45 responses

  1. CHeSKa
    March 30, 2010

    just wanted to say i stumbled on to your blog last week while doing research on the 310XT. Needless to say i really enjoyed reading your blog besides the one you did on the 310. Thank you for doing the research and comparisons. As a newer triathlete with many milestones ahead of me,I really enjoy what you have to say and appreciate your non-intimidating nature. Thanks!
    reguards, cheska, austin, tx
    PS got my 310 today- got it all set and can’t wait to use it tomorrow AM.

    Reply

  2. Steve
    March 31, 2010

    Looking forward to some photo comparisons of this watch and the 405. Hard to get a sense of from the Garmin site exactly how big it is.

    Reply

  3. EndorphinBuzz
    April 2, 2010

    It’s nice of Garmin to try to introduce new products but I’m curious to see where the market is going now that phones have pretty good GPS. I just got a Nexus phone and will be trying out various tracking programs I see in the android market to see how they compare to the garmin GPS.

    I wonder if bluetooth could be used to throw in foot pods / heart rate monitors in the mix, rendering the watches obsolete. I already carry my phone when I run anyways, whatever can reduce the amount of electronics I carry on a run is welcome.

    Reply

  4. Dekel
    April 4, 2010

    Two points that you didn’t mentioned in the preview:

    1) The FR110 uses the new SiRFstarIV chipset which means it may have better tracking accuracy than previous Garmin watches.

    2) Garmin removed many features from the FR110:
    – No interval workouts/advanced workouts
    – No courses
    – No customizable screens

    Reply

  5. Rainmaker
    April 5, 2010

    Hi Derek-

    Yup, I saw the information about the new chip – but at the moment it’s unclear if that means ‘1-2 second acquisition’ or ‘just faster’. Each new version they’ve increased the chipsets, which is great – and they are getting faster. Just being the data geek I am, I look for pretty specific ‘How long does it really take’ analysis’. 😉

    As for the other items, yup – the watch does indeed have a much smaller featureset. I think in general it aligns with the target audience, but the lack of customizable screens kinda sucks.

    Reply

  6. Dekel
    April 10, 2010

    The new chip also offers better tracking accuracy:
    link to gpspassion.com

    On the other hand, the antenna of the 110 is smaller than those of the other Garmin models.
    It would be interesting to see a comparison of the tracking accuracy in urban area of the 110 against the 310xt.

    Reply

  7. Rainmaker
    April 12, 2010

    Hi Dekel-

    Thanks for the link, cool stuff there!

    Yup, I did indeed notice the new chip…but, I didn’t mention it specifically because until I have a chance to test out the tracking side by side, I’m hesitant to quantify a specific benefit. Meaning, sometimes that kinda stuff is just marketing fluff. That’s where my in depth interviews come in. :)

    Thanks for dropping by!

    Reply

  8. JP
    April 30, 2010

    My wife is getting into running, but at this time has no interest in cycling or tris like me.

    The biggest feature I think that is missing on this watch that is essential to me in running long training and races is the virtual partner. On the 205/305/310 it is the best way to keep a steady pace, which is really valuable for the inexperienced runner.

    Reply

  9. john
    May 9, 2010

    ‘m a hardcore runner and just picked up the 110 w/HRM from my local Roadrunner Sports (Columbus, OH). They had only one and it was delivered the day I called.

    I had borrowed a friends 310 for a couple runs and visited Garmin Connect before I decided the 110 would work for me.

    It’s nice. I’ll wear it as my regular watch. It looks like a large mens watch. It’s also Ohio State colors!!!

    I’m planning on wearing it for the Cleveland Marathon in a week.

    Reply

  10. john
    May 10, 2010

    New note-

    I still like the watch but it doesn’t tell you what pace your running!?!

    It only can tell you your average pace for the lap you are running. I know, you’re going to think I’m wrong but I’ve researched it. Seems dumb to me. I guess I might like to know what my average pace for a run was afterwards, but during a run it’s pointless information.

    This is my only (but big) complaint.

    Reply

  11. Aninha
    May 12, 2010

    So this isn’t good for beginners? I was looking forward to get one of those, but now I can’t decide on which one is the best for me! Can you help me and tell me which garmin do you suggest for a begginer like myself?

    ps- Love your blog, I’m addicted to it!

    Thank you!

    Reply

  12. Rainmaker
    May 12, 2010

    Hi Aninha-

    My primary concern with the FR110 for beginngers is that they’ll ‘grow out of it’ and regret it – specifically with respect to being able to get accessories for indoor running and outdoor cycling.

    That said, Garmin just sent me a unit on Monday, so I should have some updated thoughts soon on it.

    Thanks!

    Reply

  13. Rainmaker
    May 13, 2010

    Hi John-

    RE: Pace while running/cycling

    You are indeed correct, and I was able to validate it tonight. And yup, it’s pretty dumb.

    To others – the FR110 as it stands right now doesn’t allow you to actually see your current pace (either while running or biking). It only allows you to see the average for the lap.

    I’m trying to get some clear answers on ‘Why the heck’.

    Reply

  14. JME
    May 13, 2010

    The 110 really doesn’t show current pace? Very disappointing!. I’d like to begin training using the FIRST running program, which is based on a strict adherence to pace. The 310xt is too expensive and probable more watch than I need, but I’ll have to give it another look.

    Reply

  15. Frank
    May 18, 2010

    Do not buy this watch if you want to view your lap times FROM THE WATCH DISPLAY at the end of your run without having to wait to upload the data to Garmin Connect on your computer. All running watches, even those advertized as “basic”, have had this core function until Garmin decided it was not necessary in the 110.

    Reply

  16. Rita
    May 24, 2010

    hi
    just wondering how your testing of the Forerunner 110 is going… I have read through your reviews, they are really useful!! I hope your training is going well, thanks, Rita

    Reply

  17. Rainmaker
    May 25, 2010

    Hi Rita-

    I’m still testing it. Well…was anyway. I managed to kill it in a simple 20 minute pool swim. So it went back to Garmin to get a new unit swapped out.

    In short though, while the watch had/has tremendous potential in its market segment, my testing thus far have found it to be rather disappointing. At the moment, I really can’t recommend it to anyone – primarily for the following reasons:

    1) Does not display current pace
    2) Cannot display current lap time/distance unless you use autolap
    3) Waterproof is worse than a cheap $20 watch

    To me, those are three critical items in a sport watch. Even non-GPS watches can do #2 & #3. This $200 watch cannot. Now, that’s not to say that they can’t add it – in fact, they could rather easily through a firmware update. It’s just for reasons beyond my imagination, they didn’t/haven’t.

    If you follow a number of the different forums (including Garmin’s own), you’ll find many people are simply returning the device after purchase. :(

    Again, incredible potential here – just at the moment poorly executed. It’s quite possible that in a week or ten, it’ll be fixed and the device will be great. But not as of today.

    Reply

  18. Rita
    May 26, 2010

    Thanks very very much for your feedback – my reaction: oh dear oh dear oh dear. I got all excited by the size/looks of it (typical female I know – with think wrist though) and the price (132GBP, unisex, from my favourite UK garmin retailer, ebay auction). I really hope that, as you say, they will fix this issue with displaying the current pace, although I have to admit that I was only using this function on my 305 when I was cycling as at most other times it was really off. Well. I hope to take mine out for a run this weekend, and will let you know how it goes – I think I am more their target audience and what i like the most, post-run map analysis, should be (I hope!) still available…

    Reply

  19. Rita
    May 26, 2010

    OMG. Just re-read comment n2: 2) Cannot display current lap time/distance unless you use autolap – that’s shocking! (I knew of n1…). Wow.
    oh silly me. Very disappointing about waterproofness, although I would lie if I said it affects me in any way…
    thanks again for getting back to me, and for all your comments!

    Reply

  20. Anonymous
    May 26, 2010

    This is quite disappointing. For someone “graduating” from a Nike+, what would you recommend?

    Reply

  21. Rainmaker
    May 28, 2010

    Hi Rita-

    I had a great call with Garmin Engineers today about the FR110 and what they are aiming to do here. The general goal is to make the watch ‘foolproof’ for beginners. Meaning, that if you were to turn it on, it would just work. No chance of getting weird data fields shown (like Max Pace) and getting frustrated with it. Whether or not I fully agree with how they’ve implemented it is different…

    Hi Anon-

    RE: Nike + Converter

    I’d look at either the 305 (cheaper), 310XT (more expensive) or the 405. The 405 is the one aimed primarily at runners. It has a touch-bezel system which some folks love, and some hate – so I encourage you to try it out first. Good lucK!

    Reply

  22. Rita
    May 28, 2010

    Hi Rainmaker,
    Many thanks for this, will see how it goes, at least I didn’t spend the full price. Somehow I still have a good feeling about the watch! I might just not sell my 305. You are really good though, to get back to us all with updates… have a great weekend.

    Reply

  23. Sandy the Womble
    May 28, 2010

    When the FR110 was first announced, it looked to me exactly the type of GPS device I was looking for – simple to use, not too bulky, and looks like a watch (as opposed to the 205 and 305 etc), so I was rather disappointed to see the negative comments.

    I still think it might be right for me, so I’d be interested to see how Rita gets on with it over the weekend.

    Cheers for all the feedback, guys!!

    Reply

  24. Anonymous
    June 7, 2010

    Looking forward to hear more what you have to say about the FR110, really don’t wanna get the 305, it’s HUGE on my wrist, looks horrible…

    Reply

  25. Rita
    June 8, 2010

    Hi, only got my forerunner 110 on Friday (long story) and so far I am very happy with it, despite its obvious limitations. I love the size of it, it’s so much smaller than the 305, and all the others seem total monsters compared to it (have to say I have a rather small wrist). I find that it locks into satellites much faster than my 305. I tried it in 3 places: n1, at home, where 305 would normally find satellites in 2-3 min without problems. The 110 was there in about 20-30 seconds. At the 2 other places (work and 2nd home, in another city), I was never really able to use my 305 (close to buildings and must be some sort of blind spot), but again, my 110 found the satellites in about a min. – and it’s just crucial for me. When out running, it never lost connection.
    The lack of some of the features (lap time, lap count etc) is really annoying, but where I am now with my training, the 110 is perfect for me. However, I will definitely not sell my 305 – will be good for cycling etc. Thanks, Rita

    Reply

  26. Nathan
    June 30, 2010

    I like the in-depth reviews that you have written. Looking forward to seeing you complete this one after testing.
    I’ve noticed that IT work is heating back up. Hope that you can steal away some time.

    Reply

  27. Michael
    July 1, 2010

    Sign me up for two entries, (Facebook).
    Mike S.

    Reply

  28. dbosler
    July 1, 2010

    Thanks for the great give-aways and congrad’s on the big hit’s in June.

    Reply

  29. dbosler
    July 1, 2010

    btw, I shared on facebook too

    Reply

  30. Rainmaker
    July 13, 2010

    Hi All!

    The In Depth Review is completed, please continue any comments here:

    link to dcrainmaker.com

    Thanks!

    Reply

  31. Henry
    July 15, 2010

    Is it possible to pair the Garmin heart rate monitor from my Edge 500 with this the FR110 or any other Garmin watch simultaneously? Going from biking to running would be nice without having to pair the watch and strap once off the bike. On a side note, great blog.
    Thanks,
    Henry

    Reply

  32. Robert
    August 7, 2010

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  33. Dan
    September 13, 2010

    Hello. First off – awesome website! There’s tons of great info on here.

    In regards to the Forerunner 110.. how big are your wrists around? Just for comparison’s sake from the pictures since I only have 16cm wrists.. Thanks.

    Reply

  34. Anonymous
    October 15, 2010

    Disappointed the 110 doesn’t track active pace….just looked online at Garmin and they are promoting two new products the 210 and 410 both due out 4th quarter 2010. Any plans to review either of these. The “hype” around both, particularly the 210 seems to address the issues you note in the 110….although shows only selling with a HRM.

    Reply

  35. cjw
    October 16, 2010

    DC, any word on whether the FR 210 will be waterproof? Thanks mate.

    Reply

  36. Anonymous
    November 10, 2010

    Hi DC, can you pls post a review of Forerunner 210? I’m thinking of buying either of the 210 or 405cx. Thanks in advance.
    Dennies

    Reply

  37. Anonymous
    December 11, 2010

    My Forerunner 110 is very inconsistent about finding satellites. Sometimes it finds them before I finish stretching. Other times I stand around on my driveway for 5 minutes waiting. Any advice? The watch is 3 months old and I’m about to take it back.

    Reply

  38. Rainmaker
    December 11, 2010

    It sounds like you may want to perform a quick soft-reset on your FR110, since it may have locked onto some bad satellites and they’re still in memory.

    Also – get the latest update as well, which was just released a few weeks ago for the FR110:

    link to forums.garmin.com

    Finally, as a side note, I’ve actually posted a more In Depth FR110 review here:

    link to dcrainmaker.com

    And for those asking about a FR210 review – that’s here:

    link to dcrainmaker.com

    P.S. – I really recommend the FR210 over the FR110 (but that device came out some 6 months after the FR110 and when I originally wrote those).

    Reply

  39. Thomas Nielsen
    March 30, 2011

    I just got the Forerunner 110 and tested it for two runs. This is my first time ever i use a watch like this while running. I searched for information, but only found bits and pieces of what i was looking for around the net. Your blog awnsered all my question at once :) tnx for that.

    I love the watch, but really really miss the fotpad thingy for treadmill running(im from norway – winter half year around). Do you think its possible that this watch will get this fot pad feature in the future, os is the only way to get this, to bye a new watch?

    But also, i usally hate reading blogs, your were very enjoyable to read. I missed 2 hors of worktime because of your blog :p Keep it up m8

    Reply

  40. Sing Kwok
    February 18, 2012

    Does Garmin Frontrunner 110 work in HK? Why are there a pacific and european version for the Garmin 210?

    Reply

  41. Rainmaker
    February 18, 2012

    No problem in HK or Europe – with GPS being global, it works anywhere on earth. Only at the absolute north and south poles are there some issues, and even then – only a small portion of that area.

    Enjoy!

    Reply

  42. Paul
    February 3, 2013

    Great reviews on a variety of GPS watches.

    I’ve recently signed up to a triathlon and looking to buy my first GPS watch to monitor my running and cycling, without breaking the bank. I read you review on the FR10, which looked to tick all the boxes. However, I understand the forerunner 110 is newer. I’ve also been looking at the soleus 1.0, I know your not a fan of their data store site.

    In short, what watch would you recommend? Also for daily use and must have an alarm clock

    Thanks
    Paul

    Reply

    • Rainmaker
      February 4, 2013

      The FR10 is newer, by almost two years, than the FR110.

      If you don’t need ANT+ data (heart rate for example), then definitely go the route of the FR10.

      If you need/want HR data, or want to be able to run indoors on a treadmill (footpod), then go the route of the FR210.

      I generally recommend either the FR10 or FR210, and don’t recommend the FR110 due to lack of instant pace and lack of footpod (treadmill) support.

      Reply

  43. Paul
    February 3, 2013

    Or is it worth paying the extra for the fr210? Only £30 extra now….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

Add a picture

Back to top
mobile desktop