When will Blaze get a new Firmware Update

[Houstonnick]

Subject says it all

[shipo]

---

@Houstonnick wrote:

So then don't tell me to adjust the stride length because it is not an answer. 

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@Houstonnick wrote:
If you've read all the posts you would know that I have adjusted up, and
adjusted down, there is no setting that gets it right.

---

And if you've read all of the posts you'd know there is no way of having complete accuracy when relying on stride length; ain't never going to happen.

---

---

Sorry, but that *IS* the answer; fact of life.  Unless and until Fitbit comes up with a cool/novel way of figuring out A) how long the belt is on any given treadmill, and B) how many times said belt goes around during one running event, it will N-E-V-E-R be able to be accurate compared what the treadmill itself says you ran.

[Rich_Laue]

Please remember the speed the treadmill is set at will determine the leangth of your stride. Why? As you walk your always falling forward, the faster you go the more forward your falling and the further in growing of you the foot needs to be placed. 

By keeping the treadmill at a constant speed you will be able to get the stride setup, but then the stride most likely will be off while outside doing a free walk. 

[shipo]

---

@Rich_Laue wrote:

Please remember the speed the treadmill is set at will determine the leangth of your stride. Why? As you walk your always falling forward, the faster you go the more forward your falling and the further in growing of you the foot needs to be placed. 

By keeping the treadmill at a constant speed you will be able to get the stride setup, but then the stride most likely will be off while outside doing a free walk. 

---

Agreed; I have yet to meet an individual with the same walking or running stride length when comparing said individual's treadmill length to their outdoor real-world stride length.

[bbarrera]

---

@Houstonnick wrote:

You asked for details so here is today's FitBit got it wrong -  The Treadmill shows 5.878 miles whereas the Blaze shows 4.83 miles and 10,028 steps walked.  I usually take about 1.9k steps per mile so that's how much the Blaze undercounted my steps. 

---

@Houstonnick This problem was solved a long time ago. The simple answer - get a foot pod and a compatible runners watch or multisport watch. Foot pods have been around for 15-20 years, before we all had GPS in our pockets or on our wrists. Foot pods will give you accurate speed, distance and pace, both inside on the treadmill and outside.

Fitbit (non-GPS) only supports two strides (walk, run), and no foot pods. From the sounds of it you are unlikely to be happy with Fitbit distance estimates on a treadmill. I walk at different paces on a treadmill and outside, take long walks, and therefore all the Fitbits I've owned are rarely correct on distance estimate (non-GPS). I just learned to ignore distance estimates and focus on total time, intensity, and calories burned.

Fitbit stride method works fine (non-GPS) if you always use the same stride while walking or running outside, ignore distance estimates, or consider distance a rough estimate. If you are a runner and do pace work on the treadmill, definitely consider getting a foot pod.

Hope that helps.

[Houstonnick]

Thank you.  The first real answer for the situation.  Certainly something different than the Mod's standard - "it's the customer's fault" - answer.

[shipo]

@Houstonnick, he didn't say anything we haven't already told you, over and over and over.

[Houstonnick]

---

@shipo wrote:

@Houstonnick, he didn't say anything we haven't already told you, over and over and over.

---

@shipo - I don't remember you ever advising that I should buy a pod because it can do the job indoors that the Blaze (despite the marketing hype) can't do.  Perhaps you could refer me to the date and time of that post.  What I do recall is that you, and the other FitBit marketering department mods, keep saying that its the customer's fault.  Not a good way to keep business. 

[Houstonnick]

@SteveH, @shipo - So I keep getting told to correct my stride length, but no matter what I do the distance is still off.  Based on the data below, what stride length should I use to get accurate (the same) distance numbers for the Blaze and Treadmill.

Date	Stride Length	Blaze Distance	Blaze Steps	Treadmill Distance
8/9	2’8”	4.83	10028	5.878
8/10	2’7”	3.91	7878	4.645
8/11	2’6”	3.68	7894	4.655
7/27	2’5”	3.99	8456	5.15

[AndrewFitbit]

@Houstonnick If you calculate the distance based on the stride and steps you have there, the treadmill is the one that's not being accurate in terms of distance. Is there a reason why you feel the treadmill distance is more accurate than Blaze? Do you think your steps are being undercounted? And if so, what are you expecting your step count to be?

8/9 for example, your stride would have to be around 37.3 inches to get a distance of 5.878 with ~10k steps. If anything, I think you might want to start looking at your step count. The Blaze data you have there with the corresponding strides looks normal.

[pierrotsc]

On my hand, i really did not care if the blaze was counting miles correctly. I thought it was a cool device very customizable. The problem i have is that calories were inaccurate while walking. I would walk 10 mn and burn 100 calories when i should have burn 30. On the other hand, cycling calories were fine. Go figure. I returned it and will keep watching the thread. If a firmware down the road fixes that, i will try again.

[Rich_Laue]

When figuring out a person stride the only thing we need to know is the step count and true distance. 

So let's remove the blaze stride setting and distance reported. 

On the following chart i used the distance the treadmill reported then divided it by the steps the Blaze reported. This gives me a distance in inches for each step., ie: stride in inches. 

It actually looks pretty consistent at 37-38 inches, was the treadmill set for the same speed every day?

How tall are you, does a 3 foot stride sound right? I'll assume your running. 

	Blaze	Based on Treadmill	Blaze steps *stride
Date	Steps	Distance	Steps/mile	Calc stride inch	Calculated distance
8/9	10028	5.878	1706	37.1	5.87
8/10	7878	4.645	1696	37.4	4.65
8/11	7894	4.655	1696	37.4	4.66
7/27	8456	5.15	1642	38.6	5.15

The above is of me playing around and now see a reply, posting anyway. 

[bbarrera]

for what its worth, I'm 6' 1" with longer legs and walking really fast at 4.4-4.5 mph pace outside (~13:30 minutes/mile) results in about 1750 steps/mile.

To break into 1650-1700 steps/mile I would need to break into a slow jog, or say every mile do 90% walk and 10% run.

[Pruttinyllet]

---

@Houstonnick wrote:

Thank you.  The first real answer for the situation.  Certainly something different than the Mod's standard - "it's the customer's fault" - answer.

---

To be honest, the best advice is probably to refund or sell the Blaze and get something from Garmin instead. They are a lot better at updating their app and watches, and they are better at tracking stats, etc. I feel the Blaze is more targeted for smart watch users than runners, considering all its deficiencies, which don't seem to be updated and fixed anytime soon. Sorry for the answer, it's unfortunate that you have purchased such an expensive device, where its developers refuse to fix even obvious and known issues.

[SunsetRunner]

Agree 

Fitbits products are aimed at getting people up and about step counting etc.. It all started off brill with the fitbit Zip, One etc...

The top line products Blaze and Surge are nowhere near the quality of other manufactures.

[Pruttinyllet]

---

@wkel24 wrote:

Agree 

Fitbits products are aimed at getting people up and about step counting etc.. It all started off brill with the fitbit Zip, One etc...

The top line products Blaze and Surge are nowhere near the quality of other manufactures.

---

Yeah, exactly. Stick with Fitbit for simple devices that only count steps. Devices that are cheap enough to give away as presents. When you want a real smart watch, GPS watch or exercise watch, then it's probably wise to look at other manufacturers. Fitbit aren't good at engineering such complex products where its customers expect continuous updates, good support, accurate readinga, etc. Fitbit are much better at devices that you are supposed to buy and forget, where the expectation isn't so high.

[Dzulkernian]

I just got my Blaze a week ago. I compared the heart rate monitor results on the blaze against instruments used by doctors....It's like about +/- 4 pulse out.

On the accuracy of the distance of a run (outdoors), I think its more or less acceptable...I've downladed a apps from Under Armour to monitor my run distance on my samsung phone. I compared both the Under Armour and Fitbit Blaze distance record....its more or less the same. That is pretty much what I've expected...after all both apps relies on the phone GPS hardware.

For me I wouldn't worry about the accuracy too much....technology evolves every single day. There are bound to be new products that offers cutting edge tech from what is available in the market today. What I am saying is that no matter how advance or superb a gadget is we tend to expect more (performance and capabilities).

Honestly, the Blaze is my first fitness tracker / smart watch. I've selected this device because of its price and it has what I need to do my run / work out and the display (LCD) is much better compared to other tracker in its class (OLED and monochrome lcds).

Now I am gonna get another fitness tracker (looking at the samsung gear fit 2 and Ms Band 2....both has built in GPS), expanding my variety on fitness tracker...the best way to know which ones is the best. If indeed other trackers in the same class and price are superior, I guess I'll sell my blaze then...but until then I'll stick to it (grass might not be greener on the other side).

[bbarrera]

@Dzulkernian the problem is if you are coming from an older Fitbit, they are more accurate at counting steps. So upgrading to a more expensive device is taking a step backwards for some people. If you only care about averages, the heart rate monitor is fine, but Fitbit's "PurePulse" isn't good enough to support interval training and other high-intensity, short duration type of workouts (go look at DCRainmaker reviews). Fitbit's industrial design for wrist trackers has been underwhelming, go to Amazon and look at the large number of premature band failure comments for Flex, Charge, Charge HR, and Surge. Blaze is a somewhat a step up, although lack of waterproofing for swimming, dumb notifications, and yet another proprietary charging solution (all Fitbit are different) are irritating for such an expensive step tracker. On the plus side its only slightly bigger than apple watch, so its smaller than most/all GPS watches (not having GPS helps!), and bands are interchangeable.

Blaze is affordable luxury for some people, its the nicest wrist model that Fitbit has rolled out. Like all products it has pluses and minuses, my concern is that Fitbit management is telling Wall Street they know how to sell new trackers and therefore most resources go to designing next generation. Oddly enough, my phone is most durable Fitbit tracker I've owned (using Fitbit MobileTrack) and I didn't have to buy a tracker.