Was wondering about that last week too, especially since no F5s track had yet been posted...then someone posted one and it showed the same problems (pace, wobbling) as the F5 unfortunately.
We all know any reviewer is going to be limited. Even DCR has a limited view of GPS accuracy and everyone I have seen post here and on Suunto's forum at WUS seems to waver on their opinions from defend against all comers to switching models (F5 to 935) or even manufacturers (Suunto <-> Garmin). So take fellrunr's eval fwiw (for what its worth), which is one person's limited eval based on that person's limited testing, but you can't just ignore it entirely. Ignoring results that don't fit your preferences is called confirmation bias! A common logical flaw in itself.
The other problem with this whole discussion is everyone has a different metric that they think is essential. A lot of folks seem to care about real-time pace. Personally I do not. A lot of folks care about accumulated distance in real-time (as opposed to after workout analysis in some software). I agree on that - I run ultras and it is mentally useful to know how much farther to the next aid station or finish. But I really really value knowing where I am - particularly when I'm in an unfamiliar area. Many people seem to run on pre-planned routes - DCR certainly does, which is fine, and I do when I'm in an organized event - but I also like to explore, which means tracking my location. I do not need POI or turn-by-turn nav, but I do want to know what the shape of my track is and it would be great to know where I am on an actual map. That is why I tried the Epix and am interested in the 5X. The Epix had a variety of problems, not the least of which was battery life. But having accurate GPS makes everything else work, so I appreciate ALL reports of how well a device lets you know where you are relative to true location. Tracks that are off are problematic.
Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of people dismissing reports from others when they don't like the report. I get that you don't like sweeping conclusions, such as those seemingly reached by fellrunr or DCR (who has his own biases in terms of limits to testing conditions), but please just take them FWIW. :)
Sorry, but for me at least it is not the results I have problems with, it is the methodology that leads to those results and the underlying bias in the thinking on certain topics (Smart Recording vs. 1s Recording for example). I don't disagree that you should not ignore it entirely, but it is flawed enough in my view to not count it in my thinking anymore than a random person posting their results on this forum (or my personal results that I post for that matter) and no longer deserves the "gold standard" that was applied to his testing and results. JMHO
It's ok, if anyone looks at the chart and makes his own conclusion, but I do mind when it's posted in threads as an ultimate truth about device accuracy. He also doesn't seem to retest all devices when they get updated, so for a buyer, the chart is often useless few weeks after release, which many don't realize.
This was my first ride with 5S and EDGE1000. All settings on the 5S was default values, GPS only and smart recording.
http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#LtBDgKGy
That track is amazing
I am very pleased with my F5
It is consistent and accurate
This was my first ride with 5S and EDGE1000. All settings on the 5S was default values, GPS only and smart recording.
http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#LtBDgKGy
This was my first ride with 5S and EDGE1000. All settings on the 5S was default values, GPS only and smart recording.
http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#LtBDgKGy
I am assuming you had the 5s on you wrist and not mounted on the bars correct?
Track is really good, even around buildings. Would like to see more people post comparative tracks (or just tracks) from the 5s. I have a feeling the internals in the 5s are the same as the 935 and it may not have the Exo Antenna and might have better GPS performance compared to the 5/5x, but that is just a thought. Be interested to see some more data.
I am assuming you had the 5s on you wrist and not mounted on the bars correct?
Track is really good, even around buildings. Would like to see more people post comparative tracks (or just tracks) from the 5s. I have a feeling the internals in the 5s are the same as the 935 and it may not have the Exo Antenna and might have better GPS performance compared to the 5/5x, but that is just a thought. Be interested to see some more data.
Yes, I had the 5s on my left wrist and the Edge1000 mounted on the bars. I would also like to se more data from other 5s users, it might be better than the 5/5X...
I have a feeling the internals in the 5s are the same as the 935 and it may not have the Exo Antenna and might have better GPS performance compared to the 5/5x, but that is just a thought. Be interested to see some more data.
The FCC's internal antenna photos from the 5 and the 5S appear to be nearly identical. I haven't found the FCC images from the 935...
I would go so far to say that I can ignore his assessments for the following reasons:
From Fellnr's methodology,
"I ran the same route repeatedly"
I don't run the same route repeatedly and neither do most people. I don't run HIS route and I don't run at HIS location. My watch certainly doesn't use the same satellites that he uses.
"The course is challenging for GPS, with lots of twists, tree cover, power lines, turn arounds and goes under a bridge"
Challenges in one location will be different based a number of factors: latitude, time of day, how you wear the watch, GLONASS, surrounding structures...etc.
"I believe that it's reasonably representative of real-world conditions"
I don't
"probably less challenging than running in the city with skyscrapers."
How can he make this assumption if he hasn't tested GPS in other locations?
Basically, this test is ironclad for anyone running this route over and over again and represents n=1. To try and apply universally is poor science at best.
