Ascent values with a spartan trainer Hr
Last year I bought A spartan trainer.
I am generally happy with it, but the ascent and descent values I get with it are completely ridiculous.
Mostly they are 200% off, after uploading to strava they usually double again.
I know it is “only” gps based, but my polar M400 was always spot on and if I see the data from friends on a mutual runs mine suck and theirs is correct.
When running on a flat plane it can go up and down in 20m “bumps”.
I tried resolving this with support, but after some simple advise like sync it with movescount etc they said I am better off buying a baro based watch.
Saying I need to buy a 400euro watch right after i bought a 230euro watch from them that doesn’t work sort of pissed me off.
Also because I bought it to use POI’s and routes.
Which they will stop next year (the poi’s)
Anyone else had these problems?
Best regards, steven.
@stevena Did you find a satisfying solution?
Nope, I just let strava recalculate the altitude.
@sascha Just for reference from my most recent runs:
Distance SSTWHR elevation Strava elevation 5.6k 29 65 5.2k 7 32 16.9k 438 465 15.85k 735 770 5.77k 129 130 12.77l 223 189
Really depends on the start GPX fix I find, normally descent tallies super well with Strava. Also worth noting that it’s normally pointless correcting distance on Strava because it changes it at most by 30m, Spartan Trainer normally nails that for me.
@stevena Same issue with the Spartan Sport WHR. I asked about it on here a while ago and was told the following:
“There’s a threshold, which is 3 meters for baro watches and 7 meters for watches without baro, and the total ascent / descent increment in chunks once the altitude change exceeds that threshold.” (copy-pasted from here: https://forum.suunto.com/topic/3886/dodgy-elevation-on-spartan-sport-whr/5)
In other words, if you’re running a route that undulates by less than 7 metres at a time, your non-baro watch will treat it as flat.
I find this super-annoying too. But apparently it’s considered OK in Suuntoland, because I was told I was being nitpicky for considering it bizarre. If it’s any comfort, I have a Stryd and it isn’t much better for elevation. Under-reports by almost a factor of ten on some routes, so perhaps there’s a similar arbitrary threshold at work there.
Update, 26 April: Just for the record, I may have been mistaken about Stryd’s accuracy, or perhaps I was looking at the wrong .fit files? At any rate, lately I’m getting conspicuously plausible elevation data from Stryd.