I bought a 165 and setup the watch face, which included an elevation data field so you could access that information as needed. After the first update, that feature was removed and you can no longer access the elevation data outside of an activity. After reaching out to Garmin, they told me they removed the feature to "differentiate" the lower end device as such. To remove a feature that was previously there as soon as you release the product, which contains the hardware for the feature is a really bad look. I opened up a case with Garmin and they verified the presence before, the the lack of the feature after the update and told me they would reach out via email to update me on whether this will be aded back. So far, I've not heard back form them ...sad.
tbh the only benefit this watch has over the 265 is the screen. It looks like it's under the bezel, of which was a deal breaker for me when I was looking at the 265
No Training Load is the deal breaker for me. Even the Forerunner 245 has Training Load. Very useful metric if you use the watch to train for something like a marathon. Training Readiness, this metric isn't scientific and can be more accurately mimicked by looking at scientific metrics like Resting HR and HRV (or Body Battery/Stress if the watch lacks HRV).
Runalyze's tools can easily fill that gap but yeah, sucks that Garmin has left out a feature that was already present in a 2019 mid-range watch. It's mainly the fancy display that you're paying for with these new watches, justified or not. Otherwise value-wise the 255 still reigns supreme.
@@mstu8097 Yes, Runalyze is awesome. The 255 will also give double/triple the battery life (depending on how you configure it) compared to these watches.
@@matejsebechlebsky12 Race Time Predictor uses VO2 max estimate and your training history to provide a target race time according to Garmin. The exact algorithm is propriety and not based on published scientific research, hence the explainable predictions for some people. Training load data is based on mathematical modelling of heart rate and other performance data to plot the accumulation of a physiological measure called EPOC according to Garmin. EPOC is an acronym for excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. It’s the amount of oxygen your body will utilize after a challenging performance to restore itself and return to its normal, balanced resting condition. EPOC is generally accepted as the best way to measure the degree of homeostasis disturbance produced by your activities. It accurately reflects the amount of stress placed on your body from exercise. EPOC is publicly researched and not limited to Garmin.
I’m a runner/ gym workout/ cyclist kinda person. I am wanting my first Garmin watch. I cannot figure out which watch would be good for me. I like the Pheniz 7 but don’t have that kinda money. And advice? Until I saw this video, I thought the forerunner was only for runners.
It’s definitely not, it’s just the watch that runners prefer, as cyclists usually use another garmin mounted on their handlebars. I used to compete in cycling and I’m looking forward to get back to it, now I’m into running, go to the gym everyday using my watch to store the whole workout, and use it backwards on my wrist when I’m training Muay Thai. I’d say it does a great job in all of those
Do the sports profiles actually do anything other than label the workout? I have an Edge 830 and I’d like a watch for XC skiing, but the 265 has XC Classic and not skate-which is what I do 90% of the time. I’m wondering what XC ski power/zones actually are. Are they HR zones or is there some XC ski power meter I don’t know about? For whatever reason I really like the training load feature in the summer and it’d be nice to carry it over to the winter where I normally record on an Apple Watch. It’s a series 3 and the cellular isn’t supported anymore anyway so getting a new watch seems somewhat justified. )as far as silly sports electronics are justified)
It depends. Up till about a year or so ago, Garmin's sport profiles were all very legit focused on having data behind everthing, whereas most of their competitors were just for labeling purposes. Now though, they've done some that are for labeling (e.g. baseball), but tons more than have data (e.g. skiing). XC Ski is actually one of those that Garmin has spent a ton of time from a data standpoint, argueably way to much time...but hey, it's htere. And yes, it actually generates ski power metrics using the HRM-PRO series HR straps.
For all considering the 165 you might as well check out the "old" 255! Apart from training readyness and the AMOLED touch display it has basically the same features as the 265 but nowadays for the price of the 165. So if you can live without AMOLED and touch the 255 is definitely the better pick over the 165.
I had the 255, not a fan of the buttons. Constantly fiddling around pressing 5 buttons is far from inventive and feels clumsy. I bought a Pace3 long live the digital crown and user friendly menu's
I’m not sure why someone would buy this over the 255 which can still be bought on sale regularly for about £20 extra. Like, I know the 255 doesn’t have quite as nice a screen, and isn’t likely to get many more updates, but I also don’t see Garmin ever updating the 165 to give it the same features as the 255, because then it would (excluding training readiness) be a 265. This is a good product don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see a real place for it in Garmin’s already bloated watch lineup.
The only reason I see would be "I really really want the new OLED screen and I will only run" scenario, otherwise the 255 packs a lot more for the same price, I personally don`t care at all about being OLED and just bought a 255, and I am very happy, couldn't imagine spending the same money for something with less features just because of the screen.
It really is as simply as it's a cut down version of the 265 with an Amoled screen. Having had the Epix 2 and then the Epix 2 Pro I could never go back to the MIP displays now. You must remember thousands of people couldn't care less about some of the features that are missing they just want a nice looking watch to track their runs with.
@@Fozzee.1970 That's what I'm thinking, I kinda want to buy a watch because holding my phone in the hand all the time sucks. I only run, I've never tried skiing so it's unlikely that I will miss that and triathlon is not in my repertoire either. However, I'd prefer a nice OLED screen and don't mind the battery life being shorter, simply because anything that's gonna last me more than 5 days is just long enough. The only thing that annoys me is the lack of badminton tracking as I play that, but I guess you could get around that somehow.
4:40 it's so pity that FR165 doesn't have simple activites like rowing, skiing, inline skating and so on. I mean it doesn't need extra sensors or something. Just add it to the software like FR265 has.. I regret sometimes buying FR165
Im considering the FR165 right now over the FR265 just from the price difference and that I would only be doing some of the random sports on the FR265 watch sometimes. I think saving $200 over some random sport profiles, training readiness, status, and load justifies it. Don't you think?
@@VanquisherFantical In my country the price difference is only 160€, but I feel like I would get more of a sports watch by buying 256. I would like to have guided lactate thresholds, training readiness, multiband gps, also I know know I want a bigger size than FR165 and all those activity profiles, for example I have zero snow activities on my FR165 or stuff like rowing, inline skating and so on. I am missing out some stuff. But it's just me.
I'm looking to upgrade my 5 year old Forerunner 45. I am primarily a runner and was leaning towards the 165. Your video gave me a good amount of advice on my decision. Is there any other Garmin watch I should consider other than the 165...again, as primarily a runner? I believe there are others at or near the $250 price point.
Yep I’m a pure runner and I think it’s the 165 or the slightly older 255 with no AMOLED touch screen but bit more training data so I think is closer to the 265 (but still without training readiness). I’m undecided!
165 has hotkeys removed. I use the hell out of this feature on other watches. Anyone else? Instinct 1 and FR 245 both have this simple feature, for under $200. At this point, Garmin does seem to have their heads pretty far up their own asses regarding features. When was the last time they saw daylight, I wonder?
Unbelievably comprehensive as always. Appreciated taking the time to list the umpteen differences. A very understanding better half, especially if the little ones are there. Hun? Nearly finished there? Kids are playing up (again) 😅
Haha...everyone was done for the day skiing given the rain, so we split them up. I got the mostly quieter one, she got one of the louder ones. Sometimes you can barely hear them. :)
If I order that 265 and there is no nacho cheese dispenser, Imma have words with someone. Thanks for the awesome review. I'm finally replacing my Forerunner 735 XT.
Great as always Ray. Would you and Des consider a podcast discussion that helps those of us wanting to buy used. Would be really helpful to know where you feel a deal on used would be the better choice. Thanks
And still nothing for the runners, cyclists, and swimmers who also like to do multi-activity training, aka WOD's or CrossFit type workouts, bootcamps, cross-training, circuit training etc. How hard it is it? If not Garmin, might we see a 3rd party make this a reality for the Apple Watch?
I'd never drop £400 on an Amoled watch, with Always-On they're never going to last as long as a good traditional MIP. The 165 on the other hand may be a good option once it goes on sale.
you can literally turn the always on display off. Unless you want to use a smart watch for over 5 years the amoled display won't be an issue, even with always on display turned on.
Thanks for the video Ray. I have a question on the 165 (not the music edition) I know that you won’t be able to download music to the watch but are you able to control music playing on your phone
165 not having a compass even though it has gps, it gives me a map with my position during workouts and it lets me download 3rd party apps that gives me the damn compass, that’s crazy
Thank you for the video. Did not know that Forerunner 165 does not have such a basic thing as metronome. Even the cheapest Coros-es (Pace 2/3) have that. I could live without a built-in nacho cheese dispenser, but lack of metronome is frustrating.
@@Dcrainmaker that’s good to know. I’m just looking for alternatives as the HRM isn’t the most comfortable thing for heavy breathing while cycling. I feel like a cheap Garmin watch just for heart rate vs Apple Watch would work nice. Using my edge 540 as the main computer that is.
Si tenés un buen plan de entrenamiento no necesitás tanta información. Además necesitás tener puesto el reloj todo el día. Con el GPS y el Glonass el 235 funciona perfecto. No se puden comparar dos relojes de la misma marca de 200 dolares de diferencia.
I read your review (great) and would like to ask a question, most of the differences are in the software, is there a possibility for Garmin to update these features in the future for the 165?
Yeah, they can definitely add features - and often do (for example, the Sleep Coach they confirmed is coming shortly). They also add features when their competitors force them to. And, lastly, they do add features to increase the appeal of the product. It's incredibly difficult though to predict how things will roll for the FR165, because there's no historical data on this product line in basically a decade. Whereas for the Forerunner 2xx or 9xx series, we kinda know how it's going to go (generally good). Inversely, for the like-priced Vivo/Venu series, we know know how it's going to go too (generally not good).
Hi guys i want your opinion for real i wanted to buy galaxy watch 6 but now im having second thought of buying a garmin any suggestion in the same price range for the gramin watch thanks 😁
If the 165 was used as the primary wearable and did some runs would the training load (which it doesn’t show) get calculated using unified training by a more capable watch like say Fenix 7x or even an edge cycling computer and be accounted for on those devices ?
Great video I need a 265 buy just durable one .. they have so many watches and not exactly what i need 😅 any recommendations ? (The epix is little bit expensive)
All the high-end Fenix 7/Epix/etc series have it now, as does the Forerunner 255/265/955/965, plus the Venu 3, Vivoactive 5, and probably something else I'm forgetting.
I use a garmin forerunner 265 on the track when I do motocross. There is a HUGE difference in accuracy in curves and positioning between multiband GNSS and only GNSS. Thanks for great videos :) /Magnus (Sweden)
Returned my 165 for the Pace3. The app and watch faces from Garmin is just disapointing plus all the options it lacks compared to the Pace. I just dont get the Garmin hype😅
I'm just looking for a running watch to use for my 5k parkrun every week, a watch that can pace set my run and alert me to "speed up" or "slow down" to ensure i stay on the correct pace. also to play music via headphones (airpods). thats it. Any recommendations?, the body battery/ readiness is great but not nessesary as I probably wouldnt wear the watch all of the time just for the runs.
Waiting when you will finally deliver something More… in example: scratch test: garmin gorilla/power glass vs sapphire glass. That cloud be interesting. 😊
I am finally upgrading my ancient Garmin 920XT. I am not used to bells and whistles and don’t really want them. I looked it up and couldn’t find the exact answer but assume the 920XT didn’t have multiband GPS? I know you say it shouldn’t be a deal breaker between these two models and if I am used to inferior tech that seems to work I think I will be okay without it.
