This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

GPS Accuracy

Former Member over 8 years ago

So it begins.

I will have mine Fenix 5 on Saturday and will start doing comparisons to an Ambit 3 Peak. I don't have an F3 to directly compare to as of now.

Anyone have an F3 and F5 to compare?

0 Olu.F. over 8 years ago

Some general thoughts. If you're primary concern is perfect looking GPS tracks consider a device with a Sirf chip. Those devices produced less jagged appearance but weren't any more accurate.

Similar thoughts regarding distance and pace performance. I can't think of any device I've used where displayed pace (1 mile averages) is in sync with my perceived effort, HR, and more recently power mile after mile. This is why we train, so come race day you have multiple sources to keep you on track. Depending on GPS alone is a recipe for disaster. Just like the F3, I can see folks driving themselves crazy over what amounts to be 1% (and often less) errors.

0 Former Member over 8 years ago

A "0" (yes, zero) rating for "How far did you run?"

Déjà vu.

https://www.facebook.com/fellrnr/posts/1042072795926318

0 Volker over 8 years ago

Library calle

Waiting at least a minute and using GPS+GLONASS are two great ways to improve a track recording.

Your track looiks great and is an excellent example of how Garmin does a lousy job of making tracks look good.

Here's a section of your track as shown in Garmin Connect:

It's not exactly on the path I assume you ran, but could be better, right?

Well, when the same section of the exact same track is viewed in Google Earth, it looks like this:

Like magic, the recorded track is now exactly on the path.

Honestly, it would be unrealistic to expect a better recorded track than this ... from any wrist-worn device.

HTH

Great catch! So maybe the problem is not the gps accuracy rather the presentation of it in garmin connect!?

0 chimpware over 8 years ago

A "0" (yes, zero) rating for "How far did you run?"

Déjà vu.

https://www.facebook.com/fellrnr/posts/1042072795926318

Seems odd that "How Fast are you Running?" and "Where Am I?" are both a 5, and "How far did you Run?" is a 0. Seems based on everyone elses testing distance accrual would not be a 0. Something wrong here I think possibly.

Here is a direct link to fellrnr site - http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Best_Running_Watch

0 timgrose over 8 years ago

When an Epix comes out as the best running watch despite "its GPS accuracy lets it down a little" then my eyes are raised somewhat and I wonder if the title should be renamed as "Best Running Watch for me and only me" ?

I see the FR10 is bottom but that is (or was) a simple entry level watch. I have used that a few times and for what it was advertised to do worked well.

I am fairly confident in saying sheds loads more FR10 watches were sold than the Epix and certainly more than the Leikr which also is well up there.

Anyway according to this guy the best GPS accuracy is found in a foot pod. Think about it...

0 Olu.F. over 8 years ago

Title should be renamed as "Best Running Watch for me and only me" .

This ^^
I find the these analysis useless since I don't run on the same trail he does over and over again. When it comes down to it, all that matters is how well the F5 works FOR YOU. Believe you me, if I was dissatisfied with GPS performance, I'd be the 1st to dump the watch and move onto something else.

0 webvan over 8 years ago

Very true, if you plan on using the F5 for hiking, inconsistent pace/laps (happened again this morning) won't matter at all, if you're training for a marathon it's a different story, probably best to stick with a plastic forerunner (or VAHR) that costs 1/3 of the price and that doesn't have these problems. So yes you shouldn't be glued to your watch when running, yes the F5 is certainly good enough at the end of the day, but why settle for good when you can get better for cheaper ;-)

Great catch! So maybe the problem is not the gps accuracy rather the presentation of it in garmin connect!?

Again, no -> https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?371929-GPS-Accuracy&p=962525#post962525

In the example you quote there's nothing wrong with the track, there's just a small offset, nothing like the problems some of us are seeing with poor multipath handling.

Anyway according to this guy the best GPS accuracy is found in a foot pod. Think about it...

Wrong, he says it gives the best distance/pace accuracy.

0 Crispin_Ellisdon over 8 years ago

A "0" (yes, zero) rating for "How far did you run?"

If you dig deeper in to the comments on the Facebook post and the fellrnr website, it's clear he hasn't finished testing yet, hence a zero in the first table. If you look at the table in section 2 here http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Best_Running_Watch there's just a blank for the 5X in the GPS accuracy column. Perhaps best to wait until the guy's actually finished testing before leaping to conclusions.

Also worth noting that an early 'not promising' is relative to his testing environment and that a lot of more recent GPS watches, from all manufacturers, are falling short of his 'bar' of acceptability. It seems the solution to truely reliable pace and distance in the more challenging environments for GPS reception is a calibrated foot pod.

0 kitenski over 8 years ago

Very true, if you plan on using the F5 for hiking, inconsistent pace/laps (happened again this morning) won't matter at all, if you're training for a marathon it's a different story, probably best to stick with a plastic forerunner

How do you know that the F5 isn't correct and your 235 is wrong?

0 webvan over 8 years ago

Fair point but already discussed several times in my previous posts -> https://forums.garmin.com/search.php?searchid=2125638