Race 2: GPS, cadence and distance accuracy vs previous Suunto models

duffman19

@jjpaz Well, as I’m sure you do, I tend to take any AI response with a very large grain of salt. For instance, any reference to watch size and GPS antenna performance is bunk. Antenna design is far more complicated than “bigger is better.”

I suppose there is the possibility that there could be subtle variations in software from one watch model to the next. Although it looks like they all get the same base updates (e.g. 2.50.26 is the latest), each model actually gets a specific software package (My SV1 has 2.50.26.29840-… and the 9PP has 2.50.26.31604-…). However, I find it difficult to believe that the distance algorithms would be significantly different between watches as the AI response suggests.

We do know that the internal hardware is different between models, especially between the version 1s (Vertical, Race, Race S) and version 2s (Vertical 2 and Race 2). It’s plausible that, in an effort to conserve draw and increase battery life, the version 2s use a less active accelerometer. This would force more reliance onto GNSS accuracy and perhaps force the distance algorithm to “over compensate” and cut off more distance.

Or, perhaps it’s the opposite and the version 2 watches actually have a slightly lower-powered GNSS system forcing more reliance onto the accelerometer. After all, GNSS is the biggest sensor draw on the battery and the new watches need all the reserve they can get to power the newer, larger AMOLED screens. I could also see this causing over compensation and shorter distances. This theory would also squares with the slight decrease in GNSS accuracy that we’ve observed in the newer models.

@jjpaz It may be that few users actually care about such subtle differences, but I’m with you and would love to get to the bottom of this as I’ve always been a stickler for distance accuracy. Thanks for sharing your findings.

jjpaz

@duffman19 Thanks for your comment.
Yes, I take the AI’s results with a grain of salt. The thing is, what it indicates aligns very closely with my feelings and what I’ve seen in Race 2.

It’s clear that nowadays "sport/smart"watch users are more concerned with the accuracy of the optical sensor, clean tracks, health features and watchfaces, rather than the absolute precision of GPS metrics like they were a few years ago. DC_Rainmaker himself no longer shows distance comparisons in his reviews to test GPS accuracy between watches, only images of the tracks to see if they are clean.

We now take for granted that this data has reached an incredible level of accuracy, that all brands are there, and people are looking for other things.
In my case, it’s a bit of “occupational hazard” and a desire to investigate further and learn during the process.

Maybe with more activities the GPS+Acelerometer twin will be more aligned with my Vertical and RaceS data. I’ve been using Race 2 only for two weeks now. We’ll see how evolves.

Hope you find this thread interesting

jjpaz

After analyzing several activities using two watches simultaneously for comparison and running all the raw data through a pair of AIs, these are the conclusions obtained: aggressive post-processing filter within the FusedSpeed algorithm or a calibration bias in the Race 2 accelerometer.
It seems that Race 2 is more agressive/conservative than previous Vertical/RaceS algorithms.

FYI, If you feel like reading for 1 minute:

TECHNICAL REPORT: Distance and Cadence Discrepancy (Suunto Race 2)
Subject: Systematic Underestimation of Distance and Cadence: Suunto Race 2 vs. Suunto Vertical/Race S (FusedSpeed/Accelerometer Algorithm Analysis).

Problem Description: After conducting multiple comparative tests (dual-watch setups, wearing both devices on the same wrist to eliminate arm-swing variables), a consistent pattern of distance underestimation has been identified in the Suunto Race 2 (49mm) compared to the Suunto Vertical and Suunto Race S. These tests have been carried out in various activities and, in all of them, the difference in distance ranges between 90-160m in 10km of activity.

The evidence suggests that the discrepancy does not originate from the GNSS sensor itself (the recorded GPS tracks are accurate), but rather from an overly aggressive post-processing filter within the FusedSpeed algorithm or a calibration bias in the Race 2 accelerometer.

Comparative Test Data example (Same Wrist - Jan 15th, 2026):

Course: Urban circuit with frequent turns and 4 moderate pace intervals.

GPS Mode: Performance / Dual-Band (All systems) on both devices.

FIT File Distance (Race 2): 9.55 km

FIT File Distance (Race S): 9.62 km

Calculated GPX Distance (Raw coordinates): 9.62 km

Key Technical Findings:

GPX vs. FIT Gap: While the Race S and Vertical FIT distances align almost 100% with the distance calculated by the sum of latitude/longitude coordinates (GPX), the Race 2 shows a loss of ~70 meters. This confirms that the device is discarding real GNSS-provided distance based on conservative accelerometer readings.

Cadence and Stance Time: Despite being on the same arm, the Race 2 consistently reports a higher cadence (174 spm vs 172 spm in Race S). This discrepancy suggests that the Race 2’s heavier chassis (49mm) might be affecting impact detection thresholds, causing the software to misinterpret movement dynamics.

Pace Transition Smoothing: The distance loss is most significant during pace changes and sharp turns. The Race 2 applies a higher level of “smoothing,” often treating legitimate acceleration or cornering as sensor noise, resulting in “shortened” tracks.

Inquiry for Support: Is there a known calibration offset for the Race 2 (49mm) accelerometer? Are there plans for a firmware update to align the FusedSpeed sensitivity of the Race 2 with the more transparent and accurate performance observed in the Suunto Vertical and Race S models?

jjpaz

My Suunto Race 2 Technical Test - Final comments:

I have conducted a side-by-side analysis of the Suunto Race 2 against the Suunto Vertical and Suunto Race S across multiple activities during more than 2 weeks.

Suunto Race 2 systematically under-reports total distance by 0.5% to 1.5% compared to reference devices (Suunto Vertical and Suunto Race S).

Analysis of RAW FIT files confirms that this is not a GNSS reception issue. The Race 2 records valid GPS coordinates but seems to discard valid distance data during post-processing. In every activity analyzed, the Suunto Race 2 records a “Session Summary” distance that is significantly lower than the mathematical sum of its own recorded GPS coordinates.

Pattern: The device records the correct path (lat/long points) but the internal software filters out valid distance.
Example: The Race 2 RAW file contains GPS coordinates summing to 11.35 km, yet the final session summary displays 11.20 km.
Comparison: The Suunto Vertical and Race S show a near-perfect match (99.9% accuracy) between their GPS point sum and the displayed distance.

The Race 2 consistently reports a higher average cadence than the reference units, likely due to hardware inertia or accelerometer sensitivity.
Pattern: Race 2 reads +2 to +4 spm (steps per minute) higher than Vertical/Race S in every activity.
Consequently, the device systematically calculates lower power (-7 Watts) and shorter distance (-0.7% to -1.5%) compared to reference devices (Vertical/Race S), despite identical GPS tracks.

Do you have this difference between devices? Is the current performance acceptable for a flagship device when compared to the older Vertical and the cheaper Race S?

sky-runner

@jjpaz No comment about the distance, but when I first moved to Race S from Garmin Fenix 7X I noticed that it reported noticeably fewer steps than Garmin.

Later Race / Race S step accuracy when running was improved but my impression was that it still remained too low, so perhaps Race 2 counts steps more accurately.

Here is an example from a recent 14 mile run on trails. The number of steps is 23886. Historically, when running on flat road I did about 1600 steps per mile and on technical trails - closer to 2000 steps per mile. When walking - also about 2000 steps per mile. This trail run was more runnable but still with a decent amount of ascent, some stairs and some walking sections, etc. 1700 steps per mile feels a bit short.

jjpaz

@sky-runner said in Race 2: GPS and distance accuracy vs previous Suunto models:

@jjpaz No comment about the distance, but when I first moved to Race S from Garmin Fenix 7X I noticed that it reported noticeably fewer steps than Garmin.

Later Race / Race S step accuracy when running was improved but my impression was that it still remained too low, so perhaps Race 2 counts steps more accurately.

Here is an example from a recent 14 mile run on trails. The number of steps is 23886. Historically, when running on flat road I did about 1600 steps per mile and on technical trails - closer to 2000 steps per mile. When walking - also about 2000 steps per mile. This trail run was more runnable but still with a decent amount of ascent, some stairs and some walking sections, etc. 1700 steps per mile feels a bit short.

About steps/cadence: in all my activities during these 2 weeks, Race 2 have measured less steps and higher cadence than Vertical and Race S and I think there’s something wrong. Both watches in same arm.

For example, yestarday’s activity:

Race 2: 9,02km. 8736 steps. 87rpm.
Race S: 9,08km. 8743 steps. 86rpm.

Saturday’s activity:

Race 2: 11,21km. 10639 steps. 87rpm. 1h02’38".
Vertical: 11,26km. 10647 steps. 85rpm. 1h02’37".

So, taking this into account, with same distance and duration, how can I take less steps and faster (higher cadence)? I have asked Gemini about this inconsistency:

"The data recorded by the Suunto Race 2 during the 62:38 session shows a critical mathematical inconsistency between ‘Total Strides’ and ‘Average Cadence’.

The device recorded a total of 10,639 steps. Mathematically, over a duration of 62.63 minutes, this results in an actual cadence of 169.8 spm (84.9 rpm). However, the watch reported an Average Cadence of 87 rpm (174 spm). For this average to be correct, the device should have registered approximately 10,900 steps, which is not the case.

This proves that the Suunto Race 2 is not deriving its ‘Average Cadence’ from the ‘Total Strides’ counter. Instead, it is using incorrectly averaged instantaneous values. This ‘ghost cadence’ (87 rpm vs. the real 85 rpm) directly misleads the FusedSpeed algorithm: the watch ‘believes’ the runner is taking more steps than they actually are, assumes a much shorter stride length, and consequently applies an artificial reduction to the total distance (11.21 km vs. the 11.26 km recorded by the Suunto Vertical)."

WOW

leafs93

@jjpaz I am really impressed with the work you have done. I had posted in Reddit thread about the conservative distance race 2 is giving, ie I am also getting about 80-130m distance shorter for a 10km run compared to coros pace pro and apex 4. I used to have both race S and Race and both actually have very similar distances logged and are longer by about 80-130m compared to Race 2 (for a 10km run). While I am not disputing that Race 2 could be more accurate in distance, I do think that there could be a smoothing effect in logging of distance . It’s not a big deal but it does bug me quite abit. Sure hope a software update will help resolve this .

jjpaz

@leafs93 said in Race 2: GPS, cadence and distance accuracy vs previous Suunto models:

@jjpaz I am really impressed with the work you have done. I had posted in Reddit thread about the conservative distance race 2 is giving, ie I am also getting about 80-130m distance shorter for a 10km run compared to coros pace pro and apex 4. I used to have both race S and Race and both actually have very similar distances logged and are longer by about 80-130m compared to Race 2 (for a 10km run). While I am not disputing that Race 2 could be more accurate in distance, I do think that there could be a smoothing effect in logging of distance . It’s not a big deal but it does bug me quite abit. Sure hope a software update will help resolve this .

Yes, Race 2 seems more conservative than Vertical or Race S in terms of distance calculation. These two are more confident in GPS points and cañculated distance is close to the GPS raw distance. Maybe they are a bit generous. Race 2 filters/discard around 1% of the raw distance. What’s more accurate? May be perfection is in the middle?

Have you moticed difference in cadence? Do you have more cadence (+2rpm) with Race 2 compared to other watch (wearing both in same arm)?

Now I’m training only with one watch, Race 2, and don’t compare to other.

Liviu Nastasa

@jjpaz My recent experience with Race 2 (and the last 2 firmware versions) confirms your findings. When running on the same route, I came to know where to expect the lap marks and I noticed that Race 2 has some delays, and the whole distance counted at the end of the activity is less than what I had on the same route with various other devices (AWU/AWU3/Vertical 1/Epix Pro/Fenix 7x).

I looked into the fit files exported and that confirms your data: the GNSS distance is 1-2% higher than what I see on the screen. This seems to be the result of the recent adjustments in the firmware, the look of the track visually seems ok but I’m a bit annoyed that I’m getting lower distance and I can’t trust the device as I did in the past. Suunto may have some limitations when compared with Garmin high end watches (or the smartness of Apple Watch Ultra) but at least the GNSS and basic measurements were top (until now). Hope for a change in the next updates, otherwise I’m tempted to change device for another brand. Let’s see if the problem is at least acknowledged …

sky-runner

@Liviu-Nastasa If the difference is 1-2% on a road, I wonder what it would be on a twisty trail.