Never buy a new model (experimental) product in its first year he keeps repeating in his head..... The attached image is taken after running 10 times up n down the house staircase. You can see a comparison between the Forerunner 405 with chest strap and the Forerunner 235. My old trusted companion which i have had for 6 years forrunner 405 shows 143 bpm and the forerrunner 235 showing at the same time 112bpm. A whoping 30 bpm difference. Really feeling like i was sold an unfinished product Garmin
The HRM of the 235 is just unreliable and works only partially, hence useless
I also contacted my selling point and they contacted Garmin, which asked me to do a hard reset... and also try to wear it on different spot. I have my doubts that the hard reset will help, but doesn't hurt to try.
As for shaving, I will also try it :p I actually hope it doesn't make a difference because shaving that spot every time over and over would probably result in faster local hairgrow .. :D
Comparison with 310xt+strap - more positive results
As the title says - I went out this evening and did a set intervals (12 x 90 secs with 1 min recovery). I wore the 235 on my right hand, except this higher up and on the inside of my wrist. On my left hand I wore the 310t paired to a strap. I dropped both .gpx files into mygpsfiles to compare, but for some reason the site or my mac isn't letting me upload the picture today
Here are the links to the Garmin Connect workouts instead.
Tracks ok imo - goes bit flaky after the 6th interval, but I stopped both watches and bent down to tie my lace, so I'm guessing a bit of wrist flexion threw it off. Massive spike to 199bpm, and as I'm not currently in hospital I'm going to disregard that. I goes back to track the last intervals ok, but not as good as the first 6, so I must have moved the watch when tieing my lace.
So takes a while to get going at the start of the warmup, but it was cold and even a bit of spit doesn't help with that. Tracks the heart rate drop a bit better when the intervals were done, but its not as badd as it looks here. If you could see the mygpsfiles comparison you would see this.
So much better - a bit more smoothing and less spiking into the heart attack zone and it'll be good enough for me. I was worried I was getting cadence lock during the recovery periods with the 235, but the 310t shows this wasn't the case - in a few of the recoveries my cadence and HR were coincidentally close, and unless you can get cadence lock using a strap and a watch that doesn't measure cadence then I'm pretty sure it didn't happen today.
Two more things - I used the workout feature on the 235 and got no pace alerts. Secondly, when I drop both file into mygpstracks and look at the speed the 310t file is way smoother - both watches set to 1 sec recording.
Since Garmin is releasing the new Fenix 3 HR (with the same optical HR as on the 235) do you think that they think the problems on the OHR can be fixed? Or do you think they will get the OHR on a new watch that is just as inaccurate? That would if so be mean. But I hope this shows that it can be better with software updates and not with new hardware.IF the OHR is exactly the same, though ... Does anybody know?
I doubt if Garmin even fully know that yet! One assumes the underlying technology is similar and one also assumes they have confidence in putting it into what seems to have become their flagship watch (not that I have one!).
Since Garmin is releasing the new Fenix 3 HR (with the same optical HR as on the 235) do you think that they think the problems on the OHR can be fixed? Or do you think they will get the OHR on a new watch that is just as inaccurate? That would if so be mean. But I hope this shows that it can be better with software updates and not with new hardware.IF the OHR is exactly the same, though ... Does anybody know?
I don't know about the software, but the OHRM hardware is "identical" to the FR235 according to DC Rainmaker's initial review.
Just wanted to say here, that for me the HR of the FR235 is not disastrous. I'm quite happy with it. I do have occassional cadence locks or spikes that are "off" but overall it's tracking nicely. You can see all my tests in my signature linked thread.
Thing is, by then it's too late to return (if the hw indeed is inferior).
For me, I'm already passed the return date, I took (or am taking) a gamble hoping things would get fixed because I do really like the watch. For now, HR is so so... Works ok-ish if you run at a steady pace but sucks for intervals and all. I'm hoping they will improve the HR readings, one of the main selling points of the watch not working properly can't be good for garmin either (a friend already said he's never buying garmin again.. if my first experience with the brand is as dissapointing it might turn out the same for me).
Then again, I feel like I'm quite naive for hoping this...
Don't think Garmin can fix this, it's the sensor hardware problem not software. If intervals not good, then steady pace will be bad too. I am using 225, it uses MIO sensor works very similar with a strap. So if HR not work, then return it immediately. Will not turn good in the future.
Don't think Garmin can fix this, it's the sensor hardware problem not software. If intervals not good, then steady pace will be bad too. I am using 225, it uses MIO sensor works very similar with a strap. So if HR not work, then return it immediately. Will not turn good in the future.
Meh... Steady pace seems to be fine, it's the adjusting which takes time... Depending on how garmin interprets the HR readings might be fixable. Then again, past my return date anyway so that ship has sailed.
But yeah, the sensor itself most likely is the issues. Just hoping they can fix it at least partially with sw. (Or perhaps if future releases are with an improved sensor, send this one in for 'repair').
I forgot my foot pod so the pace is off, recoveries were slower and intervals faster than shown, but the HR ramped up and back down as expected with little lag.
