Garmin Fenix 6 Hacks

[Vannessa Rataj]

Ithink it behave this way more or less because of a design flaw by Garmin and it can probably not be fixed by software. What's bothers me a bit is that Garmin could have fixed this easy by integrating the GPS-antenna in armband, or by fixing the antenna position somehow.

UPDATES:

Why did I write this post?

I want to show what I think is the number one culprit to the bad position performance the vast majority seem to experience with the Fenix 6: Bad antenna design. Could also be in combination with new GPS-chipset. After year of updates, I don't think this is gonna be resolved by a software update.

Why do you care about plotted tracks to be correct, it's only on the screen?

See below.

Why don't you use Stryd if you want accurate recordings?

In fact I DO use Stryd already. And it works great, especially for speedworks. But does not help when using the watch as a navigation tool, which I often do when I am running longer distances/trails/Ultras. And bad position performance DO hurt when navigating on intertangled/complex trails. Besides that not everybody want to pay up another $220 when they already have paid a $600 watch. Also wIthout a Stryd, GPS-position IS the main source of information. If it not good it will also affect pace, distance (and to some extent elevation). As you can see there is a deviation of 200 m on my 5km test runs. Another reason for good position accuracy is hitting Segments - Its harder with bad position accuracy, because you could be "outside" the segments, even if you are not.

Don't you know that GNSS is never 100% accurate?

-I'm not comparing to 100% accuracy, I am comparing to other watches that friends are using and that I have been using earlier..

Are you a garmin hater/fanboy?

-I am more a garmin fanboy. I had been using Garmin Forerunner 305, Forerunner 405cx, Forerunner 620, Forerunner 735, Forerunner 935, and been using Fenix 6 for about one year now. I love the fenix 6 but the position accuracy sucks COMPARED to other watches.

From my POV it's not generally a design flaw, since the traces are very good for cycling and other activities. But I'll call it rather suboptimal for running. And it depends on the user what he does expect and what of this is technically feasible.

If I've a simple opportunity to enhance my device, I try it and look what happens. I always run with HRM strap and get my running dynamics. Of course, I can buy a stryde with additional cost of >$200 to enhance my instant pace. But additional devices create also additional problems regarding connectivity, maintenance, ...

Cycling traces are always more accurate because mostly the device is mounted on the stem or weared on the wrist and the watch face points automatically to the sky. And in addition because the speed is higher than the position error. Therefore they have no issues.

I decided to wear the watch upside down on my wrist so that 12 o clock point upwards and lo and behold tracks did improve noticeably, I'm now convinced the antenna position is at the top of the watch. I'm going to continue to wear the watch 'upside down' as see how it goes.

Don`t bother to convince this guy! Lost cause! There are plenty of posts already about GPS track shifting, which normalizes if you wear it on the inner side of the wrist or as you also notice on the wrist bone pointing the sky. It is either design flaw or production flaw (maybe a whole batch assembled not appropriately or with defect parts idk). To be honest it would be interesting some of these Garmin advocates to share their tracks while running in dense forest or around tall building, wearing the watch on outside of the wrist. I`d be surprised to see an accurate track.

Same here. I was surprise today on how accurate it was while going between 10 stores buildings and trees. Perfect tracing on mine Near the (1).

Before it used to be a very messy part of my tracing and now it is OK.

As a walker/hiker/cyclist I have good performance from my 6X Pro Solar, on par with my Polar V800 and Wahoo ELEMNT. I cannot run due to knee injury of 3 months and counting or I would test this in running mode, but I cannot complain about my watch as I use it today on the latest firmware. Earlier firmware is a different story.

I am also one of those people who has tracks from other watches over the same course going back many years to the FR305 that show little or no difference between the track drawn on the map or the distance recorded over the years. That's not to say I don't get bad tracks - I've got a 'beautiful' 945 track from this past weekend which I posted the other day. However, this is something I've never seen before and haven't seen again. Of course I'd be up in arms is this was an every day occurrence. But it isn't. I rarely get tracks that are unacceptable. Interestingly, the distance was still good - this is a 5km measured parkrun course.

I remain unconvinced that Garmin, or indeed any other manufacturer would design a GPS watch without considering that it could be used on either arm. Perhaps there's the elegant solution - design lefthand and righthand specific watches, and perhaps one for the ambidextrous amongst us. :-)

I get much better tracking when riding my bike than when running. The watch face is pointed to the sky when I ride the bike, and my arm is not moving, of course. I use the HRM-Tri belt and Stryd pod when running. Next run, I'm going to wear my bike helmet with the watch strapped to the top and see what happens. Sounds silly, but that's an easy way to get it pointed up full-time without building anything.

3a8082e126