Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9
-
@freeheeler I’m waiting to have planned workout and structured workouts, then Spartan and Garmin 745 will go directly to the shelve and buy S9P or S9P XL or S5P Baro (let me dream)
BR
-
@foxster said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
Baro for me is not that important as the accuracy of the GPS altitude is fine for my trail running and hiking.
Accuracy of GPS is fine for the absolute altitude but not for calculating total ascent / descent. Non-baro Suunto watches have a rather large threshold so you’ll see total ascent / descent values noticeably smaller than actual.
-
@sky-runner only if you hike small hills. If I go up a mountain with 600-1000 vertical meters, elevation is spot on with map/baro version. Elevation is only no good for hills.
-
@dmytro Agree with this. Roling hills not so good but decent climbs are not far off. Feel like it’s got a bit better over the last update; I used to be way off compared to my training partner who uses a Garmin Enduro, now it’s pretty similar. Happy with this as my S9B always used to massively under report elevation gain
I do believe there’s a full fix coming in a future update
-
@miniforklift I mean the non baro version, but alright
-
@dmytro said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
@miniforklift I mean the non baro version, but alright
Oh, sorry. Yeah well the same seems to apply for the Baro version too, something Suunto is aware of and working on
-
@miniforklift I hope there is some research going into non baro algorithms as well, I think a lot can be done with algorithms to compensate for noise from GPS data.
-
@freeheeler said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
@foxster said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
Of course, the ideal would be a Peak with a larger display. Hopefully that’s something Suunto is considering
would be my potential next watch
It will be called “Ambit 4”
-
@dmytro I think that the non-baro versions are being improved. I can get very good altitude gains from non-baro watches on big climbs. Eventually, when GPS altitude is more reliable we can do away with the baro sensor for altitude as it has problems too. Running into major head winds with a baro gave me at least 5-fold greater ascent than the actual ascent.
-
@brad_olwin you mean improved in general or in an upcoming releases? Sure, I’m more than satisfied with the performance of my watch, the only problem for now are hill repeats with undercounting and cloudy days on flat terrain with overcounting.
-
@dmytro both I hope. I imagine that with antenna and satellite improvements this will happen.
Vector/T6c/Ambit 3 Peak/S5 Copper/S3/S7 Ti/S9 baro Ti/S9P Ti/S9PP Ti/Vertical Ti/Race Ti/RaceS/Ocean/Wing
-
@brad_olwin
I would always go for a baro version.
I’ve never had issues with gusts so far… only with my sweaty forearm
-
@brad_olwin I think that if you wear the watch in the left arm won’t be much issues with wind, the sensor is less exposed.
-
@cosme-costa said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
@brad_olwin I think that if you wear the watch in the left arm won’t be much issues with wind, the sensor is less exposed.
I was wearing on the left arm, an S9baro gave huge overestimates because a very strong wind was blowing directly into the sensor. I have had this happen more than once. It dies not matter how the watch is worn.
So far this has not occurred with the S9Peak.
-
F freeheeler referenced this topic on
-
@dmytro The error is the same with the bug hills - it is just relatively small and therefore not noticeable. Basically, it loses a fixed amount of elevation gain on every single climb no matter how short or long it is. If there is only one large climb the error is relatively tiny compared to the overall elevation gain. However when there are a lot of small climbs, for example when running on rolling hills, the accumulated error may be significant. My estimate is that Suunto 9 Baro loses 3-7 meters (10-20 feet) per climb. The non baro version loses even more.
-
@suzzlo Garmin is light years ahead of there competitors and I suspect they always will be. With that said, it’s likely that you’ll always have a reason to use Garmin. If you’re committed to Suunto (and that’s fine), you should probably stop using competitor devices since Suunto will likely always be behind or missing some feature that you like on a Garmin.
-
@tyresej4 said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
Garmin is light years ahead of there competitors and I suspect they always will be.
That’s why, I think, Suunto needs to look for niches that Garmin neglects.
For example, two years of owning a Garmin has made it clear to me that Garmin, for the most part doesn’t understand, trail and ultra running. Garmin focuses either on road running, cycling, triathlon, etc or on slower activities like walking and hiking. But trail running has a number of challenges that Garmin deals very poorly with. The same probably applies to sports like MTB. That includes, challenging conditions for GPS reception and very dynamic pace that throws Garmin’s instant pace algorithm off and makes instant pace borderline unusable.
Years ago Suunto Ambit watches were super popular in my area among trail runners. When I was at a start of any serious trail running race I can guarantee that at least third if not half of all competitors would have an Ambit, and there were good reasons for that. Those people, for the most part, didn’t care about fitness features of Garmin, but needed a robust watch with bulletproof reliability and GPS that was accurate on wooded mountainous trails.
That is the niche that I think Suunto has mostly given up despite the fact that trail running is still growing rapidly. If Suunto really focused on trail running and especially mountain/trail adventure/ultra racing, it could shine again.
Just out of my head, features that would matter:
-
Beat in class GPS accuracy.
-
Tracking aid stations / checkpoints with remaining distance and progress against planned splits. That should also include tracking remaining ascent / descent to the next aid station or checkpoint. For ultra running it is essential to be able to split the entire distance into smaller segments and focus on each one separately.
-
Accurate navigation directions. Having a map isn’t as essential as long as there is an easy way to generate/edit directions in advance and upload them to the watch. Suunto already had this for the most part, but a large screen / desktop route editing is needed.
-
A function like Climb Pro or Hill Splitter that allows to track progress during climbing / descending
-
Tracking timing of hydration and fueling.
Personally, I’d also really like to see a reliable implementation of Strava live segments. This is something that Garmin has implemented very poorly, especially for trail running segments.
The list above is probably just a slice of features that other trail runners would find essential. If Suunto could again position itself as a premier brand for trail / ultra / adventure running and racing, I think that would be great for is future.
-
-
@sky-runner I completely understand your point, and unfortunately I have to say, that in my opinion Suunto right now is also behind in trailrunning.
Besides the snap to route function there is nothing a Garmin cannot not do (or even do better).
I love Suunto but the unreliable data and GPS problems might make me switch to Garmin (when my S9B dies). -
@sky-runner said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
For example, two years of owning a Garmin has made it clear to me that Garmin, for the most part doesn’t understand, trail and ultra running. Garmin focuses either on road running, cycling, triathlon, etc or on slower activities like walking and hiking. But trail running has a number of challenges that Garmin deals very poorly with. The same probably applies to sports like MTB. That includes, challenging conditions for GPS reception and very dynamic pace that throws Garmin’s instant pace algorithm off and makes instant pace borderline unusable.
FWIW My training partner switched to the Garmin Enduro from his S9B a good few months ago. He’s primarily a trail ultrarunner who averages around 100-130km/week and is winning many of the ultra’s he enters… if he doesn’t win he’s usually on the podium
According to his experiences of using both watches the Enduro is way ahead of the S9B and there’s actually nothing that the S9B does better than the Enduro. Altitude and elevation gain is more accurate (he runs in a group at least a couple of times a week where his S9B was usually considerably down in vert), Strava Live Segments are flawless, better GPS in heavy woodland or cloudy/overcast days and obviously better battery life
Maybe for some there’s personal preference on a few things, but when you have a top calibre runner that’s extensively used both watches with no particular bias to brand you shouldn’t write off his opinion. Maybe some of the cheaper Garmin watches don’t cater for trail or ultra runners but it seems clear to me that the Enduro most certainly does
SV Titanium Solar Forest
-
@theguyfromthesummit, I tend to disagree. I have the opposite experience. My Garmin F6 provides messy data (e.g., training status - one big mess once you hit the trail you, of course, have lower VOmax and immediately I’m unproductive then I’m running on flat and I’m productive, etc.) compared S9P, but that’s individual for each person. Garmin gives you many features that you are impressed about at the start, and then you never use it, at least that’s my experience, e.g. find my phone - never working correctly, wallet - you scared that they get hit again by hackers, music - disappears from the watch, etc.
