New software update for S9P-S9B-S9-S5P-S5 and S3 devices 2.20.28

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@freeheeler I know it’s an estimation. But what sense does it make if it drops 5 units after a simple trekking workout while it takes a month of running to get it back to previous estimation.

That’s why I think it shouldn’t be linked to every running activity but per user’s need instead.

[Brad_Olwin]

@łukasz-szmigiel and the rest of you. Why do you care about this number. As @freeheeler said a lab test is necessary to get a VO2Max. And then, what does it mean? If you are trying to get more fit pick a hill or segment for a bike or run. Are you faster or slower? That will tell you if your fitness is increasing or decreasing. Or, do a Cooper test every three or six months. The watch gives you a silly number that doesn’t matter much.

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@brad_olwin I don’t. I used it last year as a little game of crossing 50 as I’ve always been right under. After I did, I don’t care

It’s not troubling me, but it seems weird that for a platform that’s about accuracy, this estimation is unreliable. It creates confusion.

[A Former User]

@brad_olwin I use it for meassuring running efficiency. My VO2max value increased much working on technique. Running better leads to better pace in HR2 Zone and an increase in VO2max. I do not use it much for high intense training.

[isazi]

@mountainchris you do not need VO2max for that, you’re already doing it right.

[cosme.costa]

@brad_olwin as @łukasz-szmigiel comments I do not care much about the number either, but I also believe that if the number is not reasonable shouldn’t be presented, at least not in the watch. If I want hundreds of non-useful metrics I can always go to other brands. I think that before the upgrade the value was reasonable accurate but right now is too sensitive and “someone” should do some fine tunning.

In my case and with running the value in the watch is quite close to my lab results, only some points lower but new algo does what it wants and goes down to easily when ascent is involved, not proportional, I think it should consider NGP.

The other day I did my first Cooper test, I already knew about it but never did one, in my opinion it can be useful for checking evolution but for the value that the formula gives we are in a worse situation than with the watch because Cooper test only uses distance and age whilst the watch also uses HR (and probably more metrics).

[isazi]

@cosme-costa for me Suunto gives the same results as the Cooper test I did last week. But maybe all this VO2max discussion is not really for this topic.

[A Former User]

@isazi thanks. did not know that. but HR gets lower with age. is it really correct to calculate factor without this? But I think only HRmax is getting lower. Interesting view… Will check my EF…

[cosme.costa]

@isazi Yeah in my case, Cooper test VO2max is 5/6 points bigger than watch value but before the test I more or less knew the result because I know pretty well my pace for 12 minutes in a flat surface. I think the algo for running (flattish run) is ok and accurate with the watch, my “complain” is when ascent is involved and the big drop that happens there if you aren’t Kilian Jornet.

As an example, today I run 15 km of trail running with what I consider nice pace (route has some technical parts), 429 m of ascent and relatively low HR, VO2max hasn’t changed from last activity but I’m pretty sure that if I would have run in the flat with today’s NGP my VO2max would have increased provably one point.

And yes, maybe this discussion, should be in a separate topic…

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@cosme-costa this is exactly my point as well. Why have a number in a watch that occupies space (memory), has a dedicated screen and provides confusion to new users if it’s unreliable to the point that it’s being suggested to ignore it?

[DMytro]

@brad_olwin my point isn’t as strong as for other.
I just find it very irritating, you know, like a fly buzzing around, to have a value that is not representative of my true fitness, which I can’t hide/turn off.
Same goes for the inaccurate step count for which I couldn’t care less except it irritates me to know of inaccuracy.
Arguably, it’s my problem not suunto’s.

[isazi]

@łukasz-szmigiel well, Suunto did not have it originally on the S9, and reviewers were enraged because A SERIOUS WATCH NEEDS VO2MAX! So they added it, and paid Firstbeat (Garmin) to have it. The fact that they have it now means they are still paying Firstbeat for the license.

[DMytro]

@isazi but why make it available for things other than running on flat terrain?
I definitely think that having an option to use vO2max rather than having it always on would be a much appreciated compromise.

[isazi]

@dmytro said in New software update for S9P-S9B-S9-S5P-S5 and S3 devices 2.20.28:

@isazi but why make it available for things other than running on flat terrain?

I believe it is because the market expects it, and other vendors also have it (some have the exact same Firstbeat algorithm).

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@isazi yeah I remember that certain fitness-related functions were added with firmware after S5 release because it was unimaginable that hi-end watch didn’t have something that mid-end watch has. It’s silly, but then, well the market has spoken

But really it looks like a simple solution to have both parties happy - leave it on by default and make it a user preference to switch off.

[isazi]

@łukasz-szmigiel let’s make this a watch feature request.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

Hey hi,

before this change we had much greater variance in vo2max among most of our users.

We are working on improving this , however, the specific vo2max discussion could be moved to its own thread if possible , I think.

[TyreseJ4]

@isazi This is true, but Suunto is much harder on the user when it comes to Vo2 max. It takes like a week of easy/slow running for my Vo2 max to drop on my Garmin 945. One easy workout with the Suunto 9 and my Vo2 max plummets. I get that it’s “just a number,” but why charge so much for something that doesn’t work??? I feel like some people don’t understand that. If I pay $500 for a device, I expect it to kinda work…you know what I mean?

[TyreseJ4]

@brad_olwin For the most part I think your post are EXTREMELY helpful. Other times (especially when there’s honest critique of Suunto), you can be unfair. If I buy a device that cost $499, and it says it has a “feature” that I’m interested in, am I not being fair to expect it to work and make a little bit of sense? One of the first things I noticed with Garmin is that the features work. NOT perfectly, but they work. That’s all I ask is that it does something close to what was advertised. If a company can’t do that I’m ok with that. However the device should be significantly cheaper.

[freeheeler]

@tyresej4
now it is not clear if Garmin is closer to reality than Suunto?
Only because we see a value dropping and we’re disappointed, doesn’t mean, Suunto is doing it wrong, right?