Hey Folks, considering either a 230 or 235, but wondering how the indoor run function works. Is it reliable for distance?
Will either the 230 or 235 do this? Hows the step counter, does it work decently?
Thanks!
Ron
By no means is it very bright or super readable indoors. But for general use it is just fine - the light can be turned on and/or auto-on feature - helps.
Also you can get watch face's that are white background - dark text - which seems more visible to me. Can tinker with it.
No great but definitely not a deal breaker for me.
It's neither bright nor vivid, but info on the 235's display is sufficiently readable
But many say the screen is horrid, honest opinion on the screen?
Describing it as “horrid” is subjective at best, and meaningless hyperbole at worst. The FR235's colour display is nowhere near as vivid as that on a smartphone handset or tablet, which I suspect a lot of consumers are using (consciously or unconsciously) as a benchmark, but it's certainly readable.
Obviously a lot of other issues come into play, especially if we're talking about “reading” the presented content on the watch at a glance – the distance you personally like to hold you wrist from your eyes, the angle of the screen, glare, ambient light level, the font size used for particular pieces of information, etc.
I have a BROTECT matte screen protector on my FR235, and it does a good enough job cutting out glare and preventing scratches, but it reduces the screen readability indoors in low ambient light (e.g. in the afternoon) when not backlit. That said, I haven't actually needed to remove or replace the screen protector, since I can still read information off the display when I want. Without a screen protector (or with a high-quality glossy one), you should be able to read from the normal watch face and standard widgets just fine.
1. Backlight: Was a week in the canaries, blazing sun...white bg and black text (Iq watchface sr8) no problems reading it. Used it in arctic Finnish black as a bag night runs, again no problems.
2.Indoor running. The watch as speed indicator is ok, if you don't reach for phone, change songs and drink with the watch hand. I got the footpod and after some calibtation runs found it to be more precise (about 600m throw with watch on 5km run in favour of pod).
Ohrm is good on run, bike, walk but so-so in gym and crossfit.
1. Backlight: Was a week in the canaries, blazing sun...white bg and black text (Iq watchface sr8) no problems reading it. Used it in arctic Finnish black as a bag night runs, again no problems.
2.Indoor running. The watch as speed indicator is ok, if you don't reach for phone, change songs and drink with the watch hand. I got the footpod and after some calibtation runs found it to be more precise (about 600m throw with watch on 5km run in favour of pod).
Ohrm is good on run, bike, walk but so-so in gym and crossfit.
OK, cool, sounds really tempting then.
Hey, can I bug you guys with a couple more questions?
I see it doesn't have a stop watch or countdown timer, but looks like you can add them as an app?
The step counter: How does it know your walking and not like scratching your leg or something while sitting? Just confused how it can count steps via arm movement accurately?
2. The step counter useses several gyros... yes, there will be faults. But issues like scratching your head etc will make a faulty calc of 100-200 steps. Not really that much if one strives for 10 000 steps (daily recommendation) some hundred steps are neither here or there.
The step tracking: This may sound stupid, but what if you go for a walk, in the cold and keep your hand in your coat pocket, your arm isn't swinging, will it still count steps? Or if your like carrying stuff so your arm isn't swinging?
You might see lower step counts if you push a shopping cart or a stroller, and maybe holding on to the rails on a tread mill (your wrist is more stationary and might not see the "impact" of a step), but during the cold weather, I often walk with my hands in my pockets, with no problem.
