Garmin has managed to do GPS watches right with its long-standing
Forerunner line, but the vast majority of 'em have been useful only to nerds who aren't deterred by lengthy setup procedures. The new Forerunner 110, however, changes all that. Designed to provide just the basics to runners and other fitness freaks, this SiRFstarIV-infused timepiece provides near-instant access to distance, pace and time "within seconds of stepping outside." Marketed as an entry-level solution for those who don't need added complexity in their life, it can also be used in conjunction with heart rate monitors to display current thumps per second and heart rate-based calorie computation, both of which can be logged once you sync it to your PC via USB. The inbuilt battery will last up to eight hours in GPS / training mode or three weeks in power-save mode, and while there's no mention of a price, we are told that it'll be available in black / gray, charcoal / red and gray / pink color combinations. Good luck choosing the most badical one.
Update: Looks like it's
on sale now directly through Garmin for $250. Thanks, Dara!
posted March 29th 2010 2:23PM
Something simple finnally!! Because we all know watches shouldn't be smart phones!
@Spiky haired boy
Yes... Because prior to this a simple watch was impossible to get.
@Spiky haired boy
All for simplicity but whats the deal with that price tag! $250!? I feel like there are at least half a dozen solutions out there for half the price.
I'd prefer mine as a mechanical wind-up please.
Nerds exercise? haha.. just kidding. I have a Suunto with a seperate GPS pod, and would LOVE to have a watch that has that built in.
Yes, they should be multitouch capable hologram projectors instead. I like your thinking.
Will the heart rate monitor be standard or do you have to buy some kind of accessory?
@ltksiva
As will (almost?) all of their products there's a version with and one without.
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=142&pID=63511
@ltksiva
The heart rate monitor is an accessory. You strap in around your chest and through the magic of wireless fidelity, it sends your heart hate to the watch.
The price is listed as $249.00 USD on Garmin website. https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=142&pID=63511
@SaltyPear what about the $0.99
@SaltyPear i cant believe this is $100 more than the 305 and probably less features.
@sygyzy - It says it doesn't do mapping. It also won't do interval training. Your pace is either by lap or by the average of the entire run. No pretty Google maps showing your route and your pace on different stretches. It is VERY VERY basic, but cost's more than the full featured 305, like you said.
Even though it looks nice, its a no sale for me.
@SaltyPear if you click on the 'Versions' tab it says for the watch alone is $199. The $249 price includes the heart monitor piece. Still to rich for my blood... :p
@SaltyPear Heart Hate? Is it a karma-powered watch then?
@jimlivingston according to the product video, it does do mapping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlWkTLfa4P0
@jimlivingston No Google Earth / Google Maps? Says who? It records a track, it works in Training Center, and it uploads to Garmin Connect. It can be viewed on Google maps. It might even be able to load into MapSource and be viewed in Google Earth.
says 249.99
My Polar F60 I love, but the thing that really holds it back is the proprietary linking unit to upload data and all the add ons. GPS is not built in. Garmin seems to do a nice job building the gps into all their units with the addition of HR. NOW, be nice, but my absolute favorite GPS for working out is my iPhone running RunKeeper. If you gave me a HeartRate monitor that worked with it, life would be good. GPS, HR, and my tunes!
@weaky6 http://www.wahoofitness.com/
"lengthy setup procedures"
If that entails putting it on your wrist and pressing start...yes, it's so difficult.
I have a 305 and it's easy as hell to use. A bit bulky but does what this watch does for far cheaper...I got mine brand new for $150.
Of course, I wouldn't expect the writers at Engadget to know anything about it because I know none of them see the light of day, let alone go running from time to time.
@sumx4182 I send the 305. I have one and love it. Garmin also has http://connect.garmin.com which is an amazing website for training.
@lokiracer
the free SportTrack software is even better and works seamlessly with any Garmin device. I just don't get where the editor though any previous Garmin was all that difficult. You can MAKE it difficult for yourself if you really delve into the setting and options...but any idiot can use it out of the box with little to no learning curve.
@sumx4182
+1 for the SportTracks shoutout... GREAT software. The point about it being as difficult as you want to make it is accurate too.
What's the point, my FR60 with footpod gets within 50m on a 10k run, checked this against the distance reported by my Edge 500. Plus the FR60 battery lasts a year! Well I suppose if you positively have to see where you've been then it's for you.
@engadget, err, have you actually tried to use a Garmin fitness device? Seriously, it's not that difficult.
@Bonachi because the FR60 w/footpod is selling for $199 (on of the first entries that came up on google) when the 305 does it all, for $150 without the need to attach a whole separate device, and move it from shoe to shoe if you rotate shoes, and such. In the time I upload to my computer and check my stats, the charge completes. So I don't care about the battery. I just don't see the point in paying more for something even if it does the "same thing". I'll stick to paying less for the "same thing" and with less hassle than having to have the watch AND the foot pod and all that.
@Bonachi
sorry, i thought you were referring to the 305 vs the FR60. My bad
@sumx4182 Don't sweat it, apology accepted.
@Bonachi
I would still pick a 305 over the FR60 with footpod just because of the price vs. function alone. I mean, why spend 50 bucks more for something that does less? They may be close, but the GPS functionality accomplishes what the FR60 does and the does more than it can do...for less money...
@sumx4182 Come on, it's only $28 more if you look on Amazon. Also with the footpod you can use it on a treadmill if that's your thing, that could be reason enough to buy it for some people.
Another thing is that the FR110 isn't bike sensor compatible like the FR60, Garmin have removed that feature. I used the cadence sensor with the FR60 and it work brilliantly. Depends what you need, if you run and cycle then the FR60 is a better choice.
FAKE! This is obviously NOT Forerunner technology. There is no blue clear hologram display.
Will this give out gps coordinates?
If 250$ is too much for you, you could try nokias sportstracker app (symbian s60). This will probably only concern europeans...
So why is this more expensive than the better 305 ? Is it just looks, or is it lighter, or que ?
Like the others, I don't understand why the author says this solves a problem of complicated use. The 305 is quite simple to use, though you can make it much more complicated if you like. I love that I can, but rarely choose to. I have used mine for 3 years to give me basic info on my runs, everything that this one with more limited features would do. So if mine dies I would definitely jump to something like this so that I could use it as a normal sport watch when not running.
Reading some of these comments, it's quite apparent that few of you are referring to a feature comparison chart at their website. The pros and cons are clear. What you are paying for here is a less clunky form factor. That's certainly worth something, up to the individual on how much that is.
I love my 305 though and couldn't imagine running without it! I'm still surprised that after all this time it's one of their best running gps units available. It's a great design but I really expected an evolution of it by now, not just other alternatives with feature trade-offs.
Looks like a nice device, they have a preview on GPSPassion now : http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=134235