Time in heart rate zone doesn't show in Garmin Connect?

Where it displays HR in Connect, under the lable "Hear Rate" you should see options for bpm, %Max, and zones.


Under Profile, Settings, Display Preferences you can set the default display.

This is what I meant.
This is how it looks at my friends connect.

It can't be that I don't have a Fenix that keeps that info away right?

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is exactly that.

And because my watch register both time and heart rate it should only be a matter of calculations.

It is a matter of calculation AND decision by Garmin of which data and functionality should be made available for owners of particular devices. And so it seems, that the "time in zone" graph is available for selected devices only.

I miss read.

Under the graphs of speed, heart rate, etc the are options for "Stats", "Splits", and "Time in Zone".

If you are on Connect Mobile go to the graphs display and then scroll to the bottom of the page.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is exactly that.



It is a matter of calculation AND decision by Garmin of which data and functionality should be made available for owners of particular devices. And so it seems, that the "time in zone" graph is available for selected devices only.

This I was afraid of. It's really dumb imo.

I miss read.

Under the graphs of speed, heart rate, etc the are options for "Stats", "Splits", and "Time in Zone".

If you are on Connect Mobile go to the graphs display and then scroll to the bottom of the page.

Yes I know where to find it, but it doesn't show on my app, because I "only" have the 910XT as told up here.

Under the graphs of speed, heart rate, etc the are options for "Stats", "Splits", and "Time in Zone".

The "Time in Zone" tab is not available for activities registered with the 910XT.

Guess I have to stick with Strava to get time in zones until my 910XT fails then.

I too cannot understand, why the calculation of Time in Zone is dependant of the hardware. Many others can calculate Time in Zone based on the HR Data. Me, for example, I can see time in Zone when I record an activity with the VAHR, but not with my Forerunner 620. I know the 620 is older and all, but it still is a more advanced running Watch, that's why I like it better for recording my runs. But then I don't get Time in Zone...

Now, I sync with Polar and Runtastic for several reasons. And with runtastic I can always see their equivalent of Time in Zone, when I upload my activity which was recorded with my Forerunner 620. So, it clearly can be solved softwarewise and, in my opinion, it definately SHOULD NOT be related to the hardware.

One can debate if Garmin is obliged to satisfy this specific customer need (which it seems to be, according to this forum and many similiar threads), but on the other hand: what speaks against it? The only thing that comes to my mind is, that they want to make you purchase a newer watch. Good for them, not so good for us.

Don't get me wrong. No Platform or Manufacturer has "The Ultimate Perfect Solution". All have their good and less good sides. But shouldn't it also be a priority to satisfy the customers as good as possible? A happy customers returns glady to the same manufacturer/Brand. A customer who starts getting always a bit more frustrated with time, will think about changing Brand. Usualy it's not "the one thing" that bothers you that makes you change Brand, but the many minor things that accumulate with time.

Said this, I still like Garmin and I really like their hardware/devices. But some software related things, like Time in Zone being hardware-dependant and the not available offline capabilites of GCM, do annoy me.

I too cannot understand, why the calculation of Time in Zone is dependant of the hardware.

You're conflating two different concepts there. The calculation is only dependent on the hardware (capabilities) insofar as heart rate information has to be available while the Garmin device is recording the timed activity. However, whether the feature is offered to the user is dependent on the device model, for which there is a product specification (which may or may not expressly include the feature as part of the package offered for the asking price). You can argue until you're blue in the face, but there is still no actual obligation for manufacturers to provide every feature that the hardware in an appliance could deliver (with the right software), and your feelings about it are irrelevant.

One can debate if Garmin is obliged to satisfy this specific customer need (which it seems to be, according to this forum and many similiar threads), but on the other hand: what speaks against it?

Product differentiation, and the ability to sell different packages of features to users at different prices, irrespective of whether the hardware is capable of delivering more than has been specified and advertised.

The only thing that comes to my mind is, that they want to make you purchase a newer watch. Good for them, not so good for us.

You're not buying hardware onto which to load and run your own software, like computer geeks in the Seventies and the Eighties used to do, where your programming ability would be the primary limiting factor to how far you can exploit the hardware's capabilities and potential. You're buying an appliance that delivers a specified package of features. If you want more than those in order to obtain more benefit from the device (thus making it more valuable to you), suppliers in the market are happy to offer you options at higher prices to satisfy a broader set of ‘needs’ and wants.

But shouldn't it also be a priority to satisfy the customers as good as possible?

Only if that is coupled with extracting as much voluntary spending from the individual customer as possible. The compromise between price to pay for, and number of functional ‘needs’ and wants satisfied by, a given product is for the individual to decide to accept or not, and all products on the market offer (different) compromises from which the individual may make an informed choice, knowing exactly what he/she chooses not to get in order to save on price, or parting willing with dollars he/she could conceivably use to satisfy other ‘needs’ and wants (whether that's food, medicine, petrol, alcohol, commercial sex or whatever).