Giving up my FR235 oHRM ( at least for now..)

My whole reason for getting this watch is to not have to use a chest-strap, so no... I don't want Garmin to give me one.

I want them to do all they can to improve it as much as they can though so that I can actually use the product as intended. It doesn't have to be perfect, I know it isn't, but it has to be usable and reliable.

And there is no reason to compare it with a Note5, completely different device with completely different (technique of) sensors.

I agree. That's why I replaced my old FR610 for the FR225 and then for the FR235. I also would like them to improve this product. But we've paid a premium for the oHRM feature. And this feature is not working as supposed to. Please don't tell me to return the product and that consumer satisfaction BS. Unfortunately in my country is not that simple. And this is not Garmin's fault.

I understand the differences between the Note 5 and the FR235. It was a way to illustrate that the hardware is simple and even work in a smartphone where HRM is just an accessory for the product and not one of the main features like it is in the FR235. IMO is the interpretation of the data generated by different sensors at different situations (running with GPS, without GPS, etc...) is the biggest challenge here. So, in the end of the day: the algorithms inside the firmware are not working well. Garmin has the ownership of the software's development. And they are not doing a good job at even trying to fix it. Why not releasing Beta firmwares for volunteers that would like to help? Besides, we are reading about problems that a simple QA test should had fixed it before releasing the product. For example: running intensity variation and working out in a Gym...

I agree. That's why I replaced my old FR610 for the FR225 and then for the FR235. I also would like them to improve this product. But we've paid a premium for the oHRM feature. And this feature is not working as supposed to. Please don't tell me to return the product and that consumer satisfaction BS. Unfortunately in my country is not that simple. And this is not Garmin's fault.

I understand the differences between the Note 5 and the FR235. It was a way to illustrate that the hardware is simple and even work in a smartphone where HRM is just an accessory for the product and not one of the main features like it is in the FR235. IMO is the interpretation of the data generated by different sensors at different situations (running with GPS, without GPS, etc...) is the biggest challenge here. So, in the end of the day: the algorithms inside the firmware are not working well. Garmin has the ownership of the software's development. And they are not doing a good job at even trying to fix it. Why not releasing Beta firmwares for volunteers that would like to help? Besides, we are reading about problems that a simple QA test should had fixed it before releasing the product. For example: running intensity variation and working out in a Gym...

My point wrt the Note5 was mainly that the way the sensors on the phone work isn't as hard as the wrist ones. The fingertip is much thinner skinned, the pulse is way easier to identify. Also, you're keeping it still... So it's at least as much hardware as it is software determining the result.

OHR on the wrist simply is a difficult thing, not yet optimized. I can accept that, I just hope that they maximize it at least. Something I don't feel like they've done so far... at all.

My point wrt the Note5 was mainly that the way the sensors on the phone work isn't as hard as the wrist ones. The fingertip is much thinner skinned, the pulse is way easier to identify. Also, you're keeping it still... So it's at least as much hardware as it is software determining the result.

OHR on the wrist simply is a difficult thing, not yet optimized. I can accept that, I just hope that they maximize it at least. Something I don't feel like they've done so far... at all.

Good point about the fingertip and I agree with that.
Let's hope Garmin can fix it.

What, ‘consensus’ of a few dozen (and I'm being generous in that estimate) users who complained vocally or maybe even bitterly here, among how many FR235 owners? What percentage do you think that makes?

No. If you think the device is not fit for purpose, and are in a position to convince your local Fair Trading office or similar government agency of that and enlist its help in getting a refund, then return your device – and get you money back, say goodbye to what the FR235 can and does offer, and buy something else that represent a different compromise. Being better satisfied is not actually your entitlement as a consumer.

Garmin, you should put your energy and money in trying to fix the problems of the product instead of hiring people to write in this FORUM.

I agree. That's why I replaced my old FR610 for the FR225 and then for the FR235. I also would like them to improve this product. But we've paid a premium for the oHRM feature. And this feature is not working as supposed to. Please don't tell me to return the product and that consumer satisfaction BS. Unfortunately in my country is not that simple. And this is not Garmin's fault.

I understand the differences between the Note 5 and the FR235. It was a way to illustrate that the hardware is simple and even work in a smartphone where HRM is just an accessory for the product and not one of the main features like it is in the FR235. IMO is the interpretation of the data generated by different sensors at different situations (running with GPS, without GPS, etc...) is the biggest challenge here. So, in the end of the day: the algorithms inside the firmware are not working well. Garmin has the ownership of the software's development. And they are not doing a good job at even trying to fix it. Why not releasing Beta firmwares for volunteers that would like to help? Besides, we are reading about problems that a simple QA test should had fixed it before releasing the product. For example: running intensity variation and working out in a Gym...

Try running with your note 5 and then see how accurate that HRM sensor is.
The simple fact is wrist-based optical HR on all devices that have been released so far has been shown to struggle when you do any activity that has rapid heart rate changes or involves a lot of wrist flexing.
The physical limitations of OHR mean this will probably never be fully resolved.

If you bought the Forerunner 235 for the optical HR but relied only on the marketing material, and didn't do any fact checking of your own then you really only have yourself to blame.
I originally bought a 235 knowing full well that the optical HR wasn't going to be that great for exercise. But I wanted the extra running features of the watch, the ability to use a strap during exercise and the optical HR for 24/7 heart rate monitoring.
Prior to this I used a Fitbit Surge and a Tomtom Spark. These devices were okay but full of their own limitations, and I can say the optical HR on the 235 was on par with those devices, if not better.

But in the end I changed my mind and switched to a Fenix 3. And I haven't bothered getting the HR version because 24/7 hr monitoring just isn't that important to me.

If you bought the Forerunner 235 for the optical HR but relied only on the marketing material, and didn't do any fact checking of your own then you really only have yourself to blame.

I don't think thats fair at all.

Garmin says it gives you the option to "run without a strap". https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/sports-recreation/running/forerunner-235/prod529988.html

Without wanting to get pedantic about it it certainly implies that the sensor can replace the strap. If thats not accurate then its misleading. As it stands at the moment, its not accurate. I don't think consumers are to blame for trusting what they are told in marketing collateral.

I do think they are working on it though and remain confident of an update in the coming weeks.

I don't think thats fair at all.

Garmin says it gives you the option to "run without a strap". https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/sports-recreation/running/forerunner-235/prod529988.html

Without wanting to get pedantic about it it certainly implies that the sensor can replace the strap. If thats not accurate then its misleading. As it stands at the moment, its not accurate. I don't think consumers are to blame for trusting what they are told in marketing collateral.

I do think they are working on it though and remain confident of an update in the coming weeks.

I never had any issues using the optical HR while running except in the following circumstances
1. Doing any interval type training (e.g. the stuff with rapid heart rate changes). This was the same as using the optical HR during a gym session, and it was something that all 3 optical HR based watches that I've used have had problems with.
2. Occasionally when I did a hilly run I would experience "cadence lock" where the optical HR would pick up my cadence instead of my HR. I never noticed this on my previous watches, but then neither the Tomtom Spark nor the Fitbit Surge give you cadence information so it may well have been happening without me knowing.

So yes - you can indeed run without a strap, assuming your run is a fairly predictable one on a flat bit of land.

It's also worth noting that I am close to worst case scenario for optical HR - I have hairy and tanned arms, but even then I didn't experience many issues when running as long as I kept to a fairly narrow set of parameters for my run.
I would happily use the optical HR for a run if I didn't have my strap available (it was quite easy to forget it - I now have 3 straps floating around!).
I was less happy to use optical for gym sessions or sprinting/stair sessions for example.

I do believe they will be able to smooth the software over time - Fitbit have a massive advantage in this respect because they have a much larger user base to data mine, but Garmin will eventually get there.
But - if you are having major problems now, then it's unlikely that data smoothing will ever help solve your issues, but then changing to another brand probably wont solve your problems either. You may just be one of the unlucky ones for whom wrist based optical HR just won't ever work very well.

When I bought my Fitbit Surge a year ago I fully expected to have it for less than a year based on how fast the technology is changing. A year (and FOUR watches!?!) later I've come to the realisation that optical HR is never going to be all that good. All the software smarts in the world won't be able to fix all the problems everyone has. Even if it works for 99% of people that would leave some 10,000 unhappy users (Garmin will have easily sold 1m optical HR devices across the 235, the Fenix 3 HR and the other models).

I genuinely believe the following device is the heart-rate wearable of the future
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/coreywilliams/fitpal-the-most-complete-24-7-heart-rate-wearable
And as a beta backer I was able (along with others) to convince them to incorporate Ant+ technology, because I still want to wear my Garmin watch, but have this device to track my heart-rate.
Of course - the medical adhesives are likely to cause issues with a small % of people. So then you'll see those people complaining... It's just the way of the world!

Try running with your note 5 and then see how accurate that HRM sensor is.
The simple fact is wrist-based optical HR on all devices that have been released so far has been shown to struggle when you do any activity that has rapid heart rate changes or involves a lot of wrist flexing.
The physical limitations of OHR mean this will probably never be fully resolved.

If you bought the Forerunner 235 for the optical HR but relied only on the marketing material, and didn't do any fact checking of your own then you really only have yourself to blame.
I originally bought a 235 knowing full well that the optical HR wasn't going to be that great for exercise. But I wanted the extra running features of the watch, the ability to use a strap during exercise and the optical HR for 24/7 heart rate monitoring.
Prior to this I used a Fitbit Surge and a Tomtom Spark. These devices were okay but full of their own limitations, and I can say the optical HR on the 235 was on par with those devices, if not better.

But in the end I changed my mind and switched to a Fenix 3. And I haven't bothered getting the HR version because 24/7 hr monitoring just isn't that important to me.

Well, I believe my TomTom Cardio Multisports begs to differ with you... I had good experiences with it and looked up a few runs where I changed the pace a bit and they track really nicely. HR adjust to the pace very fast (as opposed to the garmin, if that adjusts at all). The TomTom also wasn't perfect 100% of the time, but it sure did better then the Garmin...

Especially the first one shows how it can be.

Well, I believe my TomTom Cardio Multisports begs to differ with you... I had good experiences with it and looked up a few runs where I changed the pace a bit and they track really nicely. HR adjust to the pace very fast (as opposed to the garmin, if that adjusts at all). The TomTom also wasn't perfect 100% of the time, but it sure did better then the Garmin...

Especially the first one shows how it can be.

Is that Tomtom data imported into Garmin Connect? [edit] nevermind I see that's mysports now lol [/edit] Do you have any examples of your Garmin device doing a similar run?
Also I'm curious - if you had a good experience with the Tomtom why did you switch to Garmin? My experiences with the Tomtom Spark were not great, but to be honest it was their awful software that made me switch to Garmin, not the hardware which I thought was okay at the time. I thought it tracked fine for running, but it was far worse than my experience with Fitbit when it came to trying to track my crossfit type sessions.