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

Elevation Doubled after FW 10

marcpm80
over 5 years ago

Anybody the same?

Girlfriend with 9.5 has the half HM. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to ATBGIDS

    I never have such a difference (3 to 4 times higher). I would say it's between 10 and 50%, depending of the trace. Going from 572 to 613 meters for exactly the same trace is rather important for a small distance (35 Km). Last sunday it was 1300 instead of 780 on 50 km. Anyway, it seems that Garmin is aware of the problem and they will provide a solution. They dont' say "soon" but I guess it "as soon as possible".

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to mcinner1
    • That is due to the fact you had over 200 hm in 13 km ride. 
      do the sane distance on almost flat ride and you well see a much bigger differance. 
  • 0 over 5 years ago

    around 300m extra for free after a ride of 1800m (gps with 2100m)

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    today I made a comparison on a well known route

    old FW versions: 45km with 480-506m (491m average) of elevation

    FW10.0: 45km with 625m of elevation

    That is an increase of about 27%...WOW

    Hope GARMIN will correct this by next BETA version

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    I have ridden the same route each of the last four Saturdays and the Elevation gain has been within 300 feet from the highest to the lowest (around 10%).  I think that would be with two different FW versions.  That is a little more variation than I saw lookng back months to earlier FW versions.  Still, I wouldn't say that it was too far off in comparison.  Not sure why mine would be so much better than others.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    I have ridden the same route each of the last four Saturdays and the Elevation gain has been within 300 feet from the highest to the lowest (around 10%).  I think that would be with two different FW versions.  That is a little more variation than I saw lookng back months to earlier FW versions.  Still, I wouldn't say that it was too far off in comparison.  Not sure why mine would be so much better than others.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to JHarbin1

    Elevation should be computed by discarding "little" ups and downs (let's say ascent <= 2 m or descent >= -2 meters). I suspect that Garmin FW 10 has given up this rule (or maybe something else, since I don't know their exact algorithm). The point is that the difference between FW 10 elevation calculation and FW 9.5 elevation calculation depends clearly on the general shape of the route. If you climb steadily (eg an ascent of 500 m) then you get back by the same road (-500m), you would not see any difference (there are no segments of "small" ascents and descents). Conversely, if your trip is near a flat one, with many very small climbs and descents, FW 9.5 will compute 0 elevation gain while FW 10 could show 100 m or 200m gain. 

    @JHarbin1: if you notice 10%, that means that your trip has not so many "little" ascents or descents. But 10% difference is enough to say that the algorithm needs to be corrected.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to ATBGIDS

    Ps I have mailed the Garmin tech support serval times already, perhaps we all should do this HuggingV️

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Same issue here, just went to my history, checked previous rides and they were 600+ elevation when I am in Miami and the usual elevation is 100. 

    What a load of crap! Do Garmin even test FW before releasing them? 

    Question to you all, during a ride, if you have elevation data on the display, does it also show double there or it only shows at the end when you save a ride?