Multisport Watch upgrade

[dave303e]

I am happy with my spartan trainer, If I had the cash I would get a new Suunto 9, purely for the battery life, I charge my trainer about once a week. but I reckon that watch will be every 2 weeks.

 

Optical HR is not as good as strap, but once you figure out the right tension on your wrist you can get it pretty reliable. Strap can't be too tight or too loose.

Optical also works 100% while swimming, so does the Suunto HR strap that you can get and use with the trainer.

 

Bang for buck you can't beat a suunto trainer IMO, no it is not a spartan ultra or suunto 9, or fenix 3 or 5, but it is a bucket load cheaper and has most of the functionality...

[intern]

You won't regret getting the Fenix 5. I got one (5s) for my wife last Christmas and thought it was a sport watch. Gave her quite a fancy 'normal' watch more recently and she looked at me like I was mad. I thought she was ungrateful...but then I got a 5s for myself and realised it is just as good as a 'normal' watch for everyday use as it is for a sport watch.

Best things about it are battery life - about a week if you do a daily run - and ease of use. Just a really impressive bit of kit. Well worth the extra cash. 

[Pieter-za]

It the most horrible tracks (and unreliable (ave) lap pace) are acceptable to you, go for Garmin.  (Coming from an x-SST / TomTom / Polar owner, now a Garmin FR 645 user.)  

Test it yourself - go the Flybys on Strava and check which watches are the most off course.  From my limited 'research' it shows a lot of e.g. Fenix (3 esp, 5 to a lesser extend) watches.

Also - Garmin has 1y guarantee whereas Suunto has 5y* and Polar 2y.

 

Yes there is. The thing is the Suunto Spartan Trainer is marketed as a Tri specific watch, that does not function as one. There are a lot of normal GPS watches with all the functions of the Suunto, and that is much better priced.

 

For R1000 more you can buy the Garmin XT735, and its miles better than the Suunto

 

How do you mean?  A family member is using the multisport capability with the SST and it sees to work well.  Very easy to switch to the next activity etc.

 

OK one thing I must give Garmin - personally I have had very bad experiences with the SST's  oHR - I just never could get even fairy reliable results and had to use my TickR or Polar chest HRM.  However I can't believe how accurate the 645's oHR is, I will put up an overlay at a stage.    (Maybe it is my anatomy etc, I know of SST users who are happy with the oHR.)

 

PS : OK I only see now that you already bought - enjoy and report back

[piotter]

It the most horrible tracks (and unreliable (ave) lap pace) are acceptable to you, go for Garmin.  (Coming from an x-SST / TomTom / Polar owner, now a Garmin FR 645 user.)  

Test it yourself - go the Flybys on Strava and check which watches are the most off course.  From my limited 'research' it shows a lot of e.g. Fenix (3 esp, 5 to a lesser extend) watches.

Also - Garmin has 1y guarantee whereas Suunto has 5y* and Polar 2y.

 

From my limited research I would say that on strava flyby's my Garmin Fenix 3 does NOT go off course any more than any of my mates devices, they use Polar, Suunto, TomTom, Apple watch, even a Tag.

 

So I'd have to say I completely disagree with your assessment.

[shaper]

From the list of needs that you want in the watch, go for the Garmin 935

[Pieter-za]

From my limited research I would say that on strava flyby's my Garmin Fenix 3 does NOT go off course any more than any of my mates devices, they use Polar, Suunto, TomTom, Apple watch, even a Tag.

 

So I'd have to say I completely disagree with your assessment.

(I neglected to add and to clarify - cycling tracks are very good but I was actually referring to running tracks.  I have an idea it could perhaps be related to antenna effectiveness etc.)

[dave303e]

Flyby's for accuracy testing, please just stop there, as someone with qualification in Geographical Information Systems that just sounds absolutely ludicrous...

 

How do you know what setting they had the GPS on, whether it was set to read GPS and GLONASS or if it could only read GPS, the recording interval, when was the device serviced, was the software updated etc.

 

Same goes for altitude, when last did you calibrate the barometer on fancy watch, don't just expect it to be dead on.

 

Interesting on the optical heartrates is that often sleeve tattoos and darker skin or hair can affect them as well, there is a lot of reading on this. Personally I have also found that for big ultra events optical heart rate is far less likely to cause chaffing than a hr belt after 100 miles of running.

[Pieter-za]

Flyby's for accuracy testing, please just stop there, as someone with qualification in Geographical Information Systems that just sounds absolutely ludicrous...

 

How do you know what setting they had the GPS on, whether it was set to read GPS and GLONASS or if it could only read GPS, the recording interval, when was the device serviced, was the software updated etc.

 

Same goes for altitude, when last did you calibrate the barometer on fancy watch, don't just expect it to be dead on.

 

Interesting on the optical heartrates is that often sleeve tattoos and darker skin or hair can affect them as well, there is a lot of reading on this. Personally I have also found that for big ultra events optical heart rate is far less likely to cause chaffing than a hr belt after 100 miles of running.

 

Some valid points Dave, although I would assume that the person who takes his/her activities serious knows the watch settings and impact, and might not run e.g. up to a marathon not on the best / optimum settings on the watch which they bought exactly for its capabilities.  (E.g. I have done ultras with my Suunto Trainer on 'Good' to extend the bty life, so for sure different settings can impact the tracks.)    Also, one have the possible benefit / opportunity to enquire from some of the 'Flyby' buddies which settings are they using.  Re Altitude - it is secondary to my personal interest so I normally don't analyse that other than in passing, except if I have a good reason for it.

 

Although not the ultimate tool Flybys are probably the best 'generalisation' available for this context without getting into an in-depth scientific discussion, bench-marking under controlled conditions etc etc - it is a good 'real world' comparison presentation of GPS receivers, and as we use our recording devices in real world scenarios that is what actually is important and not the 'theoretical / non-realised potential' not configured due to user ignorance, firmware issues or other.   WYSIWYG.    So in any case I do think it is fair to make the assumption that it is quite usable, although not perfect.  (It is still using the original recorded plots, albeit parsed.)  Outliers etc (for what ever reason) can be identified.  Also, I am not convinced that most of the 'average' person's watches will be wrongly configured.  I am quite sure that in general it will be comparable with (most probably) the default settings used over the sample of watches under review.

 

Personally I have analysed (probably hundreds of) my and other people's tracks in detail and various formats and I stand by my statement.  (That my perception is that some of the Garmin fitness devices have the most horrible tracks, with / without GLONASS / Galileo, Smart, 1s etc, and I do think it might be related to possible antenna issues.   As you know the SST (and TomTom) has an 'external' (to the watch) antenna, perhaps to mitigate this dilemma? )

 

In any case, it is not just me saying it - there are many threads on Garmin Forums re this, e.g  https://forums.garmin.com/forum/on-the-trail/wrist-worn/fenix-3/105618-gps-accuracy etc.

[lechatnoir]

Although not the ultimate tool Flybys are probably the best 'generalisation' available for this context without getting into an in-depth scientific discussion, bench-marking under controlled conditions etc etc - 

 

<lots of snipping>

 

What we don't know is what Strava is doing to the data that gets uploaded. Are they snapping it to known tracks? Are they averaging further? Have they got some proprietary algorithm that compresses data - if you record using a high interval density, does Strava store the raw position data? we know they use a universal DTM for devices that aren't recording elevation (seen a mate get 2500m on the Chappies challenge and was so pleased) so what else are they doing? Until we know definitively, we're just guessing.

 

The best way of doing things is getting a raw data dump from multiple devices for an event and comparing in some application that makes provision for that like ArcGIS or something

[Pieter-za]

True, but all the tracks will probably be subjected to the same 'normalisation'? 

The best way of doing things is getting a raw data dump from multiple devices for an event and comparing in some application that makes provision for that like ArcGIS or something

For that I dump the GPX files of the activities from Strava if I can't get the original.  Hopefully that is still untouched.

[Wil6]

It the most horrible tracks (and unreliable (ave) lap pace) are acceptable to you, go for Garmin.  (Coming from an x-SST / TomTom / Polar owner, now a Garmin FR 645 user.)  

Test it yourself - go the Flybys on Strava and check which watches are the most off course.  From my limited 'research' it shows a lot of e.g. Fenix (3 esp, 5 to a lesser extend) watches.

Also - Garmin has 1y guarantee whereas Suunto has 5y* and Polar 2y.

 

How do you mean?  A family member is using the multisport capability with the SST and it sees to work well.  Very easy to switch to the next activity etc.

 

OK one thing I must give Garmin - personally I have had very bad experiences with the SST's  oHR - I just never could get even fairy reliable results and had to use my TickR or Polar chest HRM.  However I can't believe how accurate the 645's oHR is, I will put up an overlay at a stage.    (Maybe it is my anatomy etc, I know of SST users who are happy with the oHR.)

 

PS : OK I only see now that you already bought - enjoy and report back

Don't know where you thumb sucked your data from, but here's an in debt review

 

https://media.dcrainmaker.com/images/2016/06/Garmin-FR735XT-Triathlon-Optical-HR-Sensor.jpg

[Wil6]

I am happy with my spartan trainer, If I had the cash I would get a new Suunto 9, purely for the battery life, I charge my trainer about once a week. but I reckon that watch will be every 2 weeks.

 

Optical HR is not as good as strap, but once you figure out the right tension on your wrist you can get it pretty reliable. Strap can't be too tight or too loose.

Optical also works 100% while swimming, so does the Suunto HR strap that you can get and use with the trainer.

 

Bang for buck you can't beat a suunto trainer IMO, no it is not a spartan ultra or suunto 9, or fenix 3 or 5, but it is a bucket load cheaper and has most of the functionality...

How does your's function in openwater swims?

[Pieter-za]

Don't know where you thumb sucked your data from, but here's an in debt review

 

https://media.dcrainmaker.com/images/2016/06/Garmin-FR735XT-Triathlon-Optical-HR-Sensor.jpg

Thumb sucked what data?  (All I see is a JPEG?)

[dave303e]

Strava is definitely processing big data, they even put marines in Afghanistan at risk with their data, but yes we know little about what post processing they are doing to make it all conform from various formats and various platforms and various devices.

 

Strava's Elevation ideology is a dog show in my opinion, smoothing data from uncalibrated barometers on peoples watches to update their DTM, who the eff thought that was a good idea needs a pk to the back of the head. hopefully we will get a good total planet wide high resolution lidar dtm available soon...

 

Never used it for openwater swimming, indoor pool swims 100% though, to be fair gps is not designed to work under water. Which your watch is half the time when swimming, also not that Garmin likely just has a better correction algorithm 

[Wil6]

Thumb sucked what data?  (All I see is a JPEG?)

Heh?

[Pieter-za]

Heh?

Your post (#43) refers:  https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/179065-multisport-watch-upgrade/?p=3402174