Suunto Run vs Garmin Forerunner 165

metrodraft

I just switched from a Garmin Forerunner 165 to a Suunto Run. I give you my thought which may help some out if they’re trying to decide on one. Maybe tell us your story or comparison.

First off, I had a FR165 for the past 2 years. It was a nice watch but it was starting to annoy me. The watch was very accurate but it had too much junk on it. I also hated how everything was a challenge (how many days in a row can I hit my Steps target, how many days getting good sleep, badges for everything. Stress score “really”) It would drive me nuts if I got a good night sleep and then it told me my score was 52!). The morning report was useless too, always giving me a workout that I would never use. Also, being in my 60s I wanted a little bigger screen, just not too big.

I had wanted a Suunto watch. I finally decided to buy one. A friend has a Race S which I liked but it didn’t have music (which I wanted). The Maps looked cool but I’m in the country and run the same routes all the time. I decided to try the Run. I didn’t know what to expect with the new UI I gave it a try.

I absolutely love the Run. First the construction is exceptional. The textile strap is awesome as well. I hate silicone straps. The watch is nice and light as well. The watch is actually much easier to navigate than the FR 165. It has all the metrics I want nothing else. Perfect! I love the Quick Start buttons. What a great idea.

The first couple runs I found small issues with the HRM, at the beginning of a run, but it has been perfect since then. The GPS seems really good too. The VO2 Max seems fine.

Now the Music function I not very good compared to the Garmin but it does work. It takes forever to download songs as well. One good thing is the actual sound quality. It’s quite a bit better than the 165. Another nice part about Music is the watch gives you updates at each km (time, pace, average HR). You hear them through your speakers.
The display is a great size (the Race 2 was too large) and very detailed. It’s actually brighter than my friends Race S but not as bright as my old FR 165.

One issue I had with the FR 165 was I needed to lock the screen at all time. If not, I was accidentally pressing buttons all day. I had to lock the screen 24/7. With the Run I only lock it in the shower. No issues of any kind. Nice.

Now the watch isn’t perfect. There aren’t many watch faces and not many good ones (in my opinion). The only real issue with the functionality of the watch is Steps. I would guess its 10%-20% lower than the 165.

What are your thoughts.

raven

@metrodraft Some random thoughts on your comments. First, “steps” isn’t a great metric to track, and Run being lower than 165 doesn’t mean Run is “wrong,” as 165 could easily have been overcounting. If you want accurate steps you need either a footpod or a pedometer like on your belt, not a device on one of your arms. Personally, I ignore steps altogether; if you wish to track it then accept no one device is likely to be fully accurate and instead you’re looking for trends within the device itself. So you need to “start over” with the Run compared to 165 it seems.

I have no idea why people wear devices in the shower. I always take off devices so I can wash the skin which is in contact with the device all day. So locking a screen for shower makes no sense to me as well.

Interesting comment about the metrics of the 165. Curiously, are you tracking CTL-ATL-TSB with the Suunto? Some people find this system a bit difficult to get into, but it’s far better than tracking steps, and I hope this gives you actionable metrics where perhaps the 165 didn’t.