leaderboard left
leaderboard right
content topleft content topright

Garmin Forerunner 110

Mar
29
2010

Earlier today, Garmin introduced a new GPS watch in their fitness series, the Garmin Forerunner 110. As the product number indicates, this fitness watch with GPS is targeting the entry level portion of the fitness market and is designed to be super easy to use.

Garmin will be showing off the watch at the Paris, Boston, and London marathons and then it will become available for sale to the public. Described as “affordable”, pricing is expected to be about $250 for the base model. While style is subjective, they look pretty ugly to me– but that doesn’t mean I might not want one. :)

Under the hood a SiRFstarIVTM GPS chip is used, and the battery should last up to 8 hours in GPS mode.

“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.”

There are options available to add a heart rate monitor and some will be bundled with the monitor. Calorie consumption can be computed from the heart rate monitor. Current pace can be displayed either averaged over the current lap/mile or over the entire run.

52 Responses


  1. $250 doesn’t sound really entry level to me, but perhaps that is suggested retail with actual sales something less than $200. When you consider you can get an unlocked phone with GPS that has free running apps for somewhere near the same price I wonder how well this will sell.

    Patruns - March 29th, 2010
    • I agree the street prices will likely be lower. But also consider they are marketing this to more serious athletes where a phone solution just isn’t going to cut it.

      Tim - March 29th, 2010
      • I remember when I was a serious athlete…… :(

        patruns - March 29th, 2010
    • Hello,
      Very excited for this watch to come out! I’ve been running for three years with a 205 which has worked wonderfully. However, the satellite tends to be a little bit inaccurate (in my favor) so I never really complain when it tells me I’ve run 9 miles when really it’s more like 7.5. I was considering the 405, but am so impatient and not technically savy, so I have decided to wait. This new product looks amazing, and I’m very excited to see it out on the road!!!

      MBK - April 5th, 2010
    • Just got mine it Boston Expo. It’s much smaller than my 205 and the retail price is $199 w/o HR. the one with HR is $250.

      BOB - April 19th, 2010
      • Bob, don’t you work at Garmin though?

        Tim - April 19th, 2010
    • Yes, you can get a phone with a inferior gps chip in it for around 200 bucks. But if your in anyway a serious runner that runs distance and speed workouts you will never carry a phone in your hand that shows you current pace. The whole idea behind this watch is that it is lightweight and fits on your wrist. I agree that phones are great for gps while in a car or maybe a short jog. A serious runner covering 10+ miles a day will never carry an iPhone or Blackberry with them In their hands. While I realize they make armstraps for these devices, you can’t look at the screen to get pace, distance, or calories burned if your phone is in an armstrap.

      Needless

      Abdar - August 18th, 2010
      • Well said Abdar.
        I’ve tried using my iPhone for riding and running – but really its cumbersome and frustrating. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t and having my Garmin Forerunner 110 has changed my training.

        I still have my music on my arm but now i can focus on my GPS and heartrate all by looking at my watch.

        Love it.

        Skye - May 22nd, 2011
      • I recently ran w/ a friend who was using her iPhone to track her running on a 22 mile training run and she dropped it twice including once on the Golden Gate Bridge. 2 lucky things occured – 1)the screen did NOT break and 2) it didn’t bounce off into San Francisco Bay!!! Wearing it on her arm would not be as easy to look at regularly and if you’re old enough [like me ;) ], the screen is too lose to my eyes to read if worn on my upper arm!

        Lela - May 25th, 2011
  2. This looks really nice in terms of size. I have a 205 but it is pretty bulky. I’ll wait until the price decreases however. $250 is pricy!

    Mary Beth Lowell - April 8th, 2010
  3. I have the 205 also, so, like you, I’m interested in this watch. I would not buy the 405, since it has the same GPS chip as the 205 – thus, GPS performance will be pretty much the same.

    You must run near tall buildings or heavy tree cover if your 205 is that far off. If not, you should make sure you have the latest updates from Garmin.

    Steve - April 10th, 2010
  4. All great, but when may Garmin refresh the 405 – mine is almost dead after 2 years and 2000K. That’s not much for a serious runner, but it has so many faults that it’s in desperate need of an update. For example: strap keeps breaking, rusty charging contacts, sweat-induced taps on the bezel, poor battery life (mine’s halved after 2 years). The list goes on – the only thing keeping me with Garmin is the awesome online Connect site and size of device. Otherwise Polar would have my money.

    Louis - April 13th, 2010
  5. Any idea whether the size with be more appropriate for women? I’ve tried the 305 and 405 and both are too bulky. Particularly the 405, which shifts and bounces on my small wrist during running.

    Tricia - April 14th, 2010
    • It is much smaller than the 305 and 405. Much better for smaller wrist (ie women). I ordered it. Very excited to receive it. You can get it for $199.99 without the HR monitor. $249.99 for the HR monitor bundle.

      Andrea - April 17th, 2010
      • Outside size is not important to me. I have low vision and i want the largest display availabe along with simplicilty of operation. I have a Garmin 305 which I can see, but it is complicated to adjust and use..

        Al - August 5th, 2010
    • I am a novice runner training for a half marathon and am excited to purchase my first Garmin. Where is the best place to purchase one? Online vs. retail? I’m not sure.

      Chris - April 21st, 2010
    • I waited for this watch because I have a very small wrist and wanted a less bulky watch. Big mistake. It is useless. It loses reception when it is any where near a tree or a building. I thought it was user error at first or that I was slower than I thought. But for a month I have been testing it on measured courses and with friends using the 305 model and it is consistently inaccurate regarding pace and distance. I plan to buy a 305 and deal with the size.

      rosemary - June 12th, 2010
  6. This would be my 1st Garmin purchase – does it have interval timers for us Galloway runners (run/walk)?

    Thanks,

    Pat

    Pat - April 24th, 2010
    • I have waited a long time for this model to be released and extremely upset that it doesn’t time intervals. I emailed Garmin and they said it is considered an entry level device and the intervals are for advanced users. I disagree…as a beginner runner (2 years in) I used and use intervals constantly when training. I find this a major flaw in this device. And now looking at Suunto models….because this 110 was perfectly sized, but doesn’t have all the features I need for $200. the 405 is too large. I wore it once and returned it. what a bummer

      Holly - May 9th, 2010
      • I am also a Galloway walk/runner. I am looking for a watch that has GPS and also the capability of setting the time for 4 minutes (start to stop) and then beeping again after the 1 minute rest- have you found any watch like that? The Garmin 205, 305 seems too bulky….
        thanks for your help.

        Scott - July 30th, 2010
  7. Do not buy the Garmin 110 if you want to view your lap times off the watch before downloading the data on your computer. The lap times are only displayed about 10 seconds and at the end of your run, you only get the average lap time, not the individual lap times. I have never seen a running watch that lacked this core function of a running watch. What was Garmin thinking? I returned my 110 for a full refund thankfully.
    Frank

    Frank - April 27th, 2010
    • When I check the specs at Garmin site (https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=63511#specsTab), it does mention ‘Lap history: 1000 Laps’ like other Garmin Forerunner watches…

      Doris - May 10th, 2010
      • I thought getting the lap history FROM THE WATCH’S DISPLAY would be like other Garmin Forerunner watches, but it is only available after uploading the data from the watch to Garmin Connect. I believe all running watches should display the lap history ON THE WATCH with the option to updoad the data to your computer.

        Frank - May 14th, 2010
        • I see. Yes, I do think this is an essential feature. For example, I would like to know my split times immediately after doing interval.

          Doris - May 14th, 2010
    • Can’t view the lap times from the watch! Wish I had seen these posts before I bought mine. It is a core function. I’m returning it tomorrow.

      Bob - September 4th, 2010
  8. Don’t Buy! I returned mine after a week. No current pace? What kind of running watch is this. How am I supposed to do tempo runs, etc. Huge waste of money and time on Garmins part. Fail!

    Mike - May 18th, 2010
    • Glad to read this, I thought something was wrong with my watch — couldnt figure out how I could be moving at a 9 min pace while standing still at a traffic light. Now I see, its the average pace of my run for that mile. That sucks. I don’t need a watch to tell me what simple math will tell me after my run. I’ll be returning mine as well.

      Caren - June 4th, 2010
  9. Did I understand correctly: 110 does not show your current heart rate while excersicing?? This sounds really stupid to ask but wouldn´t want to buy a heart rate monitor without the ability to check the heart rate..

    Susan - May 24th, 2010
  10. I agree. Don’t buy this product.It cannot show the pace while running, the distance is also not correct. The buttons are difficult to press and the menu is complicated. This is certainly not a beginners product and I am extremely disappointed.

    Tina - June 4th, 2010
  11. My 205′s battery went dead in just over a year, routine replacement involves sending it back for an exchange for $100, just for the battery replacement. You may think it worth it, but you should at least know that before you buy. That is not something they are very forthcoming about in the product description

    Scott - June 8th, 2010
  12. I see there are several complaints about the 110 not having current pace. The problem with current pace is that it’s usually the average of the last 10 to 20 seconds and is very inaccurate. It causes you to constantly feel that you have. If you just look at your current mile pace, you will likely keep your pace more consistent. For most runs, it’s more important to know your overall pace than your splits. For tempo runs, you can reset after warm-up and re-set after tempo before cool-down…it’s quite simple. Track workouts are the only time I go back to my 305. The 110 is good going on trips, since I can use it as my regular watch.

    Jeff - June 9th, 2010
  13. For those of you complaining about pace you all don’t know what you’re talking about. The reason Garmin decided to use Average Lap Pace is because it is the more useful of the pacing options offered on their other units. The only time Current Pace would be useful was in conjuction with Average Lap Pace.

    An example might make this easier to understand:

    Average Lap Pace

    If I’m out running one mile and do the first third of it at 5 minute pace but then slow to 8 minute pace for the next third, based on how far I’ve already gone for that mile and how fast I’m going the watch will tell me what I am PROJECTED to finish that mile in. That’s what everyone should be concerned with.

    Current Pace

    I’m out for a run and I start sprinting. OBVIOUSLY, my pace will drop to something incredibly quick. The problem with this type of pace is that it only shows you how fast you’re going, NOT what you will finish your mile in. The only way this type of pace would be useful is while using Average Lap Pace at the same time. Then you would have your projected finish time and how fast you would be running to ATTAIN your projected finish time.

    Hopefully this clears up what appears to be the largest misunderstanding in this history of GPS watches.

    Chris - July 26th, 2010
    • Chris- best explanation I have read yet. Quick question: this will be my 1st gps watch, so if I was out for say a 5 mile run how would this watch work if I wanted to run the first mile at say a 9 min pace, the middle 3 miles at 8:30 then a cool down mile? Thanks

      Gavin - October 28th, 2010
  14. It’s seems like the lack of “current pace” on the 110 is a big problem. Do the other Garmin models have the “current pace” feature? Or are all Garmins using the ave pace function?

    Alix - July 29th, 2010
    • Alix – I own a 310XT (and have owned a Forerunner 101 & 305 in the past). The is YES and NO. The 305 & 310XT can display BOTH “current pace” and “average pace” if that is how you configure the customizable screens. The “issue” that some are lamenting is the LACK of the current pace, but I believe that that can be alleviated by setting your “auto lap” to the MINIMUM “auto lap” distance. The Forerunner 110 will display either 1) the pace for the LAST LAP or 2) the AVERAGE PACE for the entire workout.

      This quote is from Garmin’s website:
      “Displays average pace over last lap. If auto lap is off, displays average pace over entire activity unless lap button is manually pressed.” (see the footnote at : https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=142&pID=63511)

      I just tried to set the AUTO LAP distance to “00.01″ miles but it defaulted to “00.03″ miles which appears to be minimum “auto lap distance” which equates to 15 feet 10 inches. ASSUMING that the 110 can be set to the same minimum autolap distance, you can get essentially real time current pace.

      I will go to REI soon (I hope they have one that is charged up!) & play with one to find out what is the minimum auto-lap distance one can set on the Forerunner 110.

      GARMIN markets this watch as a simpler GPS watch, which if you want just the basics : time; distance; pace & the ability to do computer analysis, in a SMALL watch sized, well, WATCH, then this seems pretty good. BTW – the retail price is $199, not $250. $250 is for the version that includes a heart rate monitor strap. Per the GARMIN site, you can use an HRM strap from an older GARMIN Forerunner if you are planning to upgrade from, say a 305/205 and want to save $50.

      Lela Pin - August 1st, 2010
    • I own the 305 which works but too often find it calculating splits in races increasingly before the actual mile markers, which makes runs longer but more importantly, makes it seem as if I am running faster than actually am. Wanted to try the 110 in hopes of containing a more accurate GPS sensor – but do not know if that is true. I like the smaller look of the 110 and only really use distance, elapsed time, current pace and average pace (took out heart rate as would look too often hold me back during races). Would like clarity on the current pace before I buy. Sounds like if I am on training run, would show me current average pace for each mile but not overall average unless auto distance notification turned off. Seems like it is okay if accurate. However, in a race like a marathon, I would want to know my splits pace and overall pace to stay on target – is that possible?

      Stephen - August 7th, 2010
  15. I am looking for a running watch of sorts that will tell me how far i have run and what my pace is. i need one that tells me my pace in miles per hour (i.e. you are running at an 8:00 minutes per hour pace). will this system do this?

    jason - July 31st, 2010
  16. Has anyone been able to find the pink version of the 110 for less than $250? If so, where?

    Holly - July 31st, 2010
  17. DO NOT BUY THIS WATCH!! YOUR CELL PHONE IS BETTER!!

    The GPS takes over a minute to locate the satellites and does not work in cloudy/rainy weather. Several times in my long runs the thing just stopped working. Only two months into owning the watch it stopped working all together and now Garmin is not willing to offer me a refund. They would like to try to fix the watch first. This process will take three weeks. I have a race soon and no watch. There solution was to tell me to buy a $5.00 watch to make it thru the race. Garmin This watch Sucks!!

    I average 30 to 40 miles a week and race in half/full marathons. My husband bought this as a birthday gift so I could lower my time.

    Bridget - August 26th, 2010
  18. I have been running with this watch for a month now. I have not had any issues with the satellite in cloudy or rainy weather. Also, if you set your lap to mile you will be able to see your most recent mile time. I used to have a Nike sportsband and this watch is so much better. Worth every penny! I would highly recommend it to anyone.

    Holly - September 4th, 2010
  19. Neat Watch. Size, look, and feel/fit are great.

    I know it is supposed to be easy to use, but it should really have some minimal features at this price-point:

    1. Choice between current and lap pace (or speed). Yeah, I know there is lag/fudge in the current pace number, but even with the inaccuracy, it is useful feedback. I usually do 1 mile auto-laps, and it is really hard to tell if I’m slacking off, as the lap pace will only go down very slowly towards the end of each mile if I’m dropping pace.

    2. A way to review current splits. If I’m doing 4×400′s or similar, it would nice to be able to look at my splits before going home to the computer. I mean, even a cheap-o stopwatch will let me review my splits. This thing is $250!

    3. Least needed, but would be nice: Config option for the backlight. I would like to be able to set the backlight to stay on.

    I don’t need all the advanced features that I have in my 305, like virtual partner, basic and advanced training, multisport, elevation display, etc, but I hope garmin will enhance the 110 firmware to add these basic features, especially as these are features that one would expect to find in a device that is half the price.

    Steve - September 7th, 2010
  20. Hello, I’m looking for a function on the 310XT that will DISPLAY my ‘projected finish time’ for a set run distance based on my AVERAGE PACE (meaning with auto lap turned OFF and average pace showing your average for the total distance thus far). Here’s an easy example of what I’m looking for….

    Assume I’m running a marathon (26.2 miles) and so far I’ve fun 13.1 miles at an average pace of 10 minutes per mile. My current time would show as 2:10:12.

    I’m looking for a DISPLAY of my PROJECTED FINISH TIME for the marathon which would read 4:20:24.

    Easy example due to easy math, so if you imagine my average pace being 9:56, then this is why the projected finish time would be helpful. Does anyone know if this option exists?

    Thanks!

    James - September 11th, 2010
  21. If you want an accurate GPS capable watch the 110 is a waster of money. It beeps early on every mile. I ran 4800 meters (12 laps) on a track because I suspected the GPS is off on it. It showed 3.11 miles when it should be like 2.98.
    I ran a “certified” 1/2 marcthon this weekend and it measured 13.29 and I run tangents. Nobody else showed over 13.18 on their other Garmin Models. This watch is junk. I will keep my $10 casio.

    Mike Kabela - September 14th, 2010
  22. I found your requirements \humorous\ – I’m not making fun of you. I laughed as that’s how I keep my mind busy in the latter miles of a marathon. People ask me if I get bored, but I do calculations, second guess myself, etc. while running. A moderately complicated calculation can keep you busy for a couple of miles!!! Of course, sometimes I slow down while doing these mental projections!!!

    I’m not aware of a device that does this. I use a 310xt. I’m willing to bet if you’re willing to wear a somewhat unyieldy iPhone, that there’s an app for that!

    Lela - October 5th, 2010
  23. I ran 11.5 miles with my forerunner 110 this morning in 2hrs 10min. I’m a 5’3″ 127 lbs 51 year old female and my garmin said i burned 550 calories… This cannot be accurate.
    Any comments are welcome
    Thanks

    Donna - January 1st, 2011
  24. whish is the best gps watch to buy?

    peter - March 21st, 2011
  25. I’m currently based in Singapore and I’m looking for the GPS here that will not cost me too much..could anyone help me please?

    celtin adner - May 5th, 2011
  26. I will repeat peter’s question, what is the best and the latest gps to buy this season? my brother in law is an athlete and his birthday will be next week and I am considering GPS as his gift

    andi postman - May 5th, 2011
    • “best”? That’s somewhat subjective. IF by best you mean all the advanced features, then the Forerunner 310XT with 4 customizable screens each can have from 1 to 4 data fields; 1 run mode + 3 bike modes + 1 “other” mode that many use for timing their swims. The 310xt can also be programmed for simple to complex intervals, such as simple 1/2 mile repeats with a recover period repeated X number of times with warm up & cool down periods; or complex ones like 3 repeats of 200 meters + recovery, followed by 3 repeats of 400 meters + recovery, followed by 2 x 800 meters etc. The intervals can be set for specific ranges of speeds or HR and the watch will beep or vibrate at you if you are above or below your interval target.
      You can build your own intervals or use the provided ones. The watch is pretty large, but smaller than the older 305/205.
      THAT SAID, the new 610 is out already which has a touch & swipe screen and apparently has all the functionality of the 310xt and more. Should be better (less finicky) than the 405. I saw the 610 at the Boston Marathon expo and it looks good but no first hand experience. Can’t see 4 data items on a screen w/the 610.

      My normal running training screen (one of the 4 screens) has 3 data fields: PACE in the upper larger screen; distance and time in the 2 smaller ones below. One screen is set up for race conditions w/4 data fields: Pace + Heart Rate + Avg Pace + Distance. Other screens will have clock time, elevation (not very accurate), calories etc.

      So, what’s “BEST” depends on your criteria. If “BEST” means smaller smaller form factor, being able to wear it as a regular watch at a “reasonable” price, then maybe the 210 which doesn’t have a BIKE mode nor AUTO PAUSE nor customizable workouts (intervals) nor VIBRATE mode. If by best, you mean the most features & cost is not a consideration, then the 310xt or maybe the 610 but the 610 is new so doesn’t have a track record yet.

      Lela - May 6th, 2011
      • Addendum – See: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2011/04/garmin-forerunner-610-in-depth-review.html
        for an in depth review of the FR 610 with videos!
        Erratum – the FR610 can show 4 data fields, I had thought that it can only show 1 to 3 fields.
        The FR610 looks good, but my old eyes may not be able to see the smaller numbers when running in the dark even with the watch’s light.

        Lela - May 6th, 2011
  27. Does anyone know if this will work both in the US & in Japan?

    Don - May 24th, 2011
  28. I like the Garmin 110, especially since I won it. The mileage is short at times, but I am fine with that, since I try to pick up the pace to compensate. Its great for workouts and races, I should be back to 16:40s for the 5k again with no problem. If a watch shows shorter distances, count it a blessing.

    mlindsay - December 20th, 2011



content bottomleft content bottomright