Suunto 2.50.26 – Q4 2025 Release Notes
-
@jjpaz I compared a known track, seems that my SR2 measures approximately 3.8% less distance than a Garmin Oregon GPS device (and also that amount less compared to a track generated based on OSM maps using Garmin BaseCamp). Will check that with some older tracks as well (when I find the time
) -
@Calando You can check the dedicated thread to that topic here: https://forum.suunto.com/topic/14375/race-2-gps-and-distance-accuracy-vs-previous-suunto-models
-
Have any of you already experienced the new OHR algorithm?
I only did a single run, but the results were far from impressive.
I did a set of intervals, and the HR got stuck at high value both during the recovery and during the cool down section of my session.
It was sad, because the start was promising, without any spike (differently from the previous algorithm)
I even walked in the cool down phase, to let my HR go down, but none of this was read by the watch
-
@Lorenzo-Pintore Même constat mais peut-être est-ce dû au froid ? De toute façon, l’essentiel pour moi est que le pouls au repos soit fidèle et ça semble être le cas … car pour le sport j’ai toujours une ceinture thoracique. Après si il n’y a pas d’amélioration, je comprends mal la communication de Suunto. Ils doivent bien tester leurs produits non ?
-
Thanks, I will try this workaround… but I did not have this problem until 2.50.26 update… and I did not change anything in app.
-
@Dieter1960 It may be cause by the cold: temperatures were around 3°C during that run. I’ll try on the treadmill to verify this.
-
@Lorenzo-Pintore, I did a short run and the registered HR was much more compliant with my feelings than previously. I’ll test during the weekend and compare with a belt during an indoor cycling session.
-
@Lorenzo-Pintore said in Suunto 2.50.26 – Q4 2025 Release Notes:
Have any of you already experienced the new OHR algorithm?
I know it is lengthy, but you should actually read this thread instead of only posting…
I posted twice…
https://forum.suunto.com/post/182613
https://forum.suunto.com/post/182856Which watch did you use?
-
I dont pay much attention for calories burn, especially from a watch, but yesterday (with chest strap) and tried today without (only watch OHR), I had 20% less calories burn than usually during run.
-
@Mads-Hintz-Madsen
Same for me. Never had any problems with ressources. Now I always relax.
I had this night a very high hrv measured. Maybe the new algo measures hrv a little bit different. Aren´t ressources also based on hrv intraday?Ressources was for my always a good indicator how I recover at night. Much better than any sleep score. Now it is uselss.
-
@Lorenzo-Pintore Tried it today with the Race S for an indoor training / cycling session. It worked perfect (compared it to the Vertical with HR belt).
Outdoor Running in cold temperatures I couldn’t test so far -
Bike sensor still shows nothing
. I was hoping for a Bugfix release, instead there are new features. -
@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Suunto 2.50.26 – Q4 2025 Release Notes:
@sky-runner we made nice changes for you I think I need a seperate post from you
I need to try to repeat some of the previous runs on rolling terrain to see what difference in ascent / descent it makes. I haven’t had a chance yet.
@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos, so I far I have tried repeating one previous run on a rolling terrain - compared to the previous firmware version both distance and total ascent ended up being exactly the same. But at least I didn’t have to raise my arm at the top of each small climb, so perhaps that is an improvement!
However I wanted to use this chance to remind about two other bugs / issues:
[1] The estimated ascent given by Suunto app for the route is pathetically wrong. Strava calculated 441 ft elevation gain when I created a route from a previous run. In Suunto app the same route’s ascent shows as 280 ft. The actual elevation gain after running it is 535 ft, so almost 2x difference.
I looked at climb guidance during the run and every single climb showed up with less ascent than actual. For example, in one case climb guidance showed a 33 ft ascent. By the end, when the ascent was replaced by a flat section in the climb guidance, I had already climbed 72 ft and in fact there was still probably another 10 ft of climbing in front of me, but the watch had already switched to a flat section. And that is what I see consistently when running on rolling terrain. All moderate ascents and descents are almost always inaccurate and fairly short of the actual elevation changes.
[2] Navigation improvements such as larger arrows are claimed at the top of the thread. I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, but one annoying bug that I’ve reported over a year ago is still present:
As you can see the light blue navigation errors are rendered behind the red breadcrumbs tracks, and in some situations that is disorienting. I’ve seen multiple cases where I am at a junction that I’ve already gone through a couple of times with two or more possible ways in the navigation route and it is nearly impossible to tell which way to go because the light blue arrow is behind and nearly invisible. I can probably find some sceenshots of this issue that I’ve made earlier.
Is the development team aware of this issue and why such an obvious issue isn’t being addressed? It would be quite reasonable to always render the light blue arrows on top.
-
@sky-runner I too have noticed that the SA ascent numbers are very wrong. They appear to be too low.
