Accuracy from optical HR, particularly at high intensity, highly active activities is still a work in progress. Check the forums for the other optical HR enabled devices. Everything there is relevant. Optical HR is fine for light activity but not yet ready for more athletic endeavours.
Apparently it does get better if you wear it as tight as you might apply a tourniquet. But then you might be in danger of losing a limb due to loss of circulation ;-)
They screwed up going for their own sensor or something, other devices perform better.The technical validity of Garmin's decision to use optical heart rate sensor hardware developed in-house for the FR235 is only subject to challenge if:
Also, the lack of updates (nothing in a month and even 2 wrt the OHR) annoys the hell out of me... while other, newer, products seem to get updates.So? If Garmin cannot ‘fix’ the performance of the FR235's oHRM today, then there is no point in releasing WHR firmware updates, is there? On the other hand, if Garmin is ready to ‘fix’ the FR235's oHRM today, I just cannot see why it would hold back releasing the fix. That there are updates released for other models with Garmin's Elevate sensor is not exactly proof that the changes implemented in those updates could be used to improve the FR235's oHRM performance.
The technical validity of Garmin's decision to use optical heart rate sensor hardware developed in-house for the FR235 is only subject to challenge if:
- the sensor is not fit for purpose, on the basis that it fails to achieve some threshold(s) of acceptable accuracy and reliability; and
- the Mio sensor in the FR225 performs better and achieves/exceeds the same threshold(s).
So? If Garmin cannot ‘fix’ the performance of the FR235's oHRM today, then there is no point in releasing WHR firmware updates, is there? On the other hand, if Garmin is ready to ‘fix’ the FR235's oHRM today, I just cannot see why it would hold back releasing the fix. That there are updates released for other models with Garmin's Elevate sensor is not exactly proof that the changes implemented in those updates could be used to improve the FR235's oHRM performance.
Maybe Garmin isn't trying very hard, but it doesn't mean it should push out WHR updates that won't fix the issue anyway.
Given the amount of issues and complaints with regards to it it doesn't really seem to be fit for purpose.Maybe it isn't. My point is simply that the Mio sensor used in the FR225 may also have not been fit for purpose either, in which case going for an alternative solution may not have been a screw-up in decision-making. I know I've seen some user reports of the optical HR sensor on the FR225 not working well for certain individuals, but I'm not going to go through the FR225 subforum and/or blog comments on the DCRainmaker site to try to gauge the prevalence of issues with it.
My experiences with the MIO sensor (in the tomtom watch) were a lot better. Adjusted faster, way less cadence lock issues, more stable...Yet TomTom has also abandoned the Mio sensor in the design of the Spark Cardio. I wonder which non-Mio brands of GPS running/multi-sport watches are still using Mio sensors in their new products? If nobody else is that segment of the industry (as opposed to casual 24x7 activity trackers, which run to some pretty cheap ‘no-name’ Asian OEMs as well as more established brands in the market) is using with Mio sensors any more, then there must be some issue(s) which we, as consumers, may not be aware of (or care about), but nevertheless real enough such that those who have the responsibility for making the decisions are eschewing the brand.
The fact that there are so many complaints about the 235 does indicate the OHR isn't really living up to expectations.OK, so expectation management (as in one of the responsibilities of the Marketing department) is deficient, at least in part.
I expected more then 'performs ok pretty often when jogging at an easy pace without any variation'. The thing with developing your own sensor is that you are re-inventing the wheel and should only be doing that when you are willing to spend a lot of time optimizing, improving and fixing it...See, I disagree with that. Hypothetically, if using a third-party OEM component would've scored 95/100 on some scale of solution effectiveness, while a significantly cheaper in-house replacement solution for a new generation of product only scores 91/100, but the threshold of acceptability is 90/100, then it would still be a commercially and technically sound decision to go for the latter.
About the updates, apparently garmin claimed an update would be out 'soon' for a month or so already. For example the '72bpm' issue has been fixed for quite a while in the Vivosmart HR while we are still waiting.To me, the question is whether the Vivosmart HR is able to arrive at an accurate HR reading quicker. I don't have an issue with the sensor using 72bpm as some sort of default starting point, if it can get to an accurate reading within a few seconds; however, on my FR235 it seems to take upwards of 30 seconds to get there when my heart rate is low and stable, i.e. when not excited and/or exercising, and more than 60 seconds even if I'm just walking briskly pushing my HR above 95 bpm. Now, if a WHR update didn't make the HR reading correct itself significantly more quickly than that, then not displaying 72bpm as a default starting point would merely be a cosmetic improvement, and misleading all the same to the user (who may just believe whatever is displayed with fluctuations within the first 15 seconds is reasonably accurate).
If they aren't able to fix their issues it only proves their incapability.No argument from me there.
Thing is this watch isn't all that old but already feels forgotten. It is even worse because it could be so great.See, as a consumer of IT for a long time and also having worked in solution development for over 15 years, I don't have a problem with that. Paying good money for great hardware doesn't mean I, as the purchaser, is entitled to be handed the full potential of the hardware on a platter (either upfront, or over the useful lifetime of the hardware), when IT solutions also involve application software/firmware. I'm accustomed to and accepting of the idea that, for example, buying a ‘PC’ at a particular price point often gives me better on-paper hardware specs than a Mac at the equivalent price point, but it doesn't mean the former is able to better deliver my desired end-user outcomes in practice. Nor do I feel there is any obligation on the part of the manufacturer to keep releasing improvements in firmware/drivers/applications (free of additional charge, with the ongoing support cost already factored into the purchase price upfront) to further exploit the potential of hardware that has already been paid for, and improve the value proposition after the initial purchase transaction.
But yeah, of course there is the possiblity that the current issues can't be fixed, but even that would be good to hear... And that would mean that this watch is only fit for the casual runner who sees OHR as a gimmick.I'm a casual runner, and the oHRM is good enough for me. However, I don't accept it's a case of seeing it as a gimmick. Instead, I see wrist-worn oHRM (regardless of brand) as a technically inferior solution to products that use tried-and-true ECG technology, but it offers the advantage of not having to buy/wear a separate chest strap HRM in terms of cost, convenience and/or comfort. In other words, it's a different compromise from having a running watch with no built-in oHRM and wearing a chest strap – and access to this compromise option costs money if I want it. I don't assume it was designed to be equal or better in every aspect that other compromise options, as if oHRM is an evolution in how the consumer is served.
