Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

FR 945 vs Fenix 6 OHRM

3704102
over 5 years ago

Hello from the Fenix 6 side! I just had a quick question for the FR 945 owners. There has been A LOT of discussion on the F6 forums regarding the very poor (almost pathetic) performance of the optical heart rate monitor on the F6 during any activity outside of running and now sometimes for resting heart rate. Unfortunately, Garmin has been almost radio silent on the issue, so I was wondering if this is limited solely to the F6, or do other Garmin watches that utilize the same sensor also suffer from poor HR readings.

What I have found in my experience is the F6 gives very low HR readings during almost any activity. Sometimes it can be well above 150 bpm and the watch is reading 80 bpm. However, sometimes it appears to "catch" my pulse correctly, but if my HR changes at all (say going downhill on a bike or during strength training) it just hovers at the higher value forever! It is incredibly frustrating. I have come to believe it is almost a random number generator at this point.

So how has your experience been with the FR 945 for activities OUTSIDE of running. Does it seem pretty accurate? Do you see rapid increases and decreases during activities that generate that kind of HR pattern (interval training, strength, HIIT, etc) when using the watches ORHM?

P.S. Before someone says I just need a chest strap, I have one and wear it, but for over $800 the ORH sensor on the F6 is just unacceptable. 

TIA!

Top Replies

All Replies

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Hi, from my experience, during online skating OHR avg hr 110, with chest hrm then 140-150. Running is surprisingly more often better - more accurate but not so dynamic. During florbal,badminton and squash OHR is totally out (80 OHR vs 160-180 chest hr).

    I use OHR only for 7/24 hr monitoring. For activities I use chest HR.

    To have complete information - FR935 had the same behavior.

     

     

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    It's the identical OHR sensor, so not a lot different.

    Heavier watches can suffer more from "bounce'' from arm movement than lighter ones, allowing external light to enter the sensor, especially if you have the band too loose. But the root cause here is a loose band, not the watch.

    FWIW, I have the Fenix 6, and the OHR is pretty accurate and reliable (although I do use a chest strap for intervals, as they are more responsive).

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to mcalista

    In my experience, I have two 945, one inte the right arm and one on the left, in running they are a random number generator !!

    In normal life 24/7, pulse are more realistic.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to mcalista
    mcalista said:
    the OHR is pretty accurate and reliable

    It would be nice if you added "for me" at the end - the OHR is pretty accurate and reliable for you. It is not for many others using the Fenix 6, that's pretty clear from the Fenix 6 forum

    mcalista said:
    But the root cause here is a loose band, not the watch.

    Where is that confidence from? Funny enough, I was told I was wearing my watch too tight:

    My personal recommendation would be to wear your 945 at least one notch down, if not more. The amount of pressure it would take to leave that kind of imprint from your charging port is likely to affect the capillaries under your skin, and this is where this device will measure HR. 

    I've since then tried 1-3 notches down with different positions on the wrist, I've tried wearing the watch on the other side of the wrist. No change whatsover. Nothing.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    For me the FR945 OHR is spot on, even better than the FR935 which I also wear from time to time. Activities like walking or hiking show very credible and realistic OHR, resting heart rate also is fully in line with my Oura ring. So I can confirm, the FR945 works great for me.

    However I have pretty light skin tone, so that may be a factor. I know e.g. my African sports mate regularly complains about OHR accurracy as his skin is very dark and this seems to interfere with the sensor. But in general I would say the FR945 sensor and algorithm is pretty ok

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    I would say that for me it's accurate. When I bought my 945 I compared it with my old Fenix 3 (not OHR) that had a chest strap connected, and during easier activites (biking to work) it was spot on and during an interval run there was something strange at the start but it then stabilized and followed the strap very well.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    Fr945 ohr is totally useless... indoor floor ascent.. HR 167 BPM.... OHR 97 BPM....

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    It is pretty amazing to me the variety of answers to this problem. I came from an AW2, and no matter where the watch was, or how tight the band was, it gave fairly reliable readings. Even with strength or HIIT training! 

    It appears that the F6 (and maybe the FR945) ORHM is just incredibly finicky and it has to be in the absolute perfect spot to get an accurate reading? When you look at the sensor itself, it is relatively small compared to competitors that seem to give better data not dependent on exactly where the watch is. Are we all beta testers for the sensors on these very expensive watches? I am starting to feel like I am. 

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    Mine is working great for me. No issues whatsoever. 

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    there were a few threads about this but it seems nobody is writing in them anymore. That could either be because the problem have been fixed for many people or because people gave up on complaining here. I believe it's the latter:

    1. HR is unaccurate during daily tracking.
    2. Wrist heart rate monitor WHR inaccurate (1)
    3. Wrist hear rate monitor WHR inaccurate (2)
    4. OHR vs HRM-Run in everyday life: completely useless (for me) (disclosure: I opened this thread)