# Polar or Garmin HRM/GPS?



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

My wife and I are wanting to get HRM/GPS for cycling and other outdoor activities. She is more familiar with Polar from past experience using HRMs integrated to treadmills, ellipticals, etc. [and she works in cardiology], and I am more familiar with Garmin GPSs from offloading [and have used terrestrial type devices in places like the very remote Sahara].

So which brand is better when the two technologies get "merged", or is it even a good idea to merge them at all? To qualify, I am not expecting the GPS to be anything at all like the extremely sophisticated systems we use on DP assets offshore, mainly just to give simple data like speed, azimuth, and distance.

She had picked up a Polar RCX3 that she bought on bargain, but we returned it because it didn't have integrated GPS. We are by no means hardcore cyclists, but can afford a quality device.

Are there any particular wrist-mounted models [with chest strap sensor] which are recommended based on size/weight, durability, ease of use, and battery life/availability?

Thank you.


----------



## arctic_rogue (Dec 4, 2014)

I might be able to lend some advice based on my recent experience.

I was looking for a watch that was decent for cycling and running (as well as serving as an everyday watch with activity tracking, but that's less important IMO).

I narrowed it down to some Garmins and Polars. My final choice came down to the Polar m400 and Polar v800. There is a substantial price gap, and considering that the m400 is a dandy watch. A couple of weeks back, amazon dropped the price on the v800 to $300, so I pounced.

I can't possibly give any valid info on the different watches that isn't 2nd hand info, but this site is fantastic if you are interested in reading reviews:

DC Rainmaker


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

I've been using this one for the last year or so.

Garmin Forerunner 310XT GPS Personal Trainer: HeartRateMonitors.com

I bought a different mount that is a quick release. I end up putting it on the bar of my road bike, and I wear it on my wrist when I'm on the MTB.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jorgemonkey said:


> I've been using this one for the last year or so.
> 
> Garmin Forerunner 310XT GPS Personal Trainer: HeartRateMonitors.com
> 
> I bought a different mount that is a quick release. I end up putting it on the bar of my road bike, and I wear it on my wrist when I'm on the MTB.


I have one of these, too. I bought a refurb unit for pretty cheap. I use the QR mounts on all three of my bikes. I only wear it on my wrist when I run, which isn't much anymore.

One thing to keep in mind is that Polar uses a fairly proprietary wireless protocol for the HRM strap. Garmin uses ANT+, and while ANT+ is owned by Garmin, they maintain it as an open standard.

You don't have to use a Garmin sensor (or computer) necessarily.
THIS IS ANT - the Wireless Sensor Network Solution


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

Thanks all y'all folks for the input. I have been doing some reading up on the Polar RC3, M400, and V800, as well as the Garmin 310XT. There is sure a whole lot to try and digest!

It seems that the 310XT appears more physically "weatherproof" in terms of the switches and charging connection; I don't so much care about published specs as real world use. The 310XT has better published battery life? It also seems comparatively physically large though?

Weight for these plastic things is a non-issue compared with what we normally wear on our wrists.

Does the HRM work well with the Garmins, because that is quite high on my wife's priority list and she is very familiar with Polar?

Presumably the display can be adjusted on these devices as far as what information is displayed realtime? I want HR, speed, and azimuth [vector, velocity, heading, bearing, or whatever one chooses to call it]. Distance covered and duration underway are Lagniappe.

I would prefer a device that is most intuitive to operate on the fly versus one that has all the bells and whistles that will never actually be used by many folks.


----------



## orind (Jan 8, 2006)

I currently use a polar V800, but have used garmin (200,500) in the recent past. I feel the issue you will need to resolve is ANT+ or Blue Tooth--both work, but the implications down stream need to be thought about---want to add a power meter? Is it Blue Tooth or ANT+, other sensors? Will you use the device for indoor training, and if so, what snesors does your indoor trainer pair with (ANT+/BT). What about training software?

I went with the Polar V800 over the Garmin Fenix because the display was easier for me to read on the polar. Polar's website (Flow) vs. Garmin connect are something to consider too.

In the end, they both make great products. I use the garmin watch mount to mount my Polar V800 to the handlebars of my bikes.


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

From memory on my 310xt on screen 1 it shows speed, heart rate, cadence, time. 

Screen 2
Av speed, distance traveled, time of day, calories burned

Screen 3
Total ascent, total decsent, grade %, something else

I can also set a virtual partner, such as I want to keep an 18mph road pace. 

Battery life is really good. I've gone 2 weeks of commuting without having to charge it. 

You can also input 3 bikes, with seperate screen settings. Running mode also has its own screen settings. If mine broke on me, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up another one.


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

Good point on the compatibility with integrating to existing indoor equipment, at least as far as my wife goes....not so much for me.

Are the display screens user configurable as to which metrics are displayed, or are they factory set defaults?

We may end up with two different devices; I am just trying to identify which one might be best to start with in better understanding the pros/cons.


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

On the garmin I can pick to show 1 through 4 items on a screen. And I can pick what they are and their location. Lots of stuff to choose from also.


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

Big thanks to all y'all for continuing to be patient and informative!

I RTFM'd both the Garmin 310XT and the Polar M400 [figuring that starting with the more basic models might mitigate information overload].

What I gleaned is that the Garmin has an available mapping screen while the Polar does not? I'm not sure that this is a particularly important feature for me since my mind tends to think more direction and distance fundamentally anyway.

One thing that I found rather strange in the Garmin manual was that in the Data Field Options section there was indication that display of pace or speed "**requires an optional accessory". Surely the GPS knows how fast one is traveling at any given time? Maybe that reference is towards enhanced accuracy using an external bike or foot sensor?

My apology for all of the questions, but I don't have good opportunity to actually test the devices before buying one.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The mapping screen on the 310XT is REALLY basic. Shows your breadcrumb point and any waypoints you might happen to have stored (storing waypoints on this receiver is a bit of a PITA compared to hiking models). No basemap data is shown. I will take a look to see vaguely how close I am to completing a loop, or how far I am on the return of an out-and-back but that's about all it'll do.

Yes, the Garmin will give speed/pace without an extra sensor, but use of an external sensor will improve the accuracy of the reported numbers. Pace with a foot pod (pace is default for running mode) and speed uses a speed sensor (default in bike mode).

The Garmin manuals really don't do a very good job covering all the options available in the device. Most of Garmin's devices have a user-run wiki page, though, that's much more thorough.


----------



## orind (Jan 8, 2006)

The V800 allows for fully customizable fields--it is done through their flow website. It is a basic drag and drop interface. I find for visibility reasons, no more than 4 fields per/screen. Syncing the data through the usb cable is reliable. The android app is still a little rough, but the device will sync via BT to an android phone and update the flow website (the IOS app is more stable).


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

I am inclined to squeeze the trigger on the 310XT. It seems to do everything that I want [and more], with decent weatherproofness, and decent battery life.

So long as it is able to display HR, speed, heading, and distance, those are the metrics that matter most to me.

It is only $169 including the HRM on Amazon Prime; I guess that is the benefit of not needing/wanting the latest-and-greatest devices.

It is kinda butt ugly, but some folks would argue that so am I; form follows function.


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

If you like to mount the 310xt to your bike, I'd recommend getting this. Especially if you have multiple bikes:

Amazon.com: Quick Release Mounting Kit: GPS & Navigation

As a side note - the wrist strap that came with the unit broke about about 3 months of use. After getting the quick release part last summer I haven't had any problems.


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

jorgemonkey said:


> If you like to mount the 310xt to your bike, I'd recommend getting this. Especially if you have multiple bikes:
> 
> Amazon.com: Quick Release Mounting Kit: GPS & Navigation
> 
> As a side note - the wrist strap that came with the unit broke about about 3 months of use. After getting the quick release part last summer I haven't had any problems.


That looks like an accessory well worth the low price of admission. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

murderman said:


> That looks like an accessory well worth the low price of admission. Thanks for the heads up.


I have that same kit. WELL worth it.


----------



## arctic_rogue (Dec 4, 2014)

Harold said:


> I have one of these, too. I bought a refurb unit for pretty cheap. I use the QR mounts on all three of my bikes. I only wear it on my wrist when I run, which isn't much anymore.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that Polar uses a fairly proprietary wireless protocol for the HRM strap. Garmin uses ANT+, and while ANT+ is owned by Garmin, they maintain it as an open standard.
> 
> ...


Polar, in the m400 and v800 anyways, uses Bluetooth Smart as the protocol. So it's just as "open" as Garmin's ANT+.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

arctic_rogue said:


> Polar, in the m400 and v800 anyways, uses Bluetooth Smart as the protocol. So it's just as "open" as Garmin's ANT+.


Fair enough. I had a different Polar that used a Polar proprietary protocol.


----------



## starre (Sep 21, 2004)

Hi - I started mountain bike riding about 8 years ago and right away at my age then (53) it was apparent that I would need HRM just to control my pace and not go overboard. So I started with a Polar watch with the intention to use it in other physical activities. Big mistake as it was very distracting and dangerous to look at the watch on my arm riding demanding singletrack. the numbers were pretty small on the watch model so even the special mount for the bike wasn't a good solution. So I gave the watch to my daughter and got the polar cs100 dedicated for bike only. The big number size was a pleasure to read HR and the unit lasted for 5 years. Downside of such a simple unit was there was no GPS and no recording of individual rides - just the last one and totals. When the battery finally died in the uncomfortable chest strap (the stiff plastic one) I moved to Garmin and now ride with an edge 500 with very comfortable chest strap. The unit is reasonably priced and I can create the data pages as I want with big font for HR on my 1st page and all other not so relevant data on other pages.The integration with GPS is basic and doesn't have real maps, just bread crumb trails, but it is enough for me to follow trails that others have done after downloading to the unit. Hope this helps.


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

I received a 310XT the other day, and it is a bit larger than I envisioned. I can't really see wearing that thing on my wrist when cycling or otherwise.

I have since ordered an Edge 500 to compare with it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Edge 500 is much bigger footprint-wise. But it's thinner.

No GPS watch with a respectable battery life is going to be small.


----------



## starre (Sep 21, 2004)

murderman said:


> I have since ordered an Edge 500 to compare with it.


if in the end you are going with the Edge 500, i would recommend you carefully look at the 'kit' you order. first get the Edge 500 with the soft strap and if the 'kit' doesn't come with it, just get the main unit separately. the second tip is NOT to get the integrated GSC-10 speed/cadence sensor as it is a pain to set up. instead get their new standalone speed sensor and if you need a cadence sensor Garmin also has a new standalone version. these standalone versions do not need tedious magnets to work and are very simple to setup - a BIG improvement. the standalone speed sensor will add accuracy to the GPS in measuring distance. if you do mountain bike riding, i don't think that cadence is so important, so maybe no need to purchase it. my point is - don't go for the "cheaper package kit" - get the elements for the edge that you really want/need. good luck!


----------



## starre (Sep 21, 2004)

Harold said:


> Edge 500 is much bigger footprint-wise. But it's thinner.
> 
> No GPS watch with a respectable battery life is going to be small.


just to clarify the Edge 500 is NOT a watch or intended to be a watch. while the idea of having a multipurpose watch that can also function on a bike may sound attractive, in my opinion riding at any significant speed requires the unit to be mounted centrally on the handlebars with large size numbers for easy and clear reading. the edge 500 is really the smallest screen size i would go with and wouldn't hesitate to buy an updated 500 model with slightly larger screen (but not the 510).


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

starre said:


> just to clarify the Edge 500 is NOT a watch or intended to be a watch. while the idea of having a multipurpose watch that can also function on a bike may sound attractive, in my opinion riding at any significant speed requires the unit to be mounted centrally on the handlebars with large size numbers for easy and clear reading. the edge 500 is really the smallest screen size i would go with and wouldn't hesitate to buy an updated 500 model with slightly larger screen (but not the 510).


I ride with a 310 XT and am fine with it. I've been using it this way for a few years now. I use the QR mount adapter so I can pop it off of the wrist band and mount it to any Garmin mount. I put mine on my bars just fine and it occupies less space than an Edge of any sort. It has 3 fields per screen and you can have multiple screens if you want. I only have 1 screen, with time, distance, and speed. I don't really care about the speed, so it's a small field. Time is what I care most about, so it's in numbers plenty large. Distance is also small. I don't read my computer while I ride, so I don't need everything to be huge.

I have an Oregon 450 that I will use when I want mapping for a trail system that's unfamiliar to me. The trip computer screen also displays more data fields and to be honest, I don't need or want that much information. Time and distance are really all I care about when I'm out on a ride.

Odd that you say you'd get an updated 500 with a larger screen (but not the 510). That's pretty much what the 510 is, you realize?


----------



## starre (Sep 21, 2004)

Harold said:


> I ride with a 310 XT and am fine with it. I've been using it this way for a few years now. I use the QR mount adapter so I can pop it off of the wrist band and mount it to any Garmin mount. I put mine on my bars just fine and it occupies less space than an Edge of any sort. It has 3 fields per screen and you can have multiple screens if you want. I only have 1 screen, with time, distance, and speed. I don't really care about the speed, so it's a small field. Time is what I care most about, so it's in numbers plenty large. Distance is also small. I don't read my computer while I ride, so I don't need everything to be huge.
> 
> I have an Oregon 450 that I will use when I want mapping for a trail system that's unfamiliar to me. The trip computer screen also displays more data fields and to be honest, I don't need or want that much information. Time and distance are really all I care about when I'm out on a ride.
> 
> Odd that you say you'd get an updated 500 with a larger screen (but not the 510). That's pretty much what the 510 is, you realize?


Thanks for your comments. It's a matter of personal preference and while from the pictures it seems the 310 has font size big enough for riding I wouldn't consider it for other uses as a watch or training because of it's large size on the wrist. I did consider the 510 but it's larger blockier size and touch screen turned me toward a smaller, simpler, and less expensive device. As I mentioned before, I am most interested in HR followed by time and distance as you and rarely look at rest of the data till the end of the ride. The extra function of GPS has been very helpful on unfamiliar trails and that has been a nice bonus.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

It is a triathlon watch so it is a bit bigger because of the extra waterproofing on top of its other functionality. It is also older and older models are bigger. It is what it is. I have run half marathons with it and it's fine. A little big but that was the last thing on my mind.


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

Since I do not run or swim, I am learning that a device more optimized towards cycling such as the 500 might be a better fit than a watch type multisport such as the 310XT.

I haven't found anywhere local to put my hands on them both side by side, so I ordered both and will return whichever one I like the least (unused of course).

I ordered the 500 "Red bundle" which includes the premium (soft strap) HR sensor and the GSC-10. I have no intention of using a speed/cadence sensor of any type at this time, but the price was essentially the same as the base uint and the premium HR sensor purchased separately. The fact that the color scheme matches my bike well is a non-critical bonus.


----------



## Rae6503 (Jun 30, 2009)

I have the Edge 500 with a heart rate strap. I don't have the cadence thing but my husband's CX bike does and I use that on our trainer. Now that I've used cadence I miss it when I'm on my MTB.


----------



## murderman (Nov 24, 2014)

I received the Edge 500 yesterday, and made a quick 3.5 mile test ride last night. This device seems like it will be perfect for my application.



Since I had already bought the quick release mounting kit for the 310XT and it is compatible with the 500, I am just going to keep it since return shipping would be almost 50% of the purchase price. I have cobbled the watch adapter together with a nylon band for use with the 500. While suboptimal, it does provide the capability to wear the 500 on my wrist if the desire to do so ever arises.

Thank you to everyone for your assistance in helping me make this selection! :thumbsup:


----------

