SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?
-
@Egika he doesn’t like his Garmin either
-
@Andrewx01 In my experience Garmin always ‘under-counts’. I’ve run with 3 watches simultanuosly (Suunto, Garmin and Apple) and the Suunto - Apple were basically showing the same distance (Even I was wondering how is that possible after HM). The problem with Garmin’s when you enter the trails (so under trees it uses some weird ‘smoothing’ and also their SatIQ kicks in). So to compare the best Suunto to Garmin is if you set the Garmin not to Auto in the Sattelite mode but to Best / 1s - even after this it undercounts but not by much roughly 200m in a HM).
So on a well measured track of 10.89km Suunto always gave me: 10.90 - 11km and Garmin 8.9km to 10.2 (of course this was with the terrible 6X, I’ve tried Forerruner 965 and the results are much better at: 10.75 to 10.90.Suunto watches: Ocean (Sand), Race (Titanium Charcoal), Vertical (Titanium Solar Sand), 9 Baro (Ambassador Edition), Spartan Ultra (Copper Edition), Ambit 2, S6
Suunto Wing -
@Egika said in SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?:
@zhang965 said in SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?:
Brad_Olwin said in SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?:
Comparing to an Epix2Pro about one year ago they were more or less identical for distance.
Wow, comparing epix 2 pro about one year ago.
It looks like we found why this person’s s9p has wrist power. Loool
I don’t know if you are having any personal issues, but what added value does your comment bring to this thread?
To let you add your added value in this post, darling
-
@zhang965 I don’t care about added values. Its a forum after all not a scientific publishing platform
-
@Hristijan-Petreski said in SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?:
@zhang965 I don’t care about added values. Its a forum after all not a scientific publishing platform
It’s why you are not Suunto’s target audience.
-
@zhang965 is this your idea of entertainment? thought you found greener pastured on Garmin - how is the Garmin forum?
-
@Hristijan-Petreski Interesting as my AWUltra is often less distance than the Vertical and I think (I cannot be fully certain, maybe I should test the loop I have used a wheel to measure distance) the Ultra is measuring short.
Vector/T6c/Ambit 3 Peak/S5 Copper/S3/S7 Ti/S9 baro Ti/S9P Ti/S9PP Ti/Vertical Ti/Race Ti/RaceS/Ocean/Wing
-
@altcmd said in SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?:
@zhang965 is this your idea of entertainment? thought you found greener pastured on Garmin - how is the Garmin forum?
Garmin’s forum is boring, less entertainment then Suunto community forum.
-
@zhang965 said in SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?:
Garmin’s forum is boring, less entertainment then Suunto community forum.
So you’ve already been banned over there, aren’t you luv.
-
@Andrewx01 I faced the exact same issue. I have a Garmin 965, COROS apex 2 pro, Apple Watch 8 and I do wear my vertical together with the rest of my watches just to test out the distances. The distance on my Vertical will invariably be clocked at longer distance , ie for a 10km run , it will be 200m longer for my vertical compared to Garmin 965 and COROS apex 2 pro.
When I use software to zoom in to the tracks, I can then understand where the extra distance came from as vertical tracks are more often zig Zac compared to the rest and I figured that must have been the reason. However, it seems vertical has the most accurate distance count by the experts. So I guess it should be.
-
@leafs93 said in SV clocking a 7.9mi loop at 8.15mi. Is this the general margin of error with Suunto?:
@Andrewx01 I faced the exact same issue. I have a Garmin 965, COROS apex 2 pro, Apple Watch 8 and I do wear my vertical together with the rest of my watches just to test out the distances. The distance on my Vertical will invariably be clocked at longer distance , ie for a 10km run , it will be 200m longer for my vertical compared to Garmin 965 and COROS apex 2 pro.
When I use software to zoom in to the tracks, I can then understand where the extra distance came from as vertical tracks are more often zig Zac compared to the rest and I figured that must have been the reason. However, it seems vertical has the most accurate distance count by the experts. So I guess it should be.
My vertical counts less distance when I run a little bit fast,; if I walk, it gives almost the same distance as epix2pro.
I saw Suunto’s tester was running at 16mins/km to proof the good gps tracker, sadly I cannot keep running in such a pace.
Have you tried run slower to see your vertical gps performance?
Winners Wear Winners
-
@Andrewx01 IMHO the matter is quite simple. For example, if you take a perfectly flat road and measure a distance of 1 mile, a watch that measures the GPS location every second will make a tiny error in each measurement. If you run a mile in 5 minutes, that’s at least 300 locations and 300 small misses. The algorithm (and each watch manufacturer has different algoritm) compensates these small errors, of course, but in the end there is still a deviation from the measurement in a straight line and the calculation of the path after 300 locations. In your case the error is around 3 %, which could be smaller, but it could also be larger
-
@Brad_Olwin Yes usually my AW gives me less distance too from cold start (their not so clever implementation to start the activity within 3 sec might be the case. So what I usually do is start an activity stop it after 5-10 sec - delete it and start again so the GPS lock should be much better).
-
@zhang965 walking will definitely get more distance as the gps track will not be smooth and is more zig Zac.
