Which forerunner is closest to the Fenix 6s pro?

So I basically had it with the Fenix, and especially the pace/distance/accelerometer issue. It's totally useless for running, and especially for a Garmin coach or any other structured running programme. Tonight there are intervals on the plan. How the heck am I supposed to do 30 second intervals if it takes more than 2 minutes for the pace to finally catch up in some circumstances?

Want to see if Garmin takes this piece of junk back and replaces it with a Forerunner. The question is: Which watch is closest to the Fenix? Like running, hiking, pool swimming, cycling. Like all the lifestyle and sleep tracking. And I want a similar, if not better battery time. Shame they don't seem to come with the battery saver that I use during the night. Don't care about music, LTE and stuff, but mapping/routes is a must, small watch. Don't need always on screen. Damn, but I really like the standard watch face of the Fenix! Most importantly: Pace/distance does work!

Top Replies

All Replies

0 6928399 over 3 years ago in reply to Ɛpsilon

Yep. I'll have a look at the software that DC Rainmaker talked about and run the .fit file through it.

0 Ɛpsilon over 3 years ago in reply to 6928399

Tried my footpod today

!) Pace looked clearer, but a better test may be tomorrow. Today was a 16K run and very big on climb then usual, but it did look less spiky.
2) More interesting, I stopped using it because I thought it was using a lot of battery on the watch. It didn't today, could hardly see any extra usage.....

Tomorrow I'm doing a shorter faster run so I'll see how it behaves then!

0 6928399 over 3 years ago in reply to Ɛpsilon

Got my somewhat longer run data for the calibration tool. Now how do I use it? Garmin insists I ran 7.846km. My phone claims it was 8:13km. Now I know the watch under-measures from running some measured routes. Unfortunately I got lost in a construction side on a narrow path between a boarded off street and a higher building. That messed with the data on one point. Thus at least there I would totally not trust my phone.

Here the output based on Garmin distance:

and here using the distance the phone measured:

basically the data is all over the place. Which I thought it would be. Hmpf...

Pace data. Construction site marked in red

0 Ɛpsilon over 3 years ago in reply to 6928399

Mind need to gently tinker with the calibration value, but not much it seems.

0 Ɛpsilon over 3 years ago in reply to Ɛpsilon

For the next run - try setting the footpod to always for pace? That should make a difference? You could even try for distance too.

0 Ɛpsilon over 3 years ago in reply to Ɛpsilon

300m over 8K is about 4%, so perhaps gently tinkering with the calibration (auto can only do so much) may help lessen the gap. I'd also caution beware comparing phones to watches on pure GPS simply as phones have more processing power and bigger aerials. Hence why footpods became a thing anyway, as a way to cope with the disadvantages small GPS units have. The position error per reading is about 4m. But once you start using a footpod, then positional errors are no longer a big problem for pace calculations and with good calibration do really well for distance.

0 Ɛpsilon over 3 years ago in reply to 6928399

is that this? www.dcrainmaker.com/.../garmin-ant-footpod-calibration-tool.html

0 Ɛpsilon over 3 years ago in reply to Ɛpsilon

That link is good, because as he says at the end (paraphrasing)

Ideal: Do a track run and calibrate to that. An absolute measured distance to great accuracy

Not quite ideal, calibrate to a GPS run and use two GPS's to try and get the real value between them.. But whereas it's not ideal, further tinkering will improve it a lot. And it's not huge tinkering.

If (for example) your calibration is 1.004 and you're still a little short, try 1.006. a few of these and you'll get a close enough convergence that you're going yo get, because even the phone will differ slightly at times (as you saw with the one section)

Yes it's awkward, yes it's tinkering - but it all helps to get to a point where you don't need too :)

0 Ɛpsilon over 3 years ago in reply to Ɛpsilon

One thought... do you have a Parkrun near you? They tend to have pretty well defined courses and well measured. Ideal for a calibration run :)

0 6928399 over 3 years ago in reply to Ɛpsilon

Without calibration? Yes, that was the idea on a little test run. lets see if I get proper data at all. i tried ti before and the pace graph looked like I was doing galloway run/walk intervals. There was something thoroughly wrong. I'll test it on a few shorter runs.