Interested in Blaze but concerned about GPS

[JessieDeHaan]

I am interested in the Blaze simply because it is smaller than the Surge. I'm not necessarily concerned that I need my phone in order to have an actual map after a run, but does the Blaze still track distance, time, pace, etc. without being connected to my phone's GPS?

Thank you!

[Rich_Laue · Accepted solution]

Yes like all Fitbits the Blaze counts your steps, it then uses the step count and your stride to calculate the distance The GPS on the phone will only be used when you activate this function

[UltrarunnerJonL]

---

@JessieDeHaan wrote:

I am interested in the Blaze simply because it is smaller than the Surge. I'm not necessarily concerned that I need my phone in order to have an actual map after a run, but does the Blaze still track distance, time, pace, etc. without being connected to my phone's GPS?

Thank you!

---

I don't think you'll be able to track pace and distance without the phone. Distance measurements require GPS.

You can definitely track time and step counts but that's it. Blaze's capability is heavily reliant on a phone GPS unlike Surge.

[JessieDeHaan]

Thanks for the info, I guess I've settled on the Surge - they are just so big!

[Rich_Laue]

I'm sorry,  but i had to unmark the accepted solution, since it clearly was not correct.

This qiestion about the Blaze counting steps amd miles has come up several times in this forum, amd has always been answered as yes by the Fitbit Moderators.  Please see the accepted solution by Emmerson in this thread. He s6ates hos Blaze records distance withon reason. This reason is as close as any other Firbit model will be workout the GapD

[EmersonFitbit]

Like my buddy @Rich_Laue mentioned, Blaze will track your distance (using your steps/stride length as reference) and pace even when you don't use GPS, though I always put my money on GPS tracking when I can.

[bbarrera]

To be clear, without GPS the Blaze is only counting steps. Your Fitbit account has a walking stride and a running stride. I setup walking stride based on 15 minute miles, and running stride based on 9.5 minute miles. Somedays I mostly pace around the office on conference calls, racking up 10,000+ steps however these are shorter steps than my stride, so my actual distance is a lot less than Fitbit estimate. Somedays I walk 5-7 miles at 13-14 minute/mile pace, again distance estimate is not accurate as I'm taking longer steps than my walking stride.

Fitbit without GPS is good at counting steps, and your distance and pace are just estimates.

[macrev]

So disappointed after buying the Blaze, in fact I feel ripped off. Why take out the best function that the Surge has got? I think its deceptive of the Fitbit spec on the Fitbit site to say it has a "connected GPS. It should state it has NO GPS and is a step backwards for Fitbit. Its no longer a serious fitness tracker, just a toy. If anyone is thinking of buying one, DONT, It cost more than the Surge and is of less use.

[SunsetRunner]

the Blaze costs less than the Surge, around USD 50 less.

if you pay more, see your vendor.

it's known since the announce the Balze doesn't have a GPS.

even Google knows.

[ChaneRZ]

Surge sucks. I like the Blaze better.

[SunsetRunner]

The Blaze is able to use the GPS from the phone.

[SunsetRunner]

You seem confused as the Surge cost more than the Balze. Also a little more homework and you would have known the Blaze has no GPS.

[SunsetRunner]

As others have mentioned it was pointed out in the ads and Blaze site that it does not have "built in" GPS like the Fitbit Surge, instead it would connect to your phone and use your phone's GPS. My guess for this is:

1) price point, can lower the cost of the unit if you don't need built in GPS

2) Size, the Blaze is much thinner and sits better on the wrist (in my opinion) than the Surge

3) Battery life - the Fitbit Surge only had like 4 hours of battery life if using GPS. If you are on a long hike and wanted GPS your Fitbit Surge could potentially drain its battery before you were done, problem solved with the Blaze.

[SunsetRunner]

---

@dkewatson wrote:

3) Battery life - the Fitbit Surge only had like 4 hours of battery life if using GPS. If you are on a long hike and wanted GPS your Fitbit Surge could potentially drain its battery before you were done, problem solved with the Blaze.

---

more than four hours, fortunately, since the last update.

i used it this morning for 3 hours, and the battery is half.

[macrev]

Stand by what I said earlier. Surge cost $277 whilst the Blaze cost $339.

Battery life on Surge is good. I have worn my Surge for 4 days doing 4 Km runs on each of those days (using its GPS), before needing to charge it.

I have had the blaze for 2 days now (without doing any workouts) and I need to charge it. Charging it is painful considering you have to remove it from the band and place it in a charging devive, very fiddly.

If anyone is a serious runner they would not want to lug around a bulky expensive mobile phone.

The Fitbit site should clearly state it has no GPS, people should not have to rely on other sorces to clarify obscure statements made by Fitbit.

The Blaze is trying to be a smart watch (with half the features of other brands)

Now without the GPS its only half a fitness tracker, when compared with other brands.

[macrev]

bbbb nnn mmkii. mjjugfj

[vinotauro]

Not a problem having a phone on me during runs or workouts. Blaze > any fitness tracker I've used thus far

[WendyB]

---

@macrev wrote:

bbbb nnn mmkii. mjjugfj

---

???

[SunsetRunner]

From Fitbit's web store:

And no where did Fitbit every state it had built-in GPS.  Here is the Feature list from the website and the tech specs which show the included sensors (note: it does not list GPS). I'm sorry you didn't see that but it was clearly shown that the Fitbit Blaze would NOT have built-in GPS and only get it through the paired phone.

[ChaneRZ]

Blaze is cheaper than the Surge. Surge is bulky and the GPS is spotty.