I used the 310xt in the past. A bit bulky, missing a barometer for accurate altitude, but worked reliably.
The 910xt came out and I was very excited about it: a barometer for accurate altitude readings and a swim function, as well as being slicker.
However…
…the barometer is close to useless: jumps around and rarely gives accurate readings (very different readings on the same route a different times)
…(for me) the swimming function is very imprecise, even in straight up freestyle: it works far less well than the Swimsense, so stopped using it for pool swimming
…the up and down buttons on the right hand side are not very practical in my opinion, especially when running, since they are so close toghether
…pace data is completely off when importing into WKO (which is a WKO problem as much as a 910xt problem).
So overall, the value of the new device (to me) is close to none. I am very disappointed that Garmin keeps bringing out buggy devices that don’t do the job well - I never used to have barometer issues like this on my Polar, and the Swimsense has been much more precise than the 910xt. Garmin - get in gear and sort it out! This is a premium device and sub-par functionality is not good enough.
Am I the only one or are others’ experiences similar?
I almost jumped in on a 910 when they came out. Glad I didn’t and stuck with my 310. Seems like most every thread about it is complaining. Not good.
I don’t care about the barometer or the swim functions (I’m a swimmer and can keep up with my workouts in my head). I was only going to get it because it was smaller. Looks like I made a good call to hold off.
I got my 910 in the mail about a month ago. I only use it for running/swimming and can say I have had no issues at all with it. While swimming it only missed 1 lap and i am pretty sure that is when I was practicing flip turns and “flipped” too early not getting a good push off the wall. I don’t use the barometer so can’t speak for that, but have had no issues running with it either.
dcrainmaker mentions that if you don’t get a good push off the wall it won’t pickup on the turn, so make sure you are getting a good push off the wall.
Not a Garmin apologist - I use Suunto stuff - but barometric altitude will nearly always be off day to day because barometric pressure is different day to day. It’s using air pressure, and that’s different with different weather. It’s like how power meters are very precise, but not accurate unless you zero them out. There should be a function on any barometric watch to zero it out by telling it what your current altitude is before your workout. It should work fine from there for a while. I eventually quit worrying about if it had the starting altitude right and instead just use gain and loss, which is both accurate and precise.
Not a Garmin apologist - I use Suunto stuff - but barometric altitude will nearly always be off day to day because barometric pressure is different day to day. It’s using air pressure, and that’s different with different weather. It’s like how power meters are very precise, but not accurate unless you zero them out. There should be a function on any barometric watch to zero it out by telling it what your current altitude is before your workout. It should work fine from there for a while. I eventually quit worrying about if it had the starting altitude right and instead just use gain and loss, which is both accurate and precise.
Of course you are right about that. However, the errors I get are different: for example I start running (at sea level), and after a few minutes it jumps to 300m altitude. Or I run and over the course of the run the altitude keeps dropping very significantly - even though weather is stable and I am running a flat course - so not explainable by a sudden increase in pressure. It definitely comes up with whacky altitude measurements.
Owned my 910xt for a month and it has worked flawlessly for runs and swims.
Question about the altitude function: when I download my workouts to Garmin and/or Training Peaks they both have a correction function based on known locations and elevations. Would not that be the most accurate way to get elevation anyway?
I can run on a treadmill and get 150 gain/loss. Not sure why this function doesnt turn off when you turn off the GPS or indicate you’re using it in side.
Agreed I only use the gain loss part of it and always use elevation correction both in training peaks and garmin connect.
I dont have much issue in the pool but def have issue with the pace on the run.
Owned my 910xt for a month and it has worked flawlessly for runs and swims.
Question about the altitude function: when I download my workouts to Garmin and/or Training Peaks they both have a correction function based on known locations and elevations. Would not that be the most accurate way to get elevation anyway?
Just wondering.
Paul
To clarify the run: my watch seems to work fine for that, just the results in WKO are off (different from the watch, different from Garmin Training Center, and obviously wrong - e.g., if I run 6km in <30min my pace cannot be 5:20/km).
Re the barometer: I wanted it because I sometimes run forest trails that are up and down and cartography based elevation correction is not very good in these circumstances. What good is a barometric altimeter if it’s less precise than the correction? I’ve had a good number of devices with barometric altimeters - both Garmin and other brands - and find the 910xt’s performance having been the worst so far.
I think the correct function is meant for GPS units that dont have barometric altimeters. I don’t bother with it for my 910 or Edge 800 but did when I was using a 310.
I am surprised with all the folks having issues with their 910, I’ve been using mine for months now without any issues whatsoever. Definitely worth the upgrade over the 310 in my opinion. I think it’s the best multisport Garmin device to date.
I have to disagree with you on almost all counts… If you are getting screwy altitude results from the barometer, turn on elevation correction on Garminconnect.com and it will use GIS data to correct it. For swimming, it always gets my laps right unless my goggles start to leak or something and I stop mid-lap to adjust. Better goggles solved that problem for me. And if you import the data into a program that does not know how to interpret it, then you cannot blame the Garmin… I use mine for swimming biking and running (I have the quick release wrist and bike mount) and love it.
yeah but as i was telling someone yesterday, i had a 405 before this, and got the 910… even with all the bugs if i lost it today, i’d go out and buy another one.
In theory the correct should be the most accurate, although also can provide some really weird results when you run on large bridges. You’ll notice the elevation chart drops down as if you are running on the water and then back up the other side. Especially odd looking when the bridge is potentially 100s of feet above the water level.
Like others I usually leave the correction off for my 910 and my Edge 800 – even though Garmin Connect seems to keep turning my correction on for new activities with the 910…
I have noticed odd altimeter data (both from a nominal elevation and a relative perspective). i.e. my starting elevation is often off, but also an out and back run often shows a net elevation change.
Otherwise I have had no serious problems with the watch. I use lap pace for running and the swim lap detection has been good so far. I wish the watch would detect lengths faster while swimming (with a 500m alert set it beeps 60% into the length after 500m has been achieved).
I also question my form and/or the stroke counting. I commonly see every other length oscillating between something like 10 and 12 strokes. This seems really odd to me, perhaps it has to do with how I close each length (open turns) and how much I glide into the next length.
I have to disagree with you on almost all counts… If you are getting screwy altitude results from the barometer, turn on elevation correction on Garminconnect.com and it will use GIS data to correct it. For swimming, it always gets my laps right unless my goggles start to leak or something and I stop mid-lap to adjust. Better goggles solved that problem for me. And if you import the data into a program that does not know how to interpret it, then you cannot blame the Garmin… I use mine for swimming biking and running (I have the quick release wrist and bike mount) and love it.
Re altitude correction: that defeats the point of having a barometer altogether. It’s like saying: your bike lights don’t work? Bike in a lit street. If you sell a product with a feature then that feature ought to work. Otherwise it’s just like the 310xt in that respect.
Re swimming: I wasn’t saying that it’s the same for everybody, though two friends of mine who have the same watch have had similar experiences.
Re WKO: yes, I did say it was a WKO issue, but it’s frustrating nonetheless.
The point I was making is that overall the investment was not worth it for me, because I did not get more accurate elevation data, didnt ditch the Swimsense, and there is the WKO problem. It’s a premium device, performance is distinctly non-premium for me.
Re altitude correction: that defeats the point of having a barometer altogether. It’s like saying: your bike lights don’t work? Bike in a lit street. If you sell a product with a feature then that feature ought to work. Otherwise it’s just like the 310xt in that respect.
In terms of altitude accuracy, generally: known altitude (using GC correct feature) > barometric altitude >> GPS altitude. The problem is that not all altitudes are known. For instance, here in flat as a board SE VA, we have a park built on a landfill, Mt. Trashmore that has 2 “mountains” of grassed-over landfill. Organizers hold XC and 'cross races here as the two “mountains” are about the biggest elevation change within 40 or 50 miles. The GC correct feature does not account for these man-made terrain features so baralt is the most accurate depiction of altitude changes in this case. Also, some care about getting a rough total of climbing/descending during the workout. For them, baralt is the only way to go. Aircraft that use GPS for precision navigation still use a barometric altimeter to determine vertical position because GPS altitude doesn’t work so well (it’s geometry).
Re WKO: yes, I did say it was a WKO issue, but it’s frustrating nonetheless.
WKO is wholly a WKO issue. The Peaksware folks initially tried to pass it off as a Device Agent problem, but 910 files read just fine on Training Peaks. Direct your fire at Peaksware - the last WKO update was more than a year ago while TP / DA are regularly updated. That shouldnt’ be a mystery - $130 for a copy of WKO+ or $10/month for the inferior TP online premium subscription.
In terms of altitude accuracy, generally: known altitude (using GC correct feature) > barometric altitude >> GPS altitude. The problem is that not all altitudes are known. For instance, here in flat as a board SE VA, we have a park built on a landfill, Mt. Trashmore that has 2 “mountains” of grassed-over landfill. Organizers hold XC and 'cross races here as the two “mountains” are about the biggest elevation change within 40 or 50 miles. The GC correct feature does not account for these man-made terrain features so baralt is the most accurate depiction of altitude changes in this case. Also, some care about getting a rough total of climbing/descending during the workout. For them, baralt is the only way to go. Aircraft that use GPS for precision navigation still use a barometric altimeter to determine vertical position because GPS altitude doesn’t work so well (it’s geometry).
Disagree here. It may be good on big open, well cartographed places, but on trails along a steep bank of a river, which go up and down in the forest, it is unreliable. It can also be off on steep mountains where you switchback up and down - GPS inaccuracy + steep slope = inaccuracy.
Funnily I never had problems on my altitude readings on my Polar RS800, Cyclops Joule, or a Garmin Vista EX.
WKO is wholly a WKO issue. The Peaksware folks initially tried to pass it off as a Device Agent problem, but 910 files read just fine on Training Peaks. Direct your fire at Peaksware - the last WKO update was more than a year ago while TP / DA are regularly updated. That shouldnt’ be a mystery - $130 for a copy of WKO+ or $10/month for the inferior TP online premium subscription.
When I use device agent my numbers are all wacked out. I have to manually upload to TP to get the correct info. Device Agent def has issues. However I dont use WKO so Im not sure on that, just know DA has problems with changing things.
I agree with the OP, when I run on trails, my speed tends to hover around “4 mph” but my average pace will be 8 min/mile or so. Obviously GPS speed is way off. Altitude is way off as well. AS today I ran an out and back. when I looked at the graph my starting elevation was 200 ft higher than my finishing elevation. Funny I stopped exactly were I started.
Disagree here. It may be good on big open, well cartographed places, but on trails along a steep bank of a river, which go up and down in the forest, it is unreliable.
With what do you disagree? I wrote that known data is better than baralt which is much better than GPS for altitude purposes.
Disagree here. It may be good on big open, well cartographed places, but on trails along a steep bank of a river, which go up and down in the forest, it is unreliable.
With what do you disagree? I wrote that known data is better than baralt which is much better than GPS for altitude purposes.
Sorry - should have been clear. Disagree that barometric is not as precise as cartography data. Under some circumstances yes, but in running, mostly not (for me)