Most helpful client reviews
297 of 301 humans found the following review helpful.
This 405 user loves his new 110
By ldm616
BACKGROUND:
-----------
I have applied a Garmin 405 to track my weekend long runs for with regards to 1.5 years. Previously I owned the Garmin 305. I'm using the 110 with with my 405 chest strap (saved me $50).
SUMMARY:
--------
The 110 does everything I do with my 405 in a significantly smaller, lighter form element with a superior GPS chip (in theory, to be proven).
REASONS WHY I LIKE MY NEW 110 BETTER THAN MY OLD 405:
-----------------------------------------------------
* It's littler and less bulky than the 405, looks and feels like a regular watch, and wraps snugly around my smallish wrist.
* I don't have to fiddle around with the temperamental 405 touch-(in)sensitive bezel.
* The displayed numbers for distance/hr/time/pace are more prominent on the 110 than the 405, so posing no difficulty for me to read on the run.
* There are less menus to navigate.
* Like the 405, GPS locking and accuracy works just fine, even beneath trees (more below).
* Like the 405, I may set the auto-lap to increment each 1 mile (other distances available).
* The 110 displays everything I want to track for the duration of and after my run.
- Elapsed distance (for run), Elapsed time (for run), Current HR, Average pace (for current lap), Last lap pace (displayed mechanically for a few seconds after each lap), Average HR (for run), Average pace (for run). Average HR and pace for the entire run are show under "History" at the end of my run.
* To make this tangible, I may glimpse at the watch to see that so far I've run 2.1 miles in 21 minutes, my current HR is 160, my pace for the current mile (mile 3) is 9:56 and my pace for the last lap (mile 2) was 10:01. At the end of my run, I click through to "History" and see that my intermediate HR for the entire run was 162bpm and my intermediate pace was 9:54 minute miles. For me, currently, all I care with regards to is keeping my HR in the 160-170bpm range (your range will probably be different) while attempting to keep my pace underneath 10:00. In general, I suspect most runners will have the same requirements: Track your current HR to keep it within a target range while attempting to meet or beat a per-mile pace goal.
* The 110 has a longer battery life
* I never used the other 405 features like courses, virtual partner, etc. Ironically, I "customized" the 405 screens to pretty much do what the 110 displays by default (but cannot be changes).
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT "CURRENT PACE"?
-----------------------------------------
I guess a heap of runners want to know the pace they are running RIGHT NOW. Think of it as their instantaneous pace - kinda like what a car speedometer gives you. Some folks call it "current pace" but that may be mixing up when you likewise have intermediate pace for the current mile, so let's call current pace the "right-now" pace. Unlike the 405, the 110 does not give you your right-now pace. Instead you get your intermediate pace for the current lap. If your auto-lap is set to 1 mile (the default setting) then you'll see your intermediate pace for the current mile. I for one don't need right-now pace. Since I'm attempting to hit per-mile pace goals I want to see my intermediate pace for the current mile. If I'm attempting to hit a 10:00 pace for the current mile, and I begin out too slow, the 110 will tell me my intermediate pace for the current mile is slower, let's say 11:00, and I recognise I need to run the rest of the mile more quickly to fetch my intermediate pace for the current mile down from 11:00 to my target pace of 10:00. As I speed up, my intermediate pace for the current mile will tardily drop from 11:00 to 10:00. Bottom line: Right-now pace doesn't help me hit per-mile pace goals so I could care less if it's "missing" from the 110. If all you are doing is attempting to hit per-mile pace goals (eg run a 10:00 miles) then you'll be just fine with the 110.
ANY GPS ISSUES?
---------------
Not for me. Check out connect dot garmin dot com slash action slash 44862992 and you'll see my test walk/run. Click to view the map in "Satellite" mode and observe that most of my test walk was beneath thick tree cover.
164 of 165 people found the following review helpful.
Does what it says it does well
By Mike
pros-quick satellite fix, very clear display, waterproof, shows the data you need not what you don't, uses buttons rather of bezel controls, uses USB rather of wireless connection.
cons-fairly expensive, GPS loses some accuracy underneath heavy tree cover.
This watch is exceptionally good for two kinds of runners: those who run on trails, and can't effortlessly lock in distances (and thence pace); and those who travel, but still want to run outside, rather than on hotel treadmills. In both instances, this watch will give you exact distance information, as well as pace and heart rate. The other huge improvements that I haven't seen cited in other reviews are that not similar to the 405, it has reverted to button controls, and likewise to a direct USB cable connection to your computer for uploading run information. Garmin is not promotion these changes, since they are ostensibly steps backward from the 405's bezel controls and wireless connection, but these were the roots of most of the complaints with regards to the 405--especially difficulties with the bezel once it got wet with sweat or rain. This is no longer an issue.
You have to wonder whether a lot of of the humans writing these (one star) reviews genuinely run--or whether they work for Polar or Timex? The watch gives you distance, time and pace, as well as heart rate information, as you go. For most easy or long runs on trails or the road, this is all you need. On the track, you know the distance, so if you're doing intervals, just use the stopwatch. The only scenario where the lack of 'current pace' could be a problem as far as I may see is in doing tempo runs, if you do do them by time (say 20 minutes easy, 40 minutes tempo, 10 minutes warm down) rather of by distance, as I do them. By time, you could get a circumstance where your original and last miles of tempo running get mixed in with running at an easy pace, and the pace data would be useless. Still, if you set the autolap function at .25 miles, very little of your run is going to be logged inaccurately (at most the original and last quarter mile in that tempo workout). Similarly, if you occur to be altering pace lot for the duration of a run and want prompt feedback, the watch does give you that. So-called current speed on a GPS watch is always more or less of an estimate anyway, since it is plotting your emplacement amongst two points, measuring the time it took you, and then doing the math. There's in truth no such thing as an instantaneous current pace calculation, and if you have your watch set on .25 mile autolap, that's not much more than the distance that would genuinely be employed for a current pace calculation otherwise.
One criticism: though the satellites initially lock onto my watch after an intermediate of 30 seconds and seem to give very exact distance ad elevation selective information (the latter on the Garmin Connect website), there is one part of my frequent run under heavy tree cover where it seems like the satellites lose me for a tenth of a mile or less, which makes the data for that mile always come out slower than I'm actually running. It makes up the divergence on the next mile, which makes that one come out too fast. Both are off by around 15 seconds/mile, and this is a bit annoying. Although I may do the calculation to intermediate the two and see that each time they fundamentally come out even, it seems that Garmin ought to have come up with an algorithm for the watch's software that would pay for such discrepancies within the mile where they happen, rather than giving inaccurate selective information for two successive miles.
Bottom line: this watch gives you a lot of utile information, and even more when you download it to the Garmin Connect site. Unlike other Garmin watches, it doesn't give some extra cycling data and the heart rate monitor doesn't work in the pool, so it's in truth a watch for runners, not triathletes. But for semi-serious to very severe runners, it gives you everything you need, without the bells and whistles--and the headaches--of the 405.
141 of 144 persons found the following review helpful.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT
By Maricela Farfan
I'am no marathon runner, just attempting to get back to running like back in my cross country/track high school days. It's sooooo easy to use. I purchased the 305/405 and without delay returned it because it was totally too hard to figure out how to use. With the 110 you charge it, fabricate your profile (weight, age, sex) go outside and let it sink with the satellites...then press start. It's that simple. If you get the one with the heart rate monitor, it gives you calories burned, and heart rate. I see humans in here griping when it comes to something with regards to the "pace". I don't know..it displays the pace you are going at, so i'm not too sure what that is all about. You sync it with the garmin website, and it give you more outstanding "in depth" selective information regarding your run.
Just do not forget that this isn't suppose to have all the bells and whistle the other running watches have. This is for just simple use; distance, pace, calories, heart rate, time. This will suffice most people, and unquestionably exceedingly user friendly.
See all 172 client reviews...
