Altimeter watches

In article <[email hidden]>, callnet nexus7 <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I just know that I'm going to regret this but... Does anyone have any first hand experience of
either suunto or casio altimeter watches (e.g. Suunto observer, or casio pro-trek)?

I'm thinking of getting one (or the other), but I came across a couple of bad reports on
the suunto.

Cheers m'dears

Tim

I have a casio. It's accurate to 5metres and allowing for weather changes it's never been more than
10m out over a rise of 1000m.

However it has 2 batteries in at £6 each. I'm very glad I took it to H Samuels' to be changed
because they broke the barometer sensor as they did the change. So I got a new watch (reputedly
a repair).

My friend has a Suunto and it's just as accurate but he changes his own single battery.

You could always buy a non-electronic altimeter if reliability is a worry... Cheaper too.

However I wouldn't ever want to be without an altimeter. Brilliant for navigation and no more false
tops for me. I *know* that's not the top yet because I'm only at 600m now...

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

I was up Ben Nevis a couple of weeks ago and my GPS calibrated barometric altimeter on my Geko 301
was pretty much on the money while another guy's Suunto Vector was over reading by about 30 metres.
I think it's all to do with calibration. Take the time to calibrate a barometric altimeter properly
and it'll be much more accurate than a GPS calibrated one.

Cheers, Jiffy

Quoted message said:

I just know that I'm going to regret this but... Does anyone have any

first

Quoted message said:

hand experience of either suunto or casio altimeter watches (e.g. Suunto observer, or casio
pro-trek)?

Hi,

I've had a Suunto Observer for just over a year now. The altimeter is accurate to 1m I find that if
I keep it calibrated (i.e. set the height every time you pass a spot height) you can get an
excellent reading. I have though set it at my front door (166m) and gone out for the day, come back
only been about 2m out.

When I camp for the night I set the watch to the barometer function (keep the altitude static) then
you can get a good impression in changing weather trends, although you can get just as good by
looking out of the tent door (or the window in my Mountain Hardwear tent!!)

The only major problem the Observer is I've heard a mouse fart louder than the alarm and unless you
have it strapped to your ear you won't be woken.

In the end its a watch, it tells the time. It's a case of big boys toys. I could easily cope without
it but I like the look of the watch and its good for any situation unlike the vector which looks
like you have a dinner plate strapped to your wrist.

There seems to be a lot of special offers going round on the observers at the moment. I bought mine
of a bloke through uk.rec.walking but there are always some available on ebay.co.uk for about £100

Cheers

Andy

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Bernard Hill said:

However I wouldn't ever want to be without an altimeter. Brilliant for navigation and no more
false tops for me. I *know* that's not the top yet because I'm only at 600m now...

Yes, I agree, altimeters are excellent, aren't they? You know what I'm going to say of course, and
I admit that the numbers do bounce around a bit more than a proper altimeter, but still, GPS
altitude is pretty spot on and it doesn't drift with time. Rarely more than 5m out and pretty much
always within 10m, assuming reasonable reception of course.

It may depend on the watch. My casio only updates the altitude every 2 minutes: although I do
confess to rising 5m during lunch sometimes <g>.

However I can live with that. The only disconcerting thing is a complete day's walk where you
didn't reset at a known point and a big change in the weather means you get back 50m higher than
you started.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

"callnet nexus7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I just know that I'm going to regret this but... Does anyone have any

first

Quoted message said:

hand experience of either suunto or casio altimeter watches (e.g. Suunto observer, or casio
pro-trek)?

I'm thinking of getting one (or the other), but I came across a couple of bad reports on
the suunto.

I researched this last spring after deciding that an altimeter would be handy in hilly forested
areas, particularly some of the bits of France I visit.

I considered most of the sub £200 options, Suunto, Casio, and even some mountain bike components. I
found reviews and manuals for as many as possible and worked out how I could use them (or how I'd be
confused by too many options in the rain when wanting to get a position :-)).

In the end I bought a Suunto Escape 203. This is a handheld/neck worn device. Its 1m accurate
(though I usually use it on the coarser setting as the cumulative log seems to be more accurate that
way). It has several logging functions (download the manual and think about it to work them out). It
can also run as a barometer. It looks to be simpler to use than the watches, not least because of
the button size and positions, and the large display. It costs £100, though not available from as
many shops as the wrist watch variants. I had to order it through my local outdoor shop, who carry
the watch models as stock. When not used for outdoor trips, it sits on a home-made stand on the
mantlepiece as a weather station. Battery replacement is easy. So far the battery is doing fine -
about 9 months use. (long URL, probably line-wrapped)
suunto.comsuunto2.pubproduct.prod viewOpen ↗

The other one I'd shortlisted was the Victorinox "Swiss Knife Altimeter", which can be bought for
approaching £40 if you shop around. swissknifeshop.co.uktool.htmlOpen ↗ and scroll down a
little. A very simple device, with no track logs, or other features - just a readout of height or
temperature, plus calibrating the height data. More details and instructions here:
victorinox.comaltimeter.htmOpen ↗ Chris Townsend
reviewed this in TGO and reported it to be very accurate.

(applies to any barometer/altimeter) In the UK one needs to be aware that the weather pressure can
change quite rapidly, thus the height readings will be wrong. So long as you're checking against
known spot heights, this can give you weather data, but if used as an absolute measuring device this
can be a problem.

- Nigel

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

You know what I'm going to say of course, and I admit that the numbers do bounce around a bit
more than a proper altimeter, but still, GPS altitude is pretty spot on and it doesn't drift
with time.

I didn't know you had a GPS Paul - do you find it useful?

I find it best to use three GPSrs, plot the three points on a map and draw a triangle between them.
Then I draw a line from each corner to the centre of the opposite side, and where they cross is a
pretty good idea of where I might be.
--
Gordon

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

I find it best to use three GPSrs, plot the three points on a map and draw a triangle between
them. Then I draw a line from each corner to the centre of the opposite side, and where they
cross is a pretty good idea of where I might be.

That's very good Gordon. An excellent technique. Never thought of that one.

One feature of the Vista I find useful, especially on our casual birding/walking expeditions is that
I can get the figure for 'moving average' speed as well as overall average because it counts the
'stationary time and stores that also. (But not in the track data).

It would tell you just how much time you spend taking photos, without other expedition members
pointedly mentioning it.
--
Gordon

In message <[email hidden]>, Fran <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

You know what I'm going to say of course, and I admit that the numbers do bounce around a bit
more than a proper altimeter, but still, GPS altitude is pretty spot on and it doesn't drift
with time.

I didn't know you had a GPS Paul - do you find it useful?

He uses it as a tripod for his camera.

--
Martin Richardson
216/284 Munros (34/34 'Furths'😉
217/89 Donalds 397/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls

In article <[email hidden]>, druidh <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

By experience, I'd say that the Suunto aglorithms are worse than the Avocet ones. I've seen errors
of over 150 Metres at a height of 950 Meters on a cold, still day.

That's incredible! While walking in Scotland I've never seen more than 40-50m error with my
Casio. And that was predictable because the day changed from clear blue skies to storm over the
time of the walk.

As it usually does in Scotland. <g>

Any barometric altimeter would have given the same.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

John Lang Wilson <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]> from "druidh" <[email hidden]>
contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Barometric drift is a very big issue with these watches. You'll notice that most (all?) include a
temperature sensor as well. This is used to assist in the determination of altitude but the
algorithms invovled do not always apply to British (or at least Scottish) conditions. You can
therefore find that you've a very accurate reading starting off and that it is still accurate
upon returning but that it's way off during the course of the day. Of course, resetting at known
altitudes helps, but means that you'll then see the error when you return to low level.

Quoted message said:

By experience, I'd say that the Suunto aglorithms are worse than the Avocet ones. I've seen
errors of over 150 Metres at a height of 950 Meters on a cold, still day.

I agree from my experience with 2 Casio alt/watches. Scottish conditions seem to be too variable. I
find a GPS altitude better to use.

My Casio watch hands in the room here as a barometer. At this function, and in showing the bar-graph
trend it is useful and it is accurate.

It is far too fiddley to set up at the start of a walk, compared to a GPS with an aneroid barometer
input. However, I wish I could disable the aneroid input to the GPS readings! Neither the Etrex
Summit nor the Vista allow this, as far as I can determine, so if I was on a height-critical walk I
would have to carry the heavier GPS12.

Since I don't gain much height these days, I don't usually bother. :-)
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

John Lang Wilson <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]> from "druidh" <[email hidden]>
contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Barometric drift is a very big issue with these watches. You'll notice that most (all?) include
a temperature sensor as well. This is used to assist in the determination of altitude but the
algorithms invovled do not always apply to British (or at least Scottish) conditions. You can
therefore find that you've a very accurate reading starting off and that it is still accurate
upon returning but that it's way off during the course of the day. Of course, resetting at known
altitudes helps, but means that you'll then see the error when you return to low level.

Quoted message said:

By experience, I'd say that the Suunto aglorithms are worse than the Avocet ones. I've seen
errors of over 150 Metres at a height of 950 Meters on a cold, still day.

I agree from my experience with 2 Casio alt/watches. Scottish conditions seem to be too variable.
I find a GPS altitude better to use.

My Casio watch hands in the room here as a barometer. At this function, and in showing the bar-
graph trend it is useful and it is accurate.

Me 2.

Quoted message said:

It is far too fiddley to set up at the start of a walk, compared to a GPS with an aneroid
barometer input.

Hm. I always set it to my 165m before starting a local walk. Just press the adjust button and then
the up or down buttons isn't too hard...

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

In message <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Since I don't gain much height these days, I don't usually bother. :-)

Does this mean that you have passed your mid teen years, finally? Saves on the clothes bill - or
wearing your older brother's cast-offs.

--
Martin Richardson
216/284 Munros (34/34 'Furths'😉
217/89 Donalds 397/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls

Bernard Hill <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes>

Quoted message said:

It is far too fiddley to set up at the start of a walk, compared to a GPS with an aneroid
barometer input.

Hm. I always set it to my 165m before starting a local walk. Just press the adjust button and then
the up or down buttons isn't too hard...

I can never remember the correct buttons, but I confess it's mainly the embarrassment of having the
monster on my wrist which puts me off it.
--
Gordon

Martin Richardson <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Since I don't gain much height these days, I don't usually bother. :-)

Does this mean that you have passed your mid teen years, finally? Saves on the clothes bill - or
wearing your older brother's cast-offs.

Literalists R US. :-)
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Bernard Hill <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes>

Quoted message said:

It is far too fiddley to set up at the start of a walk, compared to a GPS with an aneroid
barometer input.

Hm. I always set it to my 165m before starting a local walk. Just press the adjust button and then
the up or down buttons isn't too hard...

I can never remember the correct buttons, but I confess it's mainly the embarrassment of having the
monster on my wrist which puts me off it.

It's smaller than my mate's Suunto. Although it *is* a horrible shape.

But I was always an extrovert.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

Bernard Hill <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Bernard Hill <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon <[email hidden]> writes>
>It is far too fiddley to set up at the start of a walk, compared to a GPS with an aneroid
>barometer input.

Hm. I always set it to my 165m before starting a local walk. Just press the adjust button and
then the up or down buttons isn't too hard...

I can never remember the correct buttons, but I confess it's mainly the embarrassment of having
the monster on my wrist which puts me off it.

It's smaller than my mate's Suunto. Although it *is* a horrible shape.

But I was always an extrovert.

:-)
So am I, but my non-walking mates fell about laughing at it.

I did find a problem with the sleeve of my shirt/coat getting in the way of it, or vice versa.
--
Gordon

Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

I find it best to use three GPSrs, plot the three points on a map and draw a triangle between
them. Then I draw a line from each corner to the centre of the opposite side, and where they cross
is a pretty good idea of where I might be.

Since, however, one of three is three times more likely to get lost, broken, etc., than a single
GPSR, which removes one dimension from your correction method, you would be better off with four.

Yes, I had forgotten to include redundancy in my strategy....

I did a brisk walk of about 4½ miles today, and took both the Summit in a holster on my shoulder
strap, and the Vista hand held.

The Vista tracklog I set up to 'AUTO' and 'MORE OFTEN', the second highest rate of auto tracking.

The Vista recorded 475 trackpoints, and the Summit plotted 1247, nearly three times as many. The
Vista gave a distance of 4.6 miles to the Summit's 4.65.
--
Gordon

Steve Jones <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have a casio. It's accurate to 5metres and allowing for weather changes it's never been more
than 10m out over a rise of 1000m.

On British Hills with British weather fluctuations - you should never plan to have a totally
accurate barometric altimeter.

On my short 4.5 mile walk yesterday I didn't bother to set the barometric pressure on the Vista, but
it was about 6mb out. Looking at the plotted track and the contours on the map was impressed by the
way it had self-calibrated after about a mile, and on one section where the path followed a 250m
contour it gave 11 consecutive readings of 250m.

Admittedly it was 'seeing' the maximum 12 satellites for most of the time, and the claimed accuracy
was about 15ft.

The Summit which I also carried was way out in calibration and it took about 4 miles to zero in on
the correct height.

If you seriously need to know the height, then I would have to choose a GPS in preference to a
purely aneroid device.

I know that Chris has covered the subject of auto-calibration before, but this is the first time I
have observed it in action, since accurate height is not critical for the walks I do nowadays.

It might be fun to compare the GPS12 next time. Relieves the boredom of fitness walks. -)
--
Gordon

Bernard Hill said:

However I wouldn't ever want to be without an altimeter. Brilliant for navigation and no more
false tops for me. I *know* that's not the top yet because I'm only at 600m now...

Yes, I agree, altimeters are excellent, aren't they? You know what I'm going to say of course, and I
admit that the numbers do bounce around a bit more than a proper altimeter, but still, GPS altitude
is pretty spot on and it doesn't drift with time. Rarely more than 5m out and pretty much always
within 10m, assuming reasonable reception of course.

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukcal.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗