Garmin to announce Forerunner 305 GPS/training wristwatch at CES

So just like they did earlier this year with the 301, Garmin seems set to reveal a new model in the Forerunner line of GPS watches at CES 2006, a radically redesigned wearable called the 305. Unlike its predecessors (the 301 and 201), the 305 looks much more like a real watch than a shrunken GPS handlheld glued to a wristband, and may even contain its antenna in the angled bottom half of the watch (useful for athletes looking to maintain a consistent signal). Other features targeted at the wandering runner/cyclist/geocacher include a heart rate monitor, speed, distance, pace, and calorie trackers, and a waterproof body. Even though the 305 is a lot more stylish than previous entrants to this category, with wristwatch tech like Fossil's Wrist PDA lineup having fizzled, the bigger question here is whether people really want all this info on tiny devices with small black-and-white screens and frustrating input methods.

[Thanks, Anthony]

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Interesting. I just bought the Forerunner 301, maybe I'll return it and wait for this one instead, as it looks waaay smaller and more manageable on the wrist. I'd be very curious to learn about its ability to track signals in downtown-ish areas with tall buildings.

[Homer J @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

The 301 is never going to win any beauty awards, but this 305 - if it exists - looks really weird. The wrap around bit looks like it would be really uncomfortable to wear. As for size it probably would be an improvement over the 301 - but not worth an upgrade in my books.

[Ryan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I think it will do just fine. The problem with the Fossil PDA is that you're expected to wear that mondo-wrist watch all the time. I don't imagine you'd take this and use it as your regular-wear wristwatch. Rather, you'd only use it when you were out biking, running, etc.

[Paul Smith @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Obviously the writer of this article is not an avid runner. The Garmin GPS is a godsend to those of us who consistently run outside. I train for marathons and other races and can't imagine not having one.

The screen isn't tiny - the input method isn't frustrating. I have the Garmin 201 and absolutely love it. Not all of us have to have colored displays and the 'gee-whiz' technology.

The current size is perfect. It's easy to read when running and gives me all of the information I need.

My only real complaint is the signal loss, and I don't think that's a Garmin issue as much as a GPS issue. Homer is right tho - the Garmin 301 is actually small enough and useful enough as is...

[Homer J @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Paul makes makes a good point about signal loss. My 301 works great in Central Park in the winter, but when the the summer foil-age comes out its 50/50 on coverage. Throw in a hazy day and I just turn the GPS off.

Standing still on a wide avenue can sometime give it the kick start it needs.

Overall though the +'s more then outweight the negatives

[ChrisH @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Having owned the Garmin 201, I would say this looks like an improvement, but given my issues with continual signal loss, I'm still going to go with a Polar model with a footpod. No, it's not as accurate as the GPS can be, but it won't constantly lose signal from tall trees and buildings like the Garmin used to for me. If I lived in Arizona, it would be great, but in the Pacific NW, it's bad.

[Anthony (no relation to person who contributed the story) @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

This looks fantastic! As an avid cyclist, the 305 would be great mounted on my handlebars & would then be portable the month or so I'm cross-training during the rough (ie rainy) part of winter. I have a Garmin iQue 3600 & it's beautiful (used daily for last 1 1/2 years). Can't wait (unless the price is crazy high).

[Glancing Aft @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I have such a love/hate relationship with my 201. I really hope this one has signal improvements.

[RB @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I agree with the above comment: the writer is not a regular runner. I use the 201 and LOVE it. I don't go out running anymore without it. It's great and give me complete freedom and still I know how far I have been running. The 305 looks nice. Less clunky but I never complained about the size of the 201.

[sfred @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Can't really imagine marathon training without my 201 either, it's just too easy to cheat on the long runs without it, but I don't see this as any significant improvement unless the antenna has been vastly improved. I'll only upgrade when someone combines a GPS with an accelerometer so it stays on track even when the signal is lost. That way I can both map my runs and still get meaningful speed information when I'm under the trees.

[meadowman @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I don't get it. Look how far we have come technoligically, only to see a design that takes us back at least to the first calulator watch from 1981. Garmin has some great ideas, but they certainly lack on the design front.

[n8 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I had a feeling the 201/301 was getting replaced soon, so I'm glad I held off from buying one. If this has signal improvements and USB and still retains the same features of the last version, I'd strongly consider it. Garmin's on the right path (I made a punny!) with the whole line - much better than Suunto is with their watches. Suunto's are less functional, just as ugly, and more expensive. And I'm a big Suunto fan.

Of course, I'd prefer if this were a watch I could wear while running and also in casual situations because it's silly just to change watches all the time. But I'll take what I can get.

[Paul Smith @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Bleh - yeh that is the one thing I did forget... my Garmin uses a serial port.... that is an issue.

[Moon @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I've had the 201 for almost 2 years now (first run February 8, 2004! That's the beauty of the thing - it keeps track!)

It's fantastic. I thought I had been running 11 miles and I was really running closer to 15 miles! Needless to say, I love it.

[Peter @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I own an HRM and a GPS and I have tried running holding it in my hand (PITA). This looks like a very interesting combo.

Does anyone know if it (prev versions) records heart rate along with the track so you can see your HR as you were climbing a hill later or some thing like that?

[triman @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

The forerunner 301 does log heart rate data with location as well as show it to you real time... so you can see a watch or plot your heart rate on a climb... the 301 also syncs over usb.

[Anthony @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I actually first discovered this information at the Sportsim blog http://sportsim.blogs.com/weblog/2005/11/new_garmin_fore.html
A quick google opened up the CES page. I own a Forerunner 201 that has been great fun, but I miss the heart rate feature. I will consider an upgrade to this device rather than the now "elderly" Forerunner 301 with a heart rate strap.
Have fun,
Anthony

[n8 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I honestly find heart-rate monitors a little creepy. But that's just me. I'm hoping that there's a version of this that's just the GPS without the heart rate monitor that comes in at a price like the 201.

[Scott @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

As a triathlete, I was looking at the 201 & 301, however the lack of HRM quickly removed it from my list. I opted to upgrade my Polat M152 with the Polar s625x with power options on the bike. Unless the cost is over the top, I may need to add to my training tools.

[hall @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

It looks really weird...

[Runner @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Scott (2 posts above), the Forerunner 301 actually has heart rate monitor functionality

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

"... the bigger question here is whether people really want all this info on tiny devices with small black-and-white screens and frustrating input methods."

... of course they do!

*yeahh* can't wait to get this gadget :-)

[rungeek @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

The FR305 will probably be based on the Edge 305 cycling computer. So I'm guessing it will have a SirfStarIII chip, and the HRM will be based on Dynastream ANT.

http://www.thisisant.com/index.php?module=newsmodule&action=view&id=19
http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/outdoor/083105.html

The Edge has a new feature called "Courses" that sounds like it would be good for runners as well as cyclists:
"This innovative new feature allows you to race against a recorded course and match previously set speeds at every point of the way, or navigate a brand new route. Combine the Courses and Virtual PartnerTM features and race an opponent that varies speed while climbing hills and navigating tricky turns."

[rungeek @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

The FR305 will probably be based on the Edge 305 cycling computer. So I'm guessing it will have a SirfStarIII chip, and the HRM will be based on Dynastream ANT.

http://www.thisisant.com/index.php?module=newsmodule&action=view&id=19
http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/outdoor/083105.html

The Edge has a new feature called "Courses" that sounds like it would be good for runners as well as cyclists:
"This innovative new feature allows you to race against a recorded course and match previously set speeds at every point of the way, or navigate a brand new route. Combine the Courses and Virtual PartnerTM features and race an opponent that varies speed while climbing hills and navigating tricky turns."

[Richard @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

The 301 is much more accurate than the 201 and, assuming what I've heard about the Edge holds true, the 305 should be another big jump in accuracy. I'll probably get one 6 months or so after release and sell my 301, just as I did when I went from the 201 to the 301, if the promise holds true. The Edge is supposedly far superior under heavy cover (although not perfect). Now, if they had an optional footpod as well as the GPS receiver, we could really nail the accuracy without needing manual calibration... but that may be just a little too geeky.

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I had the 201, then upgraded to the 301. Never had problems with maintaining GPS signal. I live in SOCAL, not many trees/buildings to interfere. But I have experienced problems with the HRM dropping out & spiking. Polar is much more consistent with HR. Overall, I prefer GPS. The 305 is a nice step up to make it a little trimmer for running. I use my 301 on the bike also, Garmin has a nice bike mount kit for it. I wonder if there will be one for the 305, it's much better on the bike than on the wrist. I'm going to hold off on buying the 305, doesn't seem worth the money just for the reduced bulk.
The one thing I would really like to see Garmin (or someone else) come out with is a cadence sensor for running. I'm thinking an ankle strap with an accelerometer & transmitter, it should work for running and cycling. Could you ask for anything more, GPS, HRM, and cadence! Where's my credit card...
Chris

[Kim @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

If it is powered by the SirfIII engine, it will be a significant improvement. I have the SirfIII in another GPS and it works under dense tree canopies and in urban canyons. Even inside cars and often indoors (near windows). There may be a slight penalty of less accuracy due to its using weaker satellite signals.

[Olle @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

Does anyone know when it will be released? How long after last years CES until the FR301 was released?

[JB @ Dec 19th 2005 2:38AM]

I had a 201. After 3 months the upload to PC stopped working. One day after about 11 months of use on a cold damp run the thing started turning itself on and off until the battery died. Now it is dead. Won't recharge. Never really worked all the well to begin with. Constantly losing signal, even after telling it I had moved more than 100 miles so it would recalibrate. I only kept wearing it so that when it did have a signal I could check my pace. The quality was so bad I will never buy garmin again. I have seen similar experiences to mine on various forums, so I did not get the only dud. Did most of my running on the street in Bellevue WA if you are interested.