Polar Grit X2: Worth the Upgrade?
The Polar Grit X2 represents a significant evolution from its predecessor, the Grit X, offering a range of new features, hardware improvements, and software enhancements. Designed with athletes and outdoor enthusiasts in mind, this multisport watch aims to deliver advanced tracking capabilities and an enhanced user experience. However, it comes with certain compromises, such as reduced waterproofing and slightly shorter battery life. In the video below, DC Rainmaker explores the key updates, performance highlights, and areas for improvement to help you determine if this watch meets your needs.
Watch this video on YouTube. What's New in the Polar Grit X2?
The Grit X2 introduces several noteworthy upgrades that enhance its functionality and appeal: AMOLED Display: The transition to an AMOLED screen from the previous MIP display provides vibrant colors and superior visibility, especially in low-light conditions.
The transition to an AMOLED screen from the previous MIP display provides vibrant colors and superior visibility, especially in low-light conditions. Dual-Frequency GPS: This addition enhances tracking accuracy on land, making it particularly useful for runners, hikers, and outdoor adventurers navigating complex terrains.
This addition enhances tracking accuracy on land, making it particularly useful for runners, hikers, and outdoor adventurers navigating complex terrains. Enhanced Mapping: The ability to download detailed maps and mark points of interest simplifies navigation during outdoor activities.
The ability to download detailed maps and mark points of interest simplifies navigation during outdoor activities. Health Monitoring Features: New tools like nightly skin temperature tracking and manual ECG functionality (non-medical) offer deeper insights into your overall health.
New tools like nightly skin temperature tracking and manual ECG functionality (non-medical) offer deeper insights into your overall health. Utility Features: Practical additions such as a virtual flashlight, Polar OS 4.0, turn-by-turn guidance, a find-my-phone function, and an updated user interface improve usability.
These updates aim to deliver a more intuitive and feature-rich experience, but their real-world performance is where the watch's value truly comes into focus. Performance: Strengths and Limitations
The Polar Grit X2 delivers a mixed performance profile, excelling in certain areas while revealing limitations in others: GPS Accuracy: The dual-frequency GPS performs reliably on land, offering precise tracking for outdoor activities. However, its performance in open-water swimming is inconsistent, which may disappoint triathletes or swimmers.
The dual-frequency GPS performs reliably on land, offering precise tracking for outdoor activities. However, its performance in open-water swimming is inconsistent, which may disappoint triathletes or swimmers. Heart Rate Monitoring: The optical heart rate sensor provides accurate readings during steady-state activities but struggles to maintain precision during high-intensity workouts.
The optical heart rate sensor provides accurate readings during steady-state activities but struggles to maintain precision during high-intensity workouts. Processor Speed: The upgraded processor ensures faster response times and smoother operation, significantly enhancing the user experience.
The upgraded processor ensures faster response times and smoother operation, significantly enhancing the user experience. Battery Life: While the AMOLED display improves visuals, it slightly reduces battery life. The watch offers 30 hours in GPS mode and up to 90 hours in economy mode, which is sufficient for most users but less competitive compared to some alternatives.
These performance characteristics highlight the watch's strengths in land-based activities but expose its limitations in aquatic environments and during high-intensity tracking. Design and Durability
The Polar Grit X2 strikes a balance between aesthetics and durability with its 45mm case and stainless steel bezel. Its lighter and more compact design compared to the Grit X2 Pro makes it comfortable for everyday wear. However, there is a notable compromise: Waterproofing: The waterproof rating has been reduced from 100m to 50m, limiting its suitability for swimming or water-based sports.
This reduction in waterproofing may deter users who frequently engage in aquatic activities, as it restricts the watch's versatility in such environments. How Does It Compare to the Grit X2 Pro?
For those considering the Grit X2 Pro, here's how it differs from the standard Grit X2: Size and Build: The Pro model features a larger 49mm case and a titanium build, offering enhanced durability and a more premium feel.
The Pro model features a larger 49mm case and a titanium build, offering enhanced durability and a more premium feel. Battery Life: The Pro version provides extended battery life, catering to users who prioritize endurance over compactness.
The Pro version provides extended battery life, catering to users who prioritize endurance over compactness. Software Features: Both models share the same operating system and software capabilities, making sure identical functionality regardless of the version you choose.
Ultimately, the choice between the Grit X2 and Grit X2 Pro will depend on your preferences for size, materials, and battery performance. Pricing and Availability
The Polar Grit X2 is priced at €479 in Europe, reflecting a modest increase from the original Grit X. However, its availability in the U.S. has been delayed due to tariff-related challenges, potentially limiting its reach for American consumers. Despite this, the watch remains a competitive option in the European market, offering a strong combination of features and value for its price. What Could Be Improved?
While the Grit X2 offers an impressive array of features, there are areas where it could benefit from further refinement: Polar Flow App: The companion app could be redesigned to improve its intuitiveness and overall user experience.
The companion app could be redesigned to improve its intuitiveness and overall user experience. User Interface: Although updated, the interface still has room for improvement. For instance, allowing turn-by-turn guidance after starting a workout is cumbersome and could be streamlined.
Although updated, the interface still has room for improvement. For instance, allowing turn-by-turn guidance after starting a workout is cumbersome and could be streamlined. Sleep Tracking: The sleep tracking feature provides valuable insights, but its overly complex interface makes the data less actionable for users.
Addressing these issues would significantly enhance the overall usability and appeal of the watch. Final Considerations
The Polar Grit X2 is a versatile multisport watch that combines advanced features with competitive pricing. Its AMOLED display, dual-frequency GPS, and enhanced mapping capabilities make it a compelling choice for outdoor enthusiasts. However, trade-offs such as reduced waterproofing and shorter battery life may influence your decision. While the hardware upgrades are impressive, further software refinements are necessary to unlock the watch's full potential.
If you are seeking a reliable fitness companion with robust tracking capabilities and a sleek design, the Grit X2 is worth considering. However, carefully evaluate its limitations to ensure it aligns with your specific needs and preferences.
Enhance your knowledge on Polar Grit X2 by exploring a selection of articles and guides on the subject.
Source & Image Credit: DC Rainmaker Filed Under: Gadgets News, Guides, Technology News
Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals
Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform threat. Telling people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday?
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Top public health experts in England say more doctor strikes would be futile
Six senior figures in England's medical profession have criticised potential strikes by resident doctors as 'a futile gesture' that will harm patients and help those who oppose the NHS. The move is the first public evidence of the significant unease many senior doctors feel about the possibility of their junior colleagues staging a new campaign of industrial action in England. In a letter to the Guardian the six medics and former medics say resident – formerly junior – doctors' demand for a 29% pay rise is unaffordable, given the government has 'no spare money'. The signatories include Sir John Oldham, a health adviser to several governments, Dr Clare Gerada, a former chair of the Royal College of GPs who also served on the BMA's ruling council, and the public health expert Prof John Ashton. Their letter comes as the British Medical Association (BMA) ballots resident doctors in England about striking again, as they did in 2023 and 2024. The co-chairs of the BMA's resident doctors committee (RDC) have urged their estimated 55,000 members to vote for the action. The six experts say there was a genuine case for resident doctors to receive a big salary increase after years of erosion in the value of their pay, but that it had largely been addressed by the 22% they received last year for 2023/24 and 2024/25 and the average 5.4% they were given last month for 2025/26. They also say the RDC leaders' call for resident doctors to back a fresh six-month campaign of walkouts is mistaken. 'A strike now would harm patients and diminish the cause of these doctors. The calls for strike misjudge the mood in the country. There is no spare money. This is a futile gesture guiding people into a maze without a thread', they write in their letter. 'In our view the NHS is at a more perilous state than at any time in our careers. A doctors strike would further diminish the ability of the NHS to deliver, and play into the hands of those who don't believe in an NHS – publicly funded [and] based on need not want. 'We urge resident doctors to keep to the spirit of the Hippocratic oath – vote for the NHS and vote No to strike action.' The other signatories are David Colin-Thome, the Department of Health's national clinical director for primary care under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown; Dr James Kingsland, a GP and former ministerial adviser; and Dr Fiona Cornish, a senior GP in Cambridge and former member of the BMA's GP committee. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, appointed Oldham, who worked for the previous Labour and coalition governments, as a senior adviser in March on his plans to create more 'neighbourhood health' services as part of the government's forthcoming 10-year plan for the NHS. Responding to the letter, Streeting urged resident doctors to reject industrial action in their ballot, which ends on 7 July. 'Strikes should only ever be a last resort. Resident doctors have had a 28.9% pay rise [since 2022/23], and they have a government working with them to improve their career progression and conditions. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'I say to the BMA: the government has changed, our policies have changed, your tactics need to change too. Instead of cutting the NHS recovery off at its knees, work with us to turn the health service around', he said. However, RDC co-chairs Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt, said this year's 5.4% pay award – the biggest in the public sector – was too little to help them restore the lost value of their earnings since 2008. 'Resident doctors are currently paid 23% less than they were in 2008. Even after this year's pay award it would still need a rise of 26% to bring pay back to that level. 'We don't believe any of the doctors in this letter are worth 23% less than they were in 2008, and neither presumably do they. The question, then, is how we restore the value of this profession, how quickly, and how we work with government to get there. 'At the rate Wes Streeting is suggesting it would take more than a decade to restore our pay. The NHS does not have that time,' they said.
BreakingNews.ie
4 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Plans for HSE primary care centre delayed over residents' concerns it wlll house methadone clinic
Plans for a new primary care centre in part of the former Baggot Street Hospital in Dublin have been placed on hold following an appeal by both the HSE and objection from local residents who fear the facility may include a methadone clinic. Several appeals have been lodged with An Bord Pleanála against the recent decision of Dublin City Council to grant planning permission for the proposed new medical centre to be located at the rear of the main hospital building on Baggot Street Upper. Advertisement The HSE is hoping to develop the new primary care centre including a pharmacy in vacant buildings which form part of the former Baggot Street Hospital site at the junction of Haddington Road and Eastmoreland Lane. The red-bricked building known formally as the Royal City of Dublin Hospital, has been closed as a hospital since 1987. The new facility to be known as The Haddington Road Primary Care Centre will incorporate an existing three-storey Victorian building and a newly constructed building up to six storeys in height. The plans also provide for the demolition of some buildings dating from the 1950s which were used by the HSE to provide community health services including a drug treatment clinic up to 2019. Advertisement However, the HSE has separately appealed a condition imposed by Dublin City Council as part of the grant of planning permission to omit one floor of the proposed development because of the local authority's serious concerns about the height of the development. The HSE claim the requirement to omit one of the six storeys would have minimal impact on the overshadowing of neighbouring properties but would make the development of the primary care centre 'unfeasible". It is also appealing a requirement to submit a maintenance and works programme for the main hospital building. In its appeal, the HSE said it believed the conditions were unjustified and would have a severe negative impact on the efficient operation of and delivery of services at the proposed primary care centre. Advertisement The HSE said it had already reduced the ceiling height of each floor which had reduced the building's overall height by 1.85 metres to 23.1 metres. The council's ruling is also being appealed by several local residents and business owners including the Pembroke Road Association. Although the residents' group recognised the need for a new primary care centre in the area, it criticised its proposed height which it said would be 'disruptive' and 'entirely excessive". Together with other individual appellants, the Pembroke Road Association also expressed concern that a methadone clinic is being considered as part of the new facility. Advertisement The group claims the layout of the proposed centre with an entirely separate pharmacy 'would indicate a methadone dispensing service". However, Dublin City Council said any issue of the medical centre being used for dispensing methadone was under the remit of the HSE's operational governance and healthcare regulations rather than planning control. Planning files submitted by the HSE make no reference to any type of drug treatment clinic being proposed. The HSE said it had identified a need to provide a new primary care centre in a modern purpose-built building to serve the healthcare needs of the local community in the Baggot Street and Sandymount areas. Advertisement The new facility will provide a range of services including public health nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, speech and language therapy, dietetics as well as a pharmacy. Separately council planners expressed concern about the lack of any future plans for development of the former hospital building, which it described as 'a sensitive protected structure' and asked the HSE to re-examine its potential reuse. However, the HSE said a report into the potential use of the building for use for healthcare purposes, which was carried out in October 2022, had concluded that it would 'present a number of serious challenges in terms of structure, fire safety, access, services, conservation, cost and time". The HSE claimed the proposed development would not involve any works that would affect the special character of the protected structure or result in the removal of significant original fabric or features of interest. The HSE's chief executive, Bernard Gloster, informed the Department of Health last year that the former hospital is surplus to its needs as it is no longer deemed suitable for delivering public healthcare services. Last month, the HSE indicated the building is to be sold on the open market as no State agency wanted to use the premises whose condition has deteriorated over the years. However, the HSE said the absence of a confirmed use for the buildings should not hinder the development of the proposed primary care centre. Council planners said a masterplan for the entire site would have been better 'in terms of a meaningfully developed site rather than the current proposal". 'The redevelopment of part of this site without consideration of this structure is worrying and is not considered planning best practice,' they added. The council said it has included 'robust conditions' to the grant of planning permission as the response of the HSE to a wide range of concerns raised over the plans was 'disappointing.' 'Minimal alterations were made which did not address these concerns,' it observed. The council acknowledged that they might affect the functionality of the new facility but said it had to ensure the amenity of adjoining structures and the future development potential of adjoining sites was protected. It also expressed disappointment with the delay by the HSE in disposing of the main hospital as it had a detrimental impact on the fabric of the building that was being protected. A ruling by An Bord Pleanála on the various appeals is due by early October.
