To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts
-
Before I bought my S9B, I tried three different watches (at the same time) to see which was best for me. Reviews are one thing, but there’s nothing like trying a watch for yourself, to see how it suits your specific requirements.
By the way: all were used, and not the latest models. From Suunto, I tried a Spartan Sport WHR Baro, which I have read is not necessarily the ‘best loved’ model.
Garmin? Great software and they do everything…except they don’t ‘do’ cricket (which I play) and the software wanted to count how many stairs I climbed, which I didn’t care about and they continuously got wrong.
Polar? Great HR accuracy, sleep tracking and the online analysis is superb…however, if I want to navigate anywhere, and I don’t start in the ‘correct’ place, the watch has a permanent tantrum, telling me I’m ‘off route.’ In addition, if I want to simply use a stopwatch or countdown timer, it’s a horrible experience.
Suunto? Fitness software is not all encompassing, but then I’m 52 and not likely to appear at the Olympics any time soon. Is it a pain to connect-disconnect and re-connect to a different heart rate monitor? Yes, but then worse things happen at sea
Is the heart rate accuracy perfect? No, but if I want to be picky-picky, I’ll wear a heart rate strap. Is the sleep tracking perfect? No, but again I’m not sure how a watch can tell me better than my body that I’m tired and need an early night! Navigation? In my opinion, the best of the three I tried - even without maps!The bottom line: Suunto is best for me, because of my requirements, but it won’t be the best for everyone, because their requirements are different. There is no such thing as ‘the perfect’ fitness watch, but there is a best one - on balance - for me
-
@theguyfromthesummit said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@miniforklift
you can run the UTMB without a watch as well. So this is no plus point for S9PSure, you can apply that logic to any race, but I can’t imagine anyone that manages to get into UTMB is going to race without a watch. I could be wrong but you’d be talking a single digit percentage I’m sure. For the remaining 90+% that wear a GPS watch you’re going to need a pretty big battery and that rules out a good number of them
@theguyfromthesummit said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@miniforklift
IMHO Suunto watches are just tracker without any data analysis.I genuinely don’t understand this. There’s literally tons of data in the app
To be happy with a Suunto you either have to:
a) just want HR, GPS, time, ascent etc.Depending on the activity but I also rely on average pace, altitude, descent, speed and a few others. I don’t train with HR and haven’t for years so I personally couldn’t care less about optical HR accuracy or chest belts
b) do the analysis and planning in excel / calendar yourself
SA + Strava (as a subscriber) gives me plenty of info
c) be a pro with a TrainingsPeak subscription and a coach
As above
Garmin gives you all the analysis you want and even more.
My other watch is a Garmin Enduro. I think I prefer the data from Suunto as I find it better organised and easier to read
Hey, everyone’s different for sure
SV Titanium Solar Forest
-
@duffman19 To check accuracy of GPS watches, the loop at my home is checked against a measuring wheel. I don’t think you should assume that wrist devices are right just because they agree.
-
@brad_olwin Yes, of course. I don’t assume anything on my wrist to be accurate, GPS, OHR, SpO2 or otherwise. I do, however, trust my perceived exertion to a degree. For instance, on this afternoon’s 5.5 mi run (or 6 mi, if we go by the S9P), the S9P had me running 50 seconds faster per mile average pace versus the 945. This was a lower HR run for me (staying under 150 bpm). If we assume the S9P is correct, then it has me running at a pace I’ve never achieved on this course even when running closer to my threshold.
Now, my perception is based on numbers I’ve gathered from other devices (namely Garmin), so it is possible I actually do run faster than I thought. However, I do run measured road routes and occasionally do track workouts, so I have a decent idea of what I am capable of, and, more importantly here, my average pace versus heart rate and trail conditions. I would guess most folks who have been running for any length of time come to know this regardless of what’s on their wrist. The fact is that in my limited testing (about 3 weeks and a dozen+ runs), my S9P unit doesn’t line up with my perceived fitness. If the S9P is correctly measuring my trail runs, then it would have me running at paces equal to or faster than my road running pace. I think we would all agree that doesn’t line up.
This is ONLY for trail run activities. Road runs (basic) and walks have been spot on. Unfortunately, the majority of my runs are on trails. And this is why I am hoping there is a technical explanation for my experience that I could use to justify keeping the watch. Because I DO like the thing and want to continue using it. But of course I need it to trust the numbers coming out of it first.
Vertical Ti
-
@duffman19 My runs are almost exclusively trail runs and I simply do not have issues with accuracy. Most of the folks I run with have Garmin devices and we both seem to bounce around quite a bit. Trail running is a different beast and I don’t think one can transfer pace/effort from road to trail. At any rate all I am saying is I do not have this experience, the S9baro did have some issues with courses being short but those were corrected some time ago.
-
@miniforklift I think that if that’s the case for you then definitely a watch that cost 589€ is an an overkill .
I just need to mention that I have my A3P for just over 6 years (bought it on 28/8/2015) and is a great companion for numerous of events , trails, Runs etc. it is rock stable . I also have a garmin645 , which was a gift , and is also a great watch.
I really don’t think that any watch would literally add to my experience or would significantly change my excitement while during in nature, mountain or running . The truth is that I am not going to buy something new before my devices die . I think that people that are comparing or complaining about those devices are the ones who least need them but definitely want them . There is a huge difference between need and want something .but you can always enjoy your moments without the constant stress of what a device tells you … think about it and you may end up a bit happier .People … do remember that those devices
Are just tools . The excitement lies in the activity , not the watch . But if you have paid 500+ € for something that you haven’t thought of , there is
a good chance that you don’t really need it , so just do yourself a favor and send it back … life is short -
@duffman19 it may actually be that the trail run mode has 3D distance enabled. Try what is the distance using the run mode.
-
@duffman19 said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
My main issue is with distance accuracy on trail runs. A run early this week had the 945 at 9.23 Km and the S9P at 9.68 Km, a 4.7% difference. That’s pretty big. After mapping the run on a few other services, it seems the 945 is more correct
My experience is that mapping services are always too short on trails - perhaps 2-3% short. I remember that Suunto Ambit 3 Peak always had a longer distance after finishing a route that was mapped in advance. But I also knew from a few certified wheel measured races that even A3P was short on trails. So between FR945 and S9P I wouldn’t be so sure which one is more correct. The only way to tell is to use both on a certified trail race course. I did notice looking at activities of some friends who have S9B that distances seem a bit long. Assuming S9P has a similar algorithm, I think the true distance should be somewhere in the middle between FR945 and S9P and perhaps closer to S9P than to FR945.
-
@patrick-löffler I was wondering if you also tend to have very low resources on your S9P at all times.
Specifically, I use a garmin vivoactive 4 and Suunto 9P and I noticed that
Vivoactive gives me always tendentially high resources (body battery); especially in the morning I am always at 100% regardless of the quality of my sleep. Not very accurate, but at least I can see the pace at which resources are depleting over the day.S9P gives me 0 resources most of the time. Every single day I am at 0% resources in the early afternoon; hence I am at 0% most of the day. I am always around 50-60% right after I woke up.
Having an indicator of resources at 0% most of the time, in my view, is not all that useful. It defeats the purpose of having such a reading as I cannot base training decisions on it, which I understand is the aim of resources. Additionally, I cannot even see the pace at which resources are consumed over the day.
-
@giacomo-laffranchini said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@patrick-löffler I was wondering if you also tend to have very low resources on your S9P at all times.
Specifically, I use a garmin vivoactive 4 and Suunto 9P and I noticed that
Vivoactive gives me always tendentially high resources (body battery); especially in the morning I am always at 100% regardless of the quality of my sleep. Not very accurate, but at least I can see the pace at which resources are depleting over the day.S9P gives me 0 resources most of the time. Every single day I am at 0% resources in the early afternoon; hence I am at 0% most of the day. I am always around 50-60% right after I woke up.
Having an indicator of resources at 0% most of the time, in my view, is not all that useful. It defeats the purpose of having such a reading as I cannot base training decisions on it, which I understand is the aim of resources. Additionally, I cannot even see the pace at which resources are consumed over the day.
Already reported by some.
-
@andré-faria Thank you, hopefully this will be taken care of with a FW update in a not too distant future
-
@giacomo-laffranchini said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@andré-faria Thank you, hopefully this will be taken care of with a FW update in a not too distant future
Yes, I think suunto is well aware of it, so it is a matter of time
-
@isazi You read my mind. I ran my “1.4” mile trail loop 3 times (2 forward and one reverse) last night with the S9P on Basic Run and the 945 on my usual Trail Run settings. And…
It was better. That is, the two were much closer in distance than when running with the S9P on Trail Run. The S9P recorded lap distances of 1.42, 1.49, and 1.43 miles. The 945 had them at 1.40, 1.37, and 1.40 miles.
As @sky-runner and others have said, I can’t know for certain which is more accurate as this trail has not been wheel measured. Further, this is a fairly rooted, rocky trail under thick deciduous forest that goes down and up a north facing hill, so GNSS reception is always a challenge. However, when using Trail Run, the S9P consistently recorded the route between 1.55 - 1.65 miles. These results suggest that Suunto is indeed using some sort of 3D calculation for distance when recording a Trail Run activity.
Interestingly, the shortest recorded laps from both devices were recorded while running with the watch on the inside wrist relative to the trail loop. And, they both recorded near identical distances when running the same forward direction (laps 1 and 3).
This all aligns with what I’ve heard others say, that Garmin tends to underestimate distance and Suunto overestimates by a small margin.
Also, this is an example of what I both like and dislike about my experience with Suunto. I like the paired down simplicity of the UI/UX when compared to the complicated submenus found on other brands. But, I dislike not being able to change a setting when I find something that doesn’t fit my purpose. Or, simply not knowing what those settings are. Nit-picky stuff, indeed, but perhaps enough to keep me from switching over.
-
@duffman19 said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
or certain which is more accurate as this trail has not been wheel measured. Further, this is a fairly rooted, rocky trail under thick deciduous forest that goes down and up
Just to give my thoughts on this too
I have both F6x and S9b. Used the F6x to trail run near my house in what the fenix always showed was a bit less than 10km. Then I put on both the watches and ran the same trail route (loop) - I’ve done this many, many times. F6x showed 9.3km and S9b showed 10.5km. The difference was 1.2km, what I noticed on the F6x is that the instant pace was all over the place although I was running mostly in my easy running pace and keeping it constantly (5:30 - 5:45 km/min). At some point, even though I was increasing pace just to check both watches the Fenix showed 7:00 km/min pace and Suunto was at 5:05 which felt much more close to the pace. Then I used: garmin explore, strava and snap to route (the greatest feature I suggest you try with the Suunto app) to confirm that the real distance of the trail loop is 10.45km. So Garmin undercuts by huge margin when trail running (this is all over the forum at Garmin and people constantly complain of undercutting and incorrect pace especially in trail). Again this is comparing two different watches to the ones you have but from the same ecosystem and I expect both forerunner to have better accuracy than the fenix and the peak better than the baro. In the open both watches are almost similar with fenix losing 20 - 100m and suunto adding 20 - 100m (depends on the total distance) but in trail my experience with garmin was abysmal: I even tested the fenix with gpsmap 66 and hike and while the suunto showed 300m more than the gpsmap on a 26km hiking the fenix showed 23.4km (WTF). -
@hristijan-petreski Thanks for your reply and sharing your experiences. I agree 100% about pace. Garmins are completely unreliable in this regards. And not just during an activity, but graphed out afterwards, pace and speed look more like a crazy elevation chart than anything else.
I haven’t tried the snap to route feature yet. Unfortunately, the mapping of the trails in my area is iffy at best. Many of the switchbacks and short curves are cut through on the maps I’ve seen, so I’m not sure it’d be helpful in this case. In fact, one of the reasons I’m even interested in accuracy is that I’ve been attempting to better map my trails on Open Street Maps.
What I’m still stump over is the fact that the GNSS plots for both watches look pretty good to me. So the distance discrepancy must come from each brand’s algorithms. And that’s where my understanding of these thing ends.
I would be interested in hearing from someone at Suunto about their handling of distance in Trail versus Basic Run. Are there similar differences between other activities, say a Walk versus a Hike?
-
I have the 9 Baro, and it’s (darned near) perfect for my needs a trail runner and hiker. It has the best GPS accuracy of any watch I’ve used before, but as noted by someone earlier, it does typically undercount the elevation gain/loss on hills because of the algorithm Suunto uses for its calculations (this is a known issue they are reportedly working on and which they believe has already been fixed in the 9 Peak).
I love the build quality and durability most of all in the 9 Baro (no cheap polymer/plastics in the body, sapphire glass as standard, and great styling). The 9 Baro has a big face with a relatively small bezel, which means lots of visibility on the screen, especially on trails where you’re being jostled around by the terrain.
-
@alex-bitman If the altitude algorithm for S9P can be improved, S9B will surely be on the list to follow with this improvement
