Watches wrote:
The GPS and HR accuracy on 245 is way better than 235. Recently upgraded and very happy. It's so much better I'll upgrade again when a new one comes out. Didn't think it would make a difference so held off too long.
That's interesting to hear as I have read and seen in many reviews that the GPS is worse in the 245 as they moved to a different chipset (Sony I think?) which is better for battery life but worse for accuracy.
StillGoingStrong wrote:
kmaclam wrote:
Just a few years? Mine's lasted a long time & showing no signs of dying anytime soon. You retiring it early?
Yeah I have had my 235 since 2016 and it’s still going strong. Running everyday and prob have to charge every 3 days or so. Doesn’t have some of the features I would like to try on the newer watches but it has been rock solid for GPS and multiple marathon races so won’t retire it yet
When you do retire it, donate it to a local HS team. Far too many kids at many schools cannot afford a proper watch, and their training suffers because of it.
BlueTooth wrote:
Watches wrote:
The GPS and HR accuracy on 245 is way better than 235. Recently upgraded and very happy. It's so much better I'll upgrade again when a new one comes out. Didn't think it would make a difference so held off too long.
That's interesting to hear as I have read and seen in many reviews that the GPS is worse in the 245 as they moved to a different chipset (Sony I think?) which is better for battery life but worse for accuracy.
my experience is the 945 is also very poor w/ GPS accuracy. My pace fluctuates wildly
I've had several Garmin's, and had to graduate to the 735xt because of ultras and battery life. The 225 and 235 were very good (I like to do intervals on the track, and the 235 and 735xt "talk to you...") I don't need any triathlon functions, which is where the Garmin's go up from the 735xt. Thought about the Coros line, but I have 10+ years downloaded to Garmin Connect, and want to keep building on that.
245, 945 and 745 are the best options for running. I've used Apple, Suunto and Garmin, and would personally say Garmin is the best in terms of device and app capabilities.
On the 245/745/945, you get more features than the other forerunner models, such as Body Battery (comparable to Whoop) and workout recommendations based on exiting training data.
And for the peeps saying GPS on X device is worse. That isn't really a thing. They're all on the same satellite system. Enduro and Fenix may have more capabilities (at the expense of baattery life) when it comes to satellite connection since they're intended for outdoor/adventure use.
Just wait a few days for the 945 LTE.
no 945 wrote:
BlueTooth wrote:
That's interesting to hear as I have read and seen in many reviews that the GPS is worse in the 245 as they moved to a different chipset (Sony I think?) which is better for battery life but worse for accuracy.
my experience is the 945 is also very poor w/ GPS accuracy. My pace fluctuates wildly
Maybe I need more open road testing. The 235 was very bad at getting distance and pace in woods where I normally run. HR was not great too. Both seem much better now.
rewqrewq wrote:
I got the FR 45. Cheap and does everything I need from a running watch. Seems to be a lot of useless functions on the more expensive watches, well useless to me anyway.
I’ve had the FR35 for a few years. All I want from a watch is time, distance, and current speed. I don’t train by heart rate, so I think upgrading would be a waste of money for me.
Bought a 235 a couple of months ago for $130 I believe. Good deal.
Love my Coros Pace 2. Awesome battery life and GPS accuracy. So light that I forget it's on my wrist sometimes. Also coming in at $199 it's a solid price point for what you're getting. Track mode also makes pretty maps on strava if you're into that.
Garmin 45 can only show three data fields. So you cannot show heart rate, pace, time and distance on one screen. You need to go to 245 for that with Garmin.
Polar 430 can show all four a lot cheaper and with more accurate HR measurement. Check out DC Rainmaker’s reviews..
55YO wrote:
When you do retire it, donate it to a local HS team. Far too many kids at many schools cannot afford a proper watch, and their training suffers because of it.
Really? I doubt not having a proper watch is the reason their training suffers. All you need is a Timex Ironman and you're good to go.
polar 430er wrote:
Garmin 45 can only show three data fields. So you cannot show heart rate, pace, time and distance on one screen. You need to go to 245 for that with Garmin.
Polar 430 can show all four a lot cheaper and with more accurate HR measurement. Check out DC Rainmaker’s reviews..
I guess I don't need 4 data fields. I really think most of us would be better off not worrying so much about what our watch is telling us but I guess everyone like to do things differently. Mostly I run with just the time of day showing as I generally know I need to be back for a certain time.
55YO wrote:
When you do retire it, donate it to a local HS team. Far too many kids at many schools cannot afford a proper watch, and their training suffers because of it.
This is ridiculous. I think far too many people spend far too much time worrying what their watch tells them, rather than thinking about how their body feels, and their training suffers because of it.
Jeffro wrote:
So the 245 is the logical successor to the 235.
I bought my FR 230 (just like the 235 but w/o the heart-rate monitor) in 2016 like some others here, but I still get a full week-per-charge (not just 3 days; max at 60 miles/week). Perhaps it goes longer because I don't charge it until it's fully discharged, and then fully charge it. That would mean battery memory is still be a problem for rechargeables despite the assurances of manufacturers. Or the HR monitor (now standard on all Forerunners) drains a lot of juice.
My 230 behaves much the same, I'm not as diligent as you about waiting for it to discharge though. I suspect it does better than the 235 becuase its not got the wrist monitor although I suppose that is offset by the heart rate strap connection, which I always use.
TBH I can't think what more you need from a running watch. Anything more and you'd spend all your time playing with your watch and not actually doing any running!
I’ve switched from a high end Garmin (Fenix 5) to the Pace 2 and never looked back. It only works with a phone app (no web interface or app for your regular computer). It’s a little unintuitive at first but I really like it.
rewqrewq wrote:
This is ridiculous. I think far too many people spend far too much time worrying what their watch tells them, rather than thinking about how their body feels, and their training suffers because of it.
i agree for HS kids there's dozens of other things that will help more than a GPS watch.
for me as an adult i think having a garmin has helped me run more even paces in races. i was always really bad about going out too hard, dying in the middle, then kicking in my scholastic career. definitely left some seconds on the table just from sh!tty pacing. shortly after i got a garmin at age 29 i ran a half with the goal of breaking 1:20. the plan was just to crank out 6:00 pace for as long as i could. most evenly split race of my life and i ended up with low 1:18. i was by myself most of the race and the constant feedback definitely helped me focus.
Same for me. I also like the track mode.
Watches wrote:
The GPS and HR accuracy on 245 is way better than 235. Recently upgraded and very happy. It's so much better I'll upgrade again when a new one comes out. Didn't think it would make a difference so held off too long.
Sportwatchinfo wrote:
55YO wrote:
When you do retire it, donate it to a local HS team. Far too many kids at many schools cannot afford a proper watch, and their training suffers because of it.
Really? I doubt not having a proper watch is the reason their training suffers. All you need is a Timex Ironman and you're good to go.
Exactly this. At the risk of sounding like one of those "when I was a kid..." Boomers, that's what I did and it worked just fine. Granted, it was the best option at the time. Even though he was no JK, I had a good enough coach to help teach me pacing for the purpose of the run or workout. I wasn't thinking about pace in numbers on runs or heart rate, I focused on running with teammates and how I felt throughout the run. We weren't trying to nail PRs on the morning 3-mile loop, we stuck to the purpose of the run. For $150, you could probably buy and donate 5 Timex Ironman watches to a local high school program.
Maybe a local small college program would be a better place to donate an old GPS watch, email or call the coach and inquire.
So a GPS is good for you because you can use it to monitor pace, and you ran better because of it .... but it's bad for HS kids? That makes no sense. I'm around a lot of HS/MS kids, and constantly looking at the watch is not a problem - especially in races. Believe it or not, you can actually coach kids to use the GPS the same way you did.
fethullah gulen rupp wrote:
rewqrewq wrote:
This is ridiculous. I think far too many people spend far too much time worrying what their watch tells them, rather than thinking about how their body feels, and their training suffers because of it.
i agree for HS kids there's dozens of other things that will help more than a GPS watch.
for me as an adult i think having a garmin has helped me run more even paces in races. i was always really bad about going out too hard, dying in the middle, then kicking in my scholastic career. definitely left some seconds on the table just from sh!tty pacing. shortly after i got a garmin at age 29 i ran a half with the goal of breaking 1:20. the plan was just to crank out 6:00 pace for as long as i could. most evenly split race of my life and i ended up with low 1:18. i was by myself most of the race and the constant feedback definitely helped me focus.