Running pace on SSWHRB very spikey
Pace spiking between 6:00/km and 4:00/km, on the graph across an entire 5km run, most noticeable in Strava. I believe the distance and time, but my running pace isn’t that inconsistent.
Anyone else experienced this?
Do I need to go to Glonass?
No spiking for me (GPS only), only phases (mostly the first 2 km) where GPS seems to be not that accurate (even when giving time to accommodate).
As far as I understand it GLONAS is only improving the record, when the area is rather hard on GPS (lots of trees, buildings, etc)
I dont think Glonass will make a difference. Could you paste a screenshot so we can maybe see if its normal or not?
Can we have a screen? Not from Strava as strava does not get pace info and it recalculates it
@darren_m Strava may not translate the move well, it removes all pauses and stops. Is it spiking on MC? and if so, are you changing your arm swing or looking at the watch often? I believe the accelerometer feeds into the pace as well as GPS.
Sorry, I’m late with the reply!
Not sure I understand the bit about Strava recalculating Pace info?
I’ll add a screenshot from Movescount & one from Strava of the same Run.
This next time (below) from a very short run to the gym today. This time I can’t see a problem! Was good on the return run home too.
The Suunto graphs are very blocky, the Strava graphs are more spikey. Can’t say I believe the first Strava graph attached, but then the blockiness of the Suunto Graphs look odd too. I get the feeling that the spikiness I called into question hasn’t repeated for the second run on Strava. However, the blockiness of the Suunto graph is always there.
You guys tell me which graphs (Number 1,2,3 or 4) you would say best represent a run on the flat?
I’d say Number 4, which is Strava’s good representation of my pace, to be honest.
@darren_m Strava calculates speed based on GPS!
Spartans calculate speed based on GPS+Wrist Cadence also called fused speed.
That means that the speed is smooth on MC the blocks you see and not on Strava.
To my eyes the MC graphs are ok and not the strava ones. If I look at the strava ones it means that you are constantly running at 4-5 all the time with a big variation
I would say none of them are wrong. I think it depends on how big is the interval you consider and how you draw it. If you choose to represent each point you get someting spikey and if you split the run in small intervals and you draw a mean for each interval you get steps (as MC).
Ok thanks, your opinions are always appreciated!
@darren_m If too much smoothing is incorporated you won’t see the real-time pace. So it is somewhat of a trade-off, a smooth graph will not reflect the actual changes. FusedSpeed attempts to help with this and I agree with the others.