Distance comparison

[SunsetRunner]

Hi,

I use my fitbit surge for running but when I compare the distance with Endomondo application in my cell phone the difference is almost 1km. My complete distance is 6km, so it makes almost 17% deviation. When I look on the picture, the track is just clear and accurate every each loop with Endomondo but I definitelly can't say that about what I can see in Fitbit application.

Is there any way how to improve the GPS accuracy or GPS frequency scanning?

Is there any problem with my watches or this is just a general problem for all fitbit surges?

Thanks,

PetrS

[SunsetRunner]

[Gerardklein]

I already owned 2 Surges I can confirm that those watches are completly inaccurate as for heartbeat measures and GPS distance.
I think the only thing that is accurate is the time...
Try to get rid of it as I am going to.
Gerard Klein

[SunsetRunner]

I doubt this was really 6km what I run.:/ Do you think this is a good argument to claim the watches?

[SunsetRunner]

vs Endomondo

[shipo · Accepted solution]

Keep in mind the Surge is limited to GPS reception exclusively which in turn means buildings, trees with lots of leaves, and even clouds will reduce accuracy.  As for Endomondo running on your phone; smart phones have two or even three methods for determining location:

• GPS
• Cell Tower triangulation
• WiFi triangulation (at least so I've been told by a usually reliable source)

Long story short, smart phones will likely be more accurate compared to the Surge when GPS satellite reception is obstructed.

[shipo]

---

@Gerardklein wrote:
I already owned 2 Surges I can confirm that those watches are completly inaccurate as for heartbeat measures and GPS distance.
I think the only thing that is accurate is the time...
Try to get rid of it as I am going to.
Gerard Klein

---

Funny thing; I've also owned two Surges and both were generally *very* accurate for both distance and heart rate.  Go figure.

[SunsetRunner]

The problem is that usually trees with leaves and buildings are everywere. Comparing to a cell phone application it could be that mobile has more options to keep an accuracy but the result from Fitbit Surge is absolutly useless. I run 6km's and Fitbit tells me that I run only 5 km's. I'll compare with Garmin Forerunner 305 in the same area but I beleive Garmin will not have such big deviation.

Thanks for your replies.

PetrS

[shipo]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

The problem is that usually trees with leaves and buildings are everywere. Comparing to a cell phone application it could be that mobile has more options to keep an accuracy but the result from Fitbit Surge is absolutly useless. I run 6km's and Fitbit tells me that I run only 5 km's. I'll compare with Garmin Forerunner 305 in the same area but I beleive Garmin will not have such big deviation.

Thanks for your replies.

PetrS

---

Yup, if you run under a heavy canopy of trees you're going to have accuracy issues.  That said, go for a hike or a run out side of mobile phone coverage and the Surge will have it all over the phone.  I have a Garmin Forerunner and a Fitbit Surge, and when I run in the summer when the trees have their densest foliage, they both have a similar error (although not necessarily on the same days).  The thing is, say three out of five runs will have a virtually identical result; then one run in five the Fitbit will be off, and then one run in five the Garmin will be off.

Fact of life, trees, buildings, and even clouds (if dense enough), can interfere with GPS accuracy.

[Stjärnblom]

I regularily run the same round. It's 3.9 km long. Runkeeper on my iPhone measures varies a bit, from 3.89 to 3.91, which is kind of OK for a phone.

Fitbit Surge, a rather expensive tool made for running, does much worse. Its measurements vary between 3.45 and 3.93. Sometimes it works, but very often it's way off. The most common problem seems to be that the distance measurement does not start when I start running and the clock starts. 

Is this normal, or is the thing broken? I bought it in June, and it has been the same from the start.

[Stjärnblom]

So, in other words, the distance measurement in the Surge is usless. Why, then, sell such a product?

[shipo]

---

@Stjärnblom wrote:

So, in other words, the distance measurement in the Surge is usless. Why, then, sell such a product?

---

If you're trying to use a Surge to measure down to .01 of a mile, then you're going to be disappointed; no GPS unit is capable of that type of accuracy.

[Stjärnblom]

But the error is more than 10%, 500 meters out of 4,000 meters, or about 1/3 of a mile. And I'm running under wide open skies, with good access from satelites. 

[shipo]

---

@Stjärnblom wrote:

But the error is more than 10%, 500 meters out of 4,000 meters, or about 1/3 of a mile. And I'm running under wide open skies, with good access from satelites. 

---

When you start in "Free Run" mode, do you A) wait for the satellite to sync up, and B) to make sure it stays synched?  I ask because I've noticed I'll enter Free Run mode, wait for the buzz-buzz to indicate a satellite fix, and then notice the screen say "lost".  I always wait a few moments to see if it's going to lose the lock, and if/when it does, I wait until the connection is relocked.  Another consideration; I've found if I go into Free Run mode while I'm walking to the beginning of the trail or course you run, even if I haven't started the timer yet, the map often shows a plot from say, where I've parked my car instead of where I've actually started running.

One other thing to keep in mind; phones have two or even three redundant modes for location fixing, GPS, Mobile Phone Tower triangulation, and (som folks say) Wi-Fi triangulation.  Even if it is only two modes of redundancy (i.e. GPS and Tower), phones will almost always be more accurate than pretty much any dedicated GPS device (unless you're out of mobile phone range).

[Gerardklein]

Gps location and heart beat measures are consistently 20% off on the surge, it is not a question of 0.01 miles difference !!!
I verified this over and over again with 2 differents Surges, which I do not use anymore, having wasted so much time and money to get only way off the chart measures. Morever the heart beat monitor has an enormous inertia to adapt to the change of pace. All of this makes the fitbit Surge an highly inacurate device, I know they are being suied for this, I understand this because it is supposed to give you some feedback on your state of health and you cannot rely on it.

Gerard Klein.


Sent from my iPad

[Gerardklein]

Sent from my iPad

[shipo]

@Gerardklein, not sure what your issue is, my Surge is, to quote a famous line from My Cousin Vinney, "dead on balls accurate" when it comes to heart rate (assuming I have the band tightened properly), and with the exception of some days when I run under a canopy of tree cover, pretty darn accurate in the distance department as well.

[Stjärnblom]

Thanks, Shipo, for your very informative and helpful reply! Bottom line
seems to be that the Surge is unreliable and requires both workarounds and
lots of patience. It's clearly both buggy and badly designed.

So, why bother? My iPhone does a much better job even if it's bulkier to
carry around. I'll try to get my money back and if that fails the Surge
goes right into the trash bin.

/Stjärnblom

[pittguy79]

My surge is accurate on heart rate and distance with GPS as well.  Calories burned..............that's a different story

[shipo]

---

@Stjärnblom wrote:
Thanks, Shipo, for your very informative and helpful reply! Bottom line
seems to be that the Surge is unreliable and requires both workarounds and
lots of patience. It's clearly both buggy and badly designed.

So, why bother? My iPhone does a much better job even if it's bulkier to
carry around. I'll try to get my money back and if that fails the Surge
goes right into the trash bin.

/Stjärnblom

---

I'm still not buying the whole "buggy/badly designed" thing; here's a very typical screen shot from my lunch time run (which measures 10.15 miles, I can live with an error of 0.01 miles over a ten mile course):