To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts
-
So that’s actually my picture of the two Garmin 945s. I was coming here to share my experience with the S9P and surprised to see my wrist!
Anyway, I am in a similar boat as @Babagali in that I am a bit disappointed with my S9P experience. As you can guess, I am coming from Garmin world. I’ve used the original 945 since its release, but was never happy with the size of the watch on my thin wrist. So I was happy with the release of the smaller 945LTE. However, as others have pointed out, there were just too many surprising bugs on this watch (which should be a near identical copy of the perfectly functioning original 945) to justify the cost. So it has been returned.
I had never seriously considered Suunto in the past due to the form factor of their products (again, not comfortable with large watches). But, the S9P seemed a perfect entry into the ecosystem due to its size. I was also looking to get away from the over analysis Garmin and others tend to push. I’m strictly a runner for enjoyment - I don’t ever plan to race or compete on any level. So the minimalist approach Suunto seems to have sounded appealing.
I’ve had a S9P for about 3 weeks now, and, unfortunately, am considering returning it as well. (I’ve actually had to try 3 different units due to quality issues like dead screen pixels.) While I do like the simplified nature of the UI and UX of the watch and Suunto App, the accuracy just isn’t there for me. While the OHR is pretty close (some spikes and dips here and there), the measured distance and ascent values are all over the place. Oddly, the GPS tracks look quite good compared to my other devices, but I get consistently over calculated distances on all my runs, especially trail ones through forested hills. I understand the altitude issue is being addressed, and, yes, I shouldn’t care if distance is perfectly accurate as I’m running for health, not sport, but I do enjoy accuracy.
There are a few other qualms I have with the unit (calendar integration and weather would be nice, ghost notifications are real, the screen isn’t as readable as others) that make this a difficult sell at this price point. I’m trying hard to love the watch, but if I can’t rely on it for a basic statistic like distance (which affects most every other stat), I can’t see myself making the switch to Suunto.
-
@duffman19 said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
So that’s actually my picture of the two Garmin 945s. I was coming here to share my experience with the S9P and surprised to see my wrist!
Anyway, I am in a similar boat as @Babagali in that I am a bit disappointed with my S9P experience. As you can guess, I am coming from Garmin world. I’ve used the original 945 since its release, but was never happy with the size of the watch on my thin wrist. So I was happy with the release of the smaller 945LTE. However, as others have pointed out, there were just too many surprising bugs on this watch (which should be a near identical copy of the perfectly functioning original 945) to justify the cost. So it has been returned.
I had never seriously considered Suunto in the past due to the form factor of their products (again, not comfortable with large watches). But, the S9P seemed a perfect entry into the ecosystem due to its size. I was also looking to get away from the over analysis Garmin and others tend to push. I’m strictly a runner for enjoyment - I don’t ever plan to race or compete on any level. So the minimalist approach Suunto seems to have sounded appealing.
I’ve had a S9P for about 3 weeks now, and, unfortunately, am considering returning it as well. (I’ve actually had to try 3 different units due to quality issues like dead screen pixels.) While I do like the simplified nature of the UI and UX of the watch and Suunto App, the accuracy just isn’t there for me. While the OHR is pretty close (some spikes and dips here and there), the measured distance and ascent values are all over the place. Oddly, the GPS tracks look quite good compared to my other devices, but I get consistently over calculated distances on all my runs, especially trail ones through forested hills. I understand the altitude issue is being addressed, and, yes, I shouldn’t care if distance is perfectly accurate as I’m running for health, not sport, but I do enjoy accuracy.
There are a few other qualms I have with the unit (calendar integration and weather would be nice, ghost notifications are real, the screen isn’t as readable as others) that make this a difficult sell at this price point. I’m trying hard to love the watch, but if I can’t rely on it for a basic statistic like distance (which affects most every other stat), I can’t see myself making the switch to Suunto.
And I just came from reading your post on Garmin forum about the 945 lte.
A bit offtopic, but in terms of “new watch”, what will you do/buy?
Pay full price for a 945 (a watch that is “old”)? Fenix 6 (which the gps has been known to not be spectacular).
I think both on 945 LTE and S9P the brands will solve their bugs, and they are going to be great devices, but yeah they need time. -
@andré-faria @duffman19
I wrote a reply on the Garmin forum. Clearly I spend too much time in forums. But that is exactly my question too. What is your plan? Garmin 945 LTE and S9P are great. But both need serious bug fixing and improvements until I can really enjoy them. E.g. the resources bug is annoying. I do Yoga regularly and the drop in resources afterwards is for me not nice. Just speaking for me.Apple Watch Ultra (currently on my wrist)
Thinking about going back to Suunto 9 Peak -
But why buy a new watch unless the current one is useless? Garmin, Suunto and Polar, they all have advantages and disadvantages. There is no bug free watch at launch. You either wait for a software iteration or two or you buy watch later.
-
@andré-faria @Patrick-Löffler As you can see in the pic, I already own an original 945. It’s been really solid for me. I don’t recall it having quite as many issues at its launch as the 945LTE does. My understanding is that it was basically a Fenix 5+ with a plastic shell, so Garmin probably had most of the kinks worked out upon its release. The only reason I wanted to “upgrade” to the 945LTE was the form factor. The 3-4 mm reduction in bezel size really does make it sit better on my wrist. I planned on selling the original 945 to offset the purchase, but am glad I didn’t. So the 945 will be my watch for the time being.
That said, I haven’t completely given up on the S9P. I just came back from a walk with the dog and the recorded distance exactly matched the 945. My main issue is with distance accuracy on trail runs. A run early this week had the 945 at 9.23 Km and the S9P at 9.68 Km, a 4.7% difference. That’s pretty big. After mapping the run on a few other services, it seems the 945 is more correct. And it has been reliably accurate through several years of use.
I’m hoping the S9P firmware update comes out before my return window closes as I’d like to see if it solves some of my issues, but we’ll see.
-
I like the discussion here
Thanks guys and @duffman19
-
@dimitrios-kanellopoulos Of course. I’ve held off on weighing in with my opinion until I’ve had a good bit of time with the device. Unfortunately, the trail run distance issue is a big one for me. I’ve just returned from another trail run with both the S9P and 945. The S9P measured 6.04 miles, and the 945 measured 5.55 miles. That’s quite a substantial difference. That puts my average pace at almost 1:00/mi difference.
I don’t seem to have this discrepency when recording walking or “basic” running activities. Is it possible that trail runs use some sort of 3D distance calculation? I know the 945 has an option to toggle 3D distance on or off, but I’ve never used the feature. Even so, I don’t see how that can account for such a discrepancy.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. I’d be happy to start a new topic if that is preferred.
PS: Thanks @Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos for Quantified Self. I’ve greatly enjoyed using it for my comparisons.
-
The S9P measured 6.04 miles, and the 945 measured 5.55 miles. That’s quite a substantial difference. That puts my average pace at almost 1:00/mi difference.
You sure 945 was right? My F6x underestimated my trail distance by a good 15% if not more, though auto-pause and me stopping to take pictures was probably a big part of that. The thing is: S9P was right on the money in that case as it matched the distance of the planned route.
Otherwise, I do agree: Suunto watches tend to slightly overestimate distance, but it’s never more than 1% for me, which is within GPS margin of error.
-
@duffman19 said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@andré-faria @Patrick-Löffler As you can see in the pic, I already own an original 945. It’s been really solid for me. I don’t recall it having quite as many issues at its launch as the 945LTE does. My understanding is that it was basically a Fenix 5+ with a plastic shell, so Garmin probably had most of the kinks worked out upon its release. The only reason I wanted to “upgrade” to the 945LTE was the form factor. The 3-4 mm reduction in bezel size really does make it sit better on my wrist. I planned on selling the original 945 to offset the purchase, but am glad I didn’t. So the 945 will be my watch for the time being.
That said, I haven’t completely given up on the S9P. I just came back from a walk with the dog and the recorded distance exactly matched the 945. My main issue is with distance accuracy on trail runs. A run early this week had the 945 at 9.23 Km and the S9P at 9.68 Km, a 4.7% difference. That’s pretty big. After mapping the run on a few other services, it seems the 945 is more correct. And it has been reliably accurate through several years of use.
I’m hoping the S9P firmware update comes out before my return window closes as I’d like to see if it solves some of my issues, but we’ll see.
How do you know the garmin was accurate?
Have you compared both tracks on QS? -
@nickk @André-Faria I don’t know for certain whether one was more correct than the other. However, these are local trails I’ve been running for years. Specifically, there is a loop one street over from my home that I run 2-3 times a week and is the starting point for almost all of my trail runs. The park signage lists the distance as 1.4 miles and I consistently get a distance of 1.4 miles per loop +/- about .05 miles from every device I’ve used (almost all Garmins). The S9P has measured this loop at 1.5-1.6 miles for the handful of times I’ve run with it there.
Yes, I have been comparing most of my runs using QS. This has been a great tool. Unfortunately, it has furthered my confusion as the GPS tracks for both the S9P and Garmin look pretty good. If anything, I would give the edge to the Suunto, but only by a slight margin. This led to my question regarding 3D distance. If Suunto is calculating trail run distance with elevation change in mind, then I might expect a longer overall distance. Yet even then the discrepancies seem too large.
Further, if the S9P were correct with its distance (and thus average pace), I’d be running at a speed I’m not sure I’m capable of. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to be running more efficiently, but only if I’ve earned it!
Vertical Ti
-
Before I bought my S9B, I tried three different watches (at the same time) to see which was best for me. Reviews are one thing, but there’s nothing like trying a watch for yourself, to see how it suits your specific requirements.
By the way: all were used, and not the latest models. From Suunto, I tried a Spartan Sport WHR Baro, which I have read is not necessarily the ‘best loved’ model.
Garmin? Great software and they do everything…except they don’t ‘do’ cricket (which I play) and the software wanted to count how many stairs I climbed, which I didn’t care about and they continuously got wrong.
Polar? Great HR accuracy, sleep tracking and the online analysis is superb…however, if I want to navigate anywhere, and I don’t start in the ‘correct’ place, the watch has a permanent tantrum, telling me I’m ‘off route.’ In addition, if I want to simply use a stopwatch or countdown timer, it’s a horrible experience.
Suunto? Fitness software is not all encompassing, but then I’m 52 and not likely to appear at the Olympics any time soon. Is it a pain to connect-disconnect and re-connect to a different heart rate monitor? Yes, but then worse things happen at sea
Is the heart rate accuracy perfect? No, but if I want to be picky-picky, I’ll wear a heart rate strap. Is the sleep tracking perfect? No, but again I’m not sure how a watch can tell me better than my body that I’m tired and need an early night! Navigation? In my opinion, the best of the three I tried - even without maps!The bottom line: Suunto is best for me, because of my requirements, but it won’t be the best for everyone, because their requirements are different. There is no such thing as ‘the perfect’ fitness watch, but there is a best one - on balance - for me
-
@theguyfromthesummit said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@miniforklift
you can run the UTMB without a watch as well. So this is no plus point for S9PSure, you can apply that logic to any race, but I can’t imagine anyone that manages to get into UTMB is going to race without a watch. I could be wrong but you’d be talking a single digit percentage I’m sure. For the remaining 90+% that wear a GPS watch you’re going to need a pretty big battery and that rules out a good number of them
@theguyfromthesummit said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@miniforklift
IMHO Suunto watches are just tracker without any data analysis.I genuinely don’t understand this. There’s literally tons of data in the app
To be happy with a Suunto you either have to:
a) just want HR, GPS, time, ascent etc.Depending on the activity but I also rely on average pace, altitude, descent, speed and a few others. I don’t train with HR and haven’t for years so I personally couldn’t care less about optical HR accuracy or chest belts
b) do the analysis and planning in excel / calendar yourself
SA + Strava (as a subscriber) gives me plenty of info
c) be a pro with a TrainingsPeak subscription and a coach
As above
Garmin gives you all the analysis you want and even more.
My other watch is a Garmin Enduro. I think I prefer the data from Suunto as I find it better organised and easier to read
Hey, everyone’s different for sure
SV Titanium Solar Forest
-
@duffman19 To check accuracy of GPS watches, the loop at my home is checked against a measuring wheel. I don’t think you should assume that wrist devices are right just because they agree.
-
@brad_olwin Yes, of course. I don’t assume anything on my wrist to be accurate, GPS, OHR, SpO2 or otherwise. I do, however, trust my perceived exertion to a degree. For instance, on this afternoon’s 5.5 mi run (or 6 mi, if we go by the S9P), the S9P had me running 50 seconds faster per mile average pace versus the 945. This was a lower HR run for me (staying under 150 bpm). If we assume the S9P is correct, then it has me running at a pace I’ve never achieved on this course even when running closer to my threshold.
Now, my perception is based on numbers I’ve gathered from other devices (namely Garmin), so it is possible I actually do run faster than I thought. However, I do run measured road routes and occasionally do track workouts, so I have a decent idea of what I am capable of, and, more importantly here, my average pace versus heart rate and trail conditions. I would guess most folks who have been running for any length of time come to know this regardless of what’s on their wrist. The fact is that in my limited testing (about 3 weeks and a dozen+ runs), my S9P unit doesn’t line up with my perceived fitness. If the S9P is correctly measuring my trail runs, then it would have me running at paces equal to or faster than my road running pace. I think we would all agree that doesn’t line up.
This is ONLY for trail run activities. Road runs (basic) and walks have been spot on. Unfortunately, the majority of my runs are on trails. And this is why I am hoping there is a technical explanation for my experience that I could use to justify keeping the watch. Because I DO like the thing and want to continue using it. But of course I need it to trust the numbers coming out of it first.
Vertical Ti
-
@duffman19 My runs are almost exclusively trail runs and I simply do not have issues with accuracy. Most of the folks I run with have Garmin devices and we both seem to bounce around quite a bit. Trail running is a different beast and I don’t think one can transfer pace/effort from road to trail. At any rate all I am saying is I do not have this experience, the S9baro did have some issues with courses being short but those were corrected some time ago.
-
@miniforklift I think that if that’s the case for you then definitely a watch that cost 589€ is an an overkill .
I just need to mention that I have my A3P for just over 6 years (bought it on 28/8/2015) and is a great companion for numerous of events , trails, Runs etc. it is rock stable . I also have a garmin645 , which was a gift , and is also a great watch.
I really don’t think that any watch would literally add to my experience or would significantly change my excitement while during in nature, mountain or running . The truth is that I am not going to buy something new before my devices die . I think that people that are comparing or complaining about those devices are the ones who least need them but definitely want them . There is a huge difference between need and want something .but you can always enjoy your moments without the constant stress of what a device tells you … think about it and you may end up a bit happier .People … do remember that those devices
Are just tools . The excitement lies in the activity , not the watch . But if you have paid 500+ € for something that you haven’t thought of , there is
a good chance that you don’t really need it , so just do yourself a favor and send it back … life is short -
@duffman19 it may actually be that the trail run mode has 3D distance enabled. Try what is the distance using the run mode.
-
@duffman19 said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
My main issue is with distance accuracy on trail runs. A run early this week had the 945 at 9.23 Km and the S9P at 9.68 Km, a 4.7% difference. That’s pretty big. After mapping the run on a few other services, it seems the 945 is more correct
My experience is that mapping services are always too short on trails - perhaps 2-3% short. I remember that Suunto Ambit 3 Peak always had a longer distance after finishing a route that was mapped in advance. But I also knew from a few certified wheel measured races that even A3P was short on trails. So between FR945 and S9P I wouldn’t be so sure which one is more correct. The only way to tell is to use both on a certified trail race course. I did notice looking at activities of some friends who have S9B that distances seem a bit long. Assuming S9P has a similar algorithm, I think the true distance should be somewhere in the middle between FR945 and S9P and perhaps closer to S9P than to FR945.
-
@patrick-löffler I was wondering if you also tend to have very low resources on your S9P at all times.
Specifically, I use a garmin vivoactive 4 and Suunto 9P and I noticed that
Vivoactive gives me always tendentially high resources (body battery); especially in the morning I am always at 100% regardless of the quality of my sleep. Not very accurate, but at least I can see the pace at which resources are depleting over the day.S9P gives me 0 resources most of the time. Every single day I am at 0% resources in the early afternoon; hence I am at 0% most of the day. I am always around 50-60% right after I woke up.
Having an indicator of resources at 0% most of the time, in my view, is not all that useful. It defeats the purpose of having such a reading as I cannot base training decisions on it, which I understand is the aim of resources. Additionally, I cannot even see the pace at which resources are consumed over the day.
-
@giacomo-laffranchini said in To Many issues with the Sunto 9 peak thoughts:
@patrick-löffler I was wondering if you also tend to have very low resources on your S9P at all times.
Specifically, I use a garmin vivoactive 4 and Suunto 9P and I noticed that
Vivoactive gives me always tendentially high resources (body battery); especially in the morning I am always at 100% regardless of the quality of my sleep. Not very accurate, but at least I can see the pace at which resources are depleting over the day.S9P gives me 0 resources most of the time. Every single day I am at 0% resources in the early afternoon; hence I am at 0% most of the day. I am always around 50-60% right after I woke up.
Having an indicator of resources at 0% most of the time, in my view, is not all that useful. It defeats the purpose of having such a reading as I cannot base training decisions on it, which I understand is the aim of resources. Additionally, I cannot even see the pace at which resources are consumed over the day.
Already reported by some.
