Garmin Forerunner 610 "Smart Sampling" test

I recently did a run using both my new Garmin Forerunner 610 and the Strava Android app running on my HTC Incredible phone.

I hadn't yet gone through the set-up menus on the Garmin so settings were still mostly default. This included "smart sampling" which reduces file sizes by recording data only when the watch decides it is important to do so based on the goal of being able to accurately reproduce the course.

The Strava app takes a different approach to file size reduction: it attempts to sample at 3-second intervals unless data signal is lost or unless the runner is idle. It's thus less "smart".

I've shown for cycling that "smart sampling" can yield significant errors in Strava times for segments since Strava doesn't interpolate positions and is therefore limited to times equal to a difference between samples. So if a 6-second gap, for example, appears in data Strava will have two choices for time on a segment, separated by 6 seconds. Typically 6 seconds is a big deal on Strava times so forcing 1-second sampling is preferred. Running, however, is typically slower than cycling and maybe 1-second sampling is overkill.

As an aside, for Low-Key Hillclimbs I wrote my own GPS-based timing code which does interpolation for timing and I suspect that is much less prone to smart-sampling induced errors.

But to this example: I was curious on this run to what sort of sampling times I was getting from the Forerunner 610's smart sampling algorithm. Here's plots of histograms of the sampling times recorded by the Android and by the Forerunner:

Android
Forerunner

Note the logarithmic axis. The result, however, is the Garmin most often uses 6-second samples but sometimes samples as quickly as every second. It also frequently slips to 7-second samples but only on a few occasions did the sample time get longer. The Android uses 3-second samples around 80% of the time, 4 second samples 20%, with a few isolated examples of longer sampling times, perhaps due to signal loss (under tunnels, for example).

Given these results, I will stick with the decision I made to reset my Garmin to 1-second sampling. If Strava used interpolation, it might be okay, but without it 6-to-7 second sampling times are simply too long.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Marin Avenue (Berkeley)

Image
On Saturday, I got an email from Tim telling letting me know that Murphy's Spring Classics was going to start up Marin Ave. I'd missed that. Murphy announces his courses the day before, and indeed it was already well into the night before when the course announcement went out. I'd skipped over the details, jumping straight to middle and end games. Marin? I laughed at the irony, because not long before when he'd told me he was choosing to repeat the Nifty Twn Fifty which we'd done together last year versus selecting Murphy Mack's Stage Mullett two-day, I responded I didn't think I had it in me to ride Marin Ave two years in succession. Well, so much for that. I was committed, so I went downstairs to swap my 11-26 cassette for my Recon 12-27. The name is easily overlooked: "Marin Ave" fails to strike the same impression as, for example, "Redwood Gulch" or "China Grade". But among those in the know, Marin Ave is infamous i
Read more

hummingbird feeder physics

Image
I couldn't figure out how the hummingbird feeder worked. Why didn't it overflow? Forces need to balance, of course. Neglecting surface tension, there liquid level is higher in the inner reservoir than in the feeding chamber, so there must be a corresponding pressure difference. Suppose the pressure in the inner chamber were zero. Then the column height difference would need to be atmospheric pressure / (density of liquid × gravity). But this is over 9 meters! Obviously the height difference is only approximately 1% of this. So the pressure difference inside versus outside is only approximately 1%. The inside is only slightly below atmosphere. So air is getting in. How? Does it diffuse through the liquid? If this were the dominant mechanism, it wouldn't take long for the pressure inside to go from 99% to 99.3%, for example, which should be plenty to push the column of liquid down in the inside chamber and thus push liquid out through the holes. It would over
Read more

Gallium Pro geometry

Image
On Caltrain yesterday, I was surprised to see among the usual set of commuting bikes a SRAM Red-equipped Argon Gallium Pro. The bike immediately stole your attention. The design was one which has been trending: clear-coated carbon with plenty of text detail so the viewer is sure to realize he's gazing upon the result of advanced, proprietary engineering and not at yet another paint job on the same old OEM frames being pumped out of the same old Taiwanese factories. But it worked: the bottom bracket area was huge, the downtube a large-diameter "inverted Kamm tail" design seemingly designed to maximize wind resistance, the top tube a broad, eccentric shape which screamed "vertically compliant yet torsionally stiff". All it lacked were the pencil-think seat stays Cervelo popularized, but this was a machine designed for stiffness over anything else. It seemed dramatic overkill, since the bike was small (the Argon "XS" I suspect). There wasn't muc
Read more