5 ms·
The missing heart-rate monitor is a pretty big limitation for a lot of users. LOL. Imagine writing a review and leaving the heart rate in last place. Just don’t
by _giorgio_ 2mo ago
The missing heart-rate monitor is a pretty big limitation for a lot of users. LOL. Imagine writing a review and leaving the heart rate in last place. Just don’t write a review then.
- roryirvine 2mo agoGP is talking about a model that was released 14 years ago, and is closely based on one from 2009. Seems to me that "still working well after more than a decade of use" is a more useful piece of info than "newer models include additional features".
- _giorgio_ 2mo agoIs a stone working after 1000 years? Yep, still a stone though.
- dspillett 2mo agoHe's talking about an 11 year old device of a 15 year old (long since discontinued) design, even flagship devices were less featureful then than some mid-market devices are now. Imagine expecting a review of such a device to be enticing to someone comparing modern options… Also, not everyone with a GPS watch cares that much about heart rate. I am a runner (well, less so now that I used to be, but working on fixing that) and have a Feninx7, not for the health tracking features but for route tracking and the long battery life (for “ultra” events covering many hours or even multiple days).
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- _giorgio_ 2mo agoThat's just an old and not useful device.