I've been using a GPS watch for several years now, and the only time I've ever find it lacking compared to an Edge cyclocomputer has been structured (power based) intervals. On the other hand there I can't count the times I've been happy to have a watch instead. It's been my experience that their watches are much more stable and less buggy than their Edges, they're made by different teams, and have broader appeal, I think Garmin invests more in their quality.

The new Fenix 6X gets 60 hours of every second GPS time. One variant has a built in solar charger.

Their Venu line has a beautiful screen like an always on Apple Watch, guides people through indoor workouts with proper form, etc.

All of the watches have too many health related features to list. Not so of them are tremendously useful, some are great.

Screen size is everything. The bigger the screen, the bigger the battery. I'd guess that Garmin is able to leverage and make use of the well developed watch battery industry. Unlike trying to re-purpose smartphone batteries for a device whose screen is on every minute the device is used.

I think as well there's a huge and competitive market for fitness watches that Garmin has made a decision to be a player in. GPS cycling I think is a significantly smaller market.

The new breed of watches can track your respiration rate (breath) from your heart data. It sounds like that's only during sport, but that's not entirely clear to me. I'm recovering from a broken rib and partially collapsed lung, the ER gave me a plastic chamber device to measure the air volume I can take in. It's extremely painful to use. I must be breathing more quickly to make up for reduced volume, I'd be very interested to see whether this could be of use.

Agree. I've purchased a refurbished F5 (can't justify spending close to $1000 for their top of the line F6) and am very happy with it.

F5 is a fantastic watch, I hope you like your a lot. Now was a smart time to pick one up too. 🙂

Like many other fitness tracker products...I suspect that feature has poor accuracy and precision compared to the actual medical tool.

Screen size is everything and I'm effectively blind in one eye.

Man, I'd like to own one Forrest, but I just can't use such a tiny screen.

Maybe I'll give them another look.

I own a F3 and have been happy with it, especially hiking. The new F5 & F6 are huge steps up and maybe if my F3 ever dies I'll look at one of them.

But as the others have stated I wouldn't even think about trying to use it as a cycling computer. The display is just too small for me to see since I like to have 5 fields up during my normal riding. But I was surprised to see my respiration rate show up in Garmin Connect when I upgraded to and Edge 830 and use a chest strap. I never saw that before with the F3 or Edge 500. Seems pretty accurate when I've checked.

I bought a 6X today. It still be a few weeks until I'm healed enough to put it to use. I've been playing with it and first impressions are very favorable.

I put a Garmin watch on my wish list but it's substantially behind several other things...

I'm still using my trusty Forerunner 230. It still has excellent battery life after 2-3 years of use and abuse. It doesn't have heart rate functionality or anything, but I've heard that the 235 HR data is not trustworthy anyways. Not sure about the newer F6. It's probably more accurate. Someday I'll upgrade!

I'm posting this on the very off chance the info may be useful to someone.

The watch will only do respiration rate during a recorded activity, not 24/7. Technically you could say you're running and sit in a chair. It also only works with a chest strap, it won't use optical HR data. While that implies higher quality data, a chest strap hurts a lot when you have a broken rib. This software just wasn't able to provide any usefulness as a proxy for lung function. On the bright side, my x-rays look normal and I'm now able to achieve "best" on the machine the ER gave me. Feet still hurt too much to wear bike shoes though.