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 (from a 235 & 630 owner)

I just had 10 minutes to look at my 735XT + HRM-RUN. Physically speaking there are so many tiny differences, from the way the band feels to the size of the unit that it makes me feel that this was a solid HW revision of the unit. Here is what I observed:

1) Band: It is soft silicone style like the the 235 but not as soft. At the same time it is not as hard as the 630, just perfect in my opinion and a solid improvement
2) Size: The diameter of the watch is 1-2mm smaller than the 235. I put them face to face and the difference is clear! You can also appreciate the size difference when you wear it. Also the bezel looks even smaller (the screen size looks the same) which increases the useful screen / total watch face ratio.
3) Vibration: The motor is much better quality than the 235. The ramp-up is almost instantaneous compared to the 235 so it gets your attention more easily
4) Backlight: The same as the 235 in my eyes but I never thought it was as problem. It does indeed has the "flashlight" effect.
5) Buttons: Same plastic material, but they are bigger in that they protrude more, out of the case making them easier to touch-find and depress! Bravo on this one Garmin! Also the tactile feel of them feels significantly better to my fingers
6) UI: The interface has changed on the FW with a bunch of useful *new* native widgets (last run, day summary, calories etc) which makes the use of a complicated watch face (like Altiface for example) not that necessary anymore.

Overall I am pretty impressed! I am going for a run in an hour so ...

0 kalamarios over 9 years ago

The 735XT looks smaller own the wrist compared to the 235, even though the actual dimensions are only minimally different. I think it has something to do with the graphics and the way the bezel is tapered.

Except for the buttons – which feel better on the 735XT – build quality seems the same to me. The 735XT band looks and feels better to me than the 235 did.

Completely agree.

I've mentioned this in other threads, but my 735XT backlight seems slightly different than how I recall the one on my 235. The best I can describe is that the 735XT's is brighter, but has more of a spotlight effect. But this may be attributed to manufacturing tolerances or a slight tweaks in the way the 735XT is set up. I'm not sure.

That's interesting because my 735's backlight definitely has less of a spotlight effect than either my 235 or my 630. That said, it doesn't feel any brighter than the other two units. This makes me think that all what we are experiencing, is manufacturing tolerances.

Lastly, I'm having absolutely no issues with the 735XT's OHRM, whereas I periodically had issues with the 235's. Sometimes it seemed like it would take up to a mile for the 235's to "warm up" and catch up, but this hasn't happened in the week+ I've had the 735XT.

Can't comment on that because I only rely on HRM-RUN during activities but the LEDs and the placement the 735 uses definitely looks different than the 235.

Not sure that the 735XT is worth $200 more than the 235 (at the current sale price), but I've been happy with mine as I like having the option to wear the strap once or twice a week for runs, and for all cycling activity (since I mount the watch on my handlebars). But the 235 worked fine for me, so much so that we're giving my son one for graduation in a couple of weeks as an upgrade to his FR10.

I can't comment on pricing either because $200 is relative (and I think all Garmin's are overpriced compared to an Apple Watch) but so far, I am liking the 735xt the most out of any Garmin I have ever tried. Yup, I went that far :-) I am a runner and runner only (plus gym strength work, no cycling or swimming) and yet this watch totally "speaks" to me.

0 kalamarios over 9 years ago

TBH Running Dynamics are mostly a gimmick after cadence. The rest are at best interesting, but no definitive way to use any of them yet for much.

I personally don't agree with that. I find a wealth of information on running dynamics, especially analyzing strides, intervals and in general the biomechanics of different training paces. I also routinely see differences on my GCT between different shoes (Hokas vs Sauconys for example).

Last thing, and this in my book is not minor, the cadence that HRM-RUN reports is much more accurate than any wrist based cadence. For one, wrist cadence is even-quantized because the watch only measures one arm's swing and multiplies it by two. If you look at two "tracks" of cadence between wrist-based and HRM you will see what I mean. You might think that this is BS but in reality I find that my cadence get's more "jittery" as I get more tired in a long run. You know how high variability is "good" when it comes to HRV? The opposite is true for cadence, you are looking for a clockwork flat signal ...

Anyway, just my 2c

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

You'll notice I said "after cadence", which is a useful metric and one that I recommend paying a lot of attention to. The rest, while might show differences from run to run and in different environments with different shoes there are no definitive studies (at least that I am aware of) pointing to using metrics like Average Vertical Ratio for anything more that possibly directional improvement, but certainly no absolute guidance as much as GC might imply that with color coding.

You can get more accurate cadence from a footpod and skip the HRM-Run. I personally use an HRM-Run, but most of the additional metrics are not very useful for training improvement (at least for me).

Just my view, YMMV :)

0 timgrose over 9 years ago

Footpod does cadence of course but does have the "even-quantized" minor drawback that KALAMARIOS mentions further up.
And I suspect very few use foot pods these days. Well I hardly ever see fellow runners using one.

Tend to agree that Vertical Ratio is a bit "made up" although I did see a guy running the other day who looked like he was going up as much as going forwards. Clearly Vertical Ratio needs to be reduced!
GCT balance does not need much research. If I see 52% or more on one side want to find out why...

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

I agree with most of the comments. I come from a Garmin 620 and have to say, many of the metrics are interesting, but not really "Action-able". I review my statistics after my run and perhaps I try to reduce my vertical ratio, but that is an ongoing effort to improve my gait. Seeing that my form deteriorates as I get tired is interesting, but it's just a quantification of what I already know.