Thanks! Both are doing extremely well. With this single run you can't draw that conclusion. 630 seems to do better but! you need to at least run the same track either anti clock wise or switch watches on the other arm. Which ever watch you have been wearing on your right hand potentially has had worse GPS conditions. Your right arm was pointing to the houses during the round. Left arm had more of an open view. Unless 630 was on right hand, I at least would give it another try. Even if 630 was right, then switching might give you an even better result.
Hi, I posted some weeks ago that my FR935 calculates distances too short. Normally 2% less than my old Fenix 3, FR310XT and theoretical track. Today I made the same run and the distance was 3% short compared to theoretical track (FR935 10,01km, theoretical track gpsies 10,30km, theoretical track mapmyrun 10,35km). I tried a reset already but without success. I asked Garmin already but I don't get an answer. Do you think it that the watch is faulty?
How does mapmyrun or gpsies know which side of the road you ran on? Basically, I don't think you can compare all of these things until you have a good known source and you follow the exact route.
I happened to run with a friend yesterday who owns a Fenix 5x, I have the 935 myself. We did 10k and the (1k-)laps were literally in sync (I heard his watch beeping at the same time my watch buzzed). Checking the tracks the distances seem about identical as well... (can only compare them on strava, my track goes from 9.9k to 10k between 52:24 and 52:28, his track goes from 9.9k to 10k between 52:21 and 52:29).
So the 5x and 935 show identical tracking... I will check my reported distances between 'calculated' by the route-sites I use.
I'm very happy with the 935 accuracy. On my Park Run (Trial run) it measures around 4.95km - 4.98km (suppose to be 5km, but I don't see many measuring 5km)
Went to my old ParkRun where my Fenix 3 would always be short, I was surprised and totally happy, that the 935 measured 5km!... Spot on. I had 1 sec recording, 3d speed, but Glosnass off.
(With the F3 run, you can see I ran further. I actually run past the finish line, and keep on going until the watch measured 5kms) so you can see the difference between the two tracks.
hmmm, strange... really no complaints here. Not saying it's the best ever, but surely better then what I see in your links. Because 9 out of 10 times I can't post anyway due to the forum I'm going to keep it short, but 2 things:
1. Do you have 1-sec recording on? If I see your links it looks more like smart-recording? Which combined with high speed and short turns might cause issues 2. Do you wait a proper time before you start? Ie, get the green gps-light and wait a small bit more?
These 2 can largely affect the tracks and positioning...
Otherwise there might be an issue with the watch itself, I run in a city area as well although no huge amount of large/high buildings here, but it performs just fine for me.
Hello,
So to answer : I tested with 1 sec and with smart recording ...same same With GPS or GPS + Glonass.... Same same I tried to hard reset the watch... same same
Yes I am waiting for the GPS to be green and anyway the segment is 4-5km after the start of my run... ​​​​
The main problem is that I never had a problem with my 910 or my phone. The building I am running around is 1 or 2 floor so it should not be a problem
High speed ? 12km/h ... Not really :)
Garmin now says that this is a problem of the software and that their technicians are looking at my files...
I think I really got a bad example of the 935. My GPS (+ Glonass) is very inaccurate. First of all, I have massive problems the moment I run under some trees. For example, if I run with a 6min/km pace, the moment I run under some trees it drops to something like 7min/km. After leaving the trees, it jumps to around 5min/km to normalize after half a minute to around 6min/km.
Last weekend I run a 10k charity run. The official distance was 9.7km. My 935 measured 9.33km, while my friends Polar showed 9,78km. We ran next to each other the entire race. In my eyes that is a HUGE difference. 400m on 10k race. That is around 1km at a half-marathon :(
If it was a charity 10K that only measured 9.7km then I don't think accuracy is their strong point. I bet that 9.7km wasn't measured with a properly calibrated device.I'd find a race on a ratified course if you want to see how accurate the 935 is.
