Fitbit surge ?

redbikejohn

Fancied a new toy to help the training in 2016. Thought the fitbit surge would be good as it has a GPS and syncs with strata, but I've been looking on the net and the latest software update seems to have seriously screwed with the syncing and battery life. ...anyone have one ?

AlahDamIt

I have one although only really use it as a watch now and as a backup for GPS. It’s really unpredictable with heart rate, it takes some fiddling to get the right reading and it stops reading high heart rates when you do vigorous exercise. It also counts pedal strokes as steps.

supercharger

I received a Fitbit Surge as a Christmas gift but after a few days use was unimpressed. It keeps good time but the GPS and heartrate monitoring capabilities are inaccurate to the point of being worthless. I feel the cycling feature is an afterthought in its the design. The battery life is 24 - 36 hours, in my experience.

bendertherobot

At £140 I'd go with the Garmin Vivoactive. Much better proposition but HR will cost more. Otherwise a stock Fitbit charge and Garmin 25 is possibly a better bet. Unless you want to run and swim in which case the Vivo.

bobmcstuff

Widely documented that the optical HR on these is OK for day to day HR but not so good for exercise, and basically useless for cycling, e.g., http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/01/fitbit-surge-depth-review.html#optical-heart-rate-sensor-accuracy

"And last up we have cycling outdoors. This was pretty much a total failure."

He also mentions the GPS being a bit dodgy.

redbikejohn

Yeah there doesn't seem to be anything that is quite good enough yet. Fitbit launched a new unit yesterday at the ces tech show but it's not to my liking. I think the industry didn't like it either as there stock crashed about 12%. I suppose in a few years they will come on like the smartphones did.

bendertherobot

The Vivoactive is very good indeed. And so are the higher Garmins such as the 920xt. Indeed, if I was a committed triathlete, that would be my absolute first choice given how it deals with swimming and running dynamics.

I'm hovering at the moment between the Vivoactive and the Vivosmart HR. Not because, on the latter, I need the HR, just that it has a better strap and screen than the original Vivosmart.

lostboysaint

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19773607#p19773607]bendertherobot[/url] wrote:

The Vivoactive is very good indeed. And so are the higher Garmins such as the 920xt. Indeed, if I was a committed triathlete, that would be my absolute first choice given how it deals with swimming and running dynamics.

I'm hovering at the moment between the Vivoactive and the Vivosmart HR. Not because, on the latter, I need the HR, just that it has a better strap and screen than the original Vivosmart.

Just bought the superceded Garmin 610 on a deal from Sport Pursuit (£129) and it's brilliant. GPS, Ant+HR compatible, plugs into Garmin Connect so all my data goes in the same place (Edge 800 for the bike). Looked at all the options (and spoke to a trainer) and it was by far the best solution.

bendertherobot

Good choice that, and a good price. If the Vivoactive looked a bit more like that, I'd go for it. I really want something that does swimming though, which is something the 610 doesn't do.

napoleond

I ended up delaying and delaying and finally going with the Garmin 920XT, as I have aspirations of Triathlon this year. It's fantastic functionally but it is quite, erm, chunky? compared to things like the vivoactive. It's not a looker unfortunately. In fact it looks horrible.

bendertherobot

Yep. Though I once owned a Forerunner 101, so it's definitely an improvement. I wonder how much smaller they can get. My concern with watches generally is that you don't really want it on your wrist whilst cycling and mounting a watch on the available mounts looks all a little aftermarket.

I'm pretty much sold on the Vivoactive now. But I'm still only 90% there.

chris_bass

maybe something like this?

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/garmin-forerunner-235-gps-run-watch-with-integrated-hrm/

looks quite good and you can download the garmin IQ apps so is kind of a smart watch too.

grenw

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19773607#p19773607]bendertherobot[/url] wrote:

I'm hovering at the moment between the Vivoactive and the Vivosmart HR. Not because, on the latter, I need the HR, just that it has a better strap and screen than the original Vivosmart.

I've a Vivosmart HR and had the original. The screen is much better. Just that fact that it's on all the time makes it more useful

The HR though..... jury is out. Fine for tracking your day, resting rate etc but is fairly buggy. On a 3 hour ride it will drop to a default value of 71 bpm 3-4 times - every time a message comes in. Other than that it's not bad and will broadcast to an Edge which is why I bought it. At least it seems to be fairly accurate.

bendertherobot

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19773789#p19773789]GrenW[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19773607#p19773607]bendertherobot[/url] wrote:

I'm hovering at the moment between the Vivoactive and the Vivosmart HR. Not because, on the latter, I need the HR, just that it has a better strap and screen than the original Vivosmart.

I've a Vivosmart HR and had the original. The screen is much better. Just that fact that it's on all the time makes it more useful

The HR though..... jury is out. Fine for tracking your day, resting rate etc but is fairly buggy. On a 3 hour ride it will drop to a default value of 71 bpm 3-4 times - every time a message comes in. Other than that it's not bad and will broadcast to an Edge which is why I bought it. At least it seems to be fairly accurate.

I've never rely on the HR. It's really only the screen I want. Mrs has one and I like it. But I know that the uglier Vivoactive is only £30 ish more. And I'm finding it hard to ignore the extra functions.

bendertherobot

I swear Amazon and Wiggle have synced their prices on the vivoactive. One goes up, other follows suit.