Why is Garmin ignoring the GPS issue?

Why is Garmin ignoring the GPS issue?

Because there is no GPS issue.

I am so sick of hearing about this.

If you have a device with a defective GPS then return the damn thing.

I have owned F3, F3HR, F5, F5x, and the GPS is always good. I have compared the GPS (and heart rate) to many other devices (Polar V800, Suunto Ambit 3 Peak, Spartan Ultra, Fitbit Ionic, and others), and the GPS is always on par with them all.

The V800 is clearly superior to the F5s GPS wise. I only got comparable results when running under blue sky with no trees, houses or hills nearby. As soon as the conditions got harder, the F5s was losing it.

Here is a comparison I did between the F5 and V800...

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#Gu3JV5DN

lots of overhanging trees and hilly trails.

I have had my V800 give me crazy tracks many many times in the past, but overall the GPS is pretty good. I would certainly not say "clearly superior". But I never had a 5s, just the 5 & 5x.

5s here. No trees around, but tracking almost 100% out of the trail...

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#GhGsDDbf

that track does not look too bad at all.

is the distance correct?

Don't want to upset the Garmin fans in the discussion...

Here's my five cents' worth. I have now run with 3 different devices: Microsoft Band (yes, indeed - the first one!), Fitbit Surge, and now F5.
As with all conclusions, from all participants here, mine, too, are anecdotal.

All of these trackers/watches have their issues, but these are the differences:
I run the same track almost every day, and have been doing so for at least 2 years. So I know my track, I know the timings, I know the splits, and I know the overall distance (5.77 km).

MS Band: would track almost instantly, length of track would vary between 5.34 and 5.45 km. btw I had to stop using it twice because the galvanisation on the inside wore off giving instant skin irritation. No issue otherwise, and contrary to other trackers, the GPS would also kick in if left to search en route (see below).

Fitbit surge: same precision, approximately, but very irritating feature: GPS would take ages to lock on when used either the first time or after a change of location, and if left to search while running, would not lock on at all. fun anecdote: on a recent 15k run which was a back-and-forth on a road, I assumed my total would be 15k after turning around at km 7.7 as per GPS. My total after arriving where I started: 14.4... It can't have been the maths, it can't have been the road that was suddenly shorter...

F5: depending on the day and mood, the distance variations can be significant: between 5.16 and 5.55 km (on the same 5.77 km track). Seems to happen after travelling and running in another location. None of the others has this extent of variation of overall distance on the same track.

Interesting anecdote: following update to firmware 7, distance is closer (but not close enough for me) to reality, laps are more in line with reality. However, this may just be more of the above - I'll update after the Christmas break.

My conclusion: none of these trackers are prefect, and indeed, they are small, constantly moving devices, so they cannot be expected to deliver precision down to the meter (or yard).

But - and this is my gripe - these are my issues with the F5:

1. Garmin is a GPS specialist. One would expect from them a product that delivers consistent results, and in particular results that are within 5% or less of reality. So for my run, I would expect a recorded total distance of at least 5.5k, every time, average lap times that vary max 15 seconds between runs (assuming all physical conditions etc are the same of course), and individual lap times that are coherent and don't jump by more than a minute from one lap to the next. (Interesting question: why is the recorded distance only ever less, but never more, than the real distance?)

2. This device is expensive, one of the most expensive sportwatches/trackers around. It should not be performing worse than competitors costing half the price - including on "duh" types of features such as sleep tracking which FitBit does perfectly (MS too but it requires manual launch, F5 fails at least 50% of the time), or alarm syncing which took them 6 months to fix.

3. The device should make it possible to get a consistent (even if not 100% corresponding to reality), i.e. reproduceable, outcome for every activity. In my case, I regularly have variations in VO2max and training status, not because something fundamental has changed in my fitness, but because the recorded distance has varied between 8 and over 10% between runs and has never even come close to the actual map distance which is 5.77. Not to mention lap times which are all over the place, and incoherent average splits which I am now dealing with by manually adjusting the total distance after each run.

Anecdote: consistency (not accuracy) is much better for specific periods of time - I suspect (again) because the GPS recalibrates after having tracked in another location, and depending on the mood of the day, that'll mean a couple of weeks of one type of distance (say between 5.4 and 5.5 km), followed by a couple of weeks of another type of distance (say between 5.30 and 5.36 km) - on the same 5.77 km track, of course.

The combination of these above elements for me is a minus. Don't get me wrong, I like the watch, I like the looks, I like the features, I think it is overall a good product and a good concept - but there are performance issues that a product of this price range should not have. If Microsoft can do arguably better (if not much better) with a $200 product which is in addition really cheaply made, and FitBit can do as well and in some areas better, for a $ 300 product, then there's an issue. Anyway, not my problem, but Garmin's to fix.

To those saying there isn’t an issue ‘just get your watch replaced’ the fact that so many people are complaining suggests there are a lot of faulty watches out there. I’ve found the Fenix 5 to be over 20% out at times (500m over 2.5 km is terrible), which is shocking performance. I wish I hadn’t bought this. I automatically assumed it was my Apple Watch that was out as well. I’m sorry for doubting you Apple.

to add it doesn’t give live pacing in km either it’s a pretty poor show.

Fenix 5 is one of Garmins best sellers (allegedly best selling Garmin watch ever?). GPS accuracy issues - real or not - are highly visible and have a severe impact to the experience with the watch as they directly affect the principal use case. Also, most fenix 5 users are likely more tech oriented so are probably able to find a forum and report their issue.

Taking the above into consideration I do not see the incidence of the issues in this forum to be unusually high in context of how many fenix 5s are likely out there. The accuracy of my fenix 5 has been exactly the same as the accuracy of every watch I had before - on my local parkrun (5 km) I have always seen distances between 4.95 and 5.00 km. Yes, there are issues with GPS based pace (which is always a challenge) and yes, there is likely a HW issue impacting the strength of ANT+ and BT connections (although I, personally, have zero problems), possibly to maximize battery life or possibly due to HW design.

But I wholeheartedly agree with bcalvanese that people who think they have an issue should get their watch replaced via standard channels or, and maybe even more importantly, ensure that they take all precautions and avoid common issues that impact accuracy: (1) wait for the signal to "sink in" (never start activity immediately after selecting it); (2) be aware of inherent accuracy challenges in built in areas and under tree cover etc. (3) ensure all settings are toggled for maximum accuracy (1 sec recording, 3d distance/speed turned off, etc.)

Interesting. I've been reacting to a number of threads here, and here are some comments based on my experience:
I agree that the GPS accuracy issues are likely overstated to some extent. Some other problems, I've not been able to replicate. But that's not to say there aren't some issues that need to be looked at.

1. GPS I find has for my standard run (which I've been doing for the past 5 years or so) not been accurate enough. My main gripe is that 90% of the time it would shortchange me on distance, and not by only 50m, but usually anywhere between 100 and 300 m - which is too much for a total length of 5.5 km+
2. the GPS tracking also fails I find in the consistency department - no two runs would ever be the exact same distance, and the variations would not be small either - usually at least 100m. Variations become highly visible after changes in location (running in one geographical area one time, and another one on another day).
3. Remarkably, this is the same as or worse (even if not by much, but still) than other devices I have used, which were a lot less expensive, and which have less of a reputation to lose...
4. I do have the impression that GPS has improved since FW 7.10 - but that's really an impression more than a long series of facts.
5. The above issues are even clearer now that I have shifted to running with a footpod (stryd) - I have for the first time, ever, had the exact same distance on two consecutive runs... and both realistic and comparable pace...
6. Also true: I have not been able to reproduce any of the issues that are listed here or elsewhere on BT LTE or ANT+ - I have no phone connectivity problems worth mentioning, and the ANT+ connection to my footpod is literally 100% - zero drop-outs.

Ivd had these f3, f3hr, f5 and all were awful in terms of GPS, I have used loan 935 and it performed in GPS way better. So I think it is design flaw as they share same GPS chip. And for people who said what you expect from consumer grade device? This device price isn’t consumer grade and even marketed as triathlon watch, I haven’t saw so many consumers who do triathlon often :) back to the topic I have purchased Suunto now and GPS performance is on top so I better leave smart watch features for consumers and rely on less features but with way higher accurate data as I am more to the sport instead of features ;)

imagine triatlon or 40k person with inaccuracies over 10% in the route length or even more with power save mode :)

Could you tell me the best confirmation to have stable speed, because I will be pacemaker on the marathon very slow 4;30 but I would like to have very stable speed . Now I running f5 ,+ gps+ Glonass+ HRM Tri ,+ footpod Garmin sdm4
And 20 s is standard different. And alert +/-5 second is to short I need put 20s because every minutes alert

I live in Norway and have no issues regarding gps. We also have a condo in Huahin, Thailand and I did a comparision today on a bike trip. I used my F5, and Polar Beat together with my Iphone 6. F5 showed a total distance of 44,75km and Polar/Iphone showed 44,55km. That is only 0,45% difference. Not bad, I think. Funny thing is that when F5 show som off-track on the map, Polar/Iphone show the same on that same place. I have same variations other places on the map too, so F5 does not show more off-track than Polar/Iphone. Just sharing my experience for the discussion.ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1295193.png