@SmileyMusic it's much simpler. Versa 2 uses your phone's GPS as it doesn't have built-in GPS. All you need is to take your mobile phone with you and start running using the Exercise app on your watch (don't use autodetection, best - turn it off completely). You need to connect accounts Fitbit and Strava and/or TrainingPeaks and all synchronization should be done automatically. You finish the run, stop tracking on the watch, sync the watch with the Fitbit app and your run should appear in Strava/TrainingPeaks. So this bit will work for you (probably, because I have never tried it but there are some users here who did).
There are a few issues that runners may have using the Fitbit watch. One is that the distance tracking algorithm is inconsistent. When running the same distance, often it will show very different results and that is something affecting the pace. If you want to run using HR training zones (lots of runners do that as it's one of the ways to control the level of effort, especially for easy runs), Fitbit has no support for it (the HR zones in Fitbit are not useful at all and they don't match any known training model). Fitbit platform doesn't help measure the progress of training. You can't compare runs and there are no natively supported running PBs (like most popular distances). Without software like TP, it's really difficult to say whether you are getting better. Some other features like support for external HR sensors (I run always with a chest strap paired with my running watch for accuracy and additional metrics like HRV and the respiratory rate which aren't available when using optical HR) and at some point, you may find that it's something you need (especially for accuracy during interval type workouts like Fartlek). The basic capture can be done with Versa 2, and some analysis can be done with third-party software but that software sometimes needs more data, too and Fitbit isn't providing it (for example, no running cadence).
This is just my opinion (speaking from experience) of what a runner's watch should support:
- External sensors support (HR and FootPODs like Stryd, for me it's an absolute "must-have") - even the best-running watch won't be as accurate as an HR chest-strap.
- Configurable screens during running (many data fields, adding new screens and configuring them to display what you want, another "must-have")
- Basic metrics in various domains (like pace for lap, rolling average, 3s etc.)
- Configurable notifications (for HR, pace, distance, power etc.) - for me optional, I don't like notifications and find them distracting but there are probably many more runners who would disagree with me on that subject.
- In-watch navigation and maps - this may be seen as not very necessary but it opens new possibilities when it comes to running and exploring new routes. When I was moving from Suunto to Garmin one of the reasons was better maps and navigation. I do realize however that it may be a totally optional thing for many. I run mostly trails and often explore new places so in-watch navigation helps to stay on course.
- In-watch complex workouts and training features (targets, complex intervals etc.)
- Native or third-party running power support - this is a fairly new metric when it comes to running but since I run by power it totally changed the way I run (and improved it a lot with several new PBs). If the watch doesn't support power it should at least support Stryd pod. This is probably the most "optional" thing for the majority of runners but for me, it's now a "very-must-have".
The platform should on the other hand support in-depth analysis of data (aggregation, comparison, charts, exporting, importing etc.) as well as good support for third-party platforms. It should all come together. I like my watch platform but still, I prefer TrainingPeaks when it comes to getting ready for a race. I usually analyse my data using several platforms.
If you look for a runner's watch there are plenty in the market that supports this and even more.
