What is the best GPS Watch for running?? - Gear

Rouser

27/04/2012 at 09:18

Hi guys, HELP! I'm looking to buy a watch for running to track my minute miles etc. I have been looking at both the Garmin forerunner 405 and the Garmin forerunner 110. Does anyone have one of these? What are they like and is there anything better out in the market for the money (£150ish).Any advice would be massively appreciated!

Rich

JoBa595

27/04/2012 at 10:46

Check out this website: www.dcrainmaker.com

Loads of product reviews on there (in exhaustive detail) of Garmin, Polar and Suunto GPS watches.

If it were me, I'd go for the Garmin 110. Simple to use and gives good data. The 405 has a touch bezel as the primary means of navigating the watch, which some people find difficult to use.

Happy running!

Fiona J

27/04/2012 at 11:10

I use a 405 and I don't find it tricky to use at all. Some people do tho'

I think a lot depends on what you want it to do. I looked at the 110 and the 405. If you only want to know your pace and some basic functions it is fine. I don't think it can programme interval training for example. That is one of the most useful features of the 405 so I can do intervals on the road as there is no track near me.

mimaduck

27/04/2012 at 11:31

I have the 110 - it is brilliant. Even a dolt like me can use it. Best bit of kit I've bought (other than the bra and shoes!)

stutyr

27/04/2012 at 11:40

Of those two the 405 is the more sophisticated watch, with more advanced features. The difference in price on Amazon is only around £30 as the 405 model is older (replaced by the 410), but at original retail it was a lot more.

As Fiona J said, the interval function was the decider for me. I went for the 405 and I understand the criticism of the bezel, but its easily avoided by locking it during runs.

You haven't given any details of what you'll use it for, so its hard to judge for you. If its to track your runs then the 110 is enough, but if you want the watch to assist with more advanced training plans the 405 is better suited.

Russ55

27/04/2012 at 12:49

Hi Richard

We have both of those in our house, I recently switched from a 205 to the 405, I really like it the bezel thing is not a problem as long as you make sure you lock it, which is fine for me as I only use one screen of data when running and if you need multiples you can make it auto scroll, it has way more features than the 110 so as already mentioned you can set up your intervals etc. The 110 my wife loves, she hated the 405, it is a great little unit that provides distance, time and pace (pace I believe is either the average pace for the run or average for that lap, so can be set to miles, KM's or even 250m if the urged took you) as far as I am aware it can't do spot pace, for me this is not a problem as I like my average pace over a mile.

In my opinion both good units for the money

Edited: 27/04/2012 at 12:51

therealpastyman

27/04/2012 at 13:13

Hi Rich

I know you didn't mention the FR210, but I tried my new one of these out for the first time yesterday and it was great. It's relatively small, easy to setup and picks up satellites nice and quickly.

I think it has the same form factor as the 110, but offers you your current pace rather than just giving you the pace of your last split.

I was considering the 410, but was put off by the mixed reviews on the internet. DCRainmaker was a good recommendation for reviews though, so give his site a read.

Badly Drawn Bloke

27/04/2012 at 13:44

I splashed out on a MotoActv at the VLM Expo. Only used it once and don't have the necessary HRM yet, but I'm pleased with it so far. Function overload compared to my old Timex Bodylink system.

Rouser

27/04/2012 at 14:43

Hi guys, Thanks everyone for the advice (especially JoBa595 for the link to dcrainmaker.com - very very informative). I think I have pretty much made up my mind; I'm going to go with the Garmin FR210. This however was a really close call. Ideally I would like the FR405 or FR410 but I've been really put off by the bezel! If only they could make the FR410 without the bezel and for £150!The review of the FR210 seems pretty good too, so I’ll give it a bash….. Thanks again! Rich

Nykie

27/04/2012 at 21:30

I was choosing between the 210 and the 410 and what swung me to the 410 was the virtual partner. You can set it to a pace and see at a glance whether you're running faster or slower than that pace (there're two little runners, one's running at your pace and one is running at the pace you set on the watch).

I've really used that feature and I'm really glad I bought the 410. Even I can use the bezel.

Fit-Running-Cat

27/04/2012 at 22:14

Don't forget there is a difference between the 405 & 405cx.. Bug fixes too.
405 can come without the heart rate strap, 405cx always does.

You can pick the 405cx a bit cheaper than the 410 so worth checking £30-40.

Virtual partner is good. The Course feature is awesome on all the 405 models up

I ran a 24-25 mile fell trail run a month ago, not 100% sure of the course... Was with a friend and had map but Garmin pointed the way the whole time using someone's course from previous year.

Marc.S

27/04/2012 at 23:18

i saw a few tests where 305 side by side still outperforms pretty much all but the 610/910.

Fit-Running-Cat

27/04/2012 at 23:44

Battery wise I'm sure it does. 7-8 hours on 405/410, 12 for the 305 so still okay for some ultras.

Radicchio

28/04/2012 at 08:22

I got my 410 last year during a period where they were selling it for around £100. No idea what happened, but you don't seem to be able to find one for less than £140 now.

No problems with the much maligned bezel, batteries or poor water-proofing, so I suspect Garmin updated the manufacturing process slightly in response to the poor user reviews. The GPS tends to be extremely reliable.

Only thing is, it has 10 squillion features I never learnt to use. Oh, and the battery is only at its best if you take it off charge right before use: no way you can effectively use it as both an everyday watch and GPS.

runs-with-dogs

30/04/2012 at 11:40

Marshalling a couple of ultras recently I noticed that the older 305 seems to be the GPS of choice for loads of runners. I saw more of them than any of the other Garmin models. of course, that might just be cause they're so big they're hard to miss!

I use a 405 and while the bezel can be annoying at times (in rain or when v sweaty) overall it's not a major hassle. Most annoying is when it has to be tapped three or four times to get it to change screens, but I can live with it...

touie2

30/04/2012 at 14:13

has anyone tried the 310XT? Apparently it has a 20 hour battery life and is swim proof!!! I had kind of thought about trading my 305 in for one but not sure if it is worth it!

Edited: 30/04/2012 at 14:14

Rouser

30/04/2012 at 14:27

Despite what I said in an earlier post, I have now gone full circle and decided to break the bank and buy the Garmin FR610. It's about another £110 more than the FR210 but I figure it'll be worth it......

I'm not normally this indecisive, honest!!

Dreaming Of Magic

01/05/2012 at 22:53

I`ve just ordered a Garmin 410 from Amazon (£170) to replace my original Forerunner 210, bought back in 2005. That 210 is a brick on your arm compared to the recent models, it still gives me 14 hours battery life but loses signal if you run under a small leaf. Now that i`ve started to train more seriously, having a gps watch where you take the distance with a pinch of salt was not on any more. Anyone else used (or still use) the original Garmins and the new ones. Are they much better?

Dreaming Of Magic

01/05/2012 at 22:55

Sorry, meant 201 not 210.

Fido2Dogs

01/05/2012 at 22:59

I have a 310 xt - got it when the 205's battery life got too short for marathons (I wasn't getting any faster

). Aside from a cracked-screen issue when Garmin sent me a new one so that ended OK it's been fine, like my old 205 but with fantastic battery life, a hrm and a bit better at picking up the satellites. Got my OH a 610xt when the 205 battery got too weedy for his half marathons