Have they not heard that IR is out and Bluetooth is in!!!!

You really need to buy into the HR zones to get the full function of this watch. Otherwise, it may be a bit of overkill. The polar website has some additional instructions that help with this.

The bottom line: This is their flagship product, top of the line and top dollar but Polar seems to have chosen marketing (a shiny sexy small form factor watch with apparently lots of new functions) over solid engineering, useful software functionality, and product reliability. If you already own a 625x or 725x model there is little reason to upgrade as this is an “unfinished product”

The good:

1. Small form factor for watch and footpod
2. Improvement in ergonomics — buttons and watch face are easier to use
3. More memory — you can record longer than earlier models at the 1 second rate
4. Running stride length has been added.

The bad:

1. The footpod and HR strap via blue tooth does not seem any more accurate than previous non-blue tooth models and maybe less so regarding footpod functions. HR measurement seems as accurate as earlier models.
2. Software (Polar Pro Trainer 5) has new functions which are questionable at best and misleading at worst — namely the running “index” function which on a scale of 30 to 76 purports to give you the sum of all calculations with a number which roughly correlates with expected future performance (running times) on various races such as a 5K through a marathon.
3. Customer Service. I was told at first that the inability to record temperature on the watch was a bug in the software. Later was told that the watch could not record temperature (correct). Also was given an excuse as to why temperature was no longer recorded by the watch (users body temperature — hah! — it worked well enough on earlier models). And regarding the index calculation, I was never given the algorithm which could at least help me understand what type of math it was doing (it is a mystery to me and the algorithm seems biased to reward you with a higher index score for a lower heart rate and slow time vs a slightly higher heart rate and faster time). Instead I was given a platitude;

“It is worth to remember that in addition to good Running Index, maximal running performance demands good preparation, optimal running conditions, speed endurance and guts. Training quantity and quality have an affect as well as natural talent. The RunningIndex gives a value measured in current circumstances.”

I especially like the “guts” comment — really happy about that as I don’t know how I’ve gotten by over the past 30 years beating people without “guts”

The ugly:

1. Incomprehensible design decision to modify the altimeter sensor holes from recessed (previous polar models) to flush on the bottom of the watch resulting in erroneous readings as soon as you start to sweat (yes you read that right — sweat) and thus rendering the altimeter function of the watch largely useless unless the watch is worn in such a way (flopping on wrist or strapped to clothing) to preclude the sensor holes from clogging with sweat from your wrist.
2. Software. Looks real nice until you try to modify data. Say you got erroneous distance reading on your last run and you want to easily fix it. You won’t be able to. No simple function to correct the total distance of a run and have that correction evenly applied to entire run. This undermines the whole point of exercise comparison within the software. If you go out on two identical runs but the distance recorded by the watch varies by a few tenths of a mile there will be no easy way to correct the data.
3. Temperature. Previous models recorded temperature as a data point whenever you took a lap marker or finished the run. This model does neither requiring you to manually enter the temperature into the software.
4. The running index calculation does not take into consideration temperature (AMAZING! since the book noted at the beginning of this review showed clearly that there is a positive correlation between high temperatures and higher heart rates — you work harder to cool youself). The lack of temperature calculation (an identical run can have HR vary by 10 BPM based upon temperature) seriously undermines the usefulness of the running index function.
5. No way to tell software about different running conditions for a given distance and have that taken into consideration on the index calculation. Five miles run on a track are treated the same as five miles run on sandy roads or trails. So when you go into the comparison graphs which purportedly allow you to see at a glance trends in your running, you cannot account for different conditions on runs. Neither different temperatures or different running surfaces are considered on calculations. This seriously undermines the usefulness of comparing weeks worth of training runs in order to come up with a performance trajectory and let you know are you ready for that next race.

Until this product I rarely even considered any other HR monitoring tool. Polar may not have made “pretty” watches, but they worked. They made tools for athletes interested in maximizing their performance. The marketing department has apparently taken over the company from the engineers. The company may have “jumped the shark” with this watch and software. I hope I’m wrong and Polar surprises with its next watch. It needs to actually delivers useful functions for serious athletes and not take away functions offered from previous models (temperature and an altimeter which works reliably). And if they are going to go to the trouble of providing a number which tells all — the index number — then they better explain how that number is calculated and provide the user with the ability to modify the formula (temperature and surface conditions to start with) in order to meet variable conditions if their engineers and exercise physiologist have not already thought of everything.

And keep the marketing department out of product design until functions are firmly set and don’t represent a two steps forward, two steps back design as we see with this model.