Got My Expresso WR 62 Today - Not Off To A Good Start

[bag302]

Not worth upgrading from an S1, but if you are buying for the first time, I would choose the expresso

[Newy]

Just so you know, the hazards loaded into the watch are based on iGolf info which only has 4 hazards per hole total. So two hazards per hole are left out.

The methodology used for which hazards get "into" the watch, so I've been told, is based on their proximity to the tee box as fairway hazards are deemed more important than greenside ones, which is as it should be because the watch already has yardages to front, center and back.

I decided to keep the watch and am finally going to get a chance to use the golf features for a 54-holer on Tuesday. Will report back with my on course experience...

And for my fellow Canadians, I can't think of a course that the watch doesn't come preloaded with. Pretty cool.

[RecreationalHacker]

[quote name='Rickochet' timestamp='1343090347' post='5337896']
After having a great year with my Garmin S-1 Approach GPS watch I was intrigued with the Expresso WR62 watch that advertised hazard distances and better battery life than the the S1. Intheholegolf had a very nice Memorial Day weekend sale so I jumped on it knowing it was backordered with expected shipping of 6/11. Well, software upgrades dragged delivery out an I finally got it two months after ordering. No problem with IntheHole as they shipped it as soon as they got them,

So I pull it out of the box and it is indeed a very nice looking watch and seems a tad lighter than the S1, not that it was too heavy. The first complaint I have is the watch band. It is not a simple stick the end of the band through the other end and stick the post in the hole like most normal watch bands. It has a click to close custom fitted band that must be trimmed on both ends. Trim it too short and the band is toast. And you have to be able to pull the spring pins out to do this. The quick start guide says to take the watch to a local jeweler or watch store to get the band fitted. WTF?

Next problem. The quick start guide that had limited info gave a link to download the full instruction manual. The link doesn't work..

So next issue. I go to iGolf to register the unit. Registration goes ok although it was a bit tough to wade through their website. It would have been easier to register it through Expresso with a link. Now to sync. I read somewhere on the web of people having trouble syncing to iGolf using Win 7, 64 bit. I called the Expresso CS and was told that this would be no issue. I tried syncing with iGolf and it would not sync. The site says unless sync is done withing 90 days it cannot be done.

Anywho, the watch may perform superbly and I may never have to sync. I just think things got off to a very clumbsy start.

Anyone with any experience with the WR would be appreciated.

Rick
[/quote]


I am not sure why everyone is making such a big deal out of the band. These are higher end bands than the usual sports watch band although they do require taking time to adjust...but it's not complicated. The normal bands on my old sports watches get brittle and break in about a year. Hopefully, these will last longer although only time will tell. An ESN customer service rep told me that they will warranty the band for 2 years against normal wear.

The iGolf web site was somewhat of a disappointment. I was never able to sync the watch but ESN confirmed that I had the most recent firmware and database so sync'ing wasn't necessary.

With respect to the watch, I'm not sure what an instruction "manual" would say beyond the little pamphlet that came with it. I just went to the "locate" menu and the watch determined where I was and correctly set the date and time including daylight savings. The menus and buttons are logical and easy to figure out in about 30 seconds. iGolf instructions on the other hand......

The watch has worked great on the course and does what it's supposed to. It's really convenient to get information at a glance when you need it. I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to do with iGolf. We are supposed to be able to download 50 additional courses, but I'm not sure it that's working yet. And since I haven't been able to sync, I don't know if that will affect my ability to download single courses.

In my experience, the WR62 is (so far) a fine GPS watch. My experience with iGolf has been less than stellar. I guess ESN "owns" some of the iGolf issues since this is the service that supports their watch.

[Rickochet]

[quote name='melcoeb' timestamp='1344616212' post='5444732']
I'm glad members are posting their reviews of the WR62. I was ready to buy it, thinking that all hazard info is on it; turns it that it only shows distances to 2 hazards per hole. Not good enough to make me switch from my S1.
[/quote]

Had I known about the two hazard limit I would not have sold my Garmin S -1 and ordered the WR62. But now that I have it I guess I will keep it not wanting to spend more for another S - 1 that is more expensive and does less. In general it is as good as the S -1 plus does have some hazard info and better battery life and costs less.

I am very impressed with the ESN customer service. I got an email out of the clear blue from their VP asking how things were going with the watch. He also corrected an earlier statement about the hazard info. He told me the watch shows the two hazards closest to the tee box, not closest to the green which he previously stated. Apparently the creek hazard I mentioned earlier was missed by the iGolf mappers. I will email iGolf about that.

[Newy]

Got 11 holes in today before we got rained out. GPS was not accurate. Had a HDOP of 0.9 and 9 sats registered. Example: lasered 150 to a front pin and WR62 said 152 to front of green. Not good.

On #8, a Par 4 around 440 yds, the 2 bunkers around 250 yds from the tee were not noted in favour of 2 bunkers around 50 yards short of the green. Silly.

Battery life not an issue as indicator showed 4 bars when we done although we were only out the for 100 minutes tops.

Comfortable and cool for sure but hoping for better results next time out...

[IC3BURGH]

How does face size of the Expresso compare to the Garmin offerings? Bigger or smaller?

Not sure I would feel comfortable golfing with a big watch, but I like the idea of a GPS watch...

[bag302]

[quote name='tweakedmelon' timestamp='1344988954' post='5472700']
How does face size of the Expresso compare to the Garmin offerings? Bigger or smaller?

Not sure I would feel comfortable golfing with a big watch, but I like the idea of a GPS watch...
[/quote]

Similar. I never wore a watch golfing before, but neither the Garmin nor the Expresso interfered with my swing. I played my second round with the WR62 and it was fine. Distance was spot on as checked by my laser throughout the round.

I have not been able to get the watch to sync with iGolf, but haven't needed it either.

Very happy with the watch so far. Especially for the price.

[RecreationalHacker]

[quote name='tweakedmelon' timestamp='1344988954' post='5472700']
How does face size of the Expresso compare to the Garmin offerings? Bigger or smaller?

Not sure I would feel comfortable golfing with a big watch, but I like the idea of a GPS watch...
[/quote]

Can't comment on the garmin, but the bezel on the WR62 is 34mm.

[Rickochet]

I played a round on Weds using the WR. I am finding the battery life to be super and the distances accurate. The sad stuff is hazard info which is the reason I sold my Garmin and bought the WR. The course I played has few bunkers but lots of water. The water hazards are lakes and many times bigger than the greens. Out ot the 6 or 8 holes with the lakes I got maybe 2 that listed water hazard info and the others showed "no hazard."

I don't blame the WR but I think it has some piss poor mapping from iGolf or whoever does their mapping.

So, basically if am finding the WR62 to be a good basic watch but if you are expecting much from the hazard info you might be disappointed.

[Rickochet]

I just wanted to post an update on the WR 62. I went for a walk this morning and used the Odometer function on the WR for the first time. It really works well. It gives you the elapsed time in the center and the distance in Miles at the top and Kilometers at the bottom. This is a very nice feature.

[RecreationalHacker]

[quote name='Rickochet' timestamp='1345242407' post='5491384']
I played a round on Weds using the WR. I am finding the battery life to be super and the distances accurate. The sad stuff is hazard info which is the reason I sold my Garmin and bought the WR. The course I played has few bunkers but lots of water. The water hazards are lakes and many times bigger than the greens. Out ot the 6 or 8 holes with the lakes I got maybe 2 that listed water hazard info and the others showed "no hazard."

I don't blame the WR but I think it has some piss poor mapping from iGolf or whoever does their mapping.

So, basically if am finding the WR62 to be a good basic watch but if you are expecting much from the hazard info you might be disappointed.
[/quote]

I generally agree with this. I think the WR62 is a very good GPS watch and a great value. The hazard information seems to be hit or miss. Sometimes you have the hazard info you need and sometimes you don't. I guess the best anyone can say is that having some hazard information is better than none but it's not the huge benefit that I thought it would be.

[Rickochet]

[quote name='RecreationalHacker' timestamp='1345728646' post='5520976']
[quote name='Rickochet' timestamp='1345242407' post='5491384']
I played a round on Weds using the WR. I am finding the battery life to be super and the distances accurate. The sad stuff is hazard info which is the reason I sold my Garmin and bought the WR. The course I played has few bunkers but lots of water. The water hazards are lakes and many times bigger than the greens. Out ot the 6 or 8 holes with the lakes I got maybe 2 that listed water hazard info and the others showed "no hazard."

I don't blame the WR but I think it has some piss poor mapping from iGolf or whoever does their mapping.

So, basically if am finding the WR62 to be a good basic watch but if you are expecting much from the hazard info you might be disappointed.
[/quote]

I generally agree with this. I think the WR62 is a very good GPS watch and a great value. The hazard information seems to be hit or miss. Sometimes you have the hazard info you need and sometimes you don't. I guess the best anyone can say is that having some hazard information is better than none but it's not the huge benefit that I thought it would be.
[/quote]

I have played the WR62 on about 10 different courses. I am finding that important water hazard info is available on less than 40% of the holes. I don't understand this. A lake many times bigger than the green is in front of the green or a creek crossing the fairway and the lazy arse course mappers just managed to miss them. One or two courses maybe but less than 40% on ten courses is bullxxxx. I emailed this to the company and got the yadayada thank you for the input and they will keep this in mind for the next update.

Bottom line, I think it is a better watch than the Garmin S-1 as a basic golf GPS watch but advertising it as providing hazard info is misleading.

[RecreationalHacker]

[quote name='Rickochet' timestamp='1345761006' post='5524096']
[quote name='RecreationalHacker' timestamp='1345728646' post='5520976']
[quote name='Rickochet' timestamp='1345242407' post='5491384']
I played a round on Weds using the WR. I am finding the battery life to be super and the distances accurate. The sad stuff is hazard info which is the reason I sold my Garmin and bought the WR. The course I played has few bunkers but lots of water. The water hazards are lakes and many times bigger than the greens. Out ot the 6 or 8 holes with the lakes I got maybe 2 that listed water hazard info and the others showed "no hazard."

I don't blame the WR but I think it has some piss poor mapping from iGolf or whoever does their mapping.

So, basically if am finding the WR62 to be a good basic watch but if you are expecting much from the hazard info you might be disappointed.
[/quote]

I generally agree with this. I think the WR62 is a very good GPS watch and a great value. The hazard information seems to be hit or miss. Sometimes you have the hazard info you need and sometimes you don't. I guess the best anyone can say is that having some hazard information is better than none but it's not the huge benefit that I thought it would be.
[/quote]

I have played the WR62 on about 10 different courses. I am finding that important water hazard info is available on less than 40% of the holes. I don't understand this. A lake many times bigger than the green is in front of the green or a creek crossing the fairway and the lazy arse course mappers just managed to miss them. One or two courses maybe but less than 40% on ten courses is bullxxxx. I emailed this to the company and got the yadayada thank you for the input and they will keep this in mind for the next update.

Bottom line, I think it is a better watch than the Garmin S-1 as a basic golf GPS watch but advertising it as providing hazard info is misleading.
[/quote]
I haven't had the opportunity to play as much as I'd like lately, but with my limited experience with WR62, it does seem that when fairway bunkers and fairway water are present, the bunkers get priority. If we only have 2 hazards, then water should have priority over bunkers IMO. I only need carry distances for water in front of the tee. I would like layup and carry distances for water on the fairway. After that, throw in fairway bunkers. After that throw in green side bunkers.

[Rickochet]

Is really too bad about the hazards and totally fixable. It is a matter of mapping and programming. To get anything changed is a total PITA. You have to answer a bunch of question from iGolf and fax a copy of the scorecard for the course. There are mulitiple hazard issues for every course I have played. I don't have time to do this for every course I play. It should have been the mapper's job to identify the two most important hazards. I mentioned this to Expresso CS and they said that the problem with that is what is most important to me may not be important to someone else. BS. A par 5 with two creeks running across and someone may consider the greenside bunkers more important, right? I think the programmers just dropped the ball on this one.

[Apachekhoo]

I got the wr62.no issues here.

[duffer987]

Got the GPS watch a couple week ago and while not a perfect start I have to say I am happy with it.

Firstly, the band - the pins that are used to hold the clasp and band together can be a bit of a faff to tailor, but really you only need a small flathead screw driver and then something to cut the band with. The pins have springs so you just need to push one side of it in a bit and you can then lift the clasp off. No different than a toilet roll, just way way way way... way smaller. Then it's just a matter of cutting, refitting, cutting refitting, until you get it down to the correct size for you. A bit of a pain sure, but nothing too terrible.

Second, the initial charge: the first two times out the battery indicator said full, but it was done on the front nine both times. I did a system reset, went through another false full charge, but since then it has charged just fine. Good for 36 holes in a day and still indicated 1/2 life. As a watch it's days worth on a single charge.

Third, the hazards: yes they are hit and miss. They are also not consistently the first two off the tee or the two nearest the green. Played 4 different courses and have yet to establish which is preferred, although initial indications would be it's been more the first two off the tee.

Those things taken into consideration, I am happy with it. It fits well and I am someone who has never worn anything on his wrist before when golfing and it doesn't get in the way at all. The band, once cut down to the correct size is quite comfortable. The yardages seem pretty spot on. They were within a yard or two of the golf cart's GPS and when compared to my friends laser they seemed to bring up the same corresponding yardages.

If you want a simple front/middle/back yardage reader, with some random hazard yardages thrown in as a bonus, I think this would be a good purchase.

[greens hit]

[quote name='bag302' timestamp='1344446793' post='5430748']
That's too bad. Seems logical that a creek would take priority over a greenside bunker.

I only played one round with mine and lookung back I remember being faced with a water hazard creating a bottle necked fairway on a par five. I checked the watch for layup and carry, but the hazard was not there. Splash!!

Now I know why

I like the watch otherwise though. Better than the Garmin S1 I had.
[/quote]

Wow, you guys sound like that couple in England who drove into a ditch while following their GPS. How did you function at all a decade ago?