Race S2 -> release?
-
@aiv4r yes but you don’t have a way to plan them outside of the app or watch. That’s not enough. With any other suunto watch and entry level watches from other brands you can plan and send them to the watch from outside plataforms like Runna, Intervals or TP.
Except for TP—since it’s unclear what will happen now that it belongs to Garmin. Even so, the future of all training platforms is quite uncertain given the rise of AI.
-
@Nelson-Diogo yea I mostly agree that is not enough for some people, but it is also possible. A lot of people use other platforms or coaches to get training plans. I mostly just check what I need/want to do that day and set it up on the watch (if it is intervals or sprints or what ever). Other than that why bother to automate it, I can mostly remember that I have a long run for about 2 hours or smth, not that difficult.
-
@Egika if you spread this rumour, I am quite sure that it is misleading
-
The version of JavaScript (5.1) running on the Race series was introduced in 2011, the watch firmware feels old, and Suunto needs a new firmware architecture. I think Run was intended as a trial run of that architecture. And as often happens when you do a full rewrite, you are not initially feature complete.
Could the “3” series be a new hardware platform to go with new firmware? If that is the case Race 3S would likely be the new “Run” and all the old watches would become obsolete.
I would assume the developers would have to work hard to deliver a new architecture with feature parity, hence an AI coach could be a way to tempt customers to upgrade. Additional features would come later, built on the new architecture.
-
I don’t see a successor of the race s as the new run.
There is definitely room for a cheaper watch below the race s. Not that many runners use a lot of the features and specially navigation. That means there is no need for maps, that means less storage, that means (given prices of memory) a cheaper watch.
While the race and race s prices were very competitive, a entry level running watch that costs more than 300 euro isn’t.
-
@elbee
Good points.But you would likely develop a new HW/FW architecture in a way that you could change the price point by switching parts on the BOM, like memory, display, or case material.
Suunto probably does not have enough developers to maintain multiple code bases. So we are moving towards one code base, with (I would think) a scalable HW architecture.
I agree that Suunto needs a watch at a lower price point, but that could be a 3S scaled down, which of course could be called a Run 2. I am more thinking about what is inside the case than the branding and positioning of the product.
The Run and the 2-series were all developed during the time Suunto was likely working on a new architecture, hence they will have considered how to migrate users. The watches that are currently on sale are likely to be fully abandoned. The Run and 2-series is more interesting.
-
First of all, I’m not in the running for a new watch. My race s will be fine for many more years. So I couldn’t care less for the next 5 (I hope) years.
But I would hate to see a smaller highend watch disappear. Formfactor is an important criteria for me (I nurture my iPhone 12 mini)
I don’t know how firmwares of watches are developed. It almost seems like manufacturers (whether it be suunto or garmin) make a copy of the firmware repository for every new watch and backport some features and bugfixes to older repositories for older watches. I really don’t see any signs they start a new firmware from scratch, at the moment.
But that’s my view on the blackbox. Based of 30 years software development and 15 years sportwatch experience. For what it’s worth.
-
@elbee
Speaking from 25 years as an international consultant to companies developing embedded software mostly for automotive applications and medical devices.
You do not copy (typically). You maintain one repository. Top level features can be enabled / disabled when building the SW for different watches. Your architecture is layered with a UI layer, a service layer that has to be able to support all features (this is Suuntos current issue I think).
Systems I was working with were not highly cost sensitive, so they typically used a hardware abstraction layer (HAL) at the bottom of the stack to isolate the rest of the SW from the HW and allow easy changes to the HW platform. I doubt Suunto has this, which would complicate things for them.
In the automotive domain it was not unusual to have a single HW design for different levels of a system. Then just enable the functionality already there and charge the customer more
This typically does not work in cost-sensitive applications. -
@elbee
You do not copy (typically). You maintain one repository. Top level features can be enabled / disabled when building the SW for different watches. Your architecture is layered with a UI layer, a service layer that has to be able to support all features (this is Suuntos current issue I think).Yes, I know. That’s how it should be. But if the same feature works slightly different on various watches and some bugs are fixed for 1 watch but not for the other, I can only conclude there is no 1 repository for all watches but a separate one for each individual watch.
-
@Egika https://www.wearablefans.com/2026/07/27/i-have-just-spotted-suunto-race-3-and-race-3s-in-imda-singapore/
It seems there’s something more now…
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login