JUMP TO:

Huawei GT Runner 2 Accuracy Review: The Next Best GPS Design?

YouTube video

Huawei has launched the new GT Runner 2 watch to pretty strong fanfare: A dedicated running-focused event with Eliud Kipchoge in Madrid, a slate of new features, and a new GPS/GNSS antenna design that they are saying is the headliner feature, and beating what they defined as the gold-standard GPS watch. As part of this, they held media briefings at a fascinating level of detail into how this new system is supposed to work, including side-by-side labeled comparisons with other benchmark competitors, such as the Garmin Forerunner 970 and the Apple Watch Ultra 3. As a side note, it’s pretty rare for companies to actually label the competitors in these media briefings.

Obviously, with this much GPS-focused fanfare, I’m here for it. And more specifically, here to validate (or debunk) these claims in the real world. Thus, welcome to this post.

Now, to be clear, there are lots of other software-focused features that make this watch interesting. From expanded training load metrics, to expanded training plan pieces, to smart re-fueling reminders, and more. Though, as we’ve seen the trend recently, these features, in and of themselves, are no longer category-leading, but just the category baseline. Of course, it’s cool to see Huawei pushing deeper into the running side – with an acknowledgment during the briefing that this is the sport they’ll be tackling first, in terms of feature depth.

That said, the cornerstone of this newly announced watch is the GPS antenna design being what they’re dubbing as revolutionary, I want to focus on that here primarily.

What’s New:

Now, before we talk about the most highlighted feature (GPS Accuracy), let’s just briefly run through some of the changes in the watch (and platform). Here’s the quick and dirty:

– Added optimal training load widget/tracking (e.g., low/medium/high load)
– Added historical trend line for optimal load (aka ’the tunnel’)
– Added RAI (Running Ability Index)
– Added running power
– Added running power curve
– Added dynamic recovery guidance (accounting for factors like sleep, stress, etc…)
– Added smart training plans (specify goal race, and will populate rest and dynamically change)
– Added in-race marathon guidance data pages (showing progress towards goal, and specified targets on HR or Pace)
– Added support for free-diving to 40m
– Adding upcoming NFC payment support with Curve
– Added new breathable fabric strap (dries far quicker than other straps), also silicon one in box too
– Contains full metal case (titanium alloy)
– Display is 3,000 nit display with Kunlun glass
– Battery claim is 32-hours of GPS time, and 14-days smartwatch (gesture-based)
– Watch weight is 43.5g (lighter than most watches in its class, claimed as the lightest metal GPS watch)
– Watch thickness is 10.7mm (most watches in this class are in the 12mm range)
– Case diameter is 43.5mm (roughly the same ballpark as others in the 43-47mm range)

Note that it comes in three case colors/combos:

The price is 399EUR/349GBP.

As always, Huawei watches are available outside the US, but not officially available inside the US (due to the US Government blockages of Huawei products). Huawei did make some interesting notables in their presentation around sales numbers, which I figured were worthwhile pointing out:

– No 1 global wearable wrist-worn unit sales in Q1-Q3 2025 (expected to hold full 2025)
Shipped 200 million wearables thus far (till 2025)
– Shipped 55 million+ Watch GT Series units

They did preemptively counter-claim that while it might be easy to say that “those are mostly in China”, they noted that they are number #1 in their home market, but often #3 in many other markets as well. Obviously, you can validate/invalidate those claims with IDC if you have a subscription.

The New GPS Antenna Design:

While the watch received other hardware styling changes, the biggest ticket item by far is the new GPS antenna design. Back in the 2010’s, the main focus when it came to GPS accuracy was often the GPS chipset itself (e.g., from Sony, MediaTek, etc). But by the end of the decade, that shifted more towards the actual GPS antenna portion, which is basically the tiny wire that’s typically embedded into some portion of the bezel. Every single watch needed a different GPS antenna design (since every single watch had different bezel shapes, materials, sizes, etc…). The difference between success and failure was measured in fractions of a millimeter. While the actual chipset and the firmware customizations certainly still mattered, the antenna was make or break.

It’s a lesson that many companies had to learn the hard way, notably COROS and Polar, both of which previously openly discussed their GPS antenna design failures after first attempts (in the COROS APEX 2 series, and Polar in the Ignite 3). Generally speaking in this area, Garmin is considered the leader in GPS antenna design since roughly the Fenix 7 era (and carried over to virtually all of Garmin’s other devices), though Suunto is mostly seen as equal here in recent hardware as well. Others may be close, but never quite being as perfect.

Which is likely why in Huawei’s media presentation, they consistently refer to the Garmin Forerunner 970, which they specifically noted as being a “gold standard” device (their exact words, not mine).

So with that backstory, let’s talk about what Huawei is doing. Below is a slide from their presentation. Essentially, they have not one, but *two* GNSS antennas here. The first antenna is built into the case itself, whereas the second antenna is built into the titanium bezel. That blue-colored ring is an isolation ring that keeps the upper antenna floating there, ungrounded (whereas the lower antenna is grounded).

The idea here is that they can use the two antennas operating in opposite directions to match the polarization of the satellite transmission. Here, in this little animated GIF, you can see the rotation (electrically, not physically):

Within this, they talked a lot about how this would handle tough GPS conditions better than their competitors. They talked about how they were combining this with algorithms to figure out where you’re going, even when no GPS exists. They do this by blending GPS data with mapping data. In the case below, the title says “Track Running”, but you can see it’s actually the outside perimeter of the track, where it goes under a stadium in a very neat-looking tunnel. Here, because the Huawei watch has the actual running path details, it locks onto that once it loses GPS signal. It’s a creative solution, and something we’ve seen Apple dabble with a bit over the last few years (though, not quite to this level).

As a result of all of this, they noted very high accuracy levels for distance and pace, including this slide where they are testing against a NovAtel CPT7 GNSS reference device in a backpack (which has centimeter-level accuracy).

All of which gets us to their claims about being incredibly precise, and substantial improvements over past devices:

And doing so while having really solid battery numbers…at least with a gesture-based display. Here’s a comparison chart they did:

For some real-world data, though, on my 2.5-hour run yesterday, devices in always-on configuration burned as follows in *always-on* display mode (no route loaded on either):

Garmin Forerunner 970 (forced multi-band on): From 94% to 83% (thus an estimate of 23.5hrs battery life)
Huawei GT Runner 2 (multi-band on): From 85% to 70% (thus an estimate of 16.7hrs of battery life)

These Huawei battery burn numbers are consistent with all my other runs.

Is It Actually Accurate?

Photo-6713 singular display fullPicture.

In short, no, it’s not.

At least not in my testing, and I think other reviewers as well. To be clear, there are some brief spots, but more critically, it struggled in both relatively easy and moderate scenarios alike. In my tests, I compared against multiple other units from Garmin, Amazfit, Suunto, and Apple.

Here’s a 2.5-hour run from yesterday, on the final-release firmware. This starts on easy roads/dirt roads, and then eventually works its way up into the mountains. Though none of this is very hard mountain terrain from a GPS standpoint. It’s largely wide open skies, with no overhangs on any section I was in:

Here’s my configuration (Huawei said it performs best on the left wrist, so I gave it its best shot):

Left wrist: Huawei GT Runner 2
Left hand: Garmin Forerunner 970
Right wrist: Amazfit T-Rex Ultra 2
Right hand: Garmin Fenix 8 Pro

Here’s the actual DCR Analyzer set, if you want to look at it online.  At the high-level first everything looks close-ish:

Galatzo GPS1.

But as we zoom in on a mostly easy section, as I translate from flats to a short sucker-punch of an initial climb, you can see slight variations from the Huawei watch. Nothing crazy, but just minor errors initially.

Galatzo GPS2.

These minor errors continue throughout the run, so I’ll get to the main climb. Again, this is totally open skies, just lots of switch-backs back and forth (and steep, 20%+). But it entirely falls apart here:

Galatzo GPS3.

This is bad-bad. Sure, it’s sorta-mirrored off to the side, but also not in some cases. Again, we’re talking upwards of 50m offset from the track here, which is a long-long ways away.

So, let’s try another run, this time for 3 hours. Similar configuration, except now I’ve got a Suunto Vertical 2 instead of a Garmin Fenix 8 with me. Note, colors have changed:

3hrRun GPS1.

Here, I start off on roads that are fine, but as I begin my climb, the Huawei’s track starts to fall apart, slowly separating out from the pack. While there are some minor GPS blockages here, it’s still pretty darn open. As you can see, one of these tracks sticks out:

3hrRun GPS2.

And it gets worse as I go along:

3hrRun GPS3.

Even along the upper ridgeline (wide open skies), when it seems to get better, it’s still clearly the odd-man out, often slightly offset to the rest:

3hrRun GPS4.

Now I’ll save you another full run on this route, as the results were similar (you can look at them here), though notably on this one, it got confused with a simple road crossing (colors have changed again):

2hrRun GPSCityRunning.

Now, there were a few cases that it did handle well. For example, this section here in a long tunnel I did. You can see it did exactly as Huawei specified it’d do: Go straight. It did indeed perform better than the Garmin Forerunner 970 at that point (though the Huawei watch made errors before/after the tunnel itself):

3hrRun GPSTunnel.

It should be noted that the Garmin Forerunner 970 was in so-called SatIQ mode (aka AutoSelect), which means it saves battery power by dynamically switching GPS modes, scaling up to multi-band as needed when conditions are more challenging (e.g., buildings). Whereas the Huawei watch is always in multi-band. Generally speaking, Garmin’s SatIQ mode is one of the best things they’ve done in recent years, though it would make this test slightly unequal. Still, I’d argue that if SatIQ can’t handle this correctly, then that’s on Garmin.

Here’s that same tunnel on a different day, with more or less the same result from all parties (Huawei better than Garmin):

2hrRun GPSTunnel.

So what about city running? Unfortunately, again, this fell short. I went out this morning (just hours before the watch announces) with the final production firmware again, for a quick up/down circuit of the tall hotel buildings in this area.

CityTest Wide.

But as you can see, in purple below, the Huawei GT Runner 2 was simply inaccurate quite a bit. Below you can see a turn I did around this block, where the GT Runner 2 appeared to lock onto the road, versus the sidewalk area I was on (and note how I go around the palm trees with the sidewalk, whereas the watch seems to lock to the road itself):

CityTest Zoomed.

Or arguably the best single example possible, right here, where I follow the sidewalk and crosswalk, yet the watch stays on the road:

CityTest Zoomed2.

This is fundamentally why most companies *don’t* use a “lock to road” concept. Because ultimately, that’s not where runners run. And again here, it has me playing in traffic on the wrong side of the street:

CityTest Zoomed3.

Look, I only play in traffic at night on empty roads. Not here in broad daylight, swerving in front of buses (in Magaluf, that’s reserved for drunk British tourists).

CityTest Zoomed4.

Finally, as for elevation accuracy, things weren’t great there either. On all of my runs, it drifted notably. For example, yesterday’s run on the final firmware (ignore the weird drop thing, that’s just an artifact of the export process):

GTRunner2 Elevation1.

Or, a run from last week, where you can see the elevation deviation slowly drift, so much so that when I got back down closer to the ocean, it went negative elevation, despite not yet being at the end of the run.

GTRunner2 Elevation2.

Though I did have one run from about 10 days ago where it was reasonably OK:

GTRunner2 Elevation3.

About the only difference here is that Huawei said GPS would be better on my left wrist, so that’s mostly where I wore it on recent runs, whereas on this older run it was on my right wrist. I’m not sure I should have to choose between accurate elevation or accurate GPS based on wrist preference. That sounds like some Fitbit Charge 6 GPS vs HR accuracy logic.

In any case, overall, as you can see, this is falling pretty far short of what I’d expect from a world-class leading device. While Huawei may have added a bunch of other features, and perhaps in certain city environments it’d work better, here it’s just not working for me in what I’d describe as easy to mildly challenging scenarios. I’d hate to see what more complicated mountain/cliff (or even city) environments look like.

Though I will say, good job on heart rate. Here’s a run where you can see it did quite well there (the bad one there is the Amazfit):

GTRunner HRLongRun.

Ok, let’s get into the wrap-up.

(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy portions were created using the DCR Analyzer tool. It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, running power, GPS tracks, and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)

Wrap-Up:

Huawei has put a lot of work into this watch, in a lot of areas – be it software, hardware design, and seemingly the much-praised GNSS antenna design. But ultimately, that key GPS accuracy feature just doesn’t seem to work well. It falls short of all of the competitor watches I compared it against, in both easy and moderate conditions. In other words, it claimed to do one thing really really well, and it didn’t do that thing even so-so.

In bringing up these results to Huawei, they noted this morning that they’ll continue to dig into them, but said that “while the hardware is universal, we have optimized the algorithms for road running (hence the focus on Marathon features) – nevertheless I’d still expect the performance to be competitive.”

I can certainly understand algorithms being optimized for one scenario or another, but nearly 20 years of GPS accuracy testing tells me that something more is amiss here. This almost seems more related to turns and inclines, than pure road vs trail. As for whether it’s fixable? Well again, looking back at those 20 years of testing, very rarely are early GPS accuracy issues fixable in software. The vast majority of the time, it’s antenna design, or other underlying pieces that are hard to fix. Certainly, there are exceptions – but they are just that, very rare exceptions, no matter the company (Apple, Garmin, COROS, Polar, Samsung, Suunto, etc…). All of those are companies that have produced initially bad GPS watch models, and been unable to fix it in software.

Which isn’t to say the whole watch is bad. I actually really do like the styling on this unit (the band is great, and does indeed dry quicker than most fabric-like bands I have). The watch case feels far more premium to me than a Forerunner 570 does (or even a Forerunner 970 for that matter), despite being cheaper. Plus, it’s got free/downloadable onboard maps, a host of training features (albeit ones most of their competitors already have), and the screen has been really solid for me even in bright sunlight conditions. Also, if you like lots of audible alerts, the watch is constantly talking to you with a very easy-to-hear speaker.

With that – thanks for reading!

FOUND THIS POST USEFUL? SUPPORT THE SITE!

Hopefully, you found this post useful. The website is really a labor of love, so please consider becoming a DC RAINMAKER Supporter. This gets you an ad-free experience, and access to our (mostly) bi-monthly behind-the-scenes video series of “Shed Talkin’”.

Support DCRainMaker - Shop on Amazon

Otherwise, perhaps consider using the below link if shopping on Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot. It could simply be buying toilet paper, or this pizza oven we use and love.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.
If you would like a profile picture, simply register at Gravatar, which works here on DCR and across the web.

Click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture

*

25 Comments

  1. Well, you certainly got different results than me with the GPS testing! I did find moderately parallel tracks (other of my test devices did the same, but not as much), and the switchback thing was also more pronounced with Runner 2. I did about 40 sharp turns off-road, under trees, and 6 or 8 of those from Huawel cut the corner before it happened. IDK why, but I speculate the algorithm postprocessed that based on what the accelerometer said.

    Fun fact. It has a tri-band GPS chip (Beidou… no one should get excited!)

    • Yeah, it’s definitely connected to switchbacks in some capacity, though also the downtown pieces were weird too.

      Ultimately, our different locations will definitely play into it as well.

    • It is odd. Maybe you had a faulty watch or older firmware? (I doubt the latter) I used the strava export, sometimes the Health sync app. You probably had the same workflow, so no source of errors there.

      The track was definitely not perfect either way.

      As you say, there is something about the switchbacks, but your issue is far more pronounced than I found in my 40 mini-switchback tests. Perhaps mine were too short or yours were impacted by the slope incline or latitude? (clutching at straws). So I get that there is a bug here but why the magnitude difference? That I don’t get.

      I also don’t get the “urban performance” because mine was clearly excellent. From memory, I don’t think i ever got the “lock to the middle of the road” issue – in some cases, it was the other devices that strayed off the real path (caused by their multipath error handling, or accelerometer underuse).

      Plus, probably most of my running is not on roads (paths/trails), which are far less likely to be able to experience any snap-to-road algorithm.

    • I think in many ways our tracks are actually showing similar things, just at different severities.

      I suspect the switchback thing is somehow being exaggerated by steepness, which aligns to my result. If I think/look at it, the steeper the switchbacks, the rougher they got. The more chill, the less variance.

      Likewise, in more chill scenarios, it was mostly fine (wobbly sometimes, but nothing crazy).

      The downtown one is the most interesting one. In my case, I had the offline maps loaded for my region, but no route loaded. I assume you had offline maps loaded, since your review covers other background map bits. Either way, it’s super clear in my case it’s snapping to roads. Why is the better question.

      Ultimately, Huawei has decided to fly someone here and send that poor soul out on my routes with additional watches. They arrive tomorrow.

      I’m skeptical this is a hardware thing. Having dealt with (very rare) hardware issues over the last 15 years, watches that are hard-broken just don’t act perfectly fine all the time until specific repeatable issues. To me, this seems more like an algorithm (road snapping) or antenna design thing (switchbacks potentailly).

    • Gg

      Hi, could we get an update if huawei’s poor soul had different results. Thank you.

  2. JR

    I wonder if you just have a defective unit. It just seems implausible that they’d make such a huge deal about being the best at something where they are actually just about the worst.

    Also, for what it’s worth, I have definitely noticed that the AWU3 sometimes struggles with tunnels. Not all the time, but occasionally I’ll come out of a tunnel or out from under an overpass, and suddenly I’ll have picked up a ton of extra distance. 99% of the time it’s super accurate; my tracks are super clean, and it even knows which side of a fairly narrow bike path I was on, or it can tell when I deviate a few meters to toss something into a trash can. But every now and then, it just does something kinda crazy, and I’ll end up with a total distance that’s several percent off a known route. Not something that ever happened when I was using Garmin.

    • “I wonder if you just have a defective unit.”

      They don’t seem to think so. They had all my data sets as they happened, and at no point was that brought up, instead, the quote above about it being more road-focused.

      Generally speaking with companies, they tend to respond in certain ways when they think it’s a defective unit, versus when they know it’s a known issue. This was definitely more the second…

  3. Steve

    It’s a shame it’s not better but I can’t say I’m surprised. I have the HUAWEI GT6 Pro which seems so allergic to any sort of tree cover it’s unusable for where I run- I was really hoping they’d smash it with this one.

    That being said it’s funny how the 2 guys I go to for reviews on new watches got such different results!

  4. Nighthawk

    Nice review. But other than great battery life I don’t see Huawei watches as good sports watches. I would still prefer the Galaxy Ultra 2 review. At least for GPS and HR accuracy.

  5. Xabbar

    I have the first version.
    The whole thing is a scam.
    I would never buy this second one.

  6. morey000

    I think the real story here on GPS accuracy,
    is how well all the other watches did!

  7. GPS antenna in watch

    Seeing phrases like “the gold-standard GPS watch” and “the GPS antenna design being revolutionary” didn’t surprise me, given that this product comes from that very “famous” company. Frankly, I really don’t understand how the Runner 2’s antenna is revolutionary. Is it simply because it uses a circularly polarized antenna? As far as I know, GPS circularly polarized antenna technology has been widely used in Amazfit watches for over five years. Furthermore, the circularly polarized antenna is actually generated by the metal middle frame of Runner 2; and the floating metal ring (i.e., the Titanium bezel) isn’t the cause of the circularly polarized antenna. Therefore, calling its design as a “3-D floating antenna architecture” is just a form of boasting, especially with the addition of the word “advanced,” which makes it seem even more exaggerated.

    • They’re saying this is totally different than past watches, and they seem pretty set/convinced of that.

      In my case, I’m just focused on the end-state accuracy, which…well…yeah.

  8. Ryan M.

    I was excited to see something take a next step in accuracy, and was even starting to think how I could get one, but then saw the actual results. Oh well.

  9. Andy

    Which watch do you think is the GPS gold standard?

    • Huawei is saying the Forerunner 970.

      I suspect that’s more an alignment to their price category than saying the Fenix 8 isn’t the gold standard, which is logical.

      I’d say for GPS the Forerunner 970 & Fenix 8 series are basically as long as you can get to such a thing. As you probably know, I generally hate the term, since most of the time it’s used to justify buying legacy things that used to be great.

      All that said, I’d generally agree though that it’s very challenging on the watch side to beat a FR570/970/Fenix 8 series track. Note that realistically though, other multi-band watches from the same Garmin generation are basically acting the same here. I just don’t see any meaningful differences in almost everything I throw at it. Whereas I do continue to see notable GPS issues with the Apple Watch (any) and open water swimming specifically.

    • Volker

      Btw: I think a lot of people don’t care at all about gps accuracy: I mean, they don’t care if it may cut a corner, is sometimes walking a little bit through buildings…, if they just reach their destination/can follow their course. That is more for the nerds and data collectors. I really don’t care about it much, if the course etc. data is showing some less or some more meters…

    • Dan

      In that case I wouldn’t be boasting how accurate and clearly superior my product is. Being humble can be seen as positive as opposed to being boisterous and deficient in performance. Actually I do think quite a few people care about accuracy. For instance if you do intervals land have a specified target pace a wildly inaccurate GPS can totally destroy your training. Cheers!

  10. GPS antenna in watch

    Huawei has overcomplicated a simple issue, misleading many people. For example, in your review, you stated: “The idea here is that they can use two antennas operating in opposite directions to match the polarization of the satellite transmission”. The “two antennas” here should refer to one antenna on the watch side and one antenna on the satellite side. Polarization matching is achieved when the currents of the two circularly polarized antennas rotating in different directions (e.g., one clockwise and one counterclockwise), allowing the watch’s circularly polarized antenna to perfectly match and receive the satellite’s signal. It doesn’t mean the watch itself has two antennas. In fact, all GPS devices using circularly polarized antennas (such as watches, professional surveying equipment, etc.) have the current of the circularly polarized antennas rotating in a different direction than the satellite’s; otherwise, there would be a mismatch – meaning no GPS satellite signal could be received by the GPS devices. How does such a simple fact become “they can use two antennas…”? Here, the word “they can” should imply that only Huawei can do this and no one else can, which is definitely an incorrect statement.
    Sorry to say that your above statement could indeed mislead non-antenna professionals into believing that there are “two antennas” in Runner 2’s antenna design. I suspect you were also misled by Huawei – to boast about how innovative their design was, they intentionally or unintentionally separated the metal frame and the floating bezel, leading people to mistakenly believe that a “completely new circularly polarized antenna design that (must) has two antennas” was invented in Runner 2.

    • “The “two antennas” here should refer to one antenna on the watch side and one antenna on the satellite side.”

      I mean, they literally say they have two antennas. Whether that’s right or wrong is seemingly debatable, but that’s what they’re factually saying. They are saying, and I quote “it’s a first” in their presentation.

      They go on to say: “that allows us to run two antenni seperately, because they are disconnected from each other, they are isolated.”

      It seems unlikely that they’re outright lying about this, but instead, there’s nuance they aren’t being clear about.

    • GPS antenna in watch

      No one is saying they’re lying; it’s just that when emphasizing the innovative design of circularly polarized antennas, they haven’t clearly explained the true reason why the circular polarization is achieved. This leads people to believe that circular polarization can only be achieved when both the middle metal frame and the floating bezel, two independent metal components, are present simultaneously. In fact, circular polarization is achieved by the middle metal frame. With the middle metal frame implementing the circular polarization, the absence of the floating metal ring does not cause the circular polarization to disappear; for example, if the floating bezel is not metal but a plastic ring, the circular polarization still exists. Furthermore, when the floating bezel is a metal ring, although this metal ring and the middle metal frame are independent—that is, as you said, “that allows us to run two antennas separately, because they are disconnected from each other, they are isolated”. However, the actual situation is this: although the two metal rings are physically independent, there is strong electromagnetic coupling between them (meaning from an electromagnetic perspective, they are not absolutely isolated). If one insists on saying they are isolated, it can only be described as physically isolated without electrical connection. In fact, when the middle metal ring carries a rotating current in a certain direction, a rotating current with the same operating frequency and the same phase (meaning the same rotation direction) will be generated on the floating metal ring. Due to this fact, the two metal rings cannot be considered as two antennas; they can only be considered as two branches of a single antenna. Therefore, it is unreasonable to describe this circularly polarized antenna design as a two-antenna system. Presenting such an unreasonable claim as an irrefutable fact will only lead to unnecessary misunderstandings. This is why, when non-professionals see the description of the circularly polarized antenna design of Runner 2, most are misled into thinking, “Wow! Huawei has invented a brand new circularly polarized antenna design for watches, which is a very special and novel circularly polarized antenna system; which is because, unlike other designs, it is precisely the presence of these two antennas that makes the circularly polarized antenna in the watch possible”. Certainly, the above is not true.

      Hopefully you understand what I mean now. If you still don’t understand the specific details of this antenna design, (if needed) I can provide some simulation results to help you understand better.

  11. eugene-r

    Hello,
    you stated runner 2 have such new features:

    – Added historical trend line for optimal load (aka ’the tunnel’)
    – Added running power
    – Added running power curve
    – Added dynamic recovery guidance (accounting for factors like sleep, stress, etc…)

    It really have them? No reviews show this features in action.

  12. Pedro

    Do you see any GPS accuracy improvements coming to fitness watches/bike computers? For example the Galileo HAS (High Accuracy Service) is coming online and usable now, would any fitness products incorporate this in the next few years or a longer timeline at all?

  13. Jacques

    My old TomTom spark GPS was at the time better and more consistent than Garmin. It’s a bit sad that they discontinued it.

  14. Canman

    Almost looks like there is some calibration or offset occurring in their software.

    As described I was wondering if it would “lock onto” off-road trails canopied forest if they were part of the map.

    From your open-air mountain trail results it sounds like the answer is “not likely.”