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

More disappointment with the 645 elevation

scotthunter2
over 5 years ago
Another trail run today around the hills of Dorset (UK), which takes in three of the highest peaks in the area over a distance of 10 miles, so it was a good one for testing the altimeter. Sadly, the altimeter performance on my recently replaced 645 was quite frankly woeful, just like on the first device. Just from looking at the elevation graph on GC (I somehow can't upload photos on here), the watch is not recording a true elevation profile. I know the total elevation recorded (1421ft) is incorrect by nearly 300ft. About half of the elevation profile is smoothed out, and there are two incidents of sudden unexplained 15m drops in elevation in the middle and end sections of the run. I looked at the other activities from the other runners today on Strava and they all recorded between 1600-1700ft. I also compared it from a year ago when I ran with my 935, which recorded 1686ft. Bizarrely, from looking at where the hills were on the satellite map, the 645 the elevation graph doesn't even match up with the course, and it's inconsistent with the heart rate graph. Take the last big hill for example - according to the 935 it starts at 7.12 miles, and on the 645 it starts at 7.25 miles (both devices recorded a similar total distance).

Links to the activities from today and last year:

645 activity (today): https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3121787003
935 activity (last year): https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2227539163

Really, really annoying as I am on my second 645. I will be complaining to Garmin about this again.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago
    scotthunter2 You've posted several problems you've had with your 645. This is unfortunate and I understand your frustration. I've also noticed you've praised the results you saw with your 935 in numerous post. I understand that it may be too large for your liking, but you may be in the position of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    I guess you think I should just be quiet and accept the watch. Sorry, but I am going to raise this issue again as there are clearly major issues with the slate 645M. I think it would be hugely coincidental for two devices to be defective one-off's.

    Just to demonstrate how inaccurate the altimeter is, I looked at a random 30 other runners' activities on Strava who ran in the same race today and I wrote down their elevation gain. Not a single device recorded less than 1,600ft, and some of these watches cost FOUR TIMES LESS than the 645M. This is Garmin's newest and most expensive running watch! It's unacceptable!

    1,421ftGarmin Forerunner 645 Music (me)

    1,699ft Garmin f?nix 5
    1,640ft Garmin Forerunner 630
    1,699ft Garmin Forerunner 910XT
    1,628ft Garmin Forerunner 630
    1,706ft Garmin f?nix 3
    1,719ft Suunto
    1,673ft Garmin Forerunner 610
    1,644ft Garmin Vívoactive
    1,684ft Garmin Forerunner 35
    1,670ftStrava iPhone App
    1,716ft Garmin f?nix 5S
    1,703ft Garmin Forerunner 935
    1,679ft Suunto Spartan Sport
    1,682ft TomTom
    1,639ft Garmin Forerunner 225
    1,675ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,683ft Suunto Ambit3 Sport
    1,663ft Garmin Forerunner 110
    1,703ft Garmin f?nix 5
    1,693ft Garmin f?nix 3
    1,649ft Garmin Forerunner 25
    1,709ft Garmin Forerunner 910XT
    1,649ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,699ft Garmin f?nix 3
    1,642ft Garmin Forerunner 630
    1,560ft Garmin Forerunner 620
    1,641ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,646ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,648ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,733ftStrava iPhone App
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago
    I guess you think I should just be quiet and accept the watch.


    Not at all Scott. I'm just saying your facing a lot of problems with the 645 that you've stated you didn't have with your 935. I don't know if these issues can be resolved with the 645. I'm saying you might be at the point where you have to make a decision what is more important to you. The features and performance you want from your 645 may, or may not ever be resolved. If those features and performance with the 935 already exist, for me personally, I'd go with what I know works for me rather than what might work in the future. It's your choice. Choose what's best for you.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    I don't understand this approach at all. A premium device is seriously faulty, and instead of the approach being that the manufacturer should do whatever they can to fix it, it's "well, it is what it is"...

    The first responses to these issues was that his unit was faulty but it's now established that it probably wasn't - which makes it probable that all FR645M suffer from this issue, and we're just supposed to accept that and move on? This is a 450€ device that has been on the market for over 9 months now, I remind you.

    I mean, I'm also a Garmin fanboy, but it's gotta stop somewhere, right?
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    I guess you think I should just be quiet and accept the watch. Sorry, but I am going to raise this issue again as there are clearly major issues with the slate 645M. I think it would be hugely coincidental for two devices to be defective one-off's.

    Just to demonstrate how inaccurate the altimeter is, I looked at a random 30 other runners' activities on Strava who ran in the same race today and I wrote down their elevation gain. Not a single device recorded less than 1,600ft, and some of these watches cost FOUR TIMES LESS than the 645M. This is Garmin's newest and most expensive running watch! It's unacceptable!

    1,421ftGarmin Forerunner 645 Music (me)

    1,699ft Garmin f?nix 5
    1,640ft Garmin Forerunner 630
    1,699ft Garmin Forerunner 910XT
    1,628ft Garmin Forerunner 630
    1,706ft Garmin f?nix 3
    1,719ft Suunto
    1,673ft Garmin Forerunner 610
    1,644ft Garmin Vívoactive
    1,684ft Garmin Forerunner 35
    1,670ftStrava iPhone App
    1,716ft Garmin f?nix 5S
    1,703ft Garmin Forerunner 935
    1,679ft Suunto Spartan Sport
    1,682ft TomTom
    1,639ft Garmin Forerunner 225
    1,675ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,683ft Suunto Ambit3 Sport
    1,663ft Garmin Forerunner 110
    1,703ft Garmin f?nix 5
    1,693ft Garmin f?nix 3
    1,649ft Garmin Forerunner 25
    1,709ft Garmin Forerunner 910XT
    1,649ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,699ft Garmin f?nix 3
    1,642ft Garmin Forerunner 630
    1,560ft Garmin Forerunner 620
    1,641ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,646ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,648ft Garmin Forerunner 235
    1,733ftStrava iPhone App


    I sent mine back as the Altimeter was rubbish and replacement just the same. Recorded around 300ft short on a run that was about 1300ft the other day.

    Not sure comparing yours to all those devices makes sense though as most of those won't have an Altimeter so it will be the elevation from the GPS track.

    I've just come to accept the Altimeter is no good and replace the elevation in strava after each run.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    I'm saying you might be at the point where you have to make a decision what is more important to you. The features and performance you want from your 645 may, or may not ever be resolved.


    I would like to know what is causing the issue. Surely this fault is not affecting every 645M as everyone would be complaining about it. Or am I only one of a few 645M owners who cares that their activities don't show correct elevation gain. Perhaps it's the slate version? I don't know how this watch was able to be released to consumers when it's clearly defective. I've managed to correct the elevation of this run on Strava so it's now reading 1,662ft, which is in the ballpark of the 30 other watches above, the majority of which do not have barometric altimeters and rely on GPS alone for elevation. So I have to question what the point of the barometric altimeter is when it doesn't calculate your elevation gain properly. Is there a way to disable it and use GPS only? As it would seem that the older 630 is better at showing elevation gain than its replacement model.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago
    I don't understand this approach at all. A premium device is seriously faulty, and instead of the approach being that the manufacturer should do whatever they can to fix it, it's "well, it is what it is"...

    The first responses to these issues was that his unit was faulty but it's now established that it probably wasn't - which makes it probable that all FR645M suffer from this issue, and we're just supposed to accept that and move on? This is a 450€ device that has been on the market for over 9 months now, I remind you.

    I mean, I'm also a Garmin fanboy, but it's gotta stop somewhere, right?


    What are you talking about? When did anyone say "well, it is what it is" or that you're suppose to accept this and move on? As I suggested to you in another thread, you should read the post thoroughly before commenting. What I said is if the OP has had difficultly with the performance of his 645 and if it doesn't have the features he wants, perhaps he may consider going back to his 935 that he stated had the features he wants and it performed well. Because he stated he prefers the appearance of the 645 over the 935, I said he may have to make a sacrifice based on what's more important to him since there is no way of knowing if the features he wants will be added, or if the issues he's having with the 645 will ever be resolved. I also gave my opinion on what I'd do, but the choice was ultimately the OP's, so what are you rambling on about?
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago
    I would like to know what is causing the issue. Surely this fault is not affecting every 645M as everyone would be complaining about it. Or am I only one of a few 645M owners who cares that their activities don't show correct elevation gain.


    It may be affecting other 645M's. You may not hear about it because it may not be as important to others as it is for you. I personally think this auto calibration of the barometric altimeter is nonsense. If you could manually calibrate both the altimeter and the barometer in the 645 as you were able to do with the 935, I believe you wouldn't have this problem. Will Garmin add this, I don't know.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    What are you talking about? When did anyone say "well, it is what it is" or that you're suppose to accept this and move on? As I suggested to you in another thread, you should read the post thoroughly before commenting. What I said is if the OP has had difficultly with the performance of his 645 and if it doesn't have the features he wants, perhaps he may consider going back to his 935 that he stated had the features he wants and it performed well. Because he stated he prefers the appearance of the 645 over the 935, I said he may have to make a sacrifice based on what's more important to him since there is no way of knowing if the features he wants will be added, or if the issues he's having with the 645 will ever be resolved. I also gave my opinion on what I'd do, but the choice was ultimately the OP's, so what are you rambling on about?


    I actually made the jump from the 935 to the 645 for the features (music and Garmin Pay) as well as the smaller form factor. I can live without the minor feature omissions on the 645 (no navigation menu, inability to change location units, no elevation widget) and certainly don't need such a large battery for the type of activities I do. I accept the minor limitations of the 645 and on balance, with the addition of music and Garmin Pay, know that it is the best watch for my needs. But it frustrates me that the barometric altimeter of the watch is defective, or the software that controls it. Bizarrely though, I have done some activities with the 645 which show correct elevation plots, but some, like the one today are just plain bad. The whole point of a barometric altimeter is that it is supposed to provide more accurate elevation gain than relying on GPS alone, so what's the point in Garmin equipping their flagship running watch with this sensor if you have to manually over-ride the watch data with GPS elevation on Strava?

    By suggesting that we should go back to an older generation of watch that we know works properly seems defeatist to me. I want Garmin to investigate this issue properly and if necessary offer a mass product recall, and their designers should go back to the drawing board with this product and re-engineer it so that it works properly.
  • 0 over 5 years ago
    It may be affecting other 645M's. You may not hear about it because it may not be as important to others as it is for you. I personally think this auto calibration of the barometric altimeter is nonsense. If you could manually calibrate both the altimeter and the barometer in the 645 as you were able to do with the 935, I believe you wouldn't have this problem. Will Garmin add this, I don't know.


    Surely it's glaringly obvious that there is something seriously wrong with the watch when you do a hilly trail race where the emphasis is on the elevation and not the pace, and the watch is 300ft out compared to 30+ other running watches including a mix of GPS only and GPS with barometric altimeter, which all display consistent elevation gain values.