Dodgy elevation on Spartan Sport WHR

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@jsr184 QS uses the minimal 1m calculation for charts. You can edit this on settings.

Your hand moves more than 1m FYI its logical. That is the case why all companies use filters. See my reply above

RiphRaph

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos “the diff is so small”?

On the 8 km route, Tomtom reports 68 m of ascent and the Spartan reports 22.
On the 10 km route, Tomtom reports 86 m and Spartan reports 14.

In what world is this a “small” difference?

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@RiphRaph I am sorry. I read 44 vs 52 as seen in the pics.

jsr184

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos is 1m means meter or minute? Don’t get angry please, but I don’t think I understood what you’ve been trying to say The thing is that if I do a climb of 9-10 meters up and then I’m being belayed down it’s usually 2-3 minutes of staying pretty much in the same location in 2D floor space. Hence, what QS shows looks more real. I don’t believe that my total ascent registered by Spartan was just little over 100m while I spent in the climbing centre over 8 hours doing just that - climbing (average route 7-10m high). Is it possible that my higher climbs are filtered by Suunto because it assumes no one suddenly can shot up in the air so far in such a small area? 622m vs 111m is even greater difference.

freeheeler

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos
all the tiny spikes in @jsr184 's recording could also be sealed sensor holes and pumping effect…

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@RiphRaph and yes I could say it’s small 30m of a miss. But that is personal and debatable.

But to be fair the tom tom has an external antenna and it’s accuracy is well comperable to an Ambit according to many AFAIK

If you are really that concerned about ascent in these small scales you should go for a baro device.

Again and honestly from an ascent freak, anything under 100m up and down “is flat” but that is very “bad” from me to say.

freeheeler

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Dodgy elevation on Spartan Sport WHR:

anything under 100m up and down “is flat”

yes it is

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@jsr184 1meter, I am not angry just not putting emoticons. lol.

I am just replying fast.

If you want QS to show you a better ascent I would go to settings and put that filter to 3-4m.

4m is the ideal for all devices. That is not something from the top of my head. More news will come later as I am collaborating with some people and we train neural networks (for QS) and we are trying to publish those results, provide you this clevernes and GAP (on QS).

jsr184

@TELE-HO tiny spikes are climbs on the wall :). It’s second half after break (you can see break as almost flat line). The first part is just bouldering with ascents of 3-5 meters (more frequent hence spikes). Except of the lowering altitude over time trend (which seems to be normal with baro) this graph looks pretty much ok.

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@TELE-HO the 1%

freeheeler

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Dodgy elevation on Spartan Sport WHR:

@TELE-HO the 1%

RiphRaph

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos Wow. I guess we’re well into bizarro world if a deviation of anything up to 100 m is considered acceptable!

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@RiphRaph please look well. You climb in 8km from 491meters to 515m with only a 1 to 2 max notable ascents.

Yes it goes to bazzaro but this imo is really nitpicking. I don’t argue in this case if you should return / don’t like your watch. For that I understand. Everyone wants the best out of his purchase. But for the sake of the conversion and learning I am only adding my personal and bizzaro opinion.

jsr184

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos I get lower numbers when I change threshold of elev. gain/loss (is this what you meant? I can’t find the setting of filtering, there’s only threshold and downsampling). Still, putting a threshold over 2m gives me over 100m difference between Suunto and QS. The thing is, this type of the activity has sudden ascents (and sometimes more sudden descent because people fall :D). Also, sometimes after certain climbs the watch doesn’t register the ascent at all or much less than it really was. Apparently, the data is there as seen in QS but not updating properly the ascent. Maybe I should look at that differently and ask whether Ascent/Descent of Suunto app/watch is design to work with rock climbing?

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@jsr184 Good points there. Didn’t know it was climbing (oversaw that)

RiphRaph

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos Fair enough. I guess the quality of the Tomtom (which was my first-ever running watch) gave me an overly optimistic idea of what level of accuracy to expect from the tech in general. I’ll be on the lookout for a watch with a barometer in the foreseeable.

At the risk of seeming over-cautious, please delete the post upstream with the graphs that reflect my data.

freeheeler

@RiphRaph
my 2 pennies for you: Ambit 3 Peak Sapphire… elegant, precise for track and alti and almost indestructible

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@RiphRaph delete done bro.

Here is a funny story.

I used to run at 2016 at NL with a group of runners that in NL almost all had tom tom.

I got my Ambit and a Spartan at that point for reference (the ambit).

Well to admit this, all my friends had better tracks. Ambit was only better. GLonass improved it but my spartan was never better in cities. In trails debatable

TomTom is (and was) a great watch

RiphRaph

@TELE-HO There’s a lot of trail runners in these parts who swear by their Ambits. But I’m done with Suunto for the moment because there still doesn’t seem to be any clarity about the future of a web interface. Maybe in a few years’ time, depending.

For the moment, I hear the Fenix 6X Pro has a great barometer, though the price tag is keeping me from pulling the trigger just at present.

RiphRaph

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos Thanks.

It was indeed a great watch, a shame it was discontinued. Even the OHR was more than decent, though I prefer to run with a chest strap these days and, sadly, the Runner 3 doesn’t support external sensors.