Related
Options

Unbelievable GPS accuracy - bike mode

agrarina
over 5 years ago

Hi there,

Fenix 6x pro user for last 6 months. Entirely used it, so far, for running - road and trail (5-6 times per week). GPS accuracy (all possible modes tried) is good in open fields and not so good around trees and buildings (track tends to shift always left from the actional loction considering the direction of movement).

Now, today was the first time used the watch to track bike ride in the city. Recorded track is simply spot on! I was looking in it closely and can`t detect even minimal inaccuracy?!

Link to the activity-> https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4759107369

I have run a lot of times on these streets and never get such great track (not even close).

Any ideas whay is that? Does someone else observed similar behaviour?

I`m about to try running under bike mode and will report back.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to scotthunter2
    scotthunter2 said:
    most of the case is made from stainless steel, this degrades the already weak GPS signals from the satellites as it's harder for signals to pass through steel than plastic

    Not how it works. The bezel on the Fenix 3 and later watches is part of the antenna system, it's s loop antenna coupled to the internal antenna. The big problem is that it's a bit small for the wavelength, especially on the non X watches, so not as sensitive as it might be. I do notice that 6x owners complain a lot less about accuracy (not not at all, but less). 

    They made a marketing thing of it when the 3 was released, calling it Exo, but it didn't really catch on and they don't seem to use that any more. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Well after all this time today I had my best track so far with garmin. It was absolutely amazing and spot on. It was even under trees. 

    Check this out all of you. 

    Check out my running activity on Garmin Connect. #beatyesterday
    connect.garmin.com/.../4765163736

    I repeat best gps tracking in all my garmin watches. 

    They have changed something. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to mcbadger

    I guess, speed counts to some extent. Anyhow, earlier today, I had a ride with my little ones and again recorded track is near perfect, despite the fact that I was moving slower than I usually run. It`s either the lack of wrist movement or distance from body that gives better results. Or both.Next test would be to have the watch attached to my body and and running with selfie stick Grinning

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to agrarina

    Yes, at least some of those contribute too, to be fair. I doubt that body distance means much, but consistent movement rather than rocking wrist motion keeps the Doppler shifts consistent, and the sky view consistent too - even if it's on your wrist, it points at the same bit of sky when you're going in a straight line, and if it's on your bars, the view is better and more consistent still. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to Crispin_Ellisdon
    Crispin_Ellisdon said:
    Whilst running or even walking, the watch is constantly moving back and forth with your arm swing and the watch is unlikely to have the bezel, that the GPS antenna sits under, facing towards the sky; so it's actually a pretty rubbish situation for GPS reception. 

    This is also why a lot of open water swimmers place their watch under their swimming cap.  Just as with the arm swing while running, the GPS signal can weaken while that wrist is underwater.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to agrarina
    agrarina said:
    Next test would be to have the watch attached to my body and and running

    You could test the swimming cap theory.  As crazy as it may sound, you could place your watch under a ball cap and see if the tracks are truly better on a test run.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to who knows
    who knows said:
    As crazy as it may sound, you could place your watch under a ball cap and see if the tracks are truly better on a test run.

    I'll admit to having done that some years back. I forget which running watch it was, maybe the FR620? Anyway, it turned out awful because not seeing the wrist motion messed up not just the cadence but the entire GPS track - it clearly thought I couldn't actually be running. I would hope that the F6 would do better than that...

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to mcbadger

    I'm not familiar with the 620.  Is it compatible with the Tri or Run?  I would think since you could use those straps (or even a Stryd) with the F6 that cadence wouldn't be an issue and the watch would still track the GPS.  Would you still need the arm movement with the running app?  Is it different than the open water swimming app?

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to mcbadger

    I don't know either. I've never tried it for running or swimming. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to tess
    tess said:
    it compatible with the Tri or Run?  I would think since you could use those straps (or even a Stryd) with the F6 that cadence wouldn't be an issue and the watch would still track the GPS

    Yes, and I had an HRM-Run. Was using it that day, too. I have actually managed to find it- don’t want to share the whole thing as it shows my home,  but I had the 620 on a pack strap pointing up and a Fenix 1 on my wrist, and the Fenix did way better - at one point the 620 was more than 50m off track, which I hadn’t expected, by that firmware release it was pretty accurate. Fenix distance was closer to route mapping, as well, by maybe .3 of a mile over 10 miles.