Suunto 9 baro very low elevation gain vs other brands

isazi

@Oktan said in Suunto 9 baro very low elevation gain vs other brands:

@Egika I get it, but I add: why not let the user define it in the watch?
Suunto can set it to 3 as default.
The user can choose to set it between 1 to 3, and still proudly ride with Garmin owners friends .

As a user I am 100% for messing with stuff (although it may bite me back eventually), but if I was a company I would think about all the calls I would get to my support just because users messed up things

freeheeler

@isazi
with Android I remember that real cracks did root their devices…

fazel

My personal opinion is transparency goes a long way. @Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos explanations provide context and through that - understanding. It is clear total ascent values are tricky and it would be easier for Suunto to make every decision in favor of greater accumulated gain as this would make all of us feel better about our efforts. It appears they’ve instead chosen to make every decision with the goal of being as accurate as possible. They deserve credit for taking the harder road IMO.

sartoric

@fazel said in Suunto 9 baro very low elevation gain vs other brands:

this would make all of us feel better about our efforts.

Unfortunately this is what “modern athletes” want from sport watches/platform … showing that they have it bigger
Very low percentage of “athletes” do sports for their own satisfaction nowadays

Oktan

@sartoric isnt satisfaction goes bigger when you got, hmmm, bigger?

sky-runner

@TELE-HO said in Suunto 9 baro very low elevation gain vs other brands:

who proofs that Garmin is calculating the total ascent “more correct” in all different possible use cases?

The proof is very easy to get - just open the elevation profile generated from an activity and add all the climbs manually - that isn’t difficult at all. When I did that in the past I ignored all small elevation changes less than 3 meters, but even then Suunto 9 was often short on total ascent compared to its own elevation profile.

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@sky-runner that is not proof. We could enable to the the hand flux of 1meter. We have a 3meter threshold and that’s it. That’s what most good services use such as runalyze as mentioned before.

We do data analysis here giving correct values.

I even went and explained with pics and what ? Did you see what all databases reported for this users examples with the different thresholds ?

While there is an literal obsession with this subject on your side , I am not sure why over and over I have to explain how things work.

Like Hellllloooo @sky-runner !

Did you even read the post with the thresholds , what other services use (digital elevation databases ) etc or what ? Came to say the same thing without helping ?

What’s up? Is this about you being right ? What’s the problem here ? Trying to enforce SUUNTO to do it the way you want it for your self ? Doesn’t Garmin do it as you like ?

I do t get you anymore. Sorry over and out.

sky-runner

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Suunto 9 baro very low elevation gain vs other brands:

While there is an literal obsession with this subject on your side

Because Suunto 9 Baro total ascent calculation is really bad. It is an outlier when compared to all other watches, and that is something that really frustrated me, up to the point that I sold my year-and-half old S9B and moved to another watch.

Here is an example of what I mean. Here is the data that I collected by looking at Strava Flybys on activities recorded during 2019 and 2020 Bridle Trails Winter Trail Running Festival. This race is on moderate runnable rolling terrain. The festival races consist of multiple 5 mile loops - 1 to 6 loops depending on the distance. I looked at each activity on Strava and divided it on the number of loops. The table below shows total ascent in feet per loop, per device. All of these devices have barometers so I assumed the numbers on Strava match the ascent produced by each device, and I grouped ascents from all non-barometric devices in the bottom:

Suunto 9: 310, 295, 306, 310
Ambit 3 Peak: 406, 399, 377  
Fenix 6: 366
Fenix 5: 368, 381, 360, 364, 338, 346, 347  
Fenix 3: 373, 382, 367, 346  
Fenix 2: 424
FR 935: 357, 351, 371, 365, 350
FR 920XT: 379
Non-Baro (Strava): 435, 313, 350, 326, 306, 302, 323, 335, 331, 346, 298, 321, 315, 330, 330, 328, 334, 307

Don’t you agree that Suunto 9 is a clear outlier? Do you think that Suunto 9 results are correct and all others, including A3P, are wrong? I don’t understand why Suunto doesn’t see that as a problem.

I did similar comparisons for other races in which I participated and the results were similar - Suunto 9 is always an outlier on the low end. Since a lot of my running is on a rolling terrain like that, Suunto 9 had consistently low-balled my total ascent by 10-20%.

stromdiddily

The glaring bit of evidence for me is if you compare S9B vs non Sony Suuntos. Either every other non Sony equipped Suunto is overstating the value or the S9 values are understated. Just ran a 10mi loop on rolling terrain w my cousin who has a Spartan Sport. Distances were exactly the same (which is super impressive in itself), he had over 100 ft more of climbing than me.

Outside of using ascent/altitude values in races to gage amount of climbs left, this really isn’t that big of a deal. Runalyze takes care of this problem and A3P vs S9B come in about the same after the correction is applied there.

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@sky-runner as you wish to say and believe. But that is not correct as the same software that calculates ascent runs on all models.of SUUNTO the same way.

So changing one would exactly change all. The only added difference on the s9 is recent fused alti retry of multiple times late spring I think.

The same conversation with your previous profile still exists and I advice for the sake of all.of us to continue there, instead of "hijacking ". It gets too clustered to even someone to collect some proper feedback.

Kind reminder as well: If you think that the s9 (or anyone here) measures too low, it’s difficult from this forum to change all the stuff at suunto regarding ascent. So the reminder is about that in the end it’s us just fighting over our opinions and breaking our heads who is right or wrong.

stromdiddily

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Suunto 9 baro very low elevation gain vs other brands:

@sky-runner as you wish to say and believe. But that is not correct as the same software that calculates ascent runs on all models.of SUUNTO the same way.

Interesting, I thought it would differ based on firmware use. I stand corrected.

fazel

So, I’m supposed to run 21 miles of hilly trails on Saturday. Should I wear the Ambit3 Peak and the 9 Baro? Has anyone done a direct comparison?

freeheeler

@fazel
yes, before I gave my A3PS to a good friend and before (!) the S9B firmware has been updated to improve the alti summary if I remember correct.
please keep us updated!

Fenr1r

@fazel

Should I wear the Ambit3 Peak and the 9 Baro?

Absolutely.

Has anyone done a direct comparison?

On those “21 miles of hilly trails”? Probably not.

I’m sure you can post a detailed analysis. Monday morning will do. Or by noon. Go easy on yourself.

fazel

@Fenr1r “Hilly” for me. I think we are doing just under three loops. The 50K is four full loops and 4900’ according to the Ambit when I wore it for the race.

https://www.strava.com/activities/1434473944/overview

Okay @Fenr1r @TELE-HO I’ll plan on wearing both watches.

Brad_Olwin

Sorry all @stromdiddily @sky-runner @fazel @TELE-HO @Oktan @Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos , I would like this to end… I find NO differences between A3P, S7 and S9B. Here ya go, a SkiMo and a Trail Run.
SkiMo

Trail Run : A3P and S9B had FusedAlti kick in as you can see.

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@Brad_Olwin me too. Thanks buddy. This is much appreciated

stromdiddily

@Brad_Olwin the “issue” isn’t with bigger/distinguished climbs.

Same day, just over 5 mile route on rolling type terrain…22% difference in altitude.

Brad_Olwin

@stromdiddily said in Suunto 9 baro very low elevation gain vs other brands:

@Brad_Olwin the “issue” isn’t with bigger/distinguished climbs.

Same day, just over 5 mile route on rolling type terrain…22% difference in altitude.

I often compare my altitude gain with corrections in TrainingPeaks, which I find highly accurate. I do not see this problem with my S9B as you can see below for runs with little altitude gain…I have dozens of these runs too if not hundreds. In fact, I find the S9B overestimates altitude gains on low altitude runs.

stromdiddily

@Brad_Olwin your experience does not match my own. But I will leave this topic here.

May “missing” elevation be the worst of our problems in 2021