GPS Accuracy

Just got my 935 today and had a track workout planned so posting GPS track not very useful, but the 935 was only off on distance by 50 yards over 5.5 miles, which is about 0.5% accuracy. My 735, which I also wore at the same time was off by almost 4%. As anyone who has tried using a GPS watch on a track knows the accuracy is tough, given the number of repetitive tight turns. This was also compounded on this workout by me having paces between 5:50 / mile and walking as I was doing a Stryd power test.

I just received a 935 as well, after getting the Fenix 5 delivered yesterday.

I must say I like the look of the 935 just as well if not more than the fenix 5. It's more understated which I like.

After the mediocre performance of the fenix 5 on this morning's run, I am leaning towards keeping the 935 and returning the F5.

Both are great watches but as things stand now the GPS accuracy issues (this thread is 55 pages long for a reason) of the F5 make the 935 a very compelling purchase.

Strava FlyBy is great to look at other runners and see what watches they used and how their distance and tracks looked.

Totally agree, though when it selects 841 other matched runs in a race that big, it can do interesting things to your browser's memory usage :)

Though, in the specific area I'm thinking of, good luck deciding where the true route is:

WOW!!!

All these people jumping ship to the 935 so soon just because it's slightly better on some of the tracks?

For god sake, just leave the tracks in Garmin Connect and they will be fine.

My F5 (non sapphire) gets good tracks, and the distance is way better and more consistent than my F3HR. I'm sure it will get even better with future updates, and I think its a much nicer watch than the 935 (JMO).

I am just extremely happy that that the features seem to work in the F5 so far. I had nothing but problems with my F3HR.

Only time will tell.

Nope, not me, would have kept the fenix 5 based on GPS performance alone, it was fine for me, albeit seems 935 is slightly better. I moved to the 935 becuase the f5 would not stay connected with the Stryd Power Meter and I use that data as much as pace for my training. In addition when Stryd was connected and set to even just use Stryd for Pace the distance accrual from teh f5 was negatively affected, meaning off by a lot. In addition my Stages Power meter would not stay connected to the fenix 5, I have not yet tested this on the 935 though.

So not jumping ship based on GPS performance at all.

Nope, not me, would have kept the fenix 5 based on GPS performance alone, it was fine for me, albeit seems 935 is slightly better. I moved to the 935 becuase the f5 would not stay connected with the Stryd Power Meter and I use that data as much as pace for my training. In addition when Stryd was connected and set to even just use Stryd for Pace the distance accrual from teh f5 was negatively affected, meaning off by a lot. In addition my Stages Power meter would not stay connected to the fenix 5, I have not yet tested this on the 935 though.

So not jumping ship based on GPS performance at all.

When you say distance accrual was negatively affected with Stryd connected and using Stryd for pace, was Stryd also being used for distance? If not, how were the distance figures when Stryd provided distance data instead of garmin's gps?

WOW!!!

All these people jumping ship to the 935 so soon just because it's slightly better on some of the tracks?

For god sake, just leave the tracks in Garmin Connect and they will be fine.

My F5 (non sapphire) gets good tracks, and the distance is way better and more consistent than my F3HR. I'm sure it will get even better with future updates, and I think its a much nicer watch than the 935 (JMO).

I am just extremely happy that that the features seem to work in the F5 so far. I had nothing but problems with my F3HR.

Only time will tell.

Well I did two workouts with the F5, one indoors and another one an outdoor run.

On the indoor workout, I had significant heart rate dropouts from an Ant+ connected strap.

On the run, the watch lost 0.12 miles in a 6 mile run, consistently measuring each mile as 0.98 miles. The track and instant pace were also awful compared to my V800.

Then the 935 arrived, which does not have the connectivity issues and by all accounts on these boards has better GPS accuracy.

On top of that, the 935 is a plenty good looking watch for me, and I actually found I prefer its lighter weight. Not to mention it's cheaper.

Pretty easy choice for me, but if I strongly preferred the look and build of the F5, I would have waited for Garmin to sort out the connection issues and probably just used a footpod for speed/distance.

When you say distance accrual was negatively affected with Stryd connected and using Stryd for pace, was Stryd also being used for distance? If not, how were the distance figures when Stryd provided distance data instead of garmin's gps?

Distance accrual is negatively affected with Stryd,when Stryd is set for Pace: Always, Distance: Indoors for outdoor runs for some reason related to the Stryd dropouts. I did not try Stryd set for Distance:Always as I was having massive dropouts (>80% of the time it was disconnected during my runs).

Yeah, trying to think if there's a way to improve signal...

I opened my F5 and it looks just about exactly the same as the F3HR:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*ML1TuHedN0Gvr2LWLJp8_A.jpeg

The gps antenna seems to be top thing, the one on the right of this picture:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1800/1*qTv0XTW0z_nmkwNWHdHA7g.jpeg

EDIT: Are the pictures you posted of a F3, not a F5? They look identical to the ones in this post: https://medium.com/personal-notes-on-the-garmin-f%C4%93nix-3-hr/f%C4%93nix-3-hr-a-non-destructive-teardown-bcfb45f1b746

Thanks for sharing those pics, the GPS antenna design looks pretty much exactly like the one in the Fenix 3, so I'm guessing from a hardware perspective there's no change/improvement between the 3 and the 5 given the same antenna design and chipset?s for sharing those pics, the GPS antenna design looks pretty much exactly like the one in the Fenix 3, so I'm guessing from a hardware perspective there's no change/improvement between the 3 and the 5 given the same antenna design and chipset?

I am very happy with my fenix 5. The watch is beautiful, The battery is incredible, the gps is good and I didn´t have any problem with stryd (footpod or IQ) or HRM.

The accuracy of GPS improves dramatically when you run outdoors without buildings or trees and in a straight line. A test of my run on the beach yesterday, the accuracy is great. I made 3 kms to one side, 3 to another (the kms overlap) and then completed a quick round trip. (1sec record, gps only, not stryd yesterday).
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1674425054

Another example, mountain (gps+glonass)
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1638805190

WOW!!!

All these people jumping ship to the 935 so soon just because it's slightly better on some of the tracks?

For god sake, just leave the tracks in Garmin Connect and they will be fine.

My F5 (non sapphire) gets good tracks, and the distance is way better and more consistent than my F3HR. I'm sure it will get even better with future updates, and I think its a much nicer watch than the 935 (JMO).

I am just extremely happy that that the features seem to work in the F5 so far. I had nothing but problems with my F3HR.

Only time will tell.

Eh... yup. The tracks are just the symptom, the actual issue is the gps accuracy (which results in an issue with lap pace, mile/km markers, etc).

As much as I like the F5 I bought it mainly for running (and perhaps hiking) and with that I want it to be as precise as possible... It's nice that the tracks and distances are fine in Garmin Connect, but as I mentioned earlier this thread that's not what counts for me. For me it matters that the source is good, not that garmin (connect) somehow knows how to make it show up fine.

I can only send the watch back for 4 weeks after buying (which is already more then the usual 2 weeks) so I can't give it another month or 2 and send it back if I don't like it then. And all the reading I did into the F3 and my hunch about the F5 I am not counting on this getting fixed.

Then I'd have to cut my losses and sell it. So yeah, I'm going to send it back in order to give the 935 a try since as far as I've seen it does give better and more consistent tracks.

About looks, I'm with you that the F5 looks better (even though I haven't seen the 935 in real life yet, unfortunately not for sale here yet) and if I didn't like the F5 looks so much I wouldn't have thought so long about exchanging it for the 935, then it would be an instant decision.