I’m a big fan of my Garmin Forerunner 205 GPS watch – it’s the one gadget that I consider to be an essential on every run (view my review of the Forerunner 205), and the accurate pacing and distance data that it provides has now carried me through five marathons. In the interim since I first started using my 205 about 2 years ago, Garmin has added several additional models to the Forerunner line, including the waterproof Forerunner 310XT, and the more watch-like Forerunner 405CX. Yesterday, Garmin announced the release of the newest member of the Forerunner line – the Garmin Forerunner 110, a simplified version for those interested only in basic data like pace, distance, and heart rate. Here’s how Garmin describes the Forerunner 110 in their press release:
“Forerunner 110 fills the needs of runners of all levels by focusing on simplicity without sacrificing accuracy,” said Dan Bartel, Garmin’s vice president of worldwide sales. “Within seconds of stepping outside, you simply press start and instantly know your distance, pace and time – all without any complicated setup or excessive accessories.”
…
“In addition to displaying time and distance, Forerunner 110 shows pace in one of two ways, averaged out either over the current lap/mile (if auto-lap is enabled) or over the duration of the run. Runners wearing a Garmin heart rate monitor (included in some bundles or available separately) can monitor how hard they’re working while they exercise as Forerunner 110 displays current heart rate data and features heart rate-based calorie computation.“
Based on the availble pictures on the Garmin website, it appears that the Forerunner 110 is a smaller profile model, more along the lines of the 405 than the 205/305 or 310XT – this means it’s probably suitable to wear as an everyday watch. Garmin claims that the re-chargeable battery lasts “up to 8 hours in GPS/training mode and up to three weeks in power-save mode.” The Forerunner 110 syncs to a computer via USB, which is useful for uploading workout data to Garmin Connect or third-party training websites like my personal favorite, dailymile.com (you can read more about Garmin integration on dailymile here).
Although I like the sleek profile of the Forerunner 110, I question the suggested $250.00 pricetag for this supposedly entry-level model ($199.99 without heart rate monitoring) when the perfectly functional Forerunner 305 apparently provides more functionality (including heart rate) for almost $100 less. Granted, people aren’t going to be wearing the bulky Forerunner 305 as an everyday watch, but the need to recharge the 110 means it’s going to have to come off the wrist reasonably frequently anyway. I have no plans of running out to buy a Forerunner 110 (I’m perfectly happy using my 205 until it kicks the bucket), but it will be interesting to hear feedback once it starts to filter out into the market. To read more about the Forerunner 110, check out the official Garmin Forerunner 110 page here. They also have a nice flash-based overview page for the Forerunner 110 here.
Below are links to some of the other Forerunner models on Amazon (they’ve had consistently good prices for these devices).
You might also like:
Garmin Forerunner 10 (FR10) Review: Great Performance in a Small, Low-Priced Package
Review of SportTracks for Garmin Forerunner GPS Watches: Great Free Program for Downloading Garmin Data
Running Gear Review: Garmin Forerunner 205/305 GPS Wristwatch
Garmin Forerunner 610 Replacement Velcro Wristband: Quick Take
Garmin Forerunner 15 (FR15) Review: Activity Tracking and GPS in One Watch
About Peter Larson
I agree that this is very silly. Based on the headline I assumed this would be a cheaper watch, thus “entry level.” I don’t think many people will be picking one of these up to wear for their day-to-day watch.
Josh,
My thoughts exactly – if you’re going entry level, price it as such.
Pete
I tried to email you but kontactr was not working?
my email is juddrumley@gmail.com
Pete,
I grew up in Oklahoma with a neighbor across the street named Peter Larson. Funny.
I just buzzed across your blog and have been reading your posts. Thanks for taking the time to give your insights.
I am moving from New Balance 858 (motion control) to something else. I just realized I have been running in the wrong shoe for 10 years. I even ran the Dallas White Rock Marathon in them. Someone misdiagnosed me back than and I just reevaluated by looking at the soles of my shoes, watching videos and having my wife watch my gate. I supinate thus no need for motion control.
My question – I just ordered some Nike Vomero+ (half off last years model). Would you suggest that I send those back and get Nike Free or something else? Just trying to gather ideas.
Blessings,
Judd Rumley, Eagle, CO
P.S. I am 2/3 through Born to Run and wow, it’s inspirational and making think about minimalist running.
Judd,
Thanks for stopping by the blog! As far as shoe choice goes, it really
depends on where you want to go with your running. Since you’re reading Born
to Run, you know a lot of the arguments that have been made about the
questionable value of running shoes, but I’d emphasize that there aren’t any
good studies showing that going more minimalist is better from an injury
prevention standpoint (check out my latest podcast episode for more on this:
https://runblogger.com/2010…
).
Like you, I was also placed into stability shoes (Nike Air Structure Triax
at first), but have moved into neutral shoes over the last year, and have
had no problems in doing so. The Nike Free 3.0 was my first minimalist shoe,
and I absolutely love them (I still use them on occasion, although I run
mostly in Brooks these days). If your considering moving to a more
minimalist shoe, the Free is a good choice if you want to go for a
lightweight, flexible shoe. I haven’t worn the 5.0, but my wife has them and
likes them. My basic philosophy now is to wear as light a shoe as possible
for a given running situation – for long runs I wear the Brooks Launch, for
speed I wear a racing flat, and I also use the Vibram Fivefingers once a
week or so for foot/leg strengthening. If you like Nike’s, you might also
want to check out the Lunar line, including the Lunarfly+ or Lunaracer –
both are very lightweight.
Ultimately, I view it as a personal choice since each person knows their
body best, but I’m happy with my decision to mix things up and go for
lighter, less stabilizing shoes.
Pete
Entry-level? More like vanity level. I would pay more for a cute watch, I bet some other people would too. But I happen to like my ginormous 305, I think it makes me look like a ‘real runner’. :)
Can someone advice is the new FX 110 water resistance ?
I don’t know the answer, though I can say that I run in the rain frequently
with my 205.
Pete
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Thanks Pete
On Mon 12/04/10 05:32 , “Disqus”
sent:
Pete Larson wrote, in response to richmiu:
I don’t know the answer, though I can say that I run in the rain
frequently
with my 205.
Pete
Link to comment:
https://runblogger.com/2010…
[1]
—–
Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.
To turn off notifications, go to:
http://disqus.com/account/noti… [2]
————————-
Msg sent via HGC webmail – http://www.hgcbroadband.com/
Links:
——
[1]
https://runblogger.com/2010…
[2] http://disqus.com/account/noti…
does anyone know if you can upload your run route from garmin 305 to facebook?
Don’t think you can directly upload without a third party app. Those may be
out there, but have not used them.
Pete
Garmin Forerunner 110 GPS
The Garmin Forerunner 110 has only three screens: Time and Date, Chonograph with pace and distance, and Heart Rate with pace and distance. This is all I need – no virtual trainer, no computer generated intervals, none of the stuff I never used with the 405. And you access those beautifully simple screens with simple, reliable, mechanical buttons, not an awful touch screen. Mine did not come with a HR monitor,
Read More : http://garminvs.com/detail.php?id_detail=163