Thus far, it is a little frustrating. The F3 was such a fiasco that I thought it would have addressed.
I will say that watch (particularly mapping) is incredible.
Also, I haven't done the same comparison with the updated gps file. I might do that tonight.
The most important thing about the F5 review is yet to come.
I'm waiting for Fellnrn to update the picture with his views on the trueness/accuracy values and see where he places the F5 when compared to the F3.
(dang, got to update the signature, lol)
His Garmin reviews are suspect until he either starts testing using 1 sec update, or until he presents his testing that proves that there is no difference between 1 sec and smart. Until that happens, his Garmin GPS tests aren't worth discussing. At all.
last night I started to purchase the stryd but then decided to hold on some personal finance issue. but I had it in my shopping cart and was filling out billing. at least last night the code tfk10 worked. just now after reading your post, I find its not working. maybe being posted here, folks saw it and they discontinued it. Thats a shame. 90% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
His Garmin reviews are suspect until he either starts testing using 1 sec update, or until he presents his testing that proves that there is no difference between 1 sec and smart. Until that happens, his Garmin GPS tests aren't worth discussing. At all.
So on the watch itself and in Garmin connect (and strava), distance reporting should be the same on both smart and 1 second. If you take the GPX files and analyze them, those will look different because of the RECORDED sampling volume. The location sampling should be occurring at the same rate, it is just dropping breadcrumbs less frequently so 1 second will show better on sites like mygpsfiles. Also, if he is using the recorded data for his analysis, then it is apples to oranges unless suunto and polar are doing the same thing.
For the 5x, I think the watch distance is screwed up because it is reporting in my example 4-9% less than my other two garmins.
I couldn't disagree more with this guy when it comes to the OHR tracking. And to be clear, I'm disadvantaging the watch as well -- I prefer a "NATO" style cloth strap and I do NOT cinch it down tight except when running where the motion is bothersome (and can be abrasive); the rest of the time there is a small but available amount of motion between the watch and my wrist.
I've now had the F5x long enough to "test" the OHR in all sorts of conditions -- sleeping, daily activities, mowing the lawn, hiking, biking. The exception is running, when I wear the chest strap because I want advanced dynamics. If I didn't have a pod-based HRM-RUN already (and no, I do not want the "integrated" style one they sell now!) I'd almost-certainly buy the little add-on sender to clip to my shorts and use the OHR for running too. I suspect I'd be just as happy.
I've had exactly ZERO issues with dropouts or bad data. None. I didn't expect it to be this good, frankly -- all the "reviews" have said it's not. Well, it is. At least on my wrist it is. Thus, my YMMV caveat.
As for the GPS accuracy I find that the distance is bang-on. The track? Not so much. But it wasn't the F3 either; as far as I can determine they're pretty equal in that regard. If there's a material disappointment it lies here - I was hoping for improvement over the F3, and I didn't get it.
Tickerguy - if you are running/riding reasonably straight paths or paths with road turns, you are right, this thing will register very accurate distances.
Throw in switchbacks on trail and it starts falling behind. Check out the trail I ran with the 920/F3/F5x. The F5x was hurtin.
I just got back from N. GA and did several days of hiking on the AT and related trails in the area -- which are full of switchbacks.... While the tracks were of variable quality (not surprising given the terrain and in some cases tree cover) the distances shown, based on the watch and the published distances between gaps and such, was pretty close to bang-on.
With the pace of hiking and the AT trail not having constant tight switchbacks (or many although
I have only hike sections and realize that climbing hills generally have tight switchbacks after straight paths), I believe it was accurate for you. That is great that it hits your style of use. For a trail runner or mountain biker, my experience is that it will be less distance by a fair amount that will account for pace that the s 30-45 seconds per mile slower than actual pace.
