Does connected GPS have much impact on Blaze battery life?

[sjstokes]

I've currently got a Surge and am very happy with it. However, I occasionally take part in ultra walking events of 100km and the like and the battery life of the Surge while using GPS is nowhere near good enough to track these events. Instead, I've been using Strava on my iPhone which in turn is kept charged by a meaty power pack.

I was initially sceptical of the omission of built-in GPS on the new Blaze but then considered that the implementation of connected GPS (and the associated benefit to battery life) may mean that it's just what I'm looking for.

That said, I'm assuming that using the Blaze for a connected GPS activity does have some sort of impact on its claimed battery life of 5 days? I'm guessing that there is a lot more exchange of information with the smartphone via Bluetooth and that surely that will drain the battery faster?

To cut a long story short, is there anyone in the know who could tell me if the battery capacity of the Blaze would allow me to track a walking activity taking upwards of 24 hours through connected GPS?

[EmersonFitbit]

@sjstokes I was sitting here trying to do the conversions in my head- 62 miles is an insanely long walk! Very impressive. 

I'm actually unsure of what the battery life would be like for a trip like this on the Blaze. I can try to dig into this, as I'm sure one of the product teams would have a better idea. I don't think I'd be able to test this on my own.. at least not for 24 hours while walking. 

[sjstokes]

Despite the aching limbs, shredded feet and multiple lost toenails, it's a strangely satisfying thing to do!

Any information you can glean on this would be greatly appreciated. If the Blaze is able to track a walk for that long I'd be buying it for sure.

[SteveH]

When I use my Surge to track my hiking (albeit a much more modest activity for me!) I choose not to use the GPS as I'm quite happy that the Surge tracks my distance accurately using just the steps x stride calculation (I do use a calibrated stride length).

I'm assuming that your preference to use GPS is for accuracy reasons or am I missing something?

[sjstokes]

@SteveH I just like to keep a record of where I've been. As it turns out I'm a bit of a gadget freak and I'm currently wearing a Garmin Forerunner 235 on my other wrist. I use the Fitbit for recording walks and the Garmin for recording runs as it has more features for that purpose. I've noticed that the Surge does a pretty good job of recognising my runs when I'm using the GPS on the Garmin.

[SteveH]

That's a pretty good reason!

Hopefully Emerson will be able to confirm a minimal battery drain with connected GPS.

[matt9013]

Would like it not to have to much of an affect on battery life. I want to use Blaze as my GPS device but if it kills the battery pretty fast I'll stick with RunKeeper or MapMyRun.

[Rich_Laue]

I would expect the connected GPS to affect the battery life in the phone more than on yhe Baze. GPS is the biggest drain on your phones battery, at least this is what a study by ETS found out.

For me i easily get 8+ hours of GPS on the Surge, and even with a low battery i can get 3 with life left. On the phone, with new battery, i  abrely get 2 hours of GPS. 

[matt9013]

@Rich_Laue

Yeah, the phones really going to be the one to suffer. Hopefully the Blaze will be good as the phone will be doing all of the grunt work and taking the most bettery loss.

[Rich_Laue]

@matt9013 i cant speak from knowledge of the Blaze. I can see that a lot of the processing normally needed, won't be needed on the phone, ie: corners, gps dropouts, walking by buildings or tree lines, etc, some of this if not all could be processed on the server, after syncing or handled the way it is on the Surge with minamal processed GPS points sent to the Blaze. I would expect the phone to have a better battery life than a normal gps app.

This is just my thoughts bases on possibilities, having no inside knowledge.

[SunsetRunner]

if i should make a 100 km hiking, i will not take a Surge.

I will take my G-Schock, at least one smartphone (and battery pack to extend life), a plain old Nokia with 7 days life, a true GPS like a Garmin Etrex and some batteries packs.

[MatthewFitbit · Accepted solution]

@sjstokes To answer your original question, Connected GPS doesn't have much impact on Blaze's battery life. Assuming your phone maintains a sufficient charge, you should be able to use Connected GPS for as long as you please. It's definitely one of the advantages of the feature.

[sjstokes]

Thanks @MatthewFitbit

I look forward to buying a Blaze when they come out 🙂

[SunsetRunner]

---

@MatthewFitbit wrote:

@sjstokes To answer your original question, Connected GPS doesn't have much impact on Blaze's battery life. Assuming your phone maintains a sufficient charge, you should be able to use Connected GPS for as long as you please. It's definitely one of the advantages of the feature.

---

Bluetooth ALWAYS ON instead of ON DEMAND doesn't have impact on Blaze battery life ?

is it a joke ?

[MikeF]

Bluetooth is 'always on' on every other tracker Fitbit sell, why should the Blaze be different? This are surely the conditions under which they assess battery life in the first place.

I agree that it will get more battery use out of using Connected GPS than in its static state but 'on demand' Bluetooth as you so carefully shout has never been a feature of Fitbit trackers (except for music contorl on the Surge)..

[SunsetRunner]

i agree ON DEMAND is not a feature
Even if my Surge Bluetooth is ON (Classic), my BT smartphones are OFF/ON DEMAND, so, without communication.

As the Surge is not linked, i'm sure the battery life is better.

As I already noticed, GPS + BT on smartphone will decrease autonomy by a lot.

I doubt it can be more than 5-6 hours, less than the Surge. 

[MikeF]

Well, thanks for your opinion. It will be interesting to see some real-world data, won't it?

[SunsetRunner]

yes, in some months 

i don't know for other models, but yesterday, Runkeeper on my iPhone 4s ==> 2 hours.

[bbarrera]

---

@Rich_Laue wrote:

For me i easily get 8+ hours of GPS on the Surge, and even with a low battery i can get 3 with life left. On the phone, with new battery, i  abrely get 2 hours of GPS. 

---

Wow that is terrible battery life, what phone do you have?

I have an iPhone 5s purchased on Sept 20, 2013, that makes it 2 years and 4 months old. Here are two interesting battery stats from this past year:

- Yosemite hike March 20, 2015 of 5.5 hours, recorded by Runkeeper app, used 90% battery

- 52 mile bike ride January 14, 2016 of 3 hours, recorded by Ride With GPS app, used ~65% battery

(I've done a bunch of 3 hour rides this year, all about same battery drain)

Even more interesting... On last week's 3 hour, 52 mile bike ride I had the following connected to my phone:

- Apple Watch, also recording ride using "connected GPS" and phone notifications (used ~70% of Watch battery)

- Garmin Edge 520 recording ride with its onboard GPS and syncing with phone for weather updates and phone notifications (used ~15% of Garmin battery)

65% battery on a 3 hour bike ride with phone app using GPS and two Bluetooth devices actively using that connection (Apple Watch using Workout app with "connected GPS" + notifications, and Garmin Edge 520 using notifications). Obviously I could improve phone battery life by not having the two Bluetooth devices connected during the ride, and even further by turning on Airplane mode and just letting phone receive GPS signals.

I ride with a lot of folks using Strava app on iPhone, rides varying from 2-4 hours. Nobody complains about battery life.

[Rich_Laue]

My statement above has nothing to do with the pjone, that was never mentioned, i don't know where you got that idea. The Surge does not use connected GPS but has i5 built inyo yhe atm band, no phone required.
Let's read it again, tie subject is about the Fitbit Surge and its GPS, and for the puney battery that the Surge has i think 8+ hours, wroth Stoneleigh reporting over 10 hours is pretty good.