Replacing Garmin 220 with Apple Watch Series 3?

Gorillaboy wrote:

I have a Garmin 220 that I'm looking to replace. I saw that Apple has their Series 3 out. I know the first couple of models weren't great for running. Is the Series 3 better?

I'm mainly looking for decent GPS accuracy, average lap pace, ability to auto lap every mile, and ability to make laps manually during races.

Can anyone with the Series 3 share if these features are available.

Apple Watch (all versions) are not ready to replace a Garmin for running or cycling. There are two reasons, both I consider fatal flaws:

1. The accuracy is sometimes great and sometimes awful. I run the same loop routes and know exactly how far to the meter they are. This one particular loop I do is 2.25 km. The AW3 might get the first loop spot on and the second loop would be 2.1km, and the third loop might be 2.35. My Garmin (currently using Vivo Active) is within 20 meters every lap, all the time.

2. Even worse I think is the touch screen. Good luck trying to stop or manually lap your watch while running. Even a little sweat on the hands will render the screen just about unresponsive. The Garmin watches still have actual tactile buttons to start/stop/lap. That is a must have. Not sure if custom apps have the ability to override the functions of the wheel or the other button to enable this. I suspect they cannot.

All that said, I still wear my AW3 daily (also had AW2). When I run I just put the Apple on the other wrist and use the Garmin for the run.

Too be fair the Garmin touch screen watches are equally trash.

Hard buttons or bust.

I agree with everyone.

I got an Apple Watch 2 for Christmas last year and was excited about it until after a few runs.

If you sweat on your runs then you’re going to have problems manually starting and stopping the watch. This is especially annoying when your at stop lights because you have to actually look at the watch to stop it because you might either not be able to stop it or accidentally end the recording.

The Apple Watch 3 is pretty much the same except that it’s now a phone. Apple needs to able the bezel button so it can be used to start and stop runs. Hard buttons are a necessity to keep your eyes on the trail or road.

When considering or reviewing the AW3 i think you also have to take into account what app you use. I use the Strava app. The Strava app takes a GPS reading every 2-3 seconds, whereas a regular gps usually is about 1 per second.

GPS accuracy is okay. I have no problem with it on regular runs and on tempos too. The measurements it gives me on 9/10 runs are within 1% of what I'd get with gmap pedometer. My experience is that the GPS across brands typically will vary by about 1% anyway. I also have used it for loops in a park and had nearly the same measurement every lap. So not sure what the above poster is referring too. Some apps may be recording distance using the built-in pedometer. That would definitely give you crazy measurements and you wouldn't necessarily know the app is using the pedometer.

It's downright awful for track workouts. The strava app doesn't not allow for manual lap taking. The stock Apple Workout app does, but like others mentioned it doesn't work if you are sweaty or wet. Touch screen for exercise watches is one of the worst concepts ever. The screen also automatically turns on-off when you are/aren't lookking at it. This feature doesn't always work well or quickly enough so it can be hard to glance at your watch and mentally take splits as well.

Also the wrist HR monitor seems pretty terrible. I had a tomtom with the wrist HR monitor and this AW3 seems even worse than that. I would not recommend it as a replacement running watch for any GPS watch. It obviously has other features that offer different advantages but its without a doubt worse running watch.

It would be great if a tech-savy LetsRunner could make a good AW3 app for running. I'd pay $5 for that.

You may want to google Forerunner 645 and see its specs before purchasing a new watch.

Its basically going to have everything the 935 does but also garmin pay and built in music.

According to Garmins Moroccan website there is a January 8th date either as release or new update about the watch.

There's a guy in a running Facebook group with a brand new Apple Watch whose two most recent posts are...

1.) Complaining about a course being long because his Apple Watch said it was 13.38mi. This was a certified course...that Rupp used for his OTQ half. Likely not long. Many people responded saying their Apple watch was crap for GPS.

2.) Asking for a GPS watch recommendation for

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

There's a guy in a running Facebook group with a brand new Apple Watch whose two most recent posts are...

1.) Complaining about a course being long because his Apple Watch said it was 13.38mi. This was a certified course...that Rupp used for his OTQ half. Likely not long. Many people responded saying their Apple watch was crap for GPS.

2.) Asking for a GPS watch recommendation for

Did you ask the guy if he rounded every corner at the shortest point on his run? I can't stand morons like that.

Is whine if it was an exorbitant number or short but over 13+ miles thats pretty accurate.

Ah my message got cutoff because I used a less than symbol.

The second point was that he was asking for recommendations for a less than $100 GPS watch for interval workouts because the Apple watch wasn't recording multiple swipe attempts in manual lap mode because it's all touchscreen inputs.

In short, don't replace a dedicated running watch with an Apple watch.

heyyo wrote:

My experience is that the GPS across brands typically will vary by about 1% anyway.

One of my running partners uses Strava and I use Runkeeper. Strava consistently records our runs as about 500m longer per 10km than Runkeeper. He tried another one; I believe it's called Runtastic, and it measures about 250m shorter than Runkeeper per 10km. The Runkeeper seems to be bang-on for distances pre-measured on gmaps, which I know isn't completely accurate, but I go with is as it seems to be correct when measuring known race courses.

lollerama wrote:

heyyo wrote:

My experience is that the GPS across brands typically will vary by about 1% anyway.

One of my running partners uses Strava and I use Runkeeper. Strava consistently records our runs as about 500m longer per 10km than Runkeeper. He tried another one; I believe it's called Runtastic, and it measures about 250m shorter than Runkeeper per 10km. The Runkeeper seems to be bang-on for distances pre-measured on gmaps, which I know isn't completely accurate, but I go with is as it seems to be correct when measuring known race courses.

My description might be confusing - what I meant was:

gmaps: 10km

Runkeeper: 10km

Strava: 10.50km

Runtastic: 9.75km

lollerama wrote:

lollerama wrote:

One of my running partners uses Strava and I use Runkeeper. Strava consistently records our runs as about 500m longer per 10km than Runkeeper. He tried another one; I believe it's called Runtastic, and it measures about 250m shorter than Runkeeper per 10km. The Runkeeper seems to be bang-on for distances pre-measured on gmaps, which I know isn't completely accurate, but I go with is as it seems to be correct when measuring known race courses.

My description might be confusing - what I meant was:

gmaps: 10km

Runkeeper: 10km

Strava: 10.50km

Runtastic: 9.75km

For what its worth Strava also measures out elevation a bit differently. I sync my garmin to strava and the elevatio. Wildly differs.

To the OP, why not replace the FR220 with the FR230?

lollerama wrote:

lollerama wrote:

One of my running partners uses Strava and I use Runkeeper. Strava consistently records our runs as about 500m longer per 10km than Runkeeper. He tried another one; I believe it's called Runtastic, and it measures about 250m shorter than Runkeeper per 10km. The Runkeeper seems to be bang-on for distances pre-measured on gmaps, which I know isn't completely accurate, but I go with is as it seems to be correct when measuring known race courses.

My description might be confusing - what I meant was:

gmaps: 10km

Runkeeper: 10km

Strava: 10.50km

Runtastic: 9.75km

Thanks for this info! I’m going to check out runkeeper.