Garmin 8

I just got a Garmin Instinct 3 Solar. It does mapping, and cost me about $300 US. As a sibling commenter said, the Instinct 3 Solar only does breadcrumb navigation, it doesn't do topographic maps on the watch (there are some Connect IQ apps that can add mapping, but you don't get good integration with workouts). I use them all the time when cycling. I often plan a route, but when some different direction looks more interesting, I can spot check whether it leads to bike paths that will eventually merge back into my grand plan, erm, route. Or sometimes even for following the route, you want to look ahead by quickly zooming out or get a lot of detail at some complex intersection, where having a full map gives you much better orientation. Well, except on a Garmin, my Fenix 8 is often so slow that I had to pause cycling to zoom in/out (even more complicated by not being able to do gradual zooming because it does not have a crown). Yes, I know I can also use a bike GPS or a more generic GPSr with a large screen. I have used their gpsmap line since 2010 or so and even have the gpsmap H1. But having to always carry it around when you have a break somewhere is a drag and I always have a watch on me anyway. So I primarily use the gpsmap for geocaching and switched to using a watch for other activities. but because they have something sipping tiny amounts of power so that I can get a battery life of several weeks Coros watches have several weeks of battery life and fast maps. It is…

I think the only sports watch company that has an app that is worse than Garmin's is Polar. I have used Garmin devices since 2010, but their UX is (as you say) pretty quirky. They changed the UI/UX of the gpsmap H1 to look more like a smartphone, but it is still weird. Another issue is that their software has been very buggy the last few years, with software only stabilizing 1-2 years after the release. One the largest external source for Garmin information (gpsrchive) has actively recommended against purchasing the H1 because it has been so buggy. Similarly, earlier firmware releases of the Fenix 8 had a lot of issues. Also a lot of functionality of older units hasn't been implemented yet. These are often not small bugs, but of the type, "oopsie, your device froze or rebooted while you were navigating". They basically released an alpha version as a final product. I don't know about UX, but I've had my Coros watch for a few weeks now and I didn't find it hard to understand. I think it's much easier than when I first learned to use a Fenix watch. It misses some Garmin features though that I'd really like to see like off-course rerouting. But like I said above, they have been adding features at a good pace and a drastically undercutting Garmin on price (most watches less than half the price of the closest Garmin watch).

In my experience the only way to get an accurate VO2max is to do a lab test. I'm 40. My Garmin Fenix 8 suggests my VO2max is 69 at the moment but it's actually 64 as I recently did a lab test. Other things to consider: 1) VO2max changes day to day depending how recovered you are. 2) Environmental conditions will also change the value e.g. too hot/cold. 3) You need to be running on completely flat ground to get a decent result as although some of the estimation algorithms take elevation and surface into account, I'm sceptical as to their efficacy. Ultimately, VO2max, whilst a good health indicator, it's not the be all and end all for running performance. VO2max doesn't take into account lactate threshold and running economy. Two athletes can have the same VO2max but quite different race results for common distances. One might have a very large aerobic capacity but very poor running economy, so metabolically, they require more effort to run at the same pace as someone with a lower VO2max. Also, as you get aerobically fitter, for running long distances, it has been observed that VO2max falls. Need to dig out the reference for this. Like anything, there's lots of nuance. Some people mentioned race time predictions from VO2max. If you are into running you are better off using recent interval performances to predict race times and measure your fitness. You can use the hyperbolic critical speed model (Similar to FTP). It's only accurate for durations from a minute or so to 20 minute…

Why is this _always_ repeated? Where are these patents? Where are the examples of eInk going against their competition??? Because you have a _myriad_ eink-like technologies from many other companies, most of them literally better than eink, that were available but were abandoned after they failed in the market. One example I particularly liked is Mirasol, who was abandoned despite being owned by Qualcomm out of all companies (HIGHLY unlikely to be scared by a patent troll, considering Qualcomm could be arguably described as a patent troll themselves). It's simply ridiculous to think that eInk would torpedo their own technology out of incompetence/malice/whatever yet these ideas keep being parroted here without _any evidence whatsoever_ as if it was gospel from the gods. The real reason, of course, is that this technology is hard (plain physics), and that there's little investment because most consumers could not care less. The supposed advantages of eink are paper-thin at best (contrast sucks and keeps getting _worse_ after each generation, and that is without taking into account the color ones), customers have a hard time distinguishing it from other technologies such as reflective/memory LCDs (which practically beat them in every metric you can think of, even power usage -- except for long enough periods of idleness which are not of interest to any consumer), and at the end of the day most people will choose a backlighted LCD over all these alternatives anyway... See Garmin…

> Eink B&W screen contrast has been improving dramatically with every generation, No: https://blog.the-ebook-reader.com/2021/01/20/contrast-on-e-i... Ever since Carta it has been stuck at 15:1 and it is trivial to see that e.g. Remarkable has better contrast than the newer (B&W) Kobos. As I said, this has _nothing_ to do with the color screens where the contrast is even further reduced, _even_ in Gallery (by eink's own specsheet, as well as by plain observation on a newer remarkable color). > Garmin still uses reflective LCDs, even on the Fenix 8. The AMOLED is a separate SKU. No. The _reflective LCD_ one is the one which has become the different SKU (it is now called the 'solar'; the main series now all use backlight), and guess which new SKU is neither stocked nor displayed on stores. It used to be that "Epix" was the AMOLED version of the Fenix, but now it has replaced the mainstream Fenix. As a fan of the reflective LCD garmin watches (since the 1st generation Fenix), the writing is on the wall. > Eink is superior to transflective LCDs in terms of power use as it only needs to be refreshed when content changes; an LCD must be refreshed multiple times per second. However eInk requires _significantly more_ power when refreshing than an LCD, not to mention a more complex controller, while at the same time the power required for refresh by a memory LCD is practically negligible. So, as I said, unless your usecase involves the eink panel staying static for _days at a time_,…

I think it depends entirely on what you want to do. Do you want a smart watch or fitness watch? I think if you want a real smart watch you're better off with something else, like an Apple Watch. If you're looking for fitness, I think the Forerunner series is a great starting point. What you'd want to do is look at what you _want_ to do and then go look at the specs for each watch. For example, if you want to see maps on your watch and get turn-by-turn, that's not available on all watches, and you'll have to move way up the range to get it. If you want to run, do strength training, monitor your heart rate all day, sleep score, HRV, etc. Those are usually available on all devices. Their training readiness is another interesting option, that's only available on the higher end watches. Same with endurance score, and a few others. I have an Instinct 2X because I really like the battery life (40 days just as a watch, I get around 30 or so with a workout every day). The 2X is a pretty big watch though, at 50mm. There are 2 and 2S models that are smaller though. Usually the sizing goes S for small, just a number for the middle range size, and X for larger size. With the Forerunner you get more features as you go up the number range. So 1xx, 2xx, and 9xx are the more common model ranges. I think for most people the 255/265 are pretty good starting points and can often be had at pretty nice prices on sale. I think I paid $250 for my Instinct on a sale recently, might have been $350. If…

Seems it's definitely showing up in fewer devices. Fenix 8 only offers it on two of the 3 sizes. It remains on the Enduro 3. For those that aren't aware, Fenix 8 blends the Epix and Fenix together. It's available in 3 sizes with two different displays (AMOLED and MIP) but the MIP option only exists on the 2 larger sizes, and AMOLED is on all 3. There are a couple of other models but they're older, the Fenix 8 and Enduro 3 just came out earlier this month or late last month, I forget as time flies. But there's the Forerunner 955 and 255, then there's the Instinct 2 series (2S, 2, and 2X). There might be others I'm forgetting, but I'm assuming there isn't likely to be a lot of MIP options going forward. Coros watches are MIP though, which I would probably switch to if Garmin stops making affordable MIP watches... the pricing on the Fenix 8 and Enduro 3 are nutty. $800+