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

Forerunner 45 tolerable current pace inaccuracy?

Former Member
Former Member over 5 years ago

I 've just got a new FR 45 to replace my beloved old FR610. Unfortunately the new FR45  shows totally inaccurate current pace data. While the old 610 persistently shows the currect figure (around 5.00, 5:20 min/km in "normal" circustances), the new FR45 shows significantly higher digits( aroound 8-9 ) and reacts to speeding up and down much more slowly  Obviously both are set to metric measurements. 

This is a really great frustration, since before the purchase I read several reviews and neither of them mentioned this as a drawback. I can live with some inaccuracy, but the extent of retrogression in this case is too much for me.   Can it be fixed ????

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    What's your firmware version?

    Have you tried to use FR45 and another GPS device (even a cellphone) at the same time just to make sure they don't disagree this much? I did this with my FR45 against a Polar M430 and a Moto G4, and the precision was basically the same.

    Another thing you can try is to enable GLONASS :)

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Are you sure that your FR45 shows min/km and not min/mile? 5:20 min/km is something between 8 and 9 min/mile. Or could it be speed instead of pace and you are running rather slowly?

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago

    I controlled the frimware version. And  also suspected this km/mile confusion, so searched a bit and found the solution that worked: https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-45-series/167449/forerunner-45-pace-view-miles-instead-of-km/907729#907729  I already verified this morning! Slight smile  

    Nevertheless: the FR 45 is still rather inaccurate with respect to my old  watch. This morning I ran 10k with 3 different gadgets: (I took my daughter's Amazfit pace as well, just for comparison...)

    As for instant data on the watch screen: the FR45 is much slower to react to speed changes than the FR610. So the "current pace" is actually not the current pace Disappointed. In addition, the difference of distance indicated by the watches is also substantial: I ran 10.09 km  according to FR45 (GPS+GLonass) and 10.31 km for  FR610 (only GPS). /The Amazfit Pace performed in between/. The gap is 2 %, that is beyond my  tolerance!  On a marathon it could well be almost a whole km!!

    Examining both records on the map view of Garmin connect it is obvious that it is the accuracy of the FR45 (released in 2019) is actually  pretty poorer than that of the FR610 (released in 2011!!!!). There were quite a few zig-zags on today's track, but still!  Moreover, when you push the start button on the old watch, it begins to measure and record immediately, while the FR45 does it only with a noticable time lag.

    So there is an undisputable retrogression in accuracy, but I can go with it:  the new one at least finds GPS signal much more quickly and,  what is even mnore important,  through bluetooth it is much easier to upload tracks than via ANT+. So the convenience at least compensates for the foregone accuracy Slight smile

    Today I did not wear the chest strap for FR610, so I could not compare the HR monitor accuracy. I will certainly  do it next time!.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to Former Member

    That's really annoying. Obviously the FR45 is a cheap piece of crap for people who don't care much about the values shown. I had the same problems with my FR35. The time for GPS fix became longer and longer. After starting the run it took a while until a realistic pace was shown. When I looked at the map at home there were zig-zags, I've been running on the water and through houses. The performance got worse with every update. So I decided to bu the FR235. That sits better on my very small wrist. Sadly the display turned brown at the edge. It was sent to Garmin. As that was during my preparation for a half marathon and nobody could tell me how long it will take to be back I decided to buy a 735. Was a special offer. I didn't want to use the FR35 anymore that's still in the drawer. A few weeks later I received a new FR235 but I stayed at my FR735. The FR235 is still in the box. Meanwhile the display of the FR735 is brown/yellow at the edges, too. Obviously they never changed the material. So it isn't worth it send it to Garmin and hope they'll replace it and that new device will stay fine.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago

    GOOD NEWS:  This morning I had a 37 k ride, with several straight sections: Strangelyenough (?) both gadgets recorded almost the same distance. The gap was only 100 meters (and this time the FR45 ttat recorded more)

    So the difference btw the two watches was just 0.03 %,  what is nothing (particularly as compared to the 2 % noted yesterday)

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to Former Member

    Something I noticed at my FR735: Runs with GPS + GLONASS seem to be shorter than those with GPS only. 5,7km instead of 5,8km the track I often run. I don't know what I used for the HM in October, but it was shorter thn last year. So short that Garmin didn't recognize bei new PB :-( My next runs I'll do with GPS only. Then I can also compare the battery usage. Seems to be a bit higher in the moment. The watch is 15 months old.