Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barometer/Altitude issues

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by MINIMIMIMI View Post
    It is known from other outdoor watches with barometers that they tend to fail if they are attached too tight to your wrist. This is due to the necessity of taking proper temperature informations into altitude calculation and therefore for example some Suunto watches need a bit air to breath.

    I don't know where exactly the 910XT has it's temperature sensor, but maybe you give it another try without overtightening it.

    I do not experience this and I have a Suunto T6c. If the elevation is set properly at the beginning of a run/bike and remains on your wrist it will record accurately. If the temperature changes dramatically it will affect the elevation data. I live in Colorado and run a lot of hills. My Suunto is always on my wrist and it is quite accurate. If a fast moving storm or front is coming and I am on a long run, the changes in pressure will affect my altitude. I have had this occur but it is not a common event. I know that some had issues with their Suunto altimeters but I do not think that this is the majority. If you would like to see some of the data I can show it to you.

    Regarding the 910XT, I am quite disappointed by what I see here. I think that manual calibration of an altimeter is important and the best way to determine changes in altitude. My decision was between the Garmin 910XT and the Suunto Ambit. I do not need the Swim features but need accurate elevation data. I am unlikely to go with the Garmin after what I have seen here.

    Comment


    • #32
      Did my first run with the 910xt.
      Calibrated the GPS at home with official altitude data (sub 1 meter precision, I think it is cm precision available).
      Ran 3.75km, starting at alt 45m MSL. 20 minutes later I was back home, now at an altitude of 30m. I think this is more altitude drift than I am used to with my old eTrex Vista.

      Temp around 0C, wind 10-15 m/s.

      My 910xt listed distance as 3.866 km, my old 305 is closer to 3.75 km on every attempt. My foot pod distance was 3.758. (usually it has shown more than gps distance on the 305 for the few races where used).

      Btw I used only 13 kcal for the first km. 50-80 for the others. And I had a record HR at 191 bpm. And tempo was jumping 4:38-5:16-5:02 ...
      The software has clearly not been tested, at least not by people with less than perfect style.

      And my training scored 3.9 on the anaerobic index. I think it is a little high. Considers my resting hr to be around 55 and decreasing. And max 185, maybe more but not with my current strength.

      Comment


      • #33
        Ugh .......these reports are underwhelming .......
        Thanks for your testing though.
        Hope you'll report back to the folks in Kansas.
        -FR

        Comment


        • #34
          Give it 6 months. This is par for the course. Every Garmin device (at least sports device, hopefully the aviation ones are better) has major bugs that seem to always take about 6 months to work through. At least I haven't seen any serious reports of the corrupt files for the 910. That's probably a first for a new Garmin product in this category.

          Yet somehow I keep adopting the products as soon as they come out. I wonder if there is an AA like group that deals with this illness?

          Comment


          • #35
            @EKUTTER

            We'll sign up go Garmin Addicts Anonymous too

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by EKUTTER View Post
              Has anyone had the way point calibration work for elevation? I have created a way point within 20' of where I push the start button (verified by looking at the map zoomed way in) and it totally ignores the way point elevation.

              Right now, my 310 is doing a better job with elevation than my 910. The 910 doesn't fluctuate as much as the 310, but the current altitude is generally more accurate and the ascent is way more accurate on the 310, likely due to the data smoothing.

              Good news is I am sure they can fix this with a firmware update. Bad news is this is basic functionality that should have just been working from day one.
              This issue is known and a fix will be coming in the next software release. As for the beginning topic of this thread, we appreciate all the feedback that has been given. We continue to pursue the issue and hope to understand it in greater detail moving forward. If additional information is needed from the group, we will certainly be sure to ask.

              Thanks again!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by PEDALINGSQUARES View Post
                This issue is known and a fix will be coming in the next software release. As for the beginning topic of this thread, we appreciate all the feedback that has been given. We continue to pursue the issue and hope to understand it in greater detail moving forward. If additional information is needed from the group, we will certainly be sure to ask.

                Thanks again!
                PedalingSquares, are you actually from Garmin? Glad to see that this issue is known and will be fixed, and that Garmin reps are monitoring these issues.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by EKUTTER View Post
                  PedalingSquares, are you actually from Garmin? Glad to see that this issue is known and will be fixed, and that Garmin reps are monitoring these issues.
                  Yes, great indeed.

                  I think Garmin should consider the altimeter function a top priority. I guess for many this is the killer function and main reason to upgrade to the 910 from the 310.
                  DISTANCE: 3000M___ - 5000M___ - 10000M__ - 21098M_ - 42195M_ --- Current VDOT: ?
                  PB______: 10:50,09 - 18:40,20 - 38:39,00 - 1:25:39 - 3:10:26

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ALAALA View Post
                    Yes, great indeed.

                    I think Garmin should consider the altimeter function a top priority. I guess for many this is the killer function and main reason to upgrade to the 910 from the 310.
                    ALAALA, I could NOT agree with you more!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ALAALA View Post
                      Yes, great indeed.

                      I think Garmin should consider the altimeter function a top priority. I guess for many this is the killer function and main reason to upgrade to the 910 from the 310.
                      It's the swim functionality that's goaded us into the upgrade and is what I believe many would consider to be the significant difference over the 310XT.

                      There's always been some altitude functionality. Inbuilt barometric capability should improve that eventually.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by PHILIPSHAMBROOK View Post
                        It's the swim functionality that's goaded us into the upgrade and is what I believe many would consider to be the significant difference over the 310XT.

                        There's always been some altitude functionality. Inbuilt barometric capability should improve that eventually.
                        Actually, I couldn't care less about the swim stuff. It's the barometric altimeter function that triggers my spending (I should have been more specific).

                        But, granted, there are two killer functions. Both should be given Garmin's top effort.
                        DISTANCE: 3000M___ - 5000M___ - 10000M__ - 21098M_ - 42195M_ --- Current VDOT: ?
                        PB______: 10:50,09 - 18:40,20 - 38:39,00 - 1:25:39 - 3:10:26

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by MARTOWL View Post
                          I do not experience this and I have a Suunto T6c. If the elevation is set properly at the beginning of a run/bike and remains on your wrist it will record accurately. If the temperature changes dramatically it will affect the elevation data. I live in Colorado and run a lot of hills. My Suunto is always on my wrist and it is quite accurate. If a fast moving storm or front is coming and I am on a long run, the changes in pressure will affect my altitude. I have had this occur but it is not a common event. I know that some had issues with their Suunto altimeters but I do not think that this is the majority. If you would like to see some of the data I can show it to you.

                          Regarding the 910XT, I am quite disappointed by what I see here. I think that manual calibration of an altimeter is important and the best way to determine changes in altitude. My decision was between the Garmin 910XT and the Suunto Ambit. I do not need the Swim features but need accurate elevation data. I am unlikely to go with the Garmin after what I have seen here.
                          I'm coming to the same conclusions, plus the fact the accelerometer coming with 910xt is used for swimming analysis, something I don't care given my needs, when the accelerometer coming with ambit is used for improving (drastically? still to be confirmed by first tests) the accuracy of the pace information. Even the best GPS-only based pace measurements are fundamentally fragile (because of the accuracy - or lack of accuracy - of GPS signal limited to +/- 10 meters), and from what I'm reading here, 910xt is, with current firmware, far from being at the level of the best GPS-only based pace measurements.

                          So, so far, I have no one reason for envisioning an Ambit, I have two.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by JMONTANT View Post
                            I'm coming to the same conclusions, plus the fact the accelerometer coming with 910xt is used for swimming analysis, something I don't care given my needs, when the accelerometer coming with ambit is used for improving (drastically? still to be confirmed by first tests) the accuracy of the pace information. Even the best GPS-only based pace measurements are fundamentally fragile (because of the accuracy - or lack of accuracy - of GPS signal limited to +/- 10 meters), and from what I'm reading here, 910xt is, with current firmware, far from being at the level of the best GPS-only based pace measurements.

                            So, so far, I have no one reason for envisioning an Ambit, I have two.
                            It is unfortunate, as I like the Mac interface that Garmin has developed over the years. I have an Oregon 450 and enjoy using that with Basecamp. When the 910XT was announced I thought this would fill my needs well. Although if I had my choice I would like a 610 type watch with a barometric altimeter and the ability to select a recording interval to get 24h out of the watch. I know I am a minority here as few need more than 8h in a running watch. The Suunto interface with the Mac is not as well developed as Garmin and I am also not fond of the closed Ant system Suunto uses as opposed to Garmin's Ant+. If Garmin addresses most of the issues with the 910XT by the time the Ambit comes out it may be a more difficult decision.
                            Last edited by MARTOWL; 02-07-2012, 01:24 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              GPS elevation 1, barometic altimeter 0

                              Well, my new 910XT arrived this morning, happily coinciding with a day off work so I spent a while setting it up and then took it for a spin by going for a run. I will qualify my remarks by saying that previously I had a ten year old HRM that gave heart rate and that was it so this is very high tech in comparison, but, so far I am very pleased.
                              The first attachment shows the run WITH elevation correction switched on in Garmin Connect which I understand to mean GPS data is being used. The run is for all intents and purposes flat but you can see how the lap 1 graph is pretty much an exact match for lap 2, and how the return journey mirrors the outward journey. For me this is excellent but I am not using the elevation data for any exact analysis as some people contributing to this thread seem to be and therefore I am probably a lot less demanding.
                              The second attachment shows the graph section but with elevation correction switched off which I understand to mean the data is calculated from the barometric readings and in comparison to attachment one it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what logic suggests a correct elevation graph should look like for this run.
                              Regarding pace, attachment one only shows speed not pace (no pace option on the graph), but bearing in mind that I wasn't staring at my wrist the whole time I found it pretty consistent. There and back were running on pavements and the way there also included me calibrating the footpod so I slowed down at the beginning and end of that. Lap 1 was clear, lap 2 I slowed down at one point for some people and the return had some traffic lights and ends with a period of walking. I am as I said using a calibrated footpod and had the watch on 1 second recording.
                              I hope this is of interest. I just thought I'd jot down my thoughts at the end of day one.
                              Last edited by matthew2811; 02-18-2012, 06:45 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by MATTHEW2811 View Post
                                • The first attachment shows the run WITH elevation correction switched on in Garmin Connect which I understand to mean GPS data is being used.
                                • The second attachment shows the graph section but with elevation correction switched off which I understand to mean the data is calculated from the barometric readings and in comparison to attachment one it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what logic suggests a correct elevation graph should look like for this run.
                                Hello Matthew,
                                if you switch on elevation correction in Garmin Connect all elevation data your watch recorded is ignored and the srtm elevation data is taken to create the elevation graph (at least I think so, I don't know where else Garmin would get the elevation data. Would be cool if Garmin told us. Garmin?).
                                That means you could use a watch that does not record any elevation data at all, and Garmin Connect would show you the elevation data anyway, so the money spend on a watch with a barometric sensor to get elevation data is money flushed down the toilet.

                                The second graph is the elevation data the fr910xt measured....


                                Edit: found it in the FAQ: http://connect.garmin.com/help/faq
                                What are Elevation Corrections?
                                Elevation Corrections cross reference the horizontal position (latitude/longitude) provided by the GPS with elevation data that has been acquired by professional surveys. When corrections to elevation data are made, each trackpoint of your activity contains the elevation from the web service, not the elevation provided by your GPS device. Garmin Connect selectively applies corrections to depict a more realistic representation of your elevation experience. Activities recorded on devices without a barometric altimeter are enabled with Elevation Corrections by default. Alternatively, activities recorded on devices with a barometric altimeter generally contain accurate elevation data and therefore Elevation Corrections are disabled by default. For those users who are familiar with the MotionBased Gravity service, this is the same service.
                                Last edited by luca_yx; 01-30-2012, 12:46 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X