Most helpful client reviews
102 of 104 humans found the following review helpful.
This 405 user loves his new 110
By ldm616
BACKGROUND:
-----------
I have used 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 factor 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 spectacular 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 underneath 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 beneath "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 when it comes to is keeping my HR in the 160-170bpm range (your range will in all probability be different) while attempting to keep my pace under 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 beauteous much do what the 110 displays by default (but can not be changes).
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT "CURRENT PACE"?
-----------------------------------------
I guess a lot of runners want to recognise 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 also 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 start out out too slow, the 110 will tell me my intermediate pace for the current mile is slower, let's say 11:00, and I know 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.
27 of 28 humans found the following review helpful.
Minimal customizability, but sufficient.
By Michael Morrill
NOTE THAT THIS IS A FIRST IMPRESSION REVIEW:
Here is galore selective information I couldn't find elsewhere
1. The watch does not have "bike mode" as has it is predecessors, but it CAN be set to tell you your speed in mph/kph.
2. The the light and right buttons take a bit of strength to press while the lower left button is much easier. Maybe the tougher buttons are that way so your wrist doesn't press them.
3. When you begin and stop the timer, the watch gives you a pop-up window that says "timer started" or "timer stopped" which takes a few seconds to disappear. It's kind of annoying.
4. When you tell the watch to go out of gps mode, you have to wait regarding a minute before you may tell it to go back into gps mode. The reverse is likewise true. Again, this nuance is not a deal breaker, but it's annoying.
5. When you press the "lap" button while timing. The screen will change and give you the lap time for when it comes to 10 seconds and then return to the screen that gives you total elapsed time. In other words, there is no way to view your lap time as it increases. It's only viewable at the END of the lap.
6. To reset the stopwatch, you have to hold "reset" for 3 seconds. That's irritatingly slow.
This watch is surely less gigantic than the 205/305. I think it's a bit littler than the 405 too. It has a solid, well made "feel" but is not very heavy. The band is comfortable for a plastic watch and has a circumference of regarding 9". As stated in the instructions, you have to hold still for the watch to acquire satellite signals. It effortlessly gets signals quicker than my 60csx which has a SiRf III chip, but I'm not sure how the 205/305/405's compare. Beyond telling the watch to report 12/24 hour mode, pace/speed, km/mi, and beeps/alarm only/off you can't custommake much when it comes to what it shows you.
Sadly, I haven't had time to take the watch on a run or match it with my 60csx, but I will try to post that data this weekend.
Overall, this watch seems like it ought to do what it was made to do just fine. Due to it is sluggish stopwatch, expense, bulk, and lack of simultaneous showing of elapsed lap and total elapsed times, I won't take it to the gym any time soon. That said, I am still excessively affected emotionally to try it on runs and bike rides.
Also, I highly commend Clever Training as a vendor. I ordered the watch on Sunday and got it on Wednesday.
UPDATE: 5-10-2010
I took this watch on a run along with my 60csx. For the duration of the 2.4 mile run, they stayed within 0.02 of a mile of each other (usually 0.01). I could not compare the speeds directly because the 110 only gives you a running average. It would be nice if Garmin would concede you to alter that feature. Sometimes the 110 will get a signal in in regards to 15 seconds, but from time to time it takes more like a minute.
18 of 19 humans found the following review helpful.
Fairly easy-to-use
By Katherine Llinas
This watch is great if all you want is to track your running/cycling both while you're going and after you're done.
The best share is in all probability the software Garmin offers online. You may make an analyzation of all of your actions by speed, distance, pace, heart rate (if you get the heart monitor)...
The cons:
- It may take 5 minutes for the watch to hook up to satellites when you modify to tracking mode, and that's a pain. I normally begin it when I'm stretching so that by the time I'm ready to run, it's all set.
- God forbid you will have to without advance planning select "use indoors", because then you have to wait for it to reset itself or it will merely act as a stopwatch and won't track you.
- I stuffed the watch in my gym bag, and it set off a button. My 7-mile run turned into a 6-hour track of a day in my locker and the ride home. The software is only usable with internet access, and it's not super easy to use-- i.e., I can't erase the extra 5 hours of that run. Which is a shame when I undertake to track my progress.
Overall, I'd say it's gorgeous simple as far as runners' watches go. Not a lot of bells and whistles, other than the apparent talks-to-outer-space thing.
See all 40 client reviews...
