External sensor, how to force Bluetooth instead of Ant+?

I have not got 10.10 yet so can't answer for that version.

But why the he** would anyone connect via Bluetooth on purpose if devices supports ANT+?  

The ONLY reason I could think of is if you own more than 16? ANT+ sensors total after which Garmin complains...

But normally Garmin would show ANT+ devices first and then you could scroll on for equivalent Bluetooth.

/k

I can only speak for Garmin but with my HRM-Dual the first option is always ANT+. Bluetooth can be selected by scrolling down.

But why the he** would anyone connect via Bluetooth on purpose if devices supports ANT+?

Bluetooth is significantly faster than ANT+. The main drawback with Bluetooth compared to ANT+ is that. Once connected via Bluetooth, external sensor can't broadcast to other devices. This is opposite with ANT+. ANT+ is reliable but has short range. Bluetooth is indeed secure compared to ANT+ of course!

Maybe pair with both Ant+ and Bluetooth, then disable the Ant+ version?

kaz911 said:

But why the he** would anyone connect via Bluetooth on purpose if devices supports ANT+?

.....

ANT+ was designed for low throughput any to any connections - so multiple servers and multiple clients

meaning a sensor can connect to multiple devices and devices ti multiple sensors in the same time --- after all, ANT stands for Adaptive Network Topology

this is the power of ANT+, and for sensors that send activity data is more than enough.

range 30m at max, if transmit at 0dBm power (this is 1Watt power).

as @Genie said, 1Watt is too much if you want to preserve the battery.

Bluetooth was designed as point-to-point protocol, for high throughput.

BT4 standardized point-to-multipoint - but few devices can do this simultaneously - only my Bose NC 700 from what I own, but has a serious problem in playing both phone and laptop at the same time.

BT5 and BLE is here, goes towards topology  network as ANT, at a higher rate and higher range - meaning high power consumption

so:

• ANT+ for activities
• BT/BLE for software update, sync, etc

just me,

robert

Because eg ​​WHY IS MY TICKR X NOT REPORTING CADENCE?

'The TICKR X reports cadence only over Bluetooth^® connections, though some devices like the ELEMNT MINI pair over ANT+ by default. Please ensure your device is connected to your TICKR X via Bluetooth to receive cadence data.'

(The HRM side of the Tickr supports both ANT+ and BTLE, and normally the ANT+ is picked up first, but without cadence then.  So the device supports ANT+, but not all the functions)

As to why use Bluetooth over Ant+, see this thread: When connecting via Ant+, my heart rate monitor switches to HR-only mode for some reason, and no RR intervals are recorded (so no HRV stats etc).

Interesting breakdown!

I can't find the reference anymore but I read years ago that ANT+ started as "Dynastream", invented by a very small team, before being picked up by Garmin and rebranded.

I'd also read there was a version tested that would do multi-point broadcast of high bandwidth datastreams like music. How cool would it have been to be able to "share" music like we did back in the day with a Walkman that had dual headphone ports?

Bluetooth came along, got picked up by cellphone manufacturers and kinda ate ANT+'s lunch (or perhaps ANT+ was the "Betamax" of connectivity and had more onerous licencing hurdles than BT).

For what it's worth, I find ANT+ tends to be more reliable than BTLE for most of my sport wearable connections, but I may be the exception rather than the rule.

stroper said:

Bluetooth is significantly faster than ANT+. The main drawback with Bluetooth compared to ANT+ is that.

For an extremely low bandwidth application like HR data, how is this a benefit?