Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9
-
@lexterm77 first of all, you’ll need to put another sensor there, doubling the cost of that component, and the space it takes. Second, two sensors would be for fault tolerance if one suddenly drops dead, but it is no help for different behavior. You would need at least three to have a tiebreaker in case two sensors show different results.
-
Cost of machining titanium outweights the cost of baro
. My S9B lost its baro accuracy over the years, when I calibrate my altitude baro is 6mbar off. X lander had calibration menu is there such thing on S9B hidden in fw? -
@isazi
I would pay for 3 sensors right away. in an S9P XL there would even be space for it
here’s my todays skitouring of not even 900 vertical meters…
-
Me to, I’d pay for titanium watch with 3 sensors and a wireless charger than you can snap a magnetic ring around a bezel for on wrist charging capability during activity
-
@freeheeler said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
here’s my todays skitouring of not even 900 vertical meters…
I must admit that this is my first ski touring with the new FW. I’ll check tomorrow on the next skitour again…
the graph itself looks solid, no suspicious “baro hole blocking spikes” as I know them from the past. Only a lot of ups and downs when zooming in…
-
@freeheeler said in Why I've shelved my Peak for a 9:
I’ll check tomorrow on the next skitour again…
no issue today with weird total ascent values… and now stopping highjacking this thread
-
@freeheeler if you find that there are issues with the new S9B ascent algorithm, feel free to create a new post in the right section.
-
@isazi
I don’t think there are issues, no worries.
I was just confused as I saw the exaggerated total ascent but not the commonly known spikes when the holes are blocked by sweaty skin… I suspect the jacket’s sleeve was the root cause here…anyway: I would shelve my S9B for an S9P XL… just to mention it again
…even if I need to pay for 3 baro sensors 
-
This post is deleted! -
deleted for wrong post