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

FR225 vs FR235 - Optical Sensor Comparison (tightness, marks, performance) ?

webvan
over 9 years ago
In case anyone's been able to compare both I've been wondering about a few things as I really want to get a watch with an optical sensor to complement/replace my chest strap that sometimes just shows abnormal values (regardless of what I've tried, water, gel, etc...) which is confusing/worrying !

- reports indicated that the FR225 had to be worn almost uncomfortably tight to work well, is it also the case on the FR235 ?
- does the FR235 leave marks like the FR225, there are some scrary FR225 pics here http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Garmin_225 !
- in terms of actual performance people seemed happy with the FR225 whereas the FR235 is currently pretty spiky in GC but apparently stable when displayed on the watch..

Thanks !
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    hey Tim, without putting any undue promises or timelines can we at least say Garmin is aware of and tracking the HRM issues like crosstalk with cadence and problems with rapid HR accelerations due to intervals and is working on it? thanks!
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    Haven't noticed the 225 as being overly spiky
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/964066557 was with a 225 and
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/964202638 same run with a 230 paired to an HRM-Tri.

    Average HR identical and, perhaps more significantly, max HR only 1 bpm different.


    that looks great. hopefully the Garmin Elevate hardware is as good as the Mio Link in the 225 and with firmware improvements we can get similar performance in time? one can hope...
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    Haven't noticed the 225 as being overly spiky
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/964066557 was with a 225 and
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/964202638 same run with a 230 paired to an HRM-Tri.

    Average HR identical and, perhaps more significantly, max HR only 1 bpm different.


    I am sure they are! BTW I am hoping to get a 235 soon so can see these things for myself...
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    Thanks for the links, looks pretty good indeed overall but when you take a closer look you see two things:
    - there is a LOT of smoothing
    - there are quite a few "jumps" too, up and down.
    Like someone wrote elsewhere the raw data is probably just as "spiky", except Mio are smoothing the heck out of it ;-)

    Here are screenshots of the mygps analysis, FR225 in Yellow, HRM-TRI in blue





  • 0 over 9 years ago
    Important factor on "smoothing" is that the 225 only does Smart Recording whereas I had Every Second recording on for the 230 here.
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    Important factor on "smoothing" is that the 225 only does Smart Recording whereas I had Every Second recording on for the 230 here.



    Doesn't 1-sec recording only refer to GPS, not the HRM?
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    No everything. Below are 5 consecutive track points early in that run with the 225
    31, 34, 36, 38, 44 are the seconds of the timestamp so not every second...

    <Trackpoint>
    <Time>2015-11-22T11:25:31.000Z</Time>
    <Position>
    <LatitudeDegrees>51.1142941005528</LatitudeDegrees>
    <LongitudeDegrees>-1.495246784761548</LongitudeDegrees>
    </Position>
    <AltitudeMeters>35.0</AltitudeMeters>
    <DistanceMeters>32.439998626708984</DistanceMeters>
    <HeartRateBpm>
    <Value>91</Value>
    </HeartRateBpm>
    <Extensions>
    <TPX xmlns="www.garmin.com/.../v2">
    <RunCadence>95</RunCadence>
    </TPX>
    </Extensions>
    </Trackpoint>
    <Trackpoint>
    <Time>2015-11-22T11:25:34.000Z</Time>
    <Position>
    <LatitudeDegrees>51.11427213996649</LatitudeDegrees>
    <LongitudeDegrees>-1.4951314497739077</LongitudeDegrees>
    </Position>
    <AltitudeMeters>35.0</AltitudeMeters>
    <DistanceMeters>40.900001525878906</DistanceMeters>
    <HeartRateBpm>
    <Value>95</Value>
    </HeartRateBpm>
    <Extensions>
    <TPX xmlns="www.garmin.com/.../v2">
    <RunCadence>93</RunCadence>
    </TPX>
    </Extensions>
    </Trackpoint>
    <Trackpoint>
    <Time>2015-11-22T11:25:36.000Z</Time>
    <Position>
    <LatitudeDegrees>51.11425562761724</LatitudeDegrees>
    <LongitudeDegrees>-1.4950736984610558</LongitudeDegrees>
    </Position>
    <AltitudeMeters>35.0</AltitudeMeters>
    <DistanceMeters>45.34000015258789</DistanceMeters>
    <HeartRateBpm>
    <Value>98</Value>
    </HeartRateBpm>
    <Extensions>
    <TPX xmlns="www.garmin.com/.../v2">
    <RunCadence>93</RunCadence>
    </TPX>
    </Extensions>
    </Trackpoint>
    <Trackpoint>
    <Time>2015-11-22T11:25:38.000Z</Time>
    <Position>
    <LatitudeDegrees>51.11426434479654</LatitudeDegrees>
    <LongitudeDegrees>-1.4950021170079708</LongitudeDegrees>
    </Position>
    <AltitudeMeters>35.0</AltitudeMeters>
    <DistanceMeters>50.209999084472656</DistanceMeters>
    <HeartRateBpm>
    <Value>103</Value>
    </HeartRateBpm>
    <Extensions>
    <TPX xmlns="www.garmin.com/.../v2">
    <RunCadence>94</RunCadence>
    </TPX>
    </Extensions>
    </Trackpoint>
    <Trackpoint>
    <Time>2015-11-22T11:25:44.000Z</Time>
    <Position>
    <LatitudeDegrees>51.114228973165154</LatitudeDegrees>
    <LongitudeDegrees>-1.4947630651295185</LongitudeDegrees>
    </Position>
    <AltitudeMeters>35.0</AltitudeMeters>
    <DistanceMeters>67.41000366210938</DistanceMeters>
    <HeartRateBpm>
    <Value>106</Value>
    </HeartRateBpm>
    <Extensions>
    <TPX xmlns="www.garmin.com/.../v2">
    <RunCadence>93</RunCadence>
    </TPX>
    </Extensions>
    </Trackpoint>
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    Ah yes, that would come into play when comparing graphs but you would still see "spikiness" if it was there, except not every second.