@freeheeler it’s so easier than listen customer and improve product… I’m sad because i support Suunto since my old Core in 2010 or something like that. I always say to peoplz it’s good tool but actually i’m worried…
@Cuba1hr@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos I think Polar simply looks at your heart rate distribution and uses established equations on fat/carbs as primary fuel source based on intensity.
The fun part is: if you rely on default heart rate zones set by Polar or yet another age-based formula, this number is probably off, and by a lot. You need to be below your aerobic threshold to use fat as a primary fuel and in a steady state activity. Go harder than necessary, or in an interval stop-go fashion, and you’ll be relying on alactic or anaerobic pathways.
Check out Uphill Athlete. They have multiple ways to test for aerobic and anaerobic thresholds. Once you have these, set your Suunto 9 heart rate zones based on their recommendation and do long runs or bike sessions (working up to 90-120 minutes a pop, longer sessions being really good at forcing your body to rely on fats and conserve carbs) below your aerobic threshold. That would build up an aerobic base and force all sorts of metabolism enhancing adaptations.
Between consistent exercise and clean, reasonable diet, you’d be in decent shape in no time.
@freeheeler Hello, I was on a tour today and the values were right (reset the clock to the factory settings), there was a deviation of 10m on the first summit, 1m on the second and 5m on the third !! Thank you for your support! Best regards, Rony
For 1. There is the at-a-glance position-off-paths I mentioned above. It does require high quality maps, tho’. Possibly better than OSM for the reasons you give in …
Absolutely … which is why @Mff73’s icon suggestion seems good. Assuming the planner SW represents the junction accurately at all, it should get the number of crossing paths correct*. Thus you only need to know which notionally numbered exit to use, not its real-world departure angle.
(*Also assuming no additional tracks have been stomped thru’ in the interim.)
The more research I did when deciding to get a running/hiking watch, the more it pushed me in the direction of deliberately getting one without built-in HR. My dainty and hairy wrists ultimately tilted me to the Spartan Ultra, and I don’t regret that decision at all. There was no sense for me to spring for an extra feature that would probably never work well on my wrist.
Ironically I’ve ended up using an optical HR monitor for workouts, and I have total trust in it now, but it’s worn against my upper arm on an elastic band. Optical HR can be very reliable; the problem is the wrist is pretty much the worst place to put a monitor, but that’s where watches have to be worn.
I exported the FIT files of two moves from Runalyze and used GPXSee to analyze the fit files. The tool has 2 ways to calculate the speed: “By distance/time” or “Recorded by device”
Unfortunately the speed with GPS only didn’t improved very much after the latest firmware update if I calculate the speed by distance/time:
If I calculate the speed by “Recorded by device” it started to look a bit better:
The move with GPS+GLONASS however looks much cleaner if the speed is recorded by distance/time. Especially the second half
Is this because of a better/stronger signal if I combine GPS+GLONASS?
So it looks like the firmware update solved the speed wobble a little bit, but not quite like the Ambit 3 Peak. The speed spikes are also visible on the watch screen during the move, so it isn’t only the FIT file.
I use the watch a lot, and navigate with waypoints normally for bike rides around 200k, shorter ones I know where I am going so don’t normally use a route and the atch is perfect.
Just these two walks one reversing a track and crashed at second waypoint, the other following it as plotted at second waypoint, the waypoints were around a 2km from each other. The only other thing I can think of that I had done different to normal was not use the top GPS tracking.
I’ll try and plot another route to the same spot and see if I can reproduce it.
After the Crash on Saturday, I think around 6km into a 42 km walk, after I restarted the watch it navigated perfectly for the remaining distance, and I did leave then return to the route a few times with no issue. This time I used top GPS tracking which was why I mentioned it. By the sounds of it a total coinsidence but both crashes were using the second tier tracking.
@paradize He promised an in-depth review of the Apple Watch 4.
He did all of the previous versions without much fanfare because to this date, Apple Watch remains kind of a marginal player as far as athletic endeavors are concerned. It’s the big boys like Garmin, Suunto, and Polar who get special attention. First look, unboxing, hand on, in-depth…
Also, I suppose the fact that Apple doesn’t send him a device a month or two before the release has something to do with the lack of early articles too 😅
Hey all, I don’t want to create new topic so I’ll write here if you don’t mind.
What if I have 2 different watches and two HR belts, if I pair one belt with one watch and second with second. Is there any option that first watch will read HR from second belt or it cannot happend? I just want to avoid situation that I’ll record HR’s partner