what evidence have you seen that the 220/620/fenix2 etc are less accurate to any substantive degree?

I've had a 220 for a while now. It definitely stops me at the same spot each time in my 2 and 3 mile runs.

Of course it could be consistently wrong =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Same 2.5 mile OWS that was measured independently.

• My Fenix2 measured it as 3, 3.5, and 4 miles on three different occasions.
• My 910XT meaured it exactly 2.5 miles twice.

The Fenix2 has many problems, just one of which is poor accuracy in OWS measurement.

Would be interesting to plot the data from each, might lend a clue as to the source of the error

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Precise but not accurate . . .weird the crap you remember.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

Of course it would be odd to have a consistent but inaccurate GPS meter in the same way it would be odd for a power meter =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

All swims were done with the watches on my wrist. Based on vibration feedback that notifies when the GPS signal is lost, the Fenix loses the GPS more frequently. I assume the algorythm for filling in the missing blanks is better on the 910. But, the 910 loses the signal less frequently as well.

The Fenix is so bad, it showed me swimming deep on land at times.

It also made a mess of my Challenge AC swim, missing an entire section (maybe a quarter to half a mile) of the course.

This, on top of it getting water inside on two different watches, and I sent it back twice and have been using my wife's 910 while deciding what to replace it with.

Depends on the source of the error - a precise but not accurate unit would likely be getting the correct input from the satellite and muck up the conversion in the software, whereas a unit that's all over the place is likely calculating it's relative position incorrectly.

Same here, my 220 alerts me for splits so consistently on my regular routes that I know when it's going to vibrate within a 5-10 foot window. KM 1 is as I run by a speed limit sign, #2 is as I go by a certain tree, #3 is in the last 10 feet of a parking lot. Before that I had a 305 and it alerted me in the same exact spots. I've not used a 310/920 to compare.

I always wonder about this with these GPS units.

For instance, I use my 910 for every run I ever do, easy, all out, temp, etc. I have it set to give me a 0.25 mile split constantly. There are a few odd ball things that very consistently happen.

First, there is a place in my neighborhood, where no matter how fast I am going, how I am feeling, that quarter mile is always way slower than the one before it and the one after it. It is like the signal is blocked and it thinks I run a shorter distance over the same time period in that one spot.

Also, when the thing is first getting going (even if it has 20 feet accuracy noted or less), it will always predict that my first quarter heading north is longer than the same distance and same location heading back south.

I only point all this out to say, there are some oddly consistent inconsistencies (:-) inside that 910. All in all, I wouldn't ever trade it. Love the watch for swim/bike/run for sure.

---

Ironman Certified Coach

Currently accepting limited number of new athletes

It looks like the problem isn't the accuracy of the different units, but the quality and this really only presents itself in OWS. when running, the units should always have a decent GPS signal and should all have the same accuracy. But when OWS or perhaps trial running or urban canyon running the units will lose the signal. the ones that maintain the signal longer and pick it back earlier will give much better results. For those conditions, the algorithms are also critical in generating accurate tracks and weeding out the bad data.

Yeah I can see how water would present extra challenges, and maybe also the movement of the arms.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Also could vary depending on stroke rate? Higher rate = less time to get a signal fix? Then again it could be the reverse that the faster turn over of arms leads to less loss of a signal. Surely there is a TTL (Time To Live) on the signal for these watches before it considered the signal lost?

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

Funny that you mention this. As I've been doing more speedwork, I've gotten the feeling that the 220 just isn't as consistent as my 610 and I'm thinking about switching back. It's too bad, because the 220 is a MUCH more comfortable watch. The issue I'm having is whether or not the 220 is "good enough." I mean, when I run in hilly canyons, my pace is not that much of a concern to me. It's on the open road with a clear view of the sky - most of my races and speedwork runs - that I value accuracy the most, and these are also the situations where it's most easy to be accurate.

But yesterday, doing a long tempo run on tired legs, when my RPE:speed is least accurate, I felt like I wasn't getting an accurate picture of my run. Like my RPE:speed is whacked, but the watch was even more wacked.

In general, I've felt like the 220 is "good enough," and the comfort is worth a lot over the 610. But on some of my runs, it's becoming more of a concern as I feel like I'm really not getting an honest picture.

Honestly, I thought I was crazy. I had seen some grumblings about the 220/620 accuracy, but that was before a lot of the firmware updates. Had no idea that had stopped working with SiRF. That is a massive disappointment.

But I definitely felt like I was "that guy." I mean, who blames their GPS? But maybe I actually wasn't so crazy...

I've got another tempo tomorrow. Maybe time to throw on both watches and see what I get.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

There are other head ot head comparisons on the garmin fenix2 forum on their own site.

It's a well known phenomenon.

My own experience is that the fenix2 and 910 give very different results on the same swim. The fenix2 jumps so much that it gives extra distance to every swim. The reading jumping forward and back along a path won't change much since it will average out. But the side to side jumps perpendicular to the true path add distance.

I've put nearly 500 miles on my FR620 this year & I haven't had any of the GPS issues that some have claimed. All of my tracks have been spot on. The only issues I have had are the widespread ones when new software was released and occasionally the watch will take longer to lock onto the satellites, but never an issue with accuracy. I hit my mile marks on consistent tracks in the same spot every time.

I believe that there are two possibilities; either there is a QA issue at the point of manufacture & they are letting bad units out in massive numbers alongside the good units & the customer is getting the luck of the draw, or people's negative opinions are being fueled by posts like this one and the review most often quoted by fellrnr that calls Garmin's GPS out.

Garmin recently reduced the price of the fenix2, REI is simply reflecting that change in price. The question to ask is why Garmin reduced the price, is it to move product at the end of the season? Move a product that is perceived to have a lot of issues? Prepare for a 910 replacement?

I have both the 910xt and Fenix2. For running they seem to agree on the distance within a small variance (under 0.1% difference). Swimming is a different matter, the 910xt seems more consistent than the fenix2 with the fenix more likely to over state the distance or report odd swimming behavior (doubling back for 50 yards or swimming over land at 5mph), I think this is more of a software issue but that's just a guess on my part. There are times with both units when it records crazy data, running over buildings, moving at 30+ mph, swimming over land, etc..

I think DC rainmaker reports accurately based on his experiences, but he is a small sample size which means he won't see every problem. Some of his reviews include problems he experienced. Garmin ships a lot of units, some of them are going to be bad even if the defect rate was 1 in 1000 there would still be many posts on the internet complaining about them. My n=1, I'm on my third 910xt (in two years) having had a variety of issues a quick search shows many people have also had to have repairs or replacements with the 910xt, I've had the fenix2 since march and its running strong.

The team that handles the fenix2 is much better about software updates to resolve issues than the team handling the 910xt.

Well he's going to miss a few things.

The biggest mistake I think I have ever seen him make was missing that the speeds recorded by the timex global trainer were off by about 25%.

You can actually see it here, http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...JQGGJJAG2HVRC6FSI3FY. That's the file of a ride he did when he was trying out the watch.

The total time and distance make sense, an average of 24 miles per hour. But look at the speeds in the graph, the green line, according to that line he hardly ever got over 24 mph and spent most of his time at 18 mph. If you were able to highlight a section, like trainingpeaks allows premium users to do, the speeds for that section would be off as well.

As far as I know, that was never ever fixed on that watch incidentally.

Even for an extensive test, there are things he is going to miss, Ray seems like a good dude and does the best reviews out there; but he's not infallible :-)

The issues with the fenix are subtle enough that I can easily see where they would go unnoticed for the two or three weeks he used it.

GPS Accuracy tests

Also gives me another reason to switch more fully over to the V800. Just need to get a dual band HR strap...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

My 220 is MORE consistent on runs than the people that I run with that have 910 watches. Theirs will be at least .05 mile +/- over a mile. My 220 is within feet of accurate on a measured course. We all use footpods.

I think the footpod is an important factor.

That FellRnr.com test was done before the 220/620 had footpod compatibility. Now that you can use the footpod, I'd expect it'd add accuracy, just as it seems to with every other watch.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

A few random things.

1) Hi.
2) I publish the vast majority of my bikes and runs to Strava, you're welcome to poke around.
3) I have to base the review on things I see and reproduce. If I forum surfed for every possible issue and then posted them all in a post, it'd be silly. It's 'my review', not 'the entire Internet's review'. Think if a reviewer did that for the iPhone?
4) Oh, I do forum surf though. I read virtually every Garmin Forum (and ST) thread on recent products, and answer in many of them. I often push to have issues that I can repro fixed.
5) As noted above, you're going to see issues on any unit when you apply enough volume. 1% of 100K units is still 1,000 people. 1% would be a very remarkable consumer electronics device failure rate.
6) Try typing "GPS accuracy" and putting the GPS product name after it.
7) While I usually have units supplied for companies early on in my reviews (simply because they aren't available), I actually often switch to retailer shipped products before the review is out.
8) I don't believe the plot seen above is as useful as folks are making it out to be. It's on a trail run, where the data isn't being provided, and the thousands of 'attempts' are really just runs divided up into tons of tiny little sections. Comparing foot pod to non-foot pod is sorta cheating. After all, that's the point of foot pods on trail runs.
9) As for the sales you see, I explained the reasons pretty clearly a week or so ago in a post when the sale came out.
10) That's probably about it.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

You're the man.

Enjoy EB!

x2

---

2024: Bevoman, Galveston, Alcatraz, Marble Falls, Santa Cruz

 
>>8) I don't believe the plot seen above is as useful as folks are making it out to be. It's on a trail run, where the data isn't being provided, and the thousands of 'attempts' are really just runs divided up into tons of tiny little sections. Comparing foot pod to >>non-foot pod is sorta cheating. After all, that's the point of foot pods on trail runs.


When you say "the data isn't being provided," what are you referring to? Are you saying he's not making his raw data available?

I don't see a problem of dividing a run into sections. His method of having discrete landmarks is *much* easier than using continuous ground truth.

And I don't think comparing foot pod to GPS is cheating. Because knowing their relative strenghts and differences informs the consumer about choosing something appropriate for their activities.

While I've heard different issues, this the first I've heard that the innards may be causing an issue.

In any case, I've had a 310XT for some time. At one point I bought a Fenix 2 but when it lopped off over 200m in a 1Km segment (and some other issues), I decided to return it. I've never had the 310 do that - sometimes it is out by 50m over 5Km or so on the route I usually run (I can tell when it signals my turn around at a different point) but that's it.

I borrowed someone's 910 for the last HIM I did. It made me 1/2 an hour slower (OK, maybe my lack of training contributed to that along with a tougher course). Anyway, after that trial I really wanted to get one but I've been telling myself to wait for the next version, hoping for some additional features that I'd like. But, come next Spring, I'll either have a new unit or I'll get a 910.

---

BC Don
Pain is temporary, not giving it your all lasts all Winter.

Correct, there's no data files available, nor comparison between units on the same runs.

The challenge with dividing up the data is that the course itself only appears to be 2-3K, so when you subdivide the data into dozens (or more) of smaller sections you start to get to the point where you're getting into questionable territory. Then, the charts imply really high count numbers, but not actual miles ran (or even total runs). So a single 2-3K run is how many 'values'? 100, 200, 15?

It's one of the reasons in many of my reviews I include data from multiple units on a single run/ride and let folks go to town. If you're presenting the data - then actually present the data too, not just an interpretation of it.

Finally, as for footpods, why add footpods for the 910XT but not the 620 and Fenix2? I guess that's sorta my point. One is comparing it to a value that's not 'like'. I have no problem showing the strength of a footpod, but since the tests are "GPS accuracy" and not "Footpod accuracy", it's a bit misleading.

Don't get me wrong - I think he does interesting work, but I just don't like that so much of it's a bit black box and many people are mistakenly believing he's looking at thousands of runs.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

Unless they were recorded on the same day and time the diffrences could be due to changes in satellite coverage or atmospheric conditions. Trimble have a tool that will tell you when gps accuracy should be at its highest (used for planning surveying).

Noticed at the tour The Garmin cars seemed to have rtk gps aerials

I've loved all my Garmin running watches until I got the Fenix 2. I really wanted to like the watch. But I had too many runs where it was off significantly on "clear" sky runs on measured courses where it would be off by up to 0.4mi on a 6mi run. In all my years with a 910XT, I think the most I'd see was 0.05. My OWS results were up to 30% wrong. I did a tempo run, where I'm pretty good with RPE and pace, and the damn watch had me running a 5:25 pace. I know that I'm not cruising at that pace!

With Garmin dropping Sirf, I've been thinking about what to get since my 910XT is dying slowly. I'll have to check out the V800 - hadn't thought of that one!

I use the velcro wrist strap kit for the 610, feels comfortable to me.

https://buy.garmin.com/...55_010-11251-04.html

Testing GPS accuracy in an open water swim is about the worst possible test for accuracy you can do.

---

Rodney
TrainingPeaks | Altra Running | RAD Roller
http://www.goinglong.ca

>Testing GPS accuracy in an open water swim is about the worst possible test for accuracy you can do.

But it's really good for testing the accuracy of GPS in an open water swim.

My point being that GPS accuracy can vary widely according to use-case. Just because a GPS is accurate in the open doesn't mean it's going to be accurate in an open water swim. And vice versa.

DC I seriously like your reviews but this interal GPS issue from SRiF to whatever in house Garmin GPS seems to be the issue and based on this post it is more than FOOT pods and OWS swims....... I appreciate your 10 responses but you are missing one response I would like what do you think of the different internal GPS units.

"I've loved all my Garmin running watches until I got the Fenix 2. I really wanted to like the watch. But I had too many runs where it was off significantly on "clear" sky runs on measured courses where it would be off by up to 0.4mi on a 6mi run. In all my years with a 910XT, I think the most I'd see was 0.05. My OWS results were up to 30% wrong. I did a tempo run, where I'm pretty good with RPE and pace, and the damn watch had me running a 5:25 pace. I know that I'm not cruising at that pace!

With Garmin dropping Sirf, I've been thinking about what to get since my 910XT is dying slowly. I'll have to check out the V800 - hadn't thought of that one!"

DC I seriously like your reviews but this interal GPS issue from SRiF to whatever in house Garmin GPS seems to be the issue and based on this post it is more than FOOT pods and OWS swims....... I appreciate your 10 responses but you are missing one response I would like what do you think of the different internal GPS units.

"I've loved all my Garmin running watches until I got the Fenix 2. I really wanted to like the watch. But I had too many runs where it was off significantly on "clear" sky runs on measured courses where it would be off by up to 0.4mi on a 6mi run. In all my years with a 910XT, I think the most I'd see was 0.05. My OWS results were up to 30% wrong. I did a tempo run, where I'm pretty good with RPE and pace, and the damn watch had me running a 5:25 pace. I know that I'm not cruising at that pace!

With Garmin dropping Sirf, I've been thinking about what to get since my 910XT is dying slowly. I'll have to check out the V800 - hadn't thought of that one!"

As I noted in the review, I swam a limited number of times. It was the middle of winter, and I don't live in a tropical locale. The results are in the review.

On the running front, again, the results are in the review. They're also in every running watch I've reviewed since then - almost all of which show Fenix2 units out on runs comparing other units. They're also in so many other posts I write showing comparison with units ending up at the same distances or within 1% (2% max). I just don't see accuracy issues on the vast majority of my runs, and I run in a lot of places.

I have no doubt that there are people having issues. There are for every electronic device from the iPhone to a dishwasher. Searching for issues, and you're going to find issues. People that are happy don't post they're happy - it's the way the internet works. Same goes for past Garmin devices. Seriously, go search for "FR910XT accuracy issues" or "FR310XT accuracy issues" or...fill in the blank. Basically, it's groundhog day again. Finally, be sure you're looking at the dates of Fenix2 posts. Many people that were having various issues 5 months ago aren't today. There's been tons of firmware updates.

Finally, I think there's quite honestly a lot of threads/posts like this. Don't take this the wrong way, but you're posting a thread questioning/stirring about accuracy issues whereby you don't even have a unit. Go out, get a unit, and try it. If you don't like it - you can always return it.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

I bought my GF and my mom both Garmin 220's, and have borrowed both on occasion. I don't trust the speed on there any further than I can throw it. I had one run in particular where I recalculated my pace using the watch time and a GMaps distance and my pace/mile went from an 8+min/mi reported on the watch to a 6:45 (much more consistent with my RPE. My 910, on the other hand, reads fairly accurately (I.e my distance matches certified course distances pretty well)

---

__________________________

I tweet!

I'm 100% in agreement with rbuike on this one. Getting accurate OWS GPS with a watch on your wrist is a crapshoot, your arm is underwater most of the time, unable to get a GPS signal and dependent on the brief time your arm is above water to get a signal. Depending on your swim style, stroke rate, etc., accuracy is going to vary widely person to person. I'd guess it would even vary if you're swimming on smooth vs. choppy water. If you want an accurate GPS track, put the watch in your swim cap. If you want your time and only a very rough idea of how far you went, put it on your wrist. I swam a measured course with a watch on my wrist and had nearly a 20% error rate. The concept of "testing" GPS accuracy with a watch on your wrist is just inherently flawed.

Didn't Polar have some widespread GPS issues a week or so ago?

---

Rodney
TrainingPeaks | Altra Running | RAD Roller
http://www.goinglong.ca

The 910xt also had a specific open water swim mode that enabled some corrections. Garmin even markets the 910xt as "designed for open water and pool swimming" yet the Fenix 2 gets the Garmin Swim feature set, which didn't include open water features.

---

Rodney
TrainingPeaks | Altra Running | RAD Roller
http://www.goinglong.ca

You are missing the point. Agreed, OWS is not the standard for testing GPS accuracy and it shouldn't be used as "control" in any experimentation for all the reasons you identified.

HOWEVER, when the Fenix2 is off by MILES on four different occasions in an actually known OWS course distance and the 910XT is accurate to the hundredth of a mile on two different occasions, you have to say HMMMMM....perhaps the 910XT has better GPS accuracy than the Fenix2 when it comes to OWS. Same swimmer. Same stroke length. Same course. Same time of day. Same wrist. Just different watches.

When it comes to GPS, I assume some variation and inaccuracy. All you need to do to realize this inaccuracy is run/record a few laps around a track in a wide open area to see there are going to be some inconsistencies. Fine. In the end, I am only interested in knowing if I ran 10 miles, 15 miles, or 20 miles when I go out and run for time. I'm not really interested in whether it was 15.1 or 15.2. I know some are and some use it for pacing and racing.

When it comes to the swim, I think we can all agree that if I swam 2.5 miles and my Fenix2 told me I swam 4 miles, the Fenix2 is worthless in OWS. It's not like it said I swam 2.7 or 2.8. That, to me, it acceptable error. Off by 60%? That makes the product garbage.

Just a note to say that your reviews and thoroughness totally rock, and are way appreciated. I don't say this as a backhanded slam against the guys raising questions in this thread, but simply because your answers here have reminded me why I trust your reviews far more than anyone else's.

And I agree that the 1 in a 1000 problems (or maybe an entire batch of units, as in Zack's case above), aren't reflective of the general product. It sucks for whoever gets the faulty ones and I don't blame them for their frustration--but they're problems are usually not indicative of the performance that 99.9% of the rest of us get.

I have a 910xt, 210 and 310xt..... I was very close to getting a fenix2 or a 220 based on your reviews and how they fit..... After reading multiple pages of stuff about a fenix2 and the internal GPS issues I went with 910xt.

DC rainmaker do you think the new internal GPS change from SRiF has anything do with these issues? Please give us insight into the SRiF issues?

I am not trying to stir up issues just not sure why nothing was mentioned about the new GPS internal parts change and the issues related to that.

I don't typically include GPS chipsets within reviews. In many cases, companies won't provide that information. Sometimes it can be found in FCC filings, but not always. And breaking apart a unit when none others are available seems like a review-limiting move. I do plan at some point to start doing tear-downs, but right now just have too much on my plate to do that (since it would involve getting/finding chipset people that were unbiased in the industry and willing to help identify parts).

As for why I didn't mention GPS issues, again, because I didn't see any (and still don't see any, and I've had access to three different Fenix2 units at this point). I saw many other earlier issues when I noted in the review, but GPS accuracy wasn't one of them.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

FWIW, my 220 has seemingly been pretty spot on since receiving it a couple weeks ago. I'm heading off on a "training" weekend with some mates so it will be interesting to see how it aligns with their devices.

My fiancé has the 220 and the same issues. I wore it with my 910 and the paces/distances were always way off. Even after sending it back and doing all the updates it still continues to be an issue.

I bought the 220 when it came out, informed entirely by DCR's review. I experienced no accuracy issues relative to the 305 - my frame of reference. After a few months I decided some of the 620 features mattered (and again trusted DCR's insights) so I upgraded and have had no issues with accuracy. Like my iphone, it's become thoughtless tech to me - as in, I don't need to think about it. It does the job I ask it to do flawlessly so far.

I think DCR is right - it's important to use the device in your real world to determine its value to you.

PS - DCR, yours is an important voice in athletic technology. Where consumer electronics has countless blogs and review sites, you stand out for knowing your shit, not parroting PR material, and keeping everybody honest. Thanks.

 
>I'm 100% in agreement with rbuike on this one. Getting accurate OWS GPS with a watch on your wrist is a crapshoot, your arm is underwater most of the time, unable to get a GPS signal and dependent on the brief time >your arm is above water to get a signal. Depending on your swim style, stroke rate, etc., accuracy is going to vary widely person to person.

That's more an argument about whether you get better data from wearing a GPS on your wrist vs. in your cap. There's little question that the cap is better.

But the point is that most GPS units do far more than just the basic, static calculation of position from GPS signals. They have internal filters (e.g. Kalman filter) that model the type of motion taking place and do predictive estimation in the periods with degraded signal, or no signal. They model velocity, heading, etc. For example a motion model for a swimmer would employ the constraints of swimming motion to limit error. Swimmers are slow. So if the raw GPS calculation showed a 3m jump in one second, the filter would weight that sample very lightly, and trust the "extrapolation" from prior data more.

So if you want to test how well a GPS works for swimming with a GPS on your wrist, then the best way is to test it while swimming with the GPS on your wrist.

If you want to test how well it does with the GPS in your cap, test it with the GPS in your cap.

This. I won't buy athletic tech before checking DCR's review. I'd be extremely uncomfortable if I had to make such a decision and he was no longer doing it.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

DC rainmaker sounds good to me. Agreed their could be issues on anything just seems the new chipset might be to blame. Thank you for always giving honest and good reviews on products. I was very very close to the fenix2 but much happer with a 910xt.... It weights less any so works out better. Keep on reviewing God knows we triathletes need all the insights we can get

What in the world are you talking about? They market the Fenix for "swimming", if there is supposed to be an asterisk somewhere about "does not include open water features", Garmin should admit that.

the fēnix 2 is the ideal multisport athlete’s training partner. Whether running, climbing, riding, hiking, paddling, skiing or swimming, the fēnix 2 lets you easily switch between feature sets for easier access to the information you need

DCR is a great site, tons of pictures and I like the blog parts. The product reviews include a ton of stuff that I don't care about (unboxing doesn't do it for me), and a persons opinion. That person doesn't want Garmin to stop sending things, so it's important to do your own research and read online reviews for what they are.

So are you upset with Garmin or jealous that Ray gets early test devices (which he returns and then buys devices at retail)?

---

Rodney
TrainingPeaks | Altra Running | RAD Roller
http://www.goinglong.ca

I don't think you are crazy...

My Garmin 620 has not failed me very often but when it has failed me it has failed me pretty bad.

10k race (3 identical laps) in May 2013 with 910XT : link .

Now SAME 10k race with SAME 3 identical laps in May 2014 with FR620 : link . Look like I was running in very different streets each lap, pace was wrong, distance of course was wrong but the map really is the funniest part :-) . Now to its defense, it was raining pretty bad during the race this year...

Having shown that, it seems with the latest firmware for FR620 and the latest GPS tracking firmware (both get updates every now and then) I haven't had this happening lately and I'm one of the lucky one who did not have his FR620 crashing during runs after latest firmware installation.

So I've not been the happiest FR620 custommer in the world and I do trust my 910XT more but since the FR620 keeps improving update after update and since it is so light and comfy on the wrist, I decided to keep using it and I'm sure at some point it will be 100% reliable just like 910XT !

Hope this helps...

Nice backhand.

You should read my recent Garmin posts more often, apparently.

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

Did Apple send you an iWatch yet ?

I was happy with my Forerunner 301 (until I was running near trees or buildings)
But even happier with my Forerunner 305 (eventhough I had to get Garmin to repair the lack of beeping after 11.5months)
Happy with my FR60 (til the strap broke)
Bored with my FR70
Love my 910XT
Gigling like a kid at my Forerunner 620

Was happy with my Edge 305
Happier with my Edge 705
Much happier with my Edge 810 though now

My take home from this is
a. Each Garmin product (and going back further.. each Polar one) I have owned has made me happier than the last (even current pace fluctuation doesn't bother me as since the 301 I have current pace and current 1k lap on screen and my brain is used to seeing the fields)
b. I buy too many GPS gadgets (but heck.. before GPS watches were available, I was convinced my 11.5k route was actually 13.5k!)
c. I very much value DC Rainmaker's thoughts and site.
d. I am sure I am not critical enough in this.. but heck..just wanted to let peple know I am happy

I didn't quote you for a reason, I thought your answer made sense. The other argument I did have a problem with "open water GPS is hard" and "Fenix isn't designed for it" I do have a problem with. "Yes, that's why they cost so much" and "Garmin doesn't admit that"

I've read your reviews, even the negative ones. That doesn't change the fact that when you went from a reviewing what you personally purchased (in store, commercially available) to reviewing what Garmin went you, that changes things. The product experience you get and especially the customer service you get is often (I know, not always, I read that review too) fundamentally different.

Note, that's not a negative as it's completely normal in online reviews, and there is no doubt you made the right decision as readers love a review of a product that's just been announced. My wife reviews products too.

And no, Im not jealous about pre-release items personally. My 410 offers more capability than I honestly use, so I could upgrade a few generations before feeling hurt that Ray has the 1010xt or whatever.

Bottom line, you were right, try it yourself.

Maybe Garmin will jump in here..... Why does each device need updating for GPS accuracy? I know this is the same with polar Garmin and the like but why sinus not closer to correct when they put them out.

yeah, it's not like Garmin is putting out a GPS for the first time. GPS is supposed to be its core competency. you'd think all their experience would prevent this kind of thing from happening.