I recently got rid of my Forerunner 405 - it took forever to acquire satellites when I entered Training mode, the touch bezel is hard to operate with gloves in the winter, sweating on it actually changed views - and I am now looking for a unit to replace it.
I am torn between the Forerunner 310xt or the 110. Supposedly the 310xt has improved reception, customizable fields like the 405, is waterproof, and a few other features. Forerunner 110 is a little more comfortable to wear, can actually be worn as a watch, simple to use.
Hoping to find some recommendations. Here’s how I use it: I only use it for running - no swimming or bike use. For tempo or steady runs I like to check on current heart rate, pace, distance traveled. When I do speed workouts I like to get HR, pace, total distance, and lap timer with time for current lap and ability to review previous laps/intervals. For hill workouts, in addition to stats I already mentioned it would be nice to have get total feet gained during the workout but not critical. I would like to upload the workouts and save them but nearly all Garmin units offer this feature.
The 310xt looks like it has it all but the 110 for almost $100 looks like it might be a solid unit.
Hoping some ST’ers may have some experience with both units.
If you don’t need the waterproof feature I would skip the 310 XT and save the money.
There are other options. I use the Forerunner 305. It does everything the 310 does (pretty much) but is only officially ‘water resistant’ (some people do swim in theirs with no issues though). It uses buttons rather than the bezel and is pretty much bombproof as I have thrashed it off my bike a couple of times and never had an issue with it.
If you don’t want Heart Rate then the Forerunner 205 is a cheaper alternative. Same watch as the 305 just no HR strap or facility to add a cadence or speed sensor. Not an issue as you will not use on the bike.
They are both a little bulkier than the 405 but are easy to read and easy to use, have GPS and come with customizable screens up to four data fields on each screen.
If you are in Canada then GPS City do them online for peanuts now.
The 110 only does average pace during the duration of your split. It does not do instant pace. It doesn’t do any of the other features that the 405/310/FR60 have, such as: virtual partner, auto lap, auto pause, etc…
I hear everyones love for the 310, I think it is great, but the guy doesn’t want to swim so it’s a very big jump in price for a non used functionality.
“Instant” pace is junk most of the time anyhow. If you’ve ever run looking at it, or study the numbers later in WKO you’ll know what I mean. The numbers can bounce from 8:00 to 11:00 to 4:00 pace over the course of a second or 2. I’ve started only watching the average anyhow, with the 310 set to autolap at a set distance to “reset” the lap average pace.
It is what I have been using for everything including the swim. If your paranoid like me at only claiming water resistance to 1m, put it in a plastic baggy under your wetsuit or tied around speedo string works as insurance.
“Instant” pace is junk most of the time anyhow. If you’ve ever run looking at it, or study the numbers later in WKO you’ll know what I mean. The numbers can bounce from 8:00 to 11:00 to 4:00 pace over the course of a second or 2. I’ve started only watching the average anyhow, with the 310 set to autolap at a set distance to “reset” the lap average pace.
Sorry, but I think you may have something defective with your watch (or gait!!) or a bad GPS signal. The instant pace on my 205 and then my 305 and also my wife’s 305 is bang on the money and does not flip around all over the place. Could be a bad GPS signal or watch problem.
Try increasing Pace smoothing. I also found that changing from statute to metric made for a smoother change in pace but only because of the unit percentage being different.
The only thing I could hold against the Forerunner’s instant pace is that it can, because of the pace smoothing, take a a few seconds to get up to the correct pace from standstill.
Instant pace is invaluable to me. As is average pace. But I definitely need both. As the distances get longer your pace could be all over the place but your average would only change very slowly.
See this link for example … clean increases and decreases in pace over a 5 minute-ish interval and this is reflected in my watch readout. http://i36.tinypic.com/2dtx3f9.jpg
The pace smoothing will reduce the changes displayed on the watch whilst maintaining the actual data being collected. (I think)
As far as I can see I would go for the 310 if I was using for swimming, I would go for the 405 if I wanted something a little more watch-like, the 305 if I wanted to save money but also wanted heart rate and the 205 for the basics and low cost. I would not get the 100 or 110 or whatever it’s called.
I agree completely, my 305 instant pace never varies much. I had the first Gramin Forerunner 101 and loved it, pace worked perfect which was why I bought it. I now use a 305 but thought about passing it down in the family and getting a 110 but having only an average pace does me zero good so looks like I’m buying a 310xt. I tried a 405 and just didn’t like the bezel controls.
I agree completely, my 305 instant pace never varies much. I had the first Gramin Forerunner 101 and loved it, pace worked perfect which was why I bought it. I now use a 305 but thought about passing it down in the family and getting a 110 but having only an average pace does me zero good so looks like I’m buying a 310xt. I tried a 405 and just didn’t like the bezel controls.
I like that the 305 / 205 controls take a bit of a press to activate too. Avoids accidental time splits and the like. The 405 has some issues with that I think.
Actually, the link to your data shows the problem perfectly. Even with the smoothing I assume you have applied you can see many examples where in a single 5 sec period the pace goes up or down by 15 secs per km, some cases more.
At 7:02:45 for example, your instantaneous pace goes from 4:19 to 4:35 then back to 4:20.
I may have exaggerated the bouncing I see with my watch, but you have illustrated the problem with instantaneous pace nicely. The number you see when you steal a glance at your watch is too erratic to use for careful pacing, whereas the lap average keeps you on pace for your race.
The smoothing applies to the data on the watch display. What I have shown is the actual data obtained by the watch, which doesn’t stray in the same way you initially described. Unless I filmed my watch I don;t think I can show you the smooth pace readout.
The data shown will obviously change a lot depending on conditions, turning a corner, going up or down a kerb. There is obviously the affect of GPS accuracy. However I think the actual data is still pretty accurate and doesn’t go up and down by the minutes you described initially.
The watch displays a much smoothed version of that data. Giving me an excellent readout of my pace.
Unless you have zero smoothing (which I don;t even think is the default setting) then the figures should not be too erratic.
If you solely go on average pace then over a marathon you could slow to almost a crawl and your average pace would not change quickly. Losing you valuable time. Lets not forget, if your average pace goes slowly from 4:01 to 4:03 per km at the end of a marathon you would have lost 2 seconds x 42k. A minute and 22 seconds. You would not notice the decline on your watch whereas instantaneous pace would have thrown any number of alarm bells your way. An exaggerated example I know but proves my point that the further you get into a race the less you can rely on average pace for your actual pace at that moment.
I am pretty picky when it comes to pace and times. If your watch doesn’t do a really good job of real time pace then there is an issue with the signal (could be the surroundings) or the watch.
I also found the pace worked better (was less variable) with KM’s than miles as the percentages in change to that measurement are less. (hope that bit makes sense)
Thanks everyone for the info and details. I am going with the 310xt. I like the large display and more importantly I can customize displays and set the unit to automatically cycle through different views during a workout. My key workouts are mile and hill repeats where I like to be able to see heart rate, pace, lap time and overall time. Looking at the website, documentation and the 110 in the store it looks like it is for more recreational athletes that also want to use it as a watch. Thanks again everyone.
Another vote for the FR 305. For $150, you get most of the 310. If you don’t need wireless power for the bike, then it’s almost a no-brainer. Customizable screens, and you can load in courses to follow for runs/rides in new areas. This replaced my FR 301, which took forever to get satellite lock. Tracking is a lot more accurate in the woods, and I picked up the soft HR strap from Ebay for $20, which has less spikes too.