What about Gradient Lag?

I think a reasonable expectation is that it ought to work as well as it has historically across a broad spectrum of Edge devices. Krazyeone's suggestion that it may relate to "battery optimization" makes some sense. What would be useful is for Garmin to simply say what design decision is the reason for current behavior. If it is as simple as elevation sampling rate maybe make available a user selectable interval with the understanding that it impacts battery life.

Define "as well historically".  There is both responsiveness and accuracy to consider.  So far the discussion has been all about responsiveness.  What if slower responding is actually more accurate overall?  For example the gradient on longer climbs is better even though on really short climbs it is worse?  I mention this because I remember 5 or something years ago there was an issue that total ascent was higher than Strava and some other computers.  One contributing factor turned out to be that the barometer signal didn't have enough averaging and every bit of sensor noise, speed bumps, etc got counted as elevation gain.  So, it was changed to average more and total gain got better but responsiveness got slower.  There may well be a tradeoff that we are not aware of.

If this were adjustable in software/firmware Garmin would have certainly made an adjustment in the last two years. There is obviously a hardware change they and we are stuck with. What is disappointing is that they won't acknowledge that and communicate the parameters they are confined to. 

The Gradient Data Field is one of the “Popular” Data Fields in the Screen selection page. I would suggest that the majority are interested in it, especially if you ride in countries that are hilly/mountainous.

As proved when I went out with both my 1000 & 1040, the 1040 is a huge retrograde step from the 1000. The 1040 lagged way behind the 8 year old technology of the 1000. So there is something they can do about.

Assuming the sensor is either the same or better in the 1040 and that the holes in the backplate activate the sensor the same, Garmin can reinstate the 1000 algorithm and return the 1040 to at least the state of the 1000. This was not perfect, I always found it 50M behind, which was ok’ish and I could accept that lag.

The 1040 Gradient lag makes anything that uses it useless e.g. the. Data Field, Elevation Screen as well as ClimbPro. I have switched them all off as I cannot face seeing the Gradient it way off with the current lag.

I understand the complaints about lag on elevation display and gradient display.
But I don't understand that Cilmb Pro is still lumped together with gradient lag despite all efforts to explain how it works.

https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/cycling/f/edge-1040-series/296993/what-about-gradient-lag/1448468#1448468

As proved when I went out with both my 1000 & 1040, the 1040 is a huge retrograde step from the 1000

really? Why did not stay with 1000?

I really understand that some functionality are not the same , but most of the package, touch, battery, how it looks , are way better on 1040 , or not?

For example, GPS accuracy for my Fenix 6X is not as good as Fenix 5 Plus Sapphire, but I would not say that is retrograde 

If only that gradient functionality is your only concern, then focus to find other device

I am not defending Garmin, I want to have also this fixed, improved , but I am following Wahoo forum (google group) , and there are ton of complains , some not solved from more than 2 years, so , you will have better Gradient response , but lacking on other functionality 

Just my 5 cents 

MikeF-Swiss is not mixing these things up, he is referring to displaying the gradient as a data field in the elevation screen / ClimbPro pages where the gradient data field is set up by default. Of course, you can replace this data field with other information, but especially on these two pages it seems to be quite relevant (at least it is for me).

The Post is talking about Gradient Lag, not the 1040 in general. The Gradient lag is a huge retrograde step compared to the 1000. That is a fact, if you wish to dispute that or defend it, it’s your prerogative. The 1040 should be 8 years on in the technology field, in many areas it is, but not in this one.

As for ClimbPro, I guess the Gradient Field is no essential for some, but for me, along with Elevation, it’s the most logical. What else so you want to see when climbing.

Possibly not for this Post, but the ClimbPro position pointer also lags. The first time I saw this, I though the device had stopped, only for it jump 200M on to my actual position. It may be related with Gradient Lag, maybe not, but it’s giving you invalid data. From my perspective, no data is better that invalid / incorrect data.

@djwalker : Too funny. But sad.  

What would be your rationalization in defending Garmin, if actual SPEED was displayed with a 10-15-20 second lag bc of a hardware or software issue??

Would you also try to explain it away and defend Garmin similarly?

The 1000 was pretty much spot-on accurate for gradient display AND FAST!
The “upgraded” 1040 and 1030 Plus … Are slower than sloths at the same stuff. Embarassing.

Back to your drawing board - Try again.