Garmin 305 or iPhone Runkeeper App?

1 to 20 of 28 messages
13/06/2011 at 23:08
Anyone used both and have any thoughts?

iPhone does most of it all but free, but can get the £305 for around £115 on Amazon. I have read all the reviews.

Is it worth the cash or does the iPhone Run Keeper app do pretty much the same (but free)?

Brian.
13/06/2011 at 23:13
I use the app 'run meter' which I find does all I need - pace,speed,whether faster or slower over old routes etc etc. Excellent value for just over a quid!
13/06/2011 at 23:24
The 305 records more accurate tracks, but it's over 100 times the price of the RunMeter app, and given that RunKeeper is free for iPhone, the 305 is infinitely more expensive!
14/06/2011 at 07:51

I have a 305 and both EndoMondo and iMapMyRun apps for my Android phone.

The phone apps are both OK, in fact functionally they're better than the 305, but I still prefer running with a watch on my wrist than holding a phone.

14/06/2011 at 10:16
I have a Garmin 205 (same as the 305 but without a HRM) and Runkeeper on my phone. I've run with both and Runkeeper isn't as accurate as the Garmin, it uses fewer data points. I found it under-recorded the route by about half a mile and was relatively inconsistent for recording speed too.

The other thing to consider is sometimes you might want to escape and run without your phone.
14/06/2011 at 11:26
I have both and choose the 305 9 times out of 10.
14/06/2011 at 11:53
If you can afford the Garmin go for that. I tried Runkeeper and found it only worked 60% of the time. When it did work, it was short compared to a run specific GPS. Plus having a device on your wrist rather than your arm means you can get instant feedback. Handy for distance and heart rate info if you use a HRM.

The Garmin is specifically made for the task. Phone apps use hardware that isn't and while they are good, they will not be as robust or accurate as run specific device such as a Garmin (other makes are available apparently).
14/06/2011 at 15:25

I would go for the Garmin also. I used to use Runkeeper but got fed up with the inconsistant GPS on the iphone which is actually Assisted with 3G and not proper GPS like the garmin. I currently use a 405.

14/06/2011 at 15:26
Garmin 305, no contest.
14/06/2011 at 21:36

I've used both and I can say that I find the 305 far better. My Runkeeper went a bit weird after one update and didn't record my run, on the same route that I'd done several times before. It then did this a few times, which was a bit annoying.

I picked up my Garmin for £76 on fleabay. There may be a fair few knocking about post-VLM. Try and get one that is reasonably new. Mine was used for 1 marathon, so not over-used at all.

 Although, if cash is a concern then Runkeeper will do a perfectly good job! Just be prepared for the odd glitch. (haven't used it for 6 months though so may be much better now)

So, both will do the job. But the Garmin is better IMO.

15/06/2011 at 06:37

Have a Garmin 210 and runkeeper.. use My runkeeper more than my garmin because I love the fact it uploads straight away to facebook, which can serve as your online training diary. Downside no pause function so every time you stop it keeps going, which can be annoying.

In hindsight, would not purchased the garmin because it is more fiddly to upload.

I have my runkeeper set with the mile times which i find really useful .another problem is finding a suitable container to carry your smart phone .

Try runkeeper for free and see if does what you want it to do before buying a garmin.

15/06/2011 at 08:14
I use a Garmin 110 and prefer it to running with my iPhone on my arm, I find my arms are more relaxed while I'm running now !

Saying that when I'm trail running on my own my iPhone is in my bumbag, I use the runmeter app and it emails my husband every 10 mins to let him know where I am, then if I stop running he knows where I am...... Or at least the rough area....

I also have the memory map app on my iPhone that has ordnance survey maps loaded on it for the areas I'm running, when I'm running a new route it is quite useful to be able to see exactly whe you are, some footpaths aren't that well marked !
15/06/2011 at 12:01
i have iphone, nike + for ipod and a garmin 305, and the garmin is miles better.  iphone is too bulky to run with and nike + is very inaccurate.  the garmin is on your wrist and pinpint accurate.  this particular model is a little bulky though, you may find newer/smaller models available now.
15/06/2011 at 12:56

Which iPhone have you got? I think that is an importand question. The GPS in the older models is pretty poor whereas in the iPhone 4 it is much better and a lot more accurate than even the 3GS.

I have an iPhone 4 and personally no longer use it for Runkeeper - excpet for specific things.

The Garmin will give you a lot more information. I use it with the HRM and Footpod (footpod primarilly for when on a treadmill).

With runkeeper, if I am doing Intervals, I will use the app to give me my timings. I wear headphones so wouldn't hear the watch beeping at me to change anything.

Try runkeeper first and see what you think. If you like it, stick with it. If you want more following that, get the Garmin.

I love my 305 and would be unlikely to go back to runkeeper full time (although I do still upload all my runs to the site).

15/06/2011 at 13:23

I am a gadget freak, and I run with three(!) devices. I have an iPod on one arm to listen to music and use Nike+, a smartphone on the other arm running Endomondo (better than Runkeeper IMO) and a Garmin 305. The 305 is the most accurate, and far more configurable - I went for the 305 for the option of workouts and heart rate monitoring. As an example of accuracy, here are the distances given on my last run:

iPod Touch with NikeGPS app: 7.79 miles

Smartphone with Endomondo app: 7.55 miles

Garmin 305: 7.36 miles

If you don't need the extra accuracy, HRM or option to programme workouts then go the smartphone option.

15/06/2011 at 15:40
I think that if you are serious about it, better get the garmin 305. It is a lot expensive compared to the iphone app though. But it gives you more accurate track record than what the app indicates.

True enough, that would be the obvious case, the iphone app being cheaper. But I think that is not trivial as you have paid for the device itself.

Try looking for other apps that might be more apt to your needs.
17/06/2011 at 12:27
305.....excellent
18/06/2011 at 19:23
I've only used the Garmin Forerunner 305 for a couple of times (25 miles) and don't own an iPhone, but I've been running with an iPod touch for the last 4 months and I've found a huge difference.
iPod touch (which can be extended to any iPhone) aren't very suitable for running long distances. I've been wearing it in an neoprene arm band (Incase) and the inside usually ends up building moisture, sometimes starts malfunctioning, the Voice Control feature pops up, tracks are played at faster rate, the player leaps randomly between tracks... what it can become very annoying. Fortunately, when the moisture goes away it woks again normally. In contrast, Garmin 305 is certified to work under 1m of water for half an hour so moisture or even heavy rain shouldn't become an issue.
On the other hand, the Garmin 305 has very nice features for any runner curious about his/her runs. I've checked the registered distances in Google Earth and they're rather accurate. You can set to register your position every second, however in the long runs this feature is automatically deactivated to store more data, this explains why in such cases your route appears with much less points and more often goes through buildings and out of your pathway, however I've verified (comparing short laps that have been affected by the "smart simplifications in the map with the real distances) that the measures are still made with the same accuracy.
Another reason o wear Garmin 305 is the use of foot pod to track your run cadence. I've been running barefoot since February and was very interested to check my cadence to keep it high (at least 90 spm), the most recent foot pod model is as small as the Nike+ sensor but unlike the Nike+, Garmin foot pod uses replaceable batteries. The cadence readings are rather consistent despite the fact that I have to wear the foot pod attached around my ankle.
As for the Garmin 305 size, the watch is rather big but isn't heavy and the wrist band fits to very narrow wrists like mine. You'll forget you're wearing it.
The last extra feature that iPhone doesn't have is the heart rate monitor, if you find uncomfortable the included chest band, get the Premium HR monitor, the transmitter is attached to the fabric band by means of 2 snap fasteners that also are used to connect it to the electrodes. The strap itself isn't of very good quality but interestingly the transmitter fasteners are fully compatible with the Polar bands such as Wearlink + transmitter for Nike+, so if you have been using it with your Nike+ device you can still recycle the strap to attach the Garmin Premium transmitter to it.
Finally, you can to convert your Garmin workouts to Nike+ with a free online application (http://awsmithson.com/tcx2nikeplus/), that way you can see the page that has been created to depict routes for the new Nike Sportwatch GPS in the Nike+ site (compared to the Garmin site it looks crappy) and how slow is loaded. Two examples of Garmin activities: activity1, activity2
Edited: 18/06/2011 at 19:38
18/06/2011 at 19:33

zeephyyr wrote (see)

I've only used the Garmin Forerunner 305 for a couple of times (25 miles) and don't own an iPhone, but I've been running with an iPod touch for the last 4 months and I've found a huge difference. iPod touch (which can be extended to any iPhone) aren't very suitable for running long distances. I've been wearing it in an neoprene arm band (Incase) and the inside usually ends up building moisture, sometimes starts to malfunctioning, the Voice Control feature pops up, tracks are played at faster rate, the player leaps randomly between tracks... what it can become very annoying.

Can't say I've had this problem with my iPhone - which usues GPS which isn't present in the iPod Touch. I ran a Half Marathon using my iPhone + Runkeeper as well as my Garmin 305 simultaneously. Both recorded very similar results.

 zeephyyr wrote (see)

The last extra feature that iPhone doesn't have is the heart rate monitor, 

Hate to say it, but yup, the iPhone does have a HRM
http://runkeeper.com/heart-rate-monitoring

zeephyyr wrote (see)
 Finally, you can to convert your Garmin workouts to Nike+ with a free online application (http://awsmithson.com/tcx2nikeplus/), that way you can see the page that has been created to depict routes for the new Nike Sportwatch GPS in the Nike+ site (compared to the Garmin site it looks crappy) and how slow is loaded.


You can upload the GPX/TCX file generated to a number of different sites.
I personally upload to Runkeeper as well as the Gamin site and I also use SportTracks - all uploaded direct from the watch without the need of converting anything - just needs the Garmin Plugin.

18/06/2011 at 20:19
It's good to know that there're compatible HRMs for the iPhone (and apps that use these data). Then I could probably also use the Polar Wearlink+ with my iPod. I don't think that this option was offered in the "default" Nike+ app or at least I couldn't find it.
Can Runkeeper or any other app use the signal from a foot pod (such as the Nike+ sensor that is already detected by the iPhone) to determine your run cadence? The absence of a cadence feature was the main reason I decided to ditch my Nike+ device even when I had already purchased a HR monitor for it (wasted money). It seems now clear (since the release of the new GPS watch) that Nike has no interest in giving this kind of information to their customers.
As for uploading workouts, I found useful to specifically convert them to the Nike+ site since I had already uploaded my last 2 years workouts to the Nike+ site. The conversion doesn't take quite a long time anyway, just a few minutes using that web application.
BTW, where is the quote option in this forum? I'm used to the WR.com forums but here the editor is different.

Edit:
Since I can't edit my previous post I'll add this fragment now with the correct links and a comment:
Two examples of Garmin activities: activity1, activity2
Comment: the distance of the 11th split in the activity2 is 0.27 km and measured in Google Earth 2x 135.35 m, pretty accurate. The route has been only sometimes misplaced when running close to tall buildings. The following picture is an example of accurate reception of GPS signal and storage of enough points:
http://ozfjyw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pWkyUVaZL11LUJ3RUAHtlTeDM-xRjTIqPwuNEG159Sj2hrn4tVodw2t87WjoLDe-klhMskr77E8CTen7iF3ga1BuNBq9CJyXo/Route%20in%20Garmin%20Aerial%20Map.png?psid=1

Edited: 18/06/2011 at 22:06
1 to 20 of 28 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums