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!

[chellebubblz]

Did you find the distance accurate with Blaze? I'm just curious because I did a mile walk on Blaze and Nike said 0.89. Its not a huge difference but that's also a short distance.

[bbarrera]

---

@mstubb wrote:

All I wanted to know is if there was in the pipeline a Blaze type watch which had GPS (Not connected GPS) which would be deemed more suitable for women thats more watch like and not connected GPS.

My wife thinks the Surge is rather large and ugly ( Ive got to agree) She runs over 20 miles a week and is looking to replace her Charge HR.  

I dont want to get into a Debate over devices with GPS and connected GPS being better or worse or relying on Phones. 

---

@mstubb sigh, it seems a debate is unavoidable on the forums. I'm tall guy, over 6' and I agree with your wife about the Surge. I find it both large and ugly, too large to fit under dress shirts. To be honest, not happy with looks or size of Blaze, although its definitely an improvement over Surge.

To answer your question, Fitbit is secretive about its plans. That said, I believe the Surge has a bunch of flaws (e.g. band prone to failure) and its inevitable it will be replaced with a new Fitbit GPS tracker. My personal bet is that "Surge 2.0" will look like Blaze (tracker + frame), but be slightly larger to acommodate battery and GPS. Again that is a wild guess, no rumors circulating so we all are in the dark about Fitbits plans. If you are willing to look outside Fitbit for a GPS running watch, I recommend reading the reviews here:

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/11/winter-sports-gadget-recommendations.html

Hope that helps.

[wmchapman]

Good question Chelle, mine was spot on.

You can gain a little better accuracy by making, and entering, your true stride length when walking "normally" in your personal settings: here

It is generically set for "most" people of your gender/age/weight

You will find no two people have the same exact stride (distance per completed step), what makes us - us 🙂  For the record, the average for all folks of all sizes is a stride of 2.6 feet (to be sure you are in the ballpark to start) Measure off 60 feet (or as long as your tape measure goes) with chalk and walk normally through the distance and see how many steps you take, divide the total distance (in feet) taken by the number of steps to get your actual stride length and enter in the box. There's one for running too if you want to check adjust that stride as well.  You can tweak from time to time an inch shorter or longer if you ever find yourself on a premeasured mile track.

more useful math:

.1 mile (over an exact mile traveled) is 528 feet (6336 inches). For me, with an averge of 2100 steps per mile, my stride would need to be lengthened by 3 inches to adjust a .89 mile reading to report full measured mile. With minor adjustments here and there your fitbit will know you pretty well. My stride is actually a little shorter than the average for my height because I walk shouldered square as taught during my teenage military days...everyone is truly unique.

also note the shorter you are the more steps are required for the same distance:

• 5'0" - 2,514
• 5'1" - 2,473
• 5'2" - 2,433
• 5'3" - 2,395
• 5'4" - 2,357
• 5'5" - 2,321
• 5'6" - 2,286
• 5'7" - 2,252
• 5'8" - 2,218
• 5'9" - 2,186
• 5'10" - 2,155
• 5'11" - 2,125
• 6'0" - 2,095

[Timeflies1980]

I have just had a very good chat with one of the Fitbit reps regarding an issue i was having with connected GPS mapping and he alluded to this:-

- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:54:38 PM): That's because the steps and mileage are tracker by the Blaze itself, as opposed to the app that depends on the phone's GPS. 

- Me (3/2/2016, 12:55:25 PM): So the blaze doesn't take distance from the GPS?
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:55:25 PM): Honestly, so far we have not received any issues about map routes being stopped due to taking a picture during exercise routines.
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:55:40 PM): That's correct, GPS only goes towards the map route.
- Me (3/2/2016, 12:55:59 PM): So how does the biking mode give you distance when no steps are taken?
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:58:09 PM): In case of a biking, as it's a non-step based activity, Connected GPS gives distance. That would be about the only exception.
- Me (3/2/2016, 1:00:52 PM): To be honest I am very surprised at this answer as it will mean when I use the Blaze for running/walking/hiking the distance will only be as good as the step count * stride length which is very inaccurate at best? Definitely not good enough for pacing etc.
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 1:02:13 PM): I understand, however it's due to the type of activity.
- Me (3/2/2016, 1:02:58 PM): OK if that is the final answer however this is very dissapointing news

If this is indeed true then I think I will return the Blaze as it really will not give me the data I want,

Anyone else have a view on this as I find it unbelievably surprising?

Dave

[Timeflies1980]

I have just had a very good chat with one of the Fitbit reps regarding an issue i was having with connected GPS mapping and he alluded to this:-

- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:54:38 PM): That's because the steps and mileage are tracker by the Blaze itself, as opposed to the app that depends on the phone's GPS. 

- Me (3/2/2016, 12:55:25 PM): So the blaze doesn't take distance from the GPS?
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:55:25 PM): Honestly, so far we have not received any issues about map routes being stopped due to taking a picture during exercise routines.
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:55:40 PM): That's correct, GPS only goes towards the map route.
- Me (3/2/2016, 12:55:59 PM): So how does the biking mode give you distance when no steps are taken?
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 12:58:09 PM): In case of a biking, as it's a non-step based activity, Connected GPS gives distance. That would be about the only exception.
- Me (3/2/2016, 1:00:52 PM): To be honest I am very surprised at this answer as it will mean when I use the Blaze for running/walking/hiking the distance will only be as good as the step count * stride length which is very inaccurate at best? Definitely not good enough for pacing etc.
- Manny A. (3/2/2016, 1:02:13 PM): I understand, however it's due to the type of activity.
- Me (3/2/2016, 1:02:58 PM): OK if that is the final answer however this is very dissapointing news

Anyone else have a view on this as I find it unbelievably surprising?

Dave

[bjanow]

I don't find this surprising at all. This is not a GPS device but a fitness tracker / HR monitor. You can connect your phone to it for GPS functionality but in and of itself the Blaze is not. IMHO there is only one GPS app that can accurately determine hiking / running / biking distances and altitude changes accurately and that is Strava. I use the blaze for HR / steps /sleep activity and for having fun with fitness during the day. Would I take the values to the bank? Probably not but I don't think any tracker other than being in a laboratory environment will give absolute values. I have used other trackers on hikes and they are pretty good at what they do but nothing like Strava. When I go out I often use both on my phone.

[SunsetRunner]

I was wondering about that as well. Especially since I walk with my wife, who takes 3 steps for my 2. Yesterday I was trying to figure out what our pace was and it was all jacked up. 

Fitbit! Please track distance with GPS....

[Timeflies1980]

As you say no device on the market will give "exact scientific results" (thats not what Im saying or requesting), they will all vary slighlty, but why when the more accurate GPS data is available would Blaze default back to the steps * stride length?  

And sorry your point makes no sense, why would Strava be any better/worse than any other GPS enabled or linked device/app.  Are you saying that Strava somehow gets better GPS data from the same GPS chip in your phone?

And for the record strava tracks altitude by back referencing its recorded GPS data on one of its databases or by using the barometric data from yout connected device.  So in actual fact "Strava" itself doesnt record the data directly anyhow.

Reference below:

Elevation on an activity

Elevation on activity pages will be calculated in one of two ways: cross-referencing the GPS data to a database or by using the barometric data in the original file.

• Device with barometric altimeter:  If the GPS device used to record your activity has a barometric altimeter, Strava will use the elevation data in the original file. We do some smoothing to the data, which includes discarding outliers to reduce noise. The amount of smoothing is less on activities with barometric data than it is for activities without barometric data. If your device has a barometric altimeter, but your elevation is being recalculated, please refer to this FAQ. 
• Device without a barometric altimeter and the Strava mobile app: If your activity was recorded with the mobile app or with a GPS device that does not have a barometric altimeter, Strava will recalculate the elevation by comparing the GPS data to an elevation database. We do some smoothing to the data, which includes discarding outliers to reduce noise. The amount of smoothing is more on activities without barometric data than it is for activities with barometric data. The accuracy of this calculation is dependent on your GPS data as well as the accuracy and resolution of the database for that region. 

[bjanow]

I believe the GPS function in the blaze is not the primary function of the tracker. It seems to be an addon to use some of the functionality of the phone in order to display where you have been. Since most use a tracker to count their steps towards a daily goal that is what it defaults to. In biking since there are no steps then the GPS becomes the default. One or the other I presume. That's why Strava doesn't count steps, it only uses GPS. You lose GPS and you're toast. Yet the Blaze will continue to count steps. Perhaps at some point we will have a choice of which measure to use but I like steps for my tracker and GPS data in Strava when I hike or run. I'm not saying Strava is better or worse on GPS data, just that is all it uses. You could make the same argument saying, hey my stride is the same why can't Strava count my steps? Perhaps Strava will someday offer the option as well.

I know that Strava uses data from other sources for elevation due to the fact of what is recorded when I bike. It consistently gave me an elevation grade of 10% when in fact is was actually more like 2% on a particular route. They were basing it on automobile road data and not the bike path below. Eventually users must have alerted them and now it shows correctly. I find it amazing at the amount of data that is in databases around the world.

If I was hiking with a barometric altimeter I would probably put that data into a much more sophisticated program than Strava. That's some serious stuff. lol

[Timeflies1980]

Everyone loves serious stuff! 😉

This has however got me thinking. My Fitbit routes directly get imported into strava (running, walking, hiking, mountain biking, cycling) and it copies the distance direct from Fitbit. If the data coming from Fitbit is only based on steps and multiplying by stride length to get distance surely this will mess up the segment placing in strava as these based on a time between 2 places which inherently is a set distance. Therefore the distance must come from GPS...

I think my brain is about to explode.....

[Rich_Laue]

Somebody can not be right, @EmersonFitbit clearly stated that the connected Gps is as accurate as the Surge and the App when it comes to the GPS. Both of these divices use the GPS to record distance, not the steps.  

The barometer is not a very good way of detecting changes in altitude,  this is why while on a hike, walk, run, or cycle the Blaze determines your altitude with the GPS. 

Several people also have mentioned tgat changing the stride has not changed tye distance while out on a run, this is because the Blaze uses the GPS, if connected, to determune the distance.

[bjanow]

Which fitness tracker are you referring to? I don't know of one that does HR accurately without a strap across the chest, which is basically what I bought it for and sleep tracking. As for hiking, you are mistaken if you don't think US citizens hike. Perhaps in the midwest or southern states but out in the west and northeast there are a ton of mountains and great trails. For hiking and GPS functionality there is nothing better than Strava imo. For running and biking as well. It does not do sleep or step counts for the daily, casual tracking. Strava will not record HR unless you have another device and pay the premium member fees. Garmin does GPS but not HR unless you wear a strap if I recall.

Perhaps you are mixing up what a fitness tracker does and what a full fledged GPS tracker does. I'm really curious what device has left the blaze in the dust considering the differences.

[Racerx67]

---

@bjanow wrote:

Not a bad looking device, thanks for the heads up. Still in production so we'll have to see performance once it's released. I hope that some software updates on the blaze will help it along the path they have set out upon. I would like to see the multiple notification ability for email, text, whatsapp etc, and not just one or the other. Answering the phone on the watch doesn't make sense to me unless you're plugged into it with headphones but I guess there could be a use for that for some. Maybe blaze can utilize the GPS function for walking and running at some point too.

Garmin is a leader that's for sure. Fitbit I think is more for the casual user. I'd like to see what the VivoHR looks like on a wrist too. Once again, thanks for the link.

---

No problem. I know Rizknows has tested one on his youtube page.. Seems like a good device. 
Answering the phone from the watch is not important for me.neither is the music function to be honest. I may use it when I work as I wear bluetooth ear buds when I am working as it can be annoying when there is a vacuum pump running constantly 4 feet away from me..lol..

I admit I like the option to run a Cadence/Speed sensor on my bike. Usually road guys use them but I do measure cadence with my cheap speedo just to get an idea of my pace. I seem to shift gears up and down about +/- about 5 rpm and keep a constant pace... Nothing serious but it is interesting to see that regardless of how my fitness changes my pace stays the same I just push a different gear... 

But it seems they are coming after the Fitbit customer base with matched prices but slightly better specs etc.. I know it also works better with endomondo.

[bbarrera]

---

@Rich_Laue wrote:

Somebody can not be right, @EmersonFitbit clearly stated that the connected Gps is as accurate as the Surge and the App when it comes to the GPS. Both of these divices use the GPS to record distance, not the steps.  

The barometer is not a very good way of detecting changes in altitude,  this is why while on a hike, walk, run, or cycle the Blaze determines your altitude with the GPS. 

---

@Rich_Laue I've read and re-read the link you posted, nowhere in the linked thread does EmersonFitbit state that Connected GPS is as accurate as Surge or the App. And nothing in Blaze manual or Fitbit help site. Without making a research project, its not clear if some of the distance inaccuracy reports showing up on the Blaze forum are for SmartTrack run/walks, or Connected GPS run/walks. However there are an increasing number of reports of distance inaccuracy on this forum.

Regarding elevation and barometer altimeter vs GPS - actually, the barometer is usually a better way to detect elevation changes while hiking or cycling. Thats why top tracking devices (Garmin Edge bike computers, or Fenix 3 for hiking/biking) have a barometric altimeter. Its also why Strava doesn't interpret the elevation data from my Garmin Edge bike computer, as its generally more accurate vs GPS unless a front is moving thru or there is wide variation in temperature.

In general, GPS is good for horizontal position (only requires 2 satellites), and not so good for vertical position - best accuracy requires at least 4 satellites in proper positions. 

[Timeflies1980]

"Connected GPS- the technology that will allow you to see your maps, as well as pace/distance using your phone's GPS."

This is quoted direct from post you are referring too. Does it not suggest that distance will come from the GPS???

Dave

[bbarrera]

Seemingly contradicted by this quote from the same post:

"Connected GPS is a new part of the Fitbit ecosystem! Using Connected GPS, Blaze connects with your phone's native GPS capabilities to plot routes and activity stats screen as the pace and duration."

Pace and distance?
Pace and duration?
Pace and distance and duration?

[bjanow]

Can't you use the map that the blaze provides to find out the route and distance on the phone?

[bbarrera]

---

@bjanow wrote:

Can't you use the map that the blaze provides to find out the route and distance on the phone?

---

Depends on how Fitbit designed Connected GPS.

Off the cuff, I think the simpliest design would be:

- Blaze measures

  * step count

  * duration

  * HR

- Blaze estimates

  * distance = steps * stride

  * pace = distance/time

^^^ thats because every Fitbit tracker already knows how to do that, and it doesn't require an active Bluetooth connection to receive GPS data, so better for Blaze and phone battery life.

And then Connected GPS would be implemented this way:

- Phone (Fitbit app) collects GPS

- to preserve Blaze battery, keep GPS trackpoints on phone (i.e. don't send over Bluetooth to Blaze)

- when run/walk/etc is finished, sync Blaze data (steps/duration/HR) and Fitbit app data (GPS) to Fitbit servers

- after sync, map is viewable on web dashboard and Fitbit app

When MobileRun was first introduced, distance was estimated based on steps * stride (and not phone GPS).

Interesting that Fitbit doesn't provide any real info on Connected GPS, other than a post on this forum. Nothing of substance in documentation or Blaze webpages or Fitbit help pages.

[chellebubblz]

If that is true, it's kind of a deal breaker for me. I was happy with my Charge HR and the only reason for the upgrade was to have the option to keep my phone in my pocket while still being able to see pace and distance on the Blaze. I assumed that was part of the functioning included in Connected GPS. Literally the only reason I decided to try the Blaze was because my 1st choice was Vivoactive HR which isn't out yet and I prefer Fitbit's app community. But if the only thing I am gaining is maps, then I prefer my Charge HR. (I don't care about the notifications, FitStar, or music controls)

[bigdata]

My purchase price for the Blaze was far less than $339.  The list price is under $200.