Spartan update complains

[DRezvoff]

@mi_chael I compare climbing readings with other athletes who use Polar or Garmin watches. The total difference in climbing at a distance of 17km differs by 100-200m… That’s a huge difference.

[DRezvoff]

We all ran the same distance together…

Here’s the data from my watch, climbing 573m
https://www.strava.com/activities/5778881853

Here are the data from the clock Polar, climbing 838m
https://www.strava.com/activities/5778881853

Here is the data from the watch Garmin, climbing 825m
https://www.strava.com/activities/5779198526

The difference in climb is almost 300 m!!! And this is in an open area, without a forest.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@drezvoff non baro devices have this issue on not constant climbs.

[DRezvoff]

yesterday’s training, the difference in climbing 339m per 30km…

Suunto Spartan Sport WHR
https://www.strava.com/activities/5984088835

Polar Vintage M
https://www.strava.com/activities/5984102067

[sartoric]

@drezvoff
Your watch still has no barometer, I don’t think you’ll see any big improvement keep posting your stravaS

eg. https://www.reddit.com/r/Polarfitness/comments/jidk6x/polar_vantage_m_altimeter_measurement_completely/

[A Former User]

@drezvoff said in Spartan update complains:

yesterday’s training, the difference in climbing 339m per 30km…

Suunto Spartan Sport WHR
https://www.strava.com/activities/5984088835

Polar Vintage M
https://www.strava.com/activities/5984102067

As others said, that device has no barometer. The readings may not be very precise.
You can read more about it here or here
Also spartan line is kinda known to not have more updates.
I think your best bet is to use altitude correction on the platform you use to see your trainings.
Also, there will be always difference between brands.

[DRezvoff]

@sartoric I hope that the developer will make new software and update the clock. Processing algorithms given from satellites change, accuracy, etc…
in the new clock, new algorithms…

[DRezvoff]

@andré-faria the difference between brands is normal.
But when the difference in determining the climb is 300-400m, it’s a lot…
software update and it is necessary to apply new modern data processing algorithms in the clock… Suunto did not update the early models, but simply stopped supporting them…

[A Former User]

@drezvoff said in Spartan update complains:

@sartoric I hope that the developer will make new software and update the clock. Processing algorithms given from satellites change, accuracy, etc…
in the new clock, new algorithms…

Don’t raise your hopes too high…
But only suunto knows…I highly doubt they will update an older watch with new algorythm.
Not only by being old and out of sale, but also due to hardware incompability/testing involved, etc etc

@drezvoff said in Spartan update complains:

@andré-faria the difference between brands is normal.
But when the difference in determining the climb is 300-400m, it’s a lot…
software update and it is necessary to apply new modern data processing algorithms in the clock… Suunto did not update the early models, but simply stopped supporting them…

So which one is correct?
Here is the data of both compared:

[DRezvoff]

@andré-faria I think the speed is more accurate with Suunto, but Polar writes the height profile more accurately. Although Suunto heights are more accurate

[DRezvoff]

Suunto Spartan Sport WHR the clock began to lie a lot by climbing…
track from hours climbing by hour 127m
track after correction in Strava climbing by Strava 634m
Error determining height 500m!!!

[DMytro]

@drezvoff I think it was always the case for nonbaro watches.

[sartoric]

@drezvoff
as @DMytro suggested, that kind of small altitude variations mostly creates those “discrepancies” on NON baro watches

[DRezvoff]

@dmytro @sartoric small discrepancies, it is 10-30m, not 500m!

[Mff73]

@drezvoff

Maybe it was a not so good GPS day, with “high” altitude readings error (due to GPS data in this area this day), and in top of that, this track is quite wavy and ““flat”” (let say mini/maxi hills are 30m, right ?).
SSWHR is cutting each small ascents less than 7m, it is by design.
If GPS altitude errors are 15/20m in the bad direction for you (let say, each time it minimize the ascent), then you might have this high difference result (not good for you, but with an explanation). But all this already have been explained.

[suzzlo]

I also have a Spartan NON Baro, and for me, this is not usable.
The good news (for S line members) is that, Suunto had made a change in their algo, so S5 and newer NON Baro watches will benefit from that.
Also an SA, “elevation correction” will improve the experience for us.

BR

[DMytro]

@suzzlo what change do you mean? I do hill repeats with my S9 and out of 75m elevation per repeat, it only counts about a half.

[sartoric]

@drezvoff
I never talked about “small” discrepancies, as the more you go the more the difference increase.

Anyway, there are at least 2 big threads focused on this topic, so it’s better to search it and move the discussion there, if you don’t find enough information.

[suzzlo]

@dmytro Sorry, I have had an error, this firmware update was only available for S9P - “New Ascent/Descent algorithm” https://forum.suunto.com/topic/7061/software-update-2-18-18-sept-28-2021

[DMytro]

@suzzlo oh yes, that one I’m aware of.