SwissVan Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Swiss, you'll have more exposure to that, but when I run in the rain I wear my watch under my jacket. If I want to see something, I lift up the sleeve, take a quick peek. What confuses me more is how you'll get HR readings on the bike, since it's supposed to be a multisport watch. Or do they seriously expect you to keep the thing on your arm whilst riding? That all said, I'm not in the market for one of these, just opinionating. Not that I'd mind to win one or something! I try not run in the rain just as a matter of principal...altho my last run the last 20 minutes was in severe rain... funny how the weather forecast can be so accurate and i still ignored it... its mostly the cold that makes me wear my watch "on top" and the "fear" that it might loose signal while under my jacket sleeve.... anyway... All the multi sport watches have this dilemma of what to do with the thing while riding your bike, what I started doing since i got my V800 is to wear it on my wrist but rotate it to a different position on my wrist (+/- 90 degs to the right if you wear it on your left hand) so that i can see it without having to take my hands off the bars, you then only have to glance at it. If you are riding a TT bike its even easier as your hands are more or less in front of you already. It helps if you have multiple screen options, then you can customize the screens to display one or 2 functions only thus increasing the "font size" i.e. making it easier to see when its not directly in your face. The main issue imo with the wrist heart rate idea, is that it must be reliable...i.e. work every time and provide accurate readings...
Baaisikilist Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 DC Rainmaker reviewed the FR 235 with Garmin's built in optical HRM.An interesting read. He shows comparative data between the optical and chest monitors. http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/11/garmin-fr230-fr235-review.html SwissVan 1
SwissVan Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 DC Rainmaker reviewed the FR 235 with Garmin's built in optical HRM.An interesting read. He shows comparative data between the optical and chest monitors. http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/11/garmin-fr230-fr235-review.html Thanks They (the optical sensors) do seem to have some quirks.I did not realise polar had one as well...hopefully they can iron out the quirks and we can chuck the straps away one day... i bet many ladies would be glad about that
dracs Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) DC Rainmaker reviewed the FR 235 with Garmin's built in optical HRM.An interesting read. He shows comparative data between the optical and chest monitors. http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/11/garmin-fr230-fr235-review.html As I have decided to focus on running this year, I bought the 235 for myself for Xmas and am loving it. It is now my day-to-day watch and its interesting to monitor resting HR vs training load etc, all-day HR and esp sleep heart rate, sleep quality etc. The main quirk referred to of wrist based HRM's is the overlap with cadence (mentioned in the DC rainmaker review). Until a week ago I didn't experience this issue at all - but at the start of a treadmill run the other day I was initially very confused (and a little concerned) to see my HR up at about 175, until I realised this was also my cadence. Slowed up a bit then got back to normal stride and then HR corrected itself from then on. Other than that I have had no issues with the optical HRM - mostly running but did also try on one ride just to compare. I used a chest strap linked to my garmin 510 and the 235 with the optical HRM. The 2 tracked each other identically with the exception of a downhill stretch where my chest strap (presumably due to drying out a bit), suddenly shot up to over 220 (my max is 184). All in all then, for my needs the wrist based is the way to go - nice not having to hassle with straps, and also in the Dec/Jan heat opened up the option of a quick shirtless run without getting that stupid HR strap tan! Edited January 13, 2016 by dracs Baaisikilist 1
Barry Stuart Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Thanks They (the optical sensors) do seem to have some quirks.I did not realise polar had one as well...hopefully they can iron out the quirks and we can chuck the straps away one day... i bet many ladies would be glad about that Capture2.PNG Yeah, I've been using the TomTom Spark recently and the wrist HR is pretty accurate EXCEPT when doing a sprint. I looked down at my wrist and I was apparently seconds from a heart attach at 200+BPM. Looking online it's a common problem with a few wrist based HRMs that get confused at a high cadence. The Fenix 3 is a beautiful watch but it's a pretty chunky beast too. Interesting to note that even Ray Maker prefers his FR230/235 over the Fenix as an everyday watch.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Yeah, I've been using the TomTom Spark recently and the wrist HR is pretty accurate EXCEPT when doing a sprint. I looked down at my wrist and I was apparently seconds from a heart attach at 200+BPM. Looking online it's a common problem with a few wrist based HRMs that get confused at a high cadence. The Fenix 3 is a beautiful watch but it's a pretty chunky beast too. Interesting to note that even Ray Maker prefers his FR230/235 over the Fenix as an everyday watch.yeah, but he has puny wrists... Fenix 3 fits me perfectly
Baaisikilist Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 yeah, but he has puny wrists... Fenix 3 fits me perfectlySo manly...
Barry Stuart Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 yeah, but he has puny wrists... Fenix 3 fits me perfectlyBut heavy! Especially when you're coming from a lightweight FR or TomTom. That said, it's bound to feel like a clock weight on my T Rex arms and bigger built guys won't notice it as much I'm sure. Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 So manly...LOL. Dude, I'm sure you're in the same boat as me. Actually, no. Wait. Your wrists are probably bigger than mine, with your weight training history.
Baaisikilist Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 LOL. Dude, I'm sure you're in the same boat as me. Actually, no. Wait. Your wrists are probably bigger than mine, with your weight training history.I happen to have petite wrists and ankles ,doll...I'm also now tipping the scales at a supermodelish 76kg's, as opposed to 95, back when... ... ... Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I happen to have petite wrists and ankles ,doll...I'm also now tipping the scales at a supermodelish 76kg's, as opposed to 95, back when... ... ...Quite a reduction! Well done! Must be a different story on the climbs and fun bits now that you're 10 Coke bottles lighter. I'm just beginning on the path to reduce myself by that much. How tall are you, btw. If you were "just" 95 and you got picked out as a "juicer" back then...
Baaisikilist Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Quite a reduction! Well done! Must be a different story on the climbs and fun bits now that you're 10 Coke bottles lighter. I'm just beginning on the path to reduce myself by that much. How tall are you, btw. If you were "just" 95 and you got picked out as a "juicer" back then... 1.72m Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1.72m1.72/95kg. Nice. Fair amount of power right there. Anyway. Well done for the loss, man. Hopefully they won't pick on you anymore when you pull through the finish line!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now