Have Garmin watches improved in their ability to act as a dedicated HR sensor for broadcasting to a cycling head unit or virtual cycling app?
I currently do it with a Garmin Forerunner 35, but it’s not great. The HR drops really low maybe 20% of the time, and I occasionally have trouble picking it up on a Wahoo Element Bolt (though that may be a Bolt issue). The 20% is enough that it causes problems with people joking about me cheating at Zwift, which I don’t like.
So I’m on the fence about either picking up a dedicated HR chest strap for accuracy, or maybe upgrading the watch if Garmin’s optical wrist sensors have improved since the 35.
So, first Q is why a watch? I don’t wear my watch on the bike; I use a Wahoo TICKR FIT. (And I use that with my watch on runs too.) IME, wrist HR universally sucks on a bike. My theory is the handlebar gripping throws off the wrist sensor.
So, first Q is why a watch? I don’t wear my watch on the bike; I use a Wahoo TICKR FIT. (And I use that with my watch on runs too.) IME, wrist HR universally sucks on a bike. My theory is the handlebar gripping throws off the wrist sensor.
The 35 is just my daily watch. I like it for the 24/7 HR tracking. Which seems pretty good -resting HR seems to track great. It’s just intense workouts where things seem to go wrong. I’m speculating that it’s the sweat that accumulates under the sensor. Because Zwift seems the worst, and that’s, I think, when sweat accumulates the most on me.
I had a Whoop for a year or so. And that thing seemed as accurate as a chest strap to me. But I cancelled that subscription.
The OHR sensor polls more frequently and is more accurate DURING an activity, than it is in 24/7 mode. (I don’t have the Forerunner 35, but this is how other Garmin watches work). So make sure you Start an activity (perhaps Cardio or Virtual Running) and have Broadcasting During Activity activated.
Have Garmin watches improved in their ability to act as a dedicated HR sensor for broadcasting to a cycling head unit or virtual cycling app?
I currently do it with a Garmin Forerunner 35, but it’s not great. The HR drops really low maybe 20% of the time, and I occasionally have trouble picking it up on a Wahoo Element Bolt (though that may be a Bolt issue). The 20% is enough that it causes problems with people joking about me cheating at Zwift, which I don’t like.
So I’m on the fence about either picking up a dedicated HR chest strap for accuracy, or maybe upgrading the watch if Garmin’s optical wrist sensors have improved since the 35.
I personally was going through the same thing and have a Fenix 5x and decided to purchase the Wahoo Tickr for improved accuracy on the bike.
Now, I have to decide if I want to wear the Tickr on runs as well, but don’t like the strap a lot in the heat, yet it is my go-to for indoor cycling sessions.
For some reason the excess sweat in indoor cycling just doesn’t jive with my 5x versus 5x outdoor cycling or running conditions. I think the HR is lower on the 5x at times and am skeptical of high perceived exertion and only medium to high HR. I watch Lionel wear his Tickr a lot though, so it makes me want to wear it almost at all times for accuracy of data.
The OHR sensor polls more frequently and is more accurate DURING an activity, than it is in 24/7 mode. (I don’t have the Forerunner 35, but this is how other Garmin watches work). So make sure you Start an activity (perhaps Cardio or Virtual Running) and have Broadcasting During Activity activated.
I can’t on the 35. I have to leave the broadcast mode to start an activity, and vice versa. Good to know.
Nothing to do with the “broadcast”, all about accuracy and limitation of the sensor
i have a 945 and the HR is very questionable on the bike (angle in my wrist), i think it’s “ok” on the Run.
But to be totally honest, these days i only use Pace, Watts and good old RPE… too many reason not to pay attention to the HR (didn’t catch up yet, caffeine, hydrated, it’s a race and it should be high, etc.)
I have a Fenix5, and it does a great job of being picked up by my head unit (Lezyne Super GPS). As others have noted, it samples more frequently during activities (I actually have it set to broadcast “only during activities”), and I use it to record my rides (the head unit is just for display).
Since the Fenix5 only broadcasts ANT+, I use a Polar OH1 puck for Zwifting (just place it on my quad under bike shorts and it works well). Since I can see readings from both units simultaneously, I find they match quite closely (rarely differing by more than 1-2bpm); YMMV (wrist HR seems to work better for some than others).
Nothing to do with the “broadcast”, all about accuracy and limitation of the sensor
Fair enough. I’m trying to see if the newer Garmin watches have better optical HR sensing. I bring up broadcast because that’s my use, and my alternative is a chest strap.
(didn’t catch up yet, caffeine, hydrated, it’s a race and it should be high, etc.)
Those are all the same reasons to track HR. Those are all telling a story, which you can learn from. Sidetrack, though.
In any case, for Zwift and other virtual racing it’s either required or just good form to use heartrate as an anti-cheating measure.
If you need accuracy or HR, you need to use a lovely strap.
I don’t know about that. I found the Whoop to be great at basic HR (in unscientific subjective judgment)
If DCR’s indoor ride here is typical I’m fine with any of these wrist-based optical sensors. Even the ~30 second lag by the Polar Vantage in the beginning isn’t the end of the world. My question is more if DCR’s experience is typical of newer sensors. He didn’t do these in-depth HR analyses for the older, low-spec Garmin watches, so it’s tough to tell.
Possibly even an improvement in some areas vs. the venerable chest strap. His review of the Vivoactive 4 shows the old chest strap problem at the start of workouts.
So to answer my question, I’ll probably take a shot at a newer Garmin.
I have a Garmin Fenix 6X Pro; generally, the optical HR tracks with my HRM Tri pretty well (Garmin Connect daily charts show the optical HR for daily stats, despite the activity showing the HRM measurements). However, the optical HR fails to track peaks properly (something that’s been an issue for optical HR from their introduction).
When the sensor isn’t forced into high sampling mode though, optical HR results can be poor.
To answer your question, No, the broadcast feature is still spotty at best.
I have a 735 and it was constantly disconnecting from my 520. I went back to the Scoche and it works perfectly.
As far as accuracy goes, running it matches the Scoche, it reads low on the road bike and correctly on the TT bike, the problem is the location on my wrist at a bent angle. When my wrist is straight and relaxed it work.
