Pace accuracy

I've noticed this a well, and it seems to be because the f5 is not getting accurate distance information on the GPS side of things. I had my f5 and Spartan Ultra out on a multi-use paved path that has half and mile markers. Both watches are on the latest firmware, both had ample time for the 'ole GPS soak, and both were on GPS+GLONASS and 1 second recording. The SSU hit every single mile marker, and recorded exactly 6 miles. This was a 3 miles out, 3 miles back run and I turned around exactly at the 3 mile marker. Pace, power (Stryd Summit), and HR were all very nice and smooth in Movescount. The f5, while running, had pace that was all over the place when compared to the SSU. Most times f5 pace was 15-30 seconds per mile off in comparison.

I can deal with a less than stellar GPS track. The actual f5 GPS track is pretty good, but the distance was short by .13, IIRC.

And I suppose the F5 was hit and miss with the markers, sometimes early, sometimes late ? That's really beyond annoying when you're trying to have a nice regular marathon pace.

Agree...

And I suppose the F5 was hit and miss with the markers, sometimes early, sometimes late ? That's really beyond annoying when you're trying to have a nice regular marathon pace.

I agree with it being VERY annoying but at any pace when you're trying to do any type of training while keeping a steady pace. I was wondering what the heck was going on. Man, I really like this watch and want to keep it, it looks so nice but the performance in some area's are less than stellar. Maybe I'll even consider the 935 but have to see what that one has that my 735XT doesn't have.

I agree with it being VERY annoying but at any pace when you're trying to do any type of training while keeping a steady pace. I was wondering what the heck was going on. Man, I really like this watch and want to keep it, it looks so nice but the performance in some area's are less than stellar. Maybe I'll even consider the 935 but have to see what that one has that my 735XT doesn't have.

Eh, basically everything the fenix5 has and in case you don;t have the sapphire version of the f5 also added wifi?

I mean, you do know the 935 and fenix5 are pretty much identical hardware and functionality wise and the only/main difference is the housing.

you'll think your pace is messed up when in fact it's the watch, annoying, confusing and just plain unacceptable.

You're right, I'm thinking about whether this can be solved or not... I'm afraid it's the matter of GPS "inaccuracy" so that's a big question. Today I was doing some test against my old V800 and the current pace was mostly way off on my F5. But as I remember this was problem on F3 as well. On flat runs I use current lap pace, which works fine for me, but on trail runs with lots of climbs it's useless (it was big difference for my mind while climbing to hill and see pace 8:00/min on F5 while 5:30 on V800)

I still don't understand why only current pace is such a problem, overall distance is correct I'd say. Just confusing...

Yes and no, a watch like the FR235 has very stable instant pace, courtesy of the smoothing that Garmin does and displaying only 5" increments. In fact it looks smoother in GC than the pace from a footpod that is not filtered and therefore much more "reactive". So with the FR235 (or the FR935 it seems) you get to pick what you want, on the F5 you're forced to use a footpod due to the degraded underlying GPS data, it shouldn't have to be like that, especially for a top end watch.

You are right to a point, but even with the V800, which has awesome GPS performance, the "pace line" will be way more jagged (i.e. less precise) with GPS than with a foot pod.

Functionality...

Eh, basically everything the fenix5 has and in case you don;t have the sapphire version of the f5 also added wifi?

I mean, you do know the 935 and fenix5 are pretty much identical hardware and functionality wise and the only/main difference is the housing.

Yes I've done a little research as there are some things that I liked with the F3HR and F5s. I found out that they are functionally pretty much the same but it appears that when it comes to performing those functions they are not the same for some reason. Yes and I paid extra for the WiFi, not just for the WiFi but I liked the "Blacked Out" look of the 5s sapphire (I sent the non-sapphire back). Maybe the housing is what's causing these issues I'm seeing with the F5s and didn't see with the 735xt which has the same or similar body as the 935. I'm not a nit picker I just want to keep track of my runs and workouts and I'm pretty easy to please. When I'm running at a pretty good pace (for me) and look at my watch and see half the speed/pace I'm actually running for no reason at all it kind of interferes with my run not to mention how much it could impact my total distance. This never happened with the 735xt that doesn't have the added functions of the new 935 or the F5.

Agree...

A barometer (nice to get smooth elevation profiles and accurate D+/D-) and a much better backlight, but for some reason they removed the ability to use 3 CIQ datafields, it's back to 2 like on the FR235, F3, etc...

Sure it's annoying, not only for marathon pace, and the worst part of course is that if you're running with only one watch (should be enough!) on a road without markers (most cases I'd say) is that you'll think your pace is messed up when in fact it's the watch, annoying, confusing and just plain unacceptable.

100% especially at this price point! I just want it to work and enjoy my runs or just suffer from the workout/run itself, not have equipment blues! I actually wear 2 watches on opposite wrists of course, for some reason I can't give up on my Apple Watch 2. :rolleyes:

And I suppose the F5 was hit and miss with the markers, sometimes early, sometimes late ? That's really beyond annoying when you're trying to have a nice regular marathon pace.

The F5 was late on every mile marker. Meaning, the F5 hit its mile after I had passed the mile marker. Back at the starting point (6 total miles), the SSU hit six on the nose, whereas the F5 was 5.87 or thereabouts. I'm torn as to whether the F5 will go back and be replaced with a 935.