I ran for the first time today with both GPS and GLONASS enabled on the 935.
The track more closely mirrors that of the V800, although I still managed to lose 0.06 miles on the 935 during a 6 mile run.
Here's a sample (blue V800, orange 935):
Don't see any issues there with those tracks. I sometimes get a 0.06 difference in 2 devices in a 6 mile run. You seem to imply though that the V800 is "perfect" and the 935 is 0.06 miles out. If so, why do you think that?
Don't see any issues there with those tracks. I sometimes get a 0.06 difference in 2 devices in a 6 mile run. You seem to imply though that the V800 is "perfect" and the 935 is 0.06 miles out. If so, why do you think that?
I'm pretty happy with the 935 GPS performance. In this case there is no way of knowing which is more correct, the 935 or the V800.
I'm using the V800 as the standard of comparison because I have run the same routes with it for 3 years, so I pretty much know the mile splits within 0.01 miles or so. The V800 has been a very consistent GPS device, and the tracks are always very good relative to where I actually ran.
I think the V800 is widely considered to be an excellent GPS watch. If you look at Facebook or forums or wherever, you will not see long threads or maybe even any posts at all regarding poor GPS performance on the V800.
Consider also that the routes I run are almost always out-and-back, so at a minimum I know that the out and back distances should be nearly exactly the same, at least within 0.02 miles.
My opinions, as a non-cycling, non-swimming runner:
Garmin wins:
- display look and features, such as watch faces and information that can be displayed on the watch
- The mobile app and the connection to the watch. No manual syncing, more fully featured mobile app.
- Much better integration with 3rd party sensors, especially STRYD (and definitely power if you're a biker)
- Better foot pod integration, e.g. pace from pod and distance from GPS
- Techy stuff like V02max, lactate threshold, running dynamics etc. etc.
- 24hr heart rate monitoring with OHR
Polar wins:
- more solid (IMO) GPS performance
- more consistent HR monitor performance, fewer dropped beats etc.
- better web site, ease of scheduling workout plans
- better inclusion of exercises that are not running, biking, or swimming
Presume given the 935 now has BLE connections that you could pair your Polar strap to the 935 if you wanted to use a HR strap. You could also use a Garmin HR strap and likely to have better HR performance than OHR alone.
As for GPS performance, to me, it largely comes down to repeatability in the distance especially on routes you know. So if you did that run say 10 more times and the 935 was always 0.06 miles "short" of the distance you really think it is then you might think something was odd.
Presume given the 935 now has BLE connections that you could pair your Polar strap to the 935 if you wanted to use a HR strap.
You could also use a Garmin HR strap and likely to have better HR performance than OHR alone.
As for GPS performance, to me, it largely comes down to repeatability in the distance especially on routes you know. So if you did that run say 10 more times and the 935 was always 0.06 miles "short" of the distance you really think it is then you might think something was odd.
I have paired the H7 to the 935, but as per the bluetooth connectivity thread, there are issues with the Garmin holding that connection solidly
I agree 100% re the repeatability aspect.
So far the 935 has pretty consistently been a little short. What I have also noticed is that the pace track on the 935 will become more erratic about half way through my runs, which to me kind of implies it is somehow losing the GPS lock a little bit. I find that a little odd in that usually my GPS watches may have more trouble in the very beginning but then get a better lock as time goes on.
It is set for each activity. So to enable it (or turn it off) go to an activity, long press up for the menu, select "settings", scroll down to "GPS" and then adjust the settings there.
I've seen mention that one sec recording improves GPS performance, does this still count true for current watches like the 935? I've always left my garmin devices on smart recording and not seen any issues...
I've seen mention that one sec recording improves GPS performance, does this still count true for current watches like the 935? I've always left my garmin devices on smart recording and not seen any issues...
That's a common myth and unless that was stated by somebody from Garmin on the product team I would not believe it. The watch still samples at the same rate regardless of how often it records it. Of course when you look at the recorded track after things may look different depending on how many points you have recorded.
That's a common myth and unless that was stated by somebody from Garmin on the product team I would not believe it. The watch still samples at the same rate regardless of how often it records it. Of course when you look at the recorded track after things may look different depending on how many points you have recorded.
thanks, do you also leave yours on smart recording ?
