No change to GPS module - still 4.30. So no surprises here. I hope they'll do something about the pace tracking..
Does the new beta contain a GPS firmware update?
I did not see anything mentioned in the change log
What is the version you see in the watch for the GPS module?
Current one is 4.30
I just went for a run with someone from work. He used his iPhone (Strava) and I used my Fenix 5.
We ran along the side of the river Thames. Well, he did, I ran in the Thames apparently!! Both our maps have areas of poor tracking (going through buildings etc) but mine is worse overall. My pace graph also looks more erratic than his does.
I ordered a 935 from Wiggle while I had the 17% discount (should be delivered today). I really like the F5 apart from these issues.
May still keep it and return the 935 but I'm beginning to not see the point of the F5 just for looks sake :-(
Just overlaid the two GPX files. My Fenix 5 route isn't as far off (particularly when running along the south side of the Thames) in this software compared to Strava and Gamin Connect. I'm not sure why there is data missing from the iPhone run.
Hi,
I have a quick question. Out of these watches, F5S, F5, F5X and FR935. How would rank them in order if best GPS signal. 1 being the best and 4 being the worst.
Thanks!
I made a test today, it was not planned as a test but since I decided to run several laps around my favorite small lake I tought it was a good idea to check repeatability and distance accuracy compared to Google maps. It was done with 2.90, GPS + Glonass 1 sec.
Actually I don't know if the result was good or not. I searched for some of my old runs with 620/630 and found that some of them was better than Fenix, and some of them was the same. All in all, Fenix 5x today loose 2 % distance each lap.
Don't forget that map distances aren't necessarily 100% accurate either. For roads, your running route will follow the curve of the kerb at turns, where the mapping shows a straight line extending out to connect with the straight line of the cross road; trails tend to be windier than the map data properly represent. They're not big differences, but they are the sort of thing which are only truly accurately measured by the sort of techniques that course measurers use.
FWIW, I found that my Ambit 2 typically came out about 1% short compared with gmaps' measurement of the same route, and that's one of the devices generally held up as very accurate.
Not sure if anyone's posted fellrnr's purchasing flow chart, which didn't make exactly the recommendations I'd have expected from him:
Don't forget that map distances aren't necessarily 100% accurate either. For roads, your running route will follow the curve of the kerb at turns, where the mapping shows a straight line extending out to connect with the straight line of the cross road; trails tend to be windier than the map data properly represent. They're not big differences, but they are the sort of thing which are only truly accurately measured by the sort of techniques that course measurers use.
FWIW, I found that my Ambit 2 typically came out about 1% short compared with gmaps' measurement of the same route, and that's one of the devices generally held up as very accurate.
Not sure if anyone's posted fellrnr's purchasing flow chart, which didn't make exactly the recommendations I'd have expected from him:
And I can understand why. I have Stryd myself and it is very accurate, even better than Polar's foot pod. After moving to F3 from Polar V800 and getting Garmins footpod it felt like trash. But Stryd is very good. Over large range of paces.
I've been playing with a Stryd for a week now, and I agree that its consistency over a range of paces is better than I've ever seen from any footpod - consistent from 10mm to 7mm, 1% different at the 10.45 or so I use for the slowest of LSRs. I don't find its distance calibration is good enough to use it without calibration, as fellrnr says (and there are quite a lot of people on the Stryd FB page and forum who say the same), and it does seem to vary with the shoe it's on, too; that's a nuisance, as the shoes I keep at work for running from there are not even the same make as the ones I have at home.
ETA: on the shoes I use most regularly (New Balance 860, which I've used in various incarnations for years), it measures over 5% long without calibration, much worse than GPS under all but the most challenging circumstances.
My F5X has performed very well in training in the ~5 weeks that I've had it. This weekend was its first big outing (50km trail race) and it performed flawlessly in the GPS & elevation departments.
Actual distance was 49.69km (I accidentally paused the watch for about a minute during the race so I actually think final distance would've been bang on 50km), actual elevation was +2,047m (vs. 2,051 in the course description from the race organisers). Navigation was on the entire time based on a GPX I've downloaded from Strava and other than a few minor glitches, the watch kept me on the course the entire time (i.e. every time I checked).
Whilst I know some people have had shocking experiences with their F5 watches & have posted evidence to prove it, I am posting the above to give F5 users hope that a lot of users do have very positive experiences and that Garmin does improve their products from one generation to the next. My F3 (non HR) did not deliver this sort of performance.
