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

6h run / 4.4 km Difference

Former Member
Former Member over 6 years ago

I did yesterday a 6h race on a track in Germany. My official result was 67.021 km. My 945 was 71.660 km with GPS + Galileo and 1s record. Also I get 72m up. This is a bad result for such an expensive watch.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 6 years ago

    Former Member

    not that lucky are you Slight smile

    with your consent we can have a look at your file with FitFileRepairTool

    zip the fit file and upload here in the forum, or provide a link to it on a cloud storage

    happy sporting

  • 0 over 6 years ago

    Strange, how does the recorded track look like?

    Concerning the elevation change, this could well be within the error margin.

    Does not really help in your case, I had excellent results with the 945 on a track, even better than the 935 did, which was also very good.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to Former Member

    3774061099.zip

    Here is the file. thanks for your help.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to runningfan97

    Here you can see the acivity.

    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3774061099

    I changed the distance to the right result. If used the laptime all 5 rounds (2 km), two or three times a little bit  later.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to Former Member

    Former Member

    you could make use of the GPS beta firmware here ... gps-chipset-beta-2-42-now-available

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to Former Member

    Former Member

    Nothing special to see in your fit file.

    GPS recalculated with the logged coordinates gives the same result.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to Former Member

    I installed the update 2-42 and will test tomorrow.

  • 0 over 6 years ago

    I would recommend not to use Galileo yet. It was doing a fine job with the old chip (Fenix 5, 5+, Forerunner 935), but ist crap right now on the FR945. I do a lot of runs in the woods near Frankfurt Airport, a place were Galileo coverage should be fine and the runs don't like to astonishing...

    Using GPS+Glonass leads to better results and cleaner tracks.

    Running on a track in rounds is a tough think for GPS watches, DCRainmaker ones did an article why. 

    Almost 6% difference in the distance is too much, we don't have to talk about this. Thats bigger than my error running on treadmills without calibration.


    The elevation change is in between 214 and 221 meters above sea level. This means, the watch had a spread of only 7m in 6 hours running in circles. This is a good result. It calculates up to 76m rise and 63m fall, but you have to take into account changes in internal temperature and changes in barometric pressure in this 6 hours. I wouldn't be mad about this.

    By the way:
    Was tun die euch Niedersachsen ins Wasser, das ihr 6h auf ner 400m Bahn lauft? Da wird man doch Gaga von. ;-)

  • 0 over 6 years ago

    I did a triple Marathon on Saturday here in Germany.

    GPS + Glonass, intelligent recording.

    Official distance: 3x 42,4km = 127,2km

    FR945:  42,72 + 43,44 + 42,68 = 128,84km

     

    I´m pretty satisfied with the watch.

    And that´s with running beneath tree shade, between two bodies of water (Dove Elbe and Eichbaum See), 48 times around. I know every stone there now. Gave them names, too ;)

  • 0 over 6 years ago in reply to BeneGi

    I think I've gotten better results with the beta gps firmware with GPS+Galileo than GPS+Glonass before beta.

    And it's a pity that the new GPS Watch is not up to the old one's :(