Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Garmin 1040 Solar Total Elevation +100mt bug?

dedo
7 months ago

I have had a Garmin 1040 solar for a few weeks, unfortunately I noticed a problem in calculating the total ascent of my rides with an average overestimation of about 100m compared to the real one, while the data relating to the altitude are correct. Reading on the forum I saw that there are numerous owners of the 1040 who complain about this defect. Some say that the problem can occur when there is dirt (dust or mud) in the barometric sensor; however my unit is new and the error is always the same (+100mt) so I think it's a software problem. I would like to know if I should wait for Garmin to resolve everything with a software update or if I should instead resort to assistance by sending the 1040 unit for assistance.

On some forums they say to immerse the unit in hot water for a few minutes to clean the barometric sensor but I struggle to think that it is a problem of a blocked sensor, because the delta of the error on the total ascent is always the same same...about 100m more

  • 0 7 months ago

    it is the problem of all x40 series, i already posted it (if i will have time, i will link my older post here where i posted it with lots of other Garmin measurements on same training courses) , the problem is the barometric data filtering on flat/false flat routes for this sum value . (so if you just climb up and down on a hill, the total ascent/descent data is accurate and exactly the same as the other's data, comparing to FR devices or older Edge series, but if there are lots of flat or semiflat , false-flat rolling terrain during the ride, or the whole ride is on full pancake flat, the total ascent is really exaggerated, sometimes 2.5-3x higher, lets say 120km/350m instead of 120km/100m).

    so the Garmin need to compare this filtering/smoothing algorhytm to the older Edge model, and find where is the problem in the calculation and fix it. 

  • 0 7 months ago in reply to Luko79

    but I have friends with non-solar Garmin 840 and 1040 who don't have this problem

  • 0 7 months ago in reply to dedo

    i have 840 and i have this issue :) (and others have also just they dont know what is bad and what is good elevation data, i see but they don't  Slight smile  , and probably they dont do dual or triple recordings simultanously...) if somebody is not doing repetable training rounds on same route with 3-4 different Garmin units in the past 10 years, he has no knowledge that something is a bit off now. and as i wrote, depending on the terrain, if somebody lives in the Alps, and all the time he is just climbing up and down, with minimal flat sections, the total ascent difference between and older Edge unit (or FRs) and between 840/1040 is very very tiny or non exists, but if he lives in pancake flat terrain like Netherland or other Eu country where the bigger part of the terrain is similar (like Latvia, Estonia, or North Poland), then the difference is much bigger. 

    so the "they dont have" and "they dont know" are not similar...

    I'm 100% sure that this total calculation is not tested/validated properly on flat(tish) terrain, only in lab, where they could adjust the altitude artifically 

  • 0 7 months ago

    There's so much filtering involved 'correct' is probably not the right term but I get it. My 530 definitely seemed to underreport. My 1040 solar does a better job matching route planners and others' files, and is way way way more consistent than my previous units. 

  • 0 7 months ago in reply to j_wardy

    the route planners also not so accurate (or at least not reference datas, none of them are working from LiDAR measurements, and not for the entire globe... :)) but if the newer (Edge) series would give you less totals than the previous generations, you would complain immediately :)  . there are good topomaps which are extremely accurate due to LiDAR data, but these are not route planners, and only good for manual calculation between 2 points (lets say between the bottom and top of a climb)

    as others do with the VO2Max predictions: it is human behaviour.  elevation gain, vo2max, ftp, watt : always the higher is the better and the "valid". weight: always the less is the good :)