Cycling /sports watch options.

moonshadow

Hi all , have an itch that needs to be scratched...just like the carbon bike , the wheels, the Rapha etc and its a watch.
I'm looking at the Garmin 235 , my main activity is sitting....but a good bit of that is on a bike, I also do gym weight and core 3 times a week and spinning class has just started.
So what's your reccomendations ideally Garmin and ideally new.
Many thx.

Hunterbiker

Although I have a couple of edge computers I also have a vivoactive HR watch - this links to my sensors so data addiction is satisfied, I like wearing it and its handy to record rides and upload.
There is a new version due out - this appears to be quite an upgrade.
I must admit if I had the budget a fenix 6 would be a consideration

mackeminexile

Fenix 5 is your only man, unless you have huge wrists in which case the Fenix 5x. Just took delivery of my 5 and love it! But then I am a weirdo swim, cyclist and runner!

dastardly00

^^^^
And if the Garmin Fenix 5 is out of your budget, then the older (and thus cheaper) Fenix 3 is another great option.

I got mine from Rosebikes.com

DC Rainmaker is the place to go for reviews:
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/blog

Miklos

I’d find it hard to look past an Apple Watch, especially the new one when it comes out here with cellular capabilities.

dastardly00

Hunterbiker wrote: »

I must admit if I had the budget a fenix 6 would be a consideration

Are you back from the future??

plodder

I use the Garmin 230 myself. It's a vast improvement on what I had before, which was a Garmin 410, but I am a cheap-skate and proudly 5-10 years behind the curve.

Macy0161

I have the 920xt, links with any sensors I have for the bike. It is starting to be available on decent offers, as it's been replaced by the 935xt, but doesn't have the optical heart rate (depending on whether that is worth having or not, or if heart rate is even something you want to measure). It's also the old version of IQ, so some of the latest apps aren't available for it.

If I could justify it I'd get the latest fenix though, but the 920xt hasn't let me down. I haven't had any issues with battery life - I generally charge it once a week, and maybe a quick top up before my saturday spin (it's used for a few runs, swims and S&C too, but don't hold that against me!). I do notice it drains a bit quicker with speed, cadence, heart rate, GPS, Glonass and Bluetooth all going on the bike.

I normally turn off Glonass and bluetooth for sportives, just to be sure. Although now I think of it, I did do the RoK last year with the bluetooth on and doing tracking, as the family were meeting me at the finish - no issues with the watch battery life, it was the phone I needed to use the power bank with!

Annie get your Run

I have the Garmin FR735xt and I find it brilliant for the bike, running and swimming. Counts your steps too, takes your HR and tells you how much sleep you had if you're into that sort of thing. You can also get your texts etc on it but I have that switched off.

Weepsie

I've a vivoactive HR and vivoactive. Both are good I find.

Hunterbiker

dastardly00 wrote: »

Are you back from the future??

Wishfull thinking on my part and I'll recycle that post when Garmin actually bring it out

Macy0161

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Counts your steps too, takes your HR and tells you how much sleep you had if you're into that sort of thing. You can also get your texts etc on it but I have that switched off.

The 920xt does that too, except the heart rate. I actually like the sleep tracking, but never really looked into whether it's worthwhile - it kinda confirms what you know by how tired you are!.

I'm skeptical on optical heart rate accuracy for actual exercise, but it would be great to have a track on resting heart rate, as I'm always up and moving before I think to take it! If you're training, and bothered about it.

moonshadow

Leaving T2 in the morning , dixons have the 235 for €254 which seems good value so might jump at that one unless the Fenix 3 is close to same price , is thee much difference between them?

ted1

Miklos wrote: »

I’d find it hard to look past an Apple Watch, especially the new one when it comes out here with cellular capabilities.

Cellular doesn’t work in Ireland and Apple have been slow to roll out things here before, Also it needs the be charged daily

CheGuedara

Don't go for a Fenix 5 anyhow - issues with ANT+ reception a big issue if intending to use with external sensors (power meters, speed/cad etc). Lots about it on Garmins own forum. The 5x doesn't appear to have the same problems but costs a bit more.

mackeminexile

I've had my Fenix 5 ffor 3 weeks now and none of the issues described above. I would imagine that as with all software driven computers there wll be individual issues. From what I've read Garmin are pretty good about returns. I missed a trick here, I have a 910xt for sale with the quick release for cycle mounting at €100...

CheGuedara

I'm on my second one and there's still data drop outs. If one doesn't mind data not being 100% it's a nice piece of equipment though

TheJak01

I'm a big fan of my Vivoactive HR. If you're not looking for a dedicated cycling watch, it does pretty much everything to a good level, and if you are I'd recommend a bike computer anyhow. If it's your first piece of equipment it's always better to go for a slightly cheaper all rounder, you don't want to waste 100s on something you're going to stop using quickly.

C3PO

I use a Vivosmart HR+ for my cycling commute and as my daily fitness tracker and a 520 for my serious cycling - I find them a great combination!

Macy0161

Is there much the 520 does that a watch doesn't? Bar form factor? I have looked at getting a dedicated bike computer but I don't see the 520 doing a whole lot more than the 920xt tbh? It's really the 820 i've looked at for the better navigation, as the 520 didn't even seem much better/ different to the stuff you can do on the 920xt?

C3PO

Macy0161 wrote: »

Is there much the 520 does that a watch doesn't? Bar form factor? I have looked at getting a dedicated bike computer but I don't see the 520 doing a whole lot more than the 920xt tbh? It's really the 820 i've looked at for the better navigation, as the 520 didn't even seem much better/ different to the stuff you can do on the 920xt?

For me it's about the display and the ease of accessing the information. I particularly like to have my HR visible all the time when I'm training! Also the wireless upload is great but that's probably also available on the 920xt?

Macy0161

C3PO wrote: »

For me it's about the display and the ease of accessing the information. I particularly like to have my HR visible all the time when I'm training! Also the wireless upload is great but that's probably also available on the 920xt?

920xt does bluetooth and wifi upload. I actually use my old 310xt on the bike which I had set up as quick release as well. So on a garmin mount for HR/ cadence/ distance/ average speed* on the bars. I've also the watch mount thing from Garmin, but I haven't actually bothered with it.

Proper navigation is the thing I've occasionally wished for, having had mixed results using google maps and a phone mount! Maybe when the 310 finally packs up.

*I do notice distance and therefore speed is different between the 310 and 920, I assume because using Glonass as well, but maybe the gps is more accurate too. Also, given it's the same input data, the calories burned way overshoots the 920xt, whatever way Garmin have presumably improved their method of calculation - less cake with the 920xt!

07Lapierre

I have a Vivosmart HR. It does everything I want or for. It's a watch, it gives text and call notifications. Most of the other "features" are nice to have, but I don't use them that much.

When cycling I use a Garmin520.