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

First impressions

Former Member over 9 years ago

Hey all.

Picked up a 235 yesterday (Masala red, if you wanted to know) and thought I'd share my first impressions for those who might be interested in the watch.

I already own a Suunto Ambit 1 and the missus has a Garmin Forerunner 920 XT. I also use a stainless steel Apple Watch, so have some experience of optical HRM technology. But I wanted a running watch that gave me the option of going optical or using a traditional chest strap if needed.

I had also considered getting a Scorshe Rhythm+ to use with my Suunto Ambit 1 in the past, and would consider that as an option in the future with the 235 if I felt the oHRM wasn't up to scratch. To me, it's a bonus that the 235 can be paired with a traditional chest strap or another strap that also utilises oHRM like the Scorsche. It gives you the best options in terms of choosing what's right for you, especially if you have concerns that the oHRM isn't up to standard in the areas that are important to you.

I'm someone who wants to put on a watch and just run. I'm not that interested in many of the watches other features, like sleep assessment, watch notifications and perhaps even steps activity (seeing as I have that from my Apple Watch and will be wearing that daily). So I hope turning some of these features off potentially allows me to maximise battery life and performance, and possibly avoid the odd issue here and there too.

I know this may sound strange to hear for some of you, but I'm personally happy to buy into new technology that I'd like to see mature and become better. Being able to run without a strap would be ideal, and I've used my Suunto Ambit 1 in the past to play football (under a wristband), but it's bulky and I've had the chest strap ping off on occasion when challenging for the ball with opponents. The 235 is slim in profile and gives you one less accessory to worry about, providing the results are what you want, so it will be interesting to experiment with it at some point in the future (albeit I won't get to that for a while as I'm still recovering from a bad injury).

But let me cut to the chase and give my first experience. I think the 235 looks nice and the fit is comfortable and is certainly more comfortable than the Suunto Ambit. It's a little bit plasticky in places, but nothing that would concern me in anyway. It's a heck of a lot lighter than the Suunto and the Apple Watch.

I've read a lot about the backlight and I understand what people are saying about the screen, but it's honestly not a problem for me. I can read it absolutely fine with the light on or off from a variety of angles in the day time, and it was perfectly easy to see from a run I've just come back from in darkness this evening with the backlight on. So no real issues there, but the only thing I would say is the light feels and looks a bit... tacky? So where the light source illuminates from the bottom on mine, it makes it look like I have some dead pixels there and I actually thought I did at first, but I think it's just the effect of the light. Not a deal breaker either.

I also initially had problems pairing the 235 with my iPhone 6s+ For some reason they couldn't find each other via Bluetooth, but eventually after about five or six goes and making some changes and syncing them back to Garmin Express, it connected fine.

I first sat around my office and had the Apple Watch and 235 on either wrist. Interestingly when I first picked up the 235 and before I put it on, it was on 72bpm. This was there even when I put my finger on the sensor at the back, changing once briefly. But it didn't bother me, as to me, this just looks like the default number for whatever reason. It updated fast as soon as I put it on my wrist and perhaps some people are getting a little confused by that, as it will need a little time to make a reading. That's how the Apple Watch works anyway – just that it tells you on the Apple Watch that it's "measuring" but that takes a fair few seconds. I also walked around a bit and checked it when I did some general movement, and again, it was pretty much in the ballpark of what I expected and similar to the Apple Watch readings for that stuff.

Anyway the cool thing is, they both read exactly the same at the same time when I first compared them. But over the course of the afternoon I checked back and fourth and they were sometimes within 1-5bpm of each other. Still, not really a deal breaker for me. I think I've learned over time to not always worry what it tells you at face value, and usually get a feel for when it is bang on or whether it might be off slightly depending on how many times you review and study the data afterwards when you've published it.

This evening I decided to take the 235 out for a light jog. I'm recovering from a bad calf injury so I was a bit limited with what I could do, literally only jogging very lightly. But it still gave me a chance to test it out and I went out with my Suunto Ambit 1, chest strap and foot pod on one wrist and the 235 on the other.

The first real plus is just how fast it connects via GPS. I did turn on the GLONASS technology and have no idea if that contributed, but my Suunto Ambit 1 takes about 90 seconds or more every time to acquire a connection. My missus' 920 XT has the same issue. But the 235 connected within about 2-3 seconds. It was so fast I actually thought it couldn't have connected. Kudos!

I did a light 7km jog and one problem I've always had with my Suunto Ambit 1 is that it records the distance incorrectly. It's always about 0.5km out, depending on the distance. I ran a regular route, so I know it's behaviour well and low and behold it did the same as this, measuring the run on the watch at 6.5km, whereas the 235 had it spot on at 7km. So again, that's pleasing.

Stupidly I never checked the heart rate on either watch, but I was actually more interested in what they would say afterwards, and they both measured my heart rate identically – both with an average of 128bpm for the duration of the run. I was really expecting a difference. In addition, the cadence was almost the same, with the Suunto Ambit 1 and foot pod measuring 156spm and the 235 measuring 154spm.

I had charged the 235 to 100% before using it, and after that run it had gone down to 87%. I can live with that as I'm only going to really be using it when I actually run.

Obviously non of the above assessments are scientific in any way. They're just impressions from real world use, so hopefully they are of interest. I considered the 630 as well, as the additional features would have been nice to have (but I'm not a serious runner anyway). The drawbacks were obviously the price and needing a new HRM strap to make use of all those features (and no oHRM). I also assume that physical buttons are a little bit better to use than a touchscreen to operate watches while running – so that's ultimately why I opted for the 235.

Hope that helps.

Update: I purchased my watch directly from Garmin and it arrived with 3.3 firmware already installed, but 2.40 for the WHR, which I immediately updated to 2.50.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

A further update.

Decided to take a 15-20 minute walk this morning to check out the way the oHRM sampling works.

So I had both the 235 and the Apple Watch on. Straight up the 235 gave me a HR reading that looked right for me, but the Apple Watch spent some time "measuring" before returning the exact same reading as the 235. So far so good.

About halfway through the walk I decided to check again. This time I checked the Apple Watch first. Again it took a little while to measure, but returned with a reading that looked good for me.

So I check the 235. From the initial glance, it told me 72bpm, which I knew wasn't right. And then I waited to see what it was up to. First it started dropping into the 60s, oh no, definitely not right. At this point, I'm like hmmm... But I wait it out and sure enough it climbs to the same value at the Apple Watch. This all happens in about the same time it takes the Apple Watch to measure and return a value.

On the apple Watch it tells you what the last measurement was, whether a manual measurement or an automatic one, and basically says "Chill out, I'm measuring" before returning you a value. The 235 seems to show you either a default value, or the last known measurement, before possibly showing some sampling values as it hits its ballpark. I suspect this may be simply a poorly thought out process for this mechanism.

I've not had a chance to see whether those lower values get recorded or not, but I suspect if so, they just need to discard those values for that process until they've got a positive lock on. Certainly there's stuff here they can improve in software and perhaps even hardware.

On subsequent other checks when I was sat down shortly after the walk, they were both generally showing the same values fine. On occasion the 235 sometimes has a higher or different value, but I suspect sometimes it's displaying the last measurement momentarily, especially if it had taken a sample very recently or just around or before you visually checked yourself.

I don't often check my HR directly on the Apple Watch. Once this morning when I checked, one of the last known measurements was 72bpm on the Apple Watch as well, then it jumped to something higher when it had finished measuring again. Whether that is accurate or not, I'm not sure, but usually I'm looking at my overall HR for the entire day after the fact, just to get an overview of when it's up or down over periods of the day and seeing if that makes sense and tallies up with what I was doing.

I've not tried the full HR broadcasting on the 235 yet, so will give that a go at some point.

Also for this short walk, the Apple Watch measured it at 2416 steps, whereas the 235 measured it at 2371 steps. Again, I've never really paid much attention to steps, as I'm not always wearing my watches.

Hope that helps.

0 unixcrab over 9 years ago

Wow, thanks for the great writeup. I've started watching this forum as I'm looking for something other than my Fenix3. The constant bug ridden firmware releases, and the months they take to fix their own bugs, make it a frustrating device to own. So you would recommend the 235 overall? I plan to use it for running routes I already know and keeping the Fenix3 for navigating new routes.

Thanks,
S

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

Wow, thanks for the great writeup. I've started watching this forum as I'm looking for something other than my Fenix3. The constant bug ridden firmware releases, and the months they take to fix their own bugs, make it a frustrating device to own. So you would recommend the 235 overall? I plan to use it for running routes I already know and keeping the Fenix3 for navigating new routes.

Thanks,
S

Thanks, appreciated.

I've only had it a couple of days, so am still evaluating it really but I'm happy with the results so far and it's incredibly liberating knowing that you can go for a run without the need of a chest strap. In addition, how fast it locked onto the satellite made me realise how cold I was often getting waiting for the Suunto Ambit 1 to acquire a signal. These two things alone actually had an unexpected and psychologically positive impact for me. It's not like wearing a strap or waiting for the signal bothered me massively before.

From my early use and knowing that the Elevate oHRM technology has been put into other upcoming Garmin products has given me some confidence. It is technology they appear committed to and I do think they'll be able to offer additional software and firmware improvements.

As for the device itself, once you wear something like an Apple Watch, you do appreciate the craftsmanship involved. The Apple Watch is far superior in quality and finish to the Suunit Ambit 1 or the 235, but then, I wasn't expecting the 235 to be at that standard. It's pretty much what I expected it to be. Perhaps the quality of the 235 screen could be better (in terms of materials), because it does seem a little on the cheaper side but without being bad.

I'll obviously be continuing to evaluate over the coming days and weeks, and as I return to full fitness. But for now, I'm almost pretty much convinced I could happily go running with this watch alone and I'll continue to assess that as I gather more data.

0 timgrose over 9 years ago

Neil
Thanks for your thoughts.
Re HR on the 235, you might want to check if the 235 actually automatically paired to your HR strap and used that instead of the optical. I note you said the results were "identical".
On the 235, check in Settings, Sensors & Accessories.

0 1bertocc over 9 years ago

Thank you for sharing your experience. I bought my 235 about 3 weeks ago and when I became a little scared when was reading all the topics about the problems that many users had, but after 3 weeks of use I must say I'm happy with my watch. Did some runs with the 235 and my Polar H7/Sony smartwatch 3 with Ghostracer and except when doing some sudden changes in pace where the 235 take some time to adjust I found the HRM pretty accurate. And till now didn't had any major problem.

For my experience with Garmin GPS (especially handheld) the early (and not so early) costumers are a kind of beta testers while the software is being updated till all the issues are solved and we end up with a good product. My last Garmin handheld GPS was a Garmin Oregon and from the release till it became bug free (or almost) we have to wait a year or more and many software updates, but after that the Oregon was in my opinion a good GPS.

That being said I hope the 235 will improve with future software updates although I think that till now it fulfilled my expectations.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

Neil
Thanks for your thoughts.
Re HR on the 235, you might want to check if the 235 actually automatically paired to your HR strap and used that instead of the optical. I note you said the results were "identical".
On the 235, check in Settings, Sensors & Accessories.

I'll have to double check that Tim, thanks for the heads up. I think they were different, seeing as the Suunto Ambit 1 recorded slightly different minimum and maximum heart rates for the duration of the run versus the 235, but they ended up with the same average. But I wasn't aware that it could automatically pair – can a strap pair to two different devices at the same time?

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

Thank you for sharing your experience. I bought my 235 about 3 weeks ago and when I became a little scared when was reading all the topics about the problems that many users had, but after 3 weeks of use I must say I'm happy with my watch. Did some runs with the 235 and my Polar H7/Sony smartwatch 3 with Ghostracer and except when doing some sudden changes in pace where the 235 take some time to adjust I found the HRM pretty accurate. And till now didn't had any major problem.

For my experience with Garmin GPS (especially handheld) the early (and not so early) costumers are a kind of beta testers while the software is being updated till all the issues are solved and we end up with a good product. My last Garmin handheld GPS was a Garmin Oregon and from the release till it became bug free (or almost) we have to wait a year or more and many software updates, but after that the Oregon was in my opinion a good GPS.

That being said I hope the 235 will improve with future software updates although I think that till now it fulfilled my expectations.

Cheers and yeah, I'm sharing my experience for precisely that reason. I had been doing a fair bit of research and reading prior to purchasing and I'm sure many others are doing the same. It can often scare or worry you when you read other peoples bad experiences.

The whole beta thing is a difficult one really. Perhaps because I work in a similar kind of industry that deals with software and hardware that maybe I'm a little more forgiving. They may have rushed the device to market for the Christmas period, which may well have been a business decision and has put them under pressure. On the flip side, even if they had a large amount of resources to put the device through a lengthy testing period (which they most likely have), it's unlikely they'd be able to cover every test case out there or mimic every users behaviour (seeing as we're all different and use our devices in different ways) and very quickly depending on how many units they sell, the customer base can massively outstrip the amount of test hours put in during that time on day one or a relatively short period of time.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

Another little update.

Decided to use the 235 by itself on my way to work this morning and do a mixture of tests (with a large ski jacket on and a rucksack, blimey... very warm! :D).

I live about 11km from my work, so I decided to walk the first couple of kilometres without setting an activity. I know my heart rate well for casual walking so I had a rough idea what it would be for this period.

From the first check after a few minutes, the watch was bang on. But then, a couple of other checks where I manually sampled, and it struggled, always dropping down to the 72 range before sometimes getting to the correct range, or sometimes not. I can see where there's frustration here, however, I had noticed that every time it didn't give me a correct reading, if I simply walked another 30 seconds or a minute and checked, the last sample rate (assuming an automatic sample being taken as I'm walking) was always in the correct ballpark. It's when I manually started taking readings that it sometimes showed these issues I described.

From there I decided to first jog a few kilometres and start a running activity, and then walk a kilometre, just to see how the watch handled that kind of scenario. This is where it did well, because it never once gave me a HR reading that didn't look right for me. It rose to where I expected it to be and dropped off accordingly when I started walking. And it dropped at a rate that is what I'm used to for doing that kind of stuff. It always looked right when I was walking - never once dropping rapidly or going anywhere near the 72 range.

I mixed it up - occasionally walking and occasionally jogging until I got to work. Once I finished and stopped the activity I repeated the first tests I did. Initially it was fine and picking up my HR correctly (though I was still cooling down) and then shortly afterwards it returns to the same situation that has been occurring where it can sometimes read numbers like 72bpm before finally getting to the right value. So it seems this issue is there when you're manually checking and not in an active activity. As a little tip, whenever I take a manual reading I do apply pressure on the watch to ensure a tight fit against my skin, just in case it helps.

All in all though, I'm pretty pleased with the way it recorded my jog.

Another huge plus, which I didn't realise, was that it automatically synced with my phone and subsequently automatically published my jog/walk on Strava. That's a real plus coming from the Suunto Ambit 1 and a feature I didn't realise was possible. No more plugging in cables to upload data, terrific. :)

Note: that lack of functionality always irritated me before, as it meant I could never drain the battery to zero without leaving data on the watch for days on end. Does anybody know if it's a good idea to first or regularly drain the battery of these watches?

Also, on the downside, and maybe it's there but I've not found it yet, but I prefer a percentage number to be shown alongside the battery indicator, say like you can do on an iPhone, as a means of seeing what the battery is from the watch face. Perhaps this can be added, or maybe other watch faces can do it (though I am not interested in third party stuff). The battery percentage shows when you plug it in via USB, so it's obviously possible.

0 Ingo2711 over 9 years ago

Another little update.
...
Does anybody know if it's a good idea to first or regularly drain the battery of these watches?
...

As with your iPhone, draining the Li-ion battery completely may damage it. Since there is no memory effect, charge whenever neccessary.