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 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.

Top Replies

haraldbootz over 6 years ago +3

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…
BeneGi over 6 years ago +1

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…

All Replies

0 Former Member over 6 years ago

I tested the update 2-42 three times and see no improvement. GPS+Galileo show me on my standard round around a see 2% to much. Forerunner 235 with only GPS was better.

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

Former Member

Like other users replied, I would not use GALILEO yet.

Garmin states for 2.42 a tweak for GALILEO, but being a beta it could be working for some users.

happy running

oh, and did I forget to tell you ... well done with the achievement

0 BeneGi over 6 years ago in reply to Former Member

GPS+Galileo on the new GPS Chipset is known to be a bit rough. If you read any serious review before buying it, that should have been mentioned. Just switch of Galileo and it will get better.-#

0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to BeneGi

While I consent to not using Galileo, I don't think it did "a fine job" on the older chipset. My 935 still is the most accurate with just GPS, and that's what T5R, and DCR came to as well, even though Ray uses GPS+GLONASS just out of habit.