the handlebars (I mount mine by wrapping the monitor around a piece of foam) I generally get great GPS reception on the bike. Accuracy is generally about 15 ft on open road and 25-30 ft.on trails. The speed and distance seems to be very accurate and the precision (reproducibility) is within 1%. The auto stop feature works extremely well on the bike, starting and stopping the unit within 1 second. The one down side is that the buttons you are most likely to use for cycling are on the side of the unit (the up/down and occasionally the mode button).

Swimming: I have only tested in an indoor swimming pool, hoping to be able to record my heart rate. Unfortunately, unlike my Polar S150 the heart rate signal cannot be measured in the water. I did these tests with the receiver under my swim cap, which was pretty comfortable and I could access the buttons easily. There may be more utility for swimming in open water.