Garmin has released the Forerunner 70 and 170 models.

I look at Garmin's current product range and my main reaction is confusion.

I have a Forerunner 255, which I upgraded to from a 245 because one of the buttons on the 245 became mushy (and was refunded under John Lewis's 2 year guarantee). The 255 is a great watch and was a strong incremental improvement over the 255. My only complaint, and it is a big one, is that the Elevate v4 HR sensor doesn't work correctly when running at tempo paces and I've had to pair it with a chest strap (Polar H10). This is the first watch where I've needed a chest strap (the v3 in the 245 was fine). When running at those paces it would show my HR climbing for a while up to the expected area, then suddenly dropping back to 130 and sitting there for the rest of the run (the correct reading is somewhere around 170).

The product naming of the current Forerunner range is confusing. We had an obvious model upgrade path from 245 to 255, then 265, and now we've got 70, 170, 570 and 970. So users of the extremely popular 2xx series and left thinking "???" and having to research how the current naming schemes relate to what they're familiar with.

The 70 looks like an entry level watch, but at £220 they're pushing the definition of entry level a bit. The 170 is trying to fit into the value for money placement with a few more features and a slightly higher price at £250, whereas the 570 and 970 are more like luxury products at £459 and £629 respectively. So you'd think the 170 is the obvious successor to the 255, right? Well, not exactly. Because going from a 255 to a 170, you're paying more and losing:

• Multi band GPS
• 4 days of battery life (14 days vs 10 days)
• Always on display, unless you want to sacrifice another 6 days of battery life
• Screen size (33mm vs 30mm)
• Performance condition metric
• Triathlon multisport mode apparently, not that I've ever used it

What you gain, in common with the whole x70 range, is a training readiness metric and nicer looking AMOLED screen and touchscreen. Personally I am not convinced that the AMOLED screens are an improvement over the MIP screens. The MIP screens are low power, always on, and completely visible in any light conditions. I don't think the loss of battery life and always on functionality is worth the nicer colours and pixel density of an AMOLED display. If they could lower the power consumption I'd probably accept the visibility tradeoff for the nicer colours and clearer display, but battery life is really a feature I've come to associate with Garmin and it's a shame they're throwing that away.

In fact, the 170 has the worst battery life of the x70 range (13, 10, 11, 15 days for the 70, 170, 570, 970 respectively). Also, the 70 and 170 both have the same 5 year old dysfunctional Elevate v4 HR sensor as my 255, whereas the 570 and 970 have the v5. Overall I find the product line a bit of a mess and overpriced at every level.

If you want feature parity with the 255 in this generation, then, well, you can't have it because the AMOLED screen limits battery life, but the best match is probably the 570 at a mere £459 - just over twice as much as a new 255!

Garmin has other product lines like the Fenix, Venu, Instinct, Enduro and Vivoactive, so maybe there's a better upgrade path from the 255 into one of those series, but Garmin don't make it obvious. This suggests Garmin thinks its main competition is with its own product lines, which may have been true in the past. But looking at other manufacturers' offerings, this is now less true than ever.