Related
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

Low-power / High-power OHR setting

kalamarios
over 7 years ago
It is pretty clear to me that the OHR implementation on the 935 has two different mode. A low-power ("LP") mode which is invoked throughout the day and measures HR 24/7 and a high-power ("HP") mode which is invoked during activities (such as running) that capture OHR (assuming no strap) with more accuracy.

The problem for me is that LP does not work at all when I move around. My HR in general is very low, so when I walk briskly, it rarely goes over 70 bpm. Somehow the 935 displays 120+bpm on the HR widget which is totally incorrect. I called this "heart rate doubling" in another thread not knowing what it is, but as people pointed out, it could simply be cadence-lock or something of that sort. If during the same brisk walk I start a running activity on standby, the HR datafield immediately drops to 60-70 bpm which what I also sense by taking my own pulse with my fingers. This to me implies that the accelerometer filters are invoked to take care of the cadence lock or something of that sort.

I know this has been mentioned in the past, but can Garmin at least allow to select if we want to use the HP mode throughout the day for 24/7 capturing of HR data? I understand that it will deplete the battery faster but for me at least, it's the only way to capture accurate data. The way 935 works now and the way 24/7 and RHR works gives me no option but to send it back which is a shame as it is a wonderful watch otherwise.

Would anyone else need that feature?
  • 0 over 7 years ago
    The only way I know of to switch it in to HP mode without starting an activity, is to select HR broadcast mode. However, the watch is stuck on the broadcast screen - no option to change screen without first exiting broadcast mode.
  • 0 over 7 years ago
    Some of this could be what you are using to see the HR when you are in 24/7 mode. If it's a CIQ watch face, some use the HR history, which only updates every couple minutes, while others first check for a newer reading before going to history. Also, there can be a difference if the watch face uses "always active" logic, typically used to display the seconds all the time. Without this, the watch face itself only updates every minute at most times, and many with "seconds all the time" don't update the HR as often.

    Here's one of mine that checks for a newer reading before going to the history, and it also updates the seconds and HR every second:

    Simple Heart
  • 0 over 7 years ago
    Some of this could be what you are using to see the HR when you are in 24/7 mode. If it's a CIQ watch face, some use the HR history, which only updates every couple minutes, while others first check for a newer reading before going to history. Also, there can be a difference if the watch face uses "always active" logic, typically used to display the seconds all the time. Without this, the watch face itself only updates every minute at most times, and many with "seconds all the time" don't update the HR as often.


    Thanks. I was actually using the Garmin-provided default HR Widget and in fact it wasn't an issue related to the "delay" in displaying the info. Once I started walking around, the watch would get "stuck" in higher bpms.

    I have now returned my 935 as I honestly cannot trust Garmin in delivering the basics and providing accuracy with can trust.

    Since I have now sold my 735xt to finance my 935, I have no other option but to go back to my 235 which I still have. I turned off both activity tracking and OHR and I am using it as a simple watch with crappy GPS-accuracy.

    I will give Garmin another chance when they introduce their next OHR generation and Galileo compatibility.
  • 0 over 7 years ago
    I will give Garmin another chance when they introduce their next OHR generation and Galileo compatibility.


    I actually think Galileo compatibility was addressed in regards to the 935/Fenix 5 line, and they are compatible (though not implemented currently).

    As for High Power for 24/7 mode; you're asking for something that no company offers, but then turn around and state you just turn it off on the 235 you own...and then complain about the GPS which you also want?

    Look, that read like this to me: "I don't like anything about these watches, but will settle to use one from nearly 2 years ago over the newest version and then complain that I did."

    What were you trying to accomplish here?
  • 0 over 7 years ago
    I actually think Galileo compatibility was addressed in regards to the 935/Fenix 5 line, and they are compatible (though not implemented currently).

    You are correct. The MediaTek chips that Garmin uses support Galileo but there is no official word that Garmin will enable the functionality.

    As for High Power for 24/7 mode; you're asking for something that no company offers, but then turn around and state you just turn it off on the 235 you own...and then complain about the GPS which you also want?

    The point is not what other companies do or do not offer. Garmin made a claim that Gen2 OHR gives better accuracy which, for me, it did not prove to be true in the 24/7 case. I turned it off on the 235 as it's not reliable there either I prefer to get better battery life. I run 70+mi a week and I prefer to charge my watch less often than have a pointless HR estimate. The GPS performance of my 935 was not better and even slightly worse than the 235 so that didn't justify the $500 either.

    Look, that read like this to me: "I don't like anything about these watches, but will settle to use one from nearly 2 years ago over the newest version and then complain that I did."

    I am not complaining. I tried out the 935 and it wasn't for me especially for the crazy price. It's a great watch but I primarily need a stable FW and great GPS accuracy and the 935 didn't deliver.

    What were you trying to accomplish here?

    I started the thread as I was trying to understand / debug the OHR readings the 935 was giving me. In the meantime I decided that it's not worth my time debugging a $500 watch so I returned it.
  • 0 over 7 years ago
    You are correct. The MediaTek chips that Garmin uses support Galileo but there is no official word that Garmin will enable the functionality.


    The point is not what other companies do or do not offer. Garmin made a claim that Gen2 OHR gives better accuracy which, for me, it did not prove to be true in the 24/7 case. I turned it off on the 235 as it's not reliable there either I prefer to get better battery life. I run 70+mi a week and I prefer to charge my watch less often than have a pointless HR estimate. The GPS performance of my 935 was not better and even slightly worse than the 235 so that didn't justify the $500 either.


    I am not complaining. I tried out the 935 and it wasn't for me especially for the crazy price. It's a great watch but I primarily need a stable FW and great GPS accuracy and the 935 didn't deliver.


    I started the thread as I was trying to understand / debug the OHR readings the 935 was giving me. In the meantime I decided that it's not worth my time debugging a $500 watch so I returned it.


    Sounded like complaining, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

    BUT

    1) If you are running 70+miles a week, the 235 was considered mid-range at best. Now it's been awhile since I owned a 235, but the 235 had some of the worst GPS reading I have ever seen. It couldn't follow a trail for the life of it. If GPS is your concern...Polar is probably one of the best out there, with a v800 replacement in the works.

    2) As for 24/7 mode, compared to prior models, the 935 is (or at least was prior to 5.10) solid. There is never going to be neigh exact returns. It's an algorithm guessing what your burn is. There was a study done a few months back on how bad these things are at interpreting cal burn 24/7. Personal opinion, the 935 was one of the better ones at it. Your expectations might be a bit too high.

    3)No OHR is going to give great returns. The OHR is known to lock-onto cadence over your HR and the 235 was notorious for this! That has been stated many times now, i'm not going to belabor this. For a $500 watch that you are using just for running, sure, no, not worth it...but i'd argue neither is/was the 235, which was about $200 cheaper (at release) and didn't have much to it.
  • 0 over 7 years ago
    If you just want an accurate GPS track, then a 310 is great! I borrowed one from a friend whilst I waited for my 935 to be delivered, and it was great!
    Were you wearing the 935 correctly when experiencing poor oHR readings ? (although not sure why I'm asking as you've ditched it!).