Suunto 9 Peak Pro?
-
@mikekoski490 i understand your point, and i prefered Suunto over the years (my last product was the 9 Peak - it really sucks when i see shadows of the backlight when it‘s on, it looks like a watch from early 2000)
I own Apple products, but i don‘t want any AppleWatch, Garmin or similar toy-watches.
I payed attention to Suunto products since they released dive computers. Unfortunately - and this is my objective opinion - the „PRO“ turned to be just an update to 9 Peak for marketing reasons.
I will still consider Suunto in the future despite the reasons i mentioned before, hoping that they can deliver at least an up-to-date display worth of 500€. -
Agree, Suunto 9 Peak Pro is what S9 peak should be at the beginning.
-
I believe it would be clearer for users if Suunto changed the naming convention. Peak is fine, sure. But Peak Pro? Why if it’s clearly an update to a Peak?
Why not Peak Mark II, then Mark III (or gen 1, gen 2, etc.) and so on (as long as the base product doesn’t drift too far from original).
Same with S5, the Peak could clearly be a gen 2 device.
S9PP 2.40.44
-
Well, did you use Suunto before?
It’s already better now, the worst was Spartan serie…
-
@Łukasz-Szmigiel I have a Sony Xperia phone. its called the Sony Xperia 1 ii, which I later found out meant ‘1 Mark 2’. Before I understood that, I thought it was pronounced like ‘Xperia 1 eye eye’ . Since then, there is now the Mark iii and Mark iv. I think its weird
too! I agree must be a better way to name these devices. Peak Pro is a bit redundant. -
@mikekoski490 Suunto 9 Peak 2 perhaps?
-
About bezel:
Suunto 9 Peak Pro – 6,25mm
Garmin Forerunner 955 – 6,75mm
Garmin Forerunner 255 – 6,30mm
Garmin Forerunner 255S – 6,75mm
Garmin Fenix 7 – 7mm
Garmin Fenix 7S – 5,75mm
Garmin Fenix 7X – 7,75mm
COROS VERTIX 2 – 7,40mm
Polar Pacer Pro – 7,25mm
Polar Grit X Pro – 8,25mm
Polar Vantage V2 – 8,25mmSource: here
-
Few weeks have passed, and I did some runs and walks and I have to say that I’m very happy with upgrading S5 to S9PP. The difference in general usage is huge. Buttons are very firm and clicky and the display is very crisp and readable.
It took me some time getting used to larger fonts and less whitespace, but I currently use 7 fields for running and it works well. I don’t need as much data, but having 4 fields makes the font too large for my taste, and I simply have both the avg and current pace or cadence left / right, so it’s not an issue.
Battery life is fantastic, but the charging puck is mediocre (very lightweight, very weak magnet). However, considering that it’s rarely used - I don’t have a problem with it. It just feels super cheap and is problematic to confidently leave the watch as charging.
The refreshed interface is very good. It needs plenty of polishing, but I believe it’ll come with time. There are no experience-breaking bugs, though, which is important.
I’m surprised for OHR quality. I did some runs and walks, and there are no low / high HR locks known from S5. Having done runs alternately with OHR and belt, I see at most 2 - 4 beats difference with no spikes or locks. This is very good as I don’t have to think about another gadget when running (and I rely on HR to avoid pushing too much).
The GNSS quality is very good. I have zero issues with it. Endurance mode is by far my biggest surprise. For casual runs in the open, where there isn’t much foliage, it’s mostly indistinguishable from Performance with added battery life. I think that it definitely should be more advertised, as it’s an amazing feature.
Touch - well, it’s there. I don’t think much about it, but it doesn’t get in the way either. There’s definitely less clicking, so it’s good for everyday use.
I only wish there was a back function in the workout mode. I know that holding the middle button is a shortcut to settings, but it could be “back” on short press and “settings” on longer press. It could also be hinted in the animation (different icon). I have no problem with it during my runs as I use only one screen, but for trails, biking or slower sports (and especially when using S+ screens), having to cycle the screens only in one direction is not optimal in my opinion.
The only true bugger for me is the rattling vibrations. I wish they were subtle (outside of workout) and silent.
In general - it’s a very good watch.
-
@Łukasz-Szmigiel said in Suunto 9 Peak Pro?:
It took me some time getting used to larger fonts and less whitespace, but I currently use 7 fields for running and it works well. I don’t need as much data, but having 4 fields makes the font too large for my taste, and I simply have both the avg and current pace or cadence left / right, so it’s not an issue
May I know your pace for running? 5min/km?
And average hr if you don’t mind, it’s about 150? -
@zhang965 said in Suunto 9 Peak Pro?:
5min/km?
I wish
Example:
10.02 km
6:28
140 avg10.03 km
6:54 (a few stops during with acceleration to ~3:00 at the end)
139 avg10.74 km
6:22
142 avg -
@Łukasz-Szmigiel said in Suunto 9 Peak Pro?:
@zhang965 said in Suunto 9 Peak Pro?:
5min/km?
I wish
Example:
10.02 km
6:28
140 avg10.03 km
6:54 (a few stops during with acceleration to ~3:00 at the end)
139 avg10.74 km
6:22
142 avgActually it’s my observation, s9pp works great with some kind of pace and HR, so far all persons that had uncertain values are running with 160+hr .
And the rise to wake as well, it works great when we are slower. -
@zhang965 interesting. Shouldn’t it interfere with cadence too? I.e. be prone to bad readings with higher cadence?
-
@Łukasz-Szmigiel said in Suunto 9 Peak Pro?:
@zhang965 interesting. Shouldn’t it interfere with cadence too? I.e. be prone to bad readings with higher cadence?
Maybe, who knows,
I argued a lot before with that dumb guy on this forum about the rise to wake feature, because I cannot trigger it correctly during my runs and he claims it works for him perfectly.
And one day, he post a run and I saw his pace…then I do understand.
If you run with a lower speed, it will work better, but if you run faster than 4:00mins/km it will be a problem, for example when you run with 4:00/km, it means 4m/s , rise the arm, wait the screen wakes up will take 1,5s (or more) reading values takes 1,5s, it means you are not looking forward about 10 meters. It’s kind of dangerous.
It’s also my concerns on Suunto products, it seems target to the LSD runners, if you are high HR player, you are out,
Winners Wear Winners
-
@zhang965 for OHR, maybe it’s more speed (and/or cadence) than HR. I run frequently at 160bpm+ but am way slower than you (around 5:00/km) and OHR works well for me. I also have a very low cadence (approx. 150).
You’re too damn fast
-
@jw-cou said in Suunto 9 Peak Pro?:
@zhang965 maybe it’s more speed (and/or cadence) than HR, I run frequently at 160bpm+ but am way slower than you (around 5:00/km) and OHR works well for me. I also have a very low cadence (approx. 150).
You’re too damn fast
I don’t know, I only use belt sensor…the belt never cheats on me…
I run faster than you because I run less longer than you
-
@zhang965
edit: red is HR chest strap, rest OHR
-
@zhang965 slow down man
-
It’s what I did this morning, I’d say the gps is impressive, I still hope s9pp would have came with dual band.
, -
@zhang965 You must have had beans for breakfast
you are a rocket. 
What would be different if your watch had dual band? -
@dulko79 I don’t know, maybe the gps is better during cloudy days?
Winners Wear Winners
