Revision as of 15:37, 21 July 2011

Best Runners Watch This page is not a comprehensive or in-depth review of the various running watches available. Its intention is to provide an overview of the options and what I believe are the most critical aspects of the decision. For a deeper review of watches, check out the site http://www.dcrainmaker.com

1 Summary

I would recommend…

• Garmin 310XT is the best for nearly every runner.
• Garmin 305 for those that can't afford the 310XT. The 205 is even cheaper.
• Garmin 610 if you have to have something smaller and don't need much battery life.
• Polar RS800CX if you need a long (20+ hours) battery life

2 What to look for

There are several features to consider when looking for a runners watch.

• GPS provides an easy measure of how far you've run, which is critical for your training. While it is possible to map out a run afterwards, this tends to be tedious and is typically less accurate than GPS.
  • GPS is easy to use and accurate enough for most running, but it is not accurate enough for things like interval training.
  • The errors in GPS average out over a run, but they cause a problem when trying to display current pace.
• A footpod can be used to provide \[\[Cadence\]\] and in some watches it can also provide pace and distance. Unlike GPS, footpods need to be calibrated to provide accurate pace/distance.
• A barometer will measure the atmospheric pressure and give you altitude. This is more accurate than GPS, but will require calibration to adjust for weather related pressure changes.
• Heart rate can be useful information when training, though it is important to understand the limitations of heart rate based training. The heart rate strap that goes across your chest can be intrusive and sometimes can chafe. Polar heart rate monitoring is far better than the Garmin equivalent.

3 The best - Garmin 310XT

While not perfect, the best watch for most runners is currently the Garmin 310XT. See DC Rainmaker's full review for more details.

3.1 Pros

• The 310XT is one of the most advanced watches available, but is no harder for a beginner to use than most alternatives.
• The killer feature is the ability to use the optional footpod to display your current pace while using GPS for overall pace, distance and route. Only the 310XT and Garmin 610 can do this.
• The GPS is more accurate than earlier watches, and has a faster startup time. (It uses the SiRFstar III with Instafix, one of the latest GPS chipsets)
• The housing is fully waterproof (to 50m/160ft), so running in the rain is no problem.
• Connection to a PC is wireless, using a USB adapter. This is less hassle than any of the other options I've tried.
• The display is big enough to show four readings. I often display current pace, average pace for the current lap, average pace for the run and either heart rate or distance.
• You can upload courses and display them. This is great when running somewhere unfamiliar.
• There are several optional extras for the 310XT, including the already mentioned footpod and heart rate strap. For cyclists there is also a speed/cadence sensor and it works with various power sensors.
• The vibration alert works nicely. I often run with the 310XT set to record a lap every mile, and it will vibrate as well as beep.

3.2 Cons

• The biggest downside for most people is the price. The watch without any accessories is $300, though you can sometimes get it a little cheaper. However, many of the alternatives are even more expensive.
• Some people find the 310XT to be rather large, and it is much larger than a normal watch.
• The battery life is good for about 16-20 hours, which is enough for most people. Ultrarunners doing 100 mile or longer races will find this a problem.
• The heart rate monitoring is not as reliable as the Polar systems, though I'm told a new strap is coming that improves this. I find that the Garmin heart rate strap give bad readings far too often, even with a conductive gel. There's nothing more annoying than seeing your heart rate way too high when you're running and having to joggle the strap to get it working again.

4 Cheaper - Garmin 305/205

These watches are the predecessors to the 310XT and are quite similar in a number of ways. The 305 has a few extra features, such as the heart rate monitor and support for a footpod. See DC Rainmaker's full review for more details.

4.1 Pros

• Much cheaper than the 310XT. The 205 can often be found for under $100, and 305 for under $130.
• Usability, display size, heart rate monitoring (305) and course display are similar to the 310XT.

4.2 Cons

• The battery life is quite a bit shorter than the 310XT (6-10 hours), though still good enough for many runners.
• The 305 can use a footpod for cadence and for when satellite reception is lost, but can't display current pace from the footpod.
• The GPS is not as accurate or as fast as the 310XT.
• They're not fully waterproof, but I never had a problem with my 205 in the rain.

5 Smaller – Garmin 610

The 610 is a new watch from Garmin that is smaller, but overcomes many of the issues seen in the 4xx range (see below). See DC Rainmaker's full review for more details.

5.1 Pros

• Smaller than the 310XT/305/205 and closer to the size of a traditional watch.
• The touchscreen interface works with gloves and in the rain, unlike most touchscreens found on phones or media players.
• Good GPS accuracy (uses the SiRF SiRFstarIV with the Instant Fix II)
• Available with the updated Garmin heart rate strap for improved accuracy.

5.2 Cons

• The battery life is rather short. It is claimed to provide 8 hours, but based on experience with other Garmin devices, the actual live may be quite a bit less. This is likely to cause an issue for slower marathon runners or ultrarunners.
• The price is quite high, listing at $350 or $400 including the heart rate monitor.
• Not the range of accessories that the 310XT has, such as power meter for cycling.
• No display of course maps.

6 Longer Battery – Polar RS800CX

I used Polar systems for many years and their quality is great. However, I find the convenience of the Garmin GPS systems to be superior and I'd only recommend the RS800CX if battery life is of paramount importance.

6.1 Pros

• The battery life of the RS800CX is measured in months not hours.
• Heart rate monitoring is far better than with Garmin. The RS800CX will even record each individual heart beat for analyzing beat to beat variation, though it's unlikely anyone will ever make use of that feature.
• The RS800CX is the size of a conventional watch, and because of the long battery life, it can be used as one.
• Includes a barometer for altitude (GPS has very poor accuracy for altitude).
• Fully waterproof.

6.2 Cons

• It's Expensive at around $370.
• While the RS800CX can support GPS, it requires an add-on box you strap to your arm, which is a rather crappy solution.
• There is no display of course maps

7 Not Recommended - Garmin 405/405CX/410

The Garmin 4xx series watches use a touch sensitive bezel which does not work well with gloves or when wet. The 410 has an 'improved bezel', but there are still problems. I also see more people struggling at the start of marathons with the 4xx watches than all the other devices combined.