The depths of winter mean darker nights, turning up the heating and dealing with icy mornings. But they also mean that it’s ski season, the lifts are running and the slopes are open. For some, it’s the best time of the year, packing up all the gear and heading to the mountains.
Whether you’re a seasoned skier or only make it out once a year, recording what you’re doing is not only great fun, but it’s informative too. So when I had the chance to ski with Carv – an AI skiing coach – I also strapped on my trusty Garmin to see what each would record and which would be the most useful.
These two devices are quite different in their approach, with the best Garmin devices covering a full range of sports and focusing on the wearer’s well-being. Carv on the other hand, tracks your skiing performance. Its purpose is to improve your skiing through advanced metrics and real-time feedback.
I clipped into my skis and hit the slopes to find out how they differed.
What Garmin tells you about your performance
Heading into the mountains, I used the Garmin Fenix 8, one of Garmin’s premium devices. Although the Fenix is towards the top of Garmin’s range, there’s not a huge difference in the metrics that it gathers compared to cheaper Forerunner or Instinct models – both of which also offer snow sports tracking.
Core to Garmin’s offering is the heart rate sensor on the back. Heart rate monitoring is core to Garmin figuring out how hard you work, using heart rate zones. But the watch also uses GPS to record speed, and track the location on maps (which also feature on Fenix), while altitude change is also recorded, which is one of the key metrics for skiing.
How Garmin records your skiing sessions
When you fire up the ski tracking on your Garmin, it will use GPS data to locate the resort you’re in – a full list of supported ski areas can be found here. This means it knows where you are and importantly it knows what lift you get on.
The ski tracking will record distance, descent, and average and maximum speeds, breaking it down into individual runs, as well as giving you totals for the session. That includes mapping, so you can see where you skied, as well as the lifts you took. The data is reported across a number of screens on the watch, as well as being presented in Garmin Connect on your phone once you’ve finished.
Auto Run is key to the convenience – your Garmin needs a barometric altimeter for this to work – as it’s the Auto Run feature that will detect each run for you.
How you can use Garmin to improve your training
Garmin’s focus with its ski tracking is supplying the data to the user and the performance of the session as a workout. You’ll get that heart rate data, times in zones and this all feeds into Garmin’s calculations to tell you how much rest and recovery you might need following the session.
It reported that I should have 65 hours of recovery after one day of skiing, an indicator that it was hard work. My maximum heart rate was 166bpm which is pretty high, but the average was 114bpm, which is nicely in the aerobic range across the 4 hours it was recording.
But as for skiing itself, Garmin doesn’t have anything to improve your actual skiing performance, beyond that holistic view of your well-being and physical condition.
What Carv tells you about your performance
Carv 2 uses a pair of sensor units that clip onto your ski boots. These sensors connect to your phone to feed in the data they gather and you can connect your phone to headphones to hear real-time feedback as you ski.
No biometric data comes from Carv, it’s only interested in how your boots are moving, as that dictates what your skis are doing. There is a lot of motion data gathered, so Carv can record the angle of the edges of your skis, how parallel they are, how your weight is moving, and a whole lot more.
Location data is also pulled in from your phone, so Carv knows where you are and that’s how it ties it up to particular types of ski runs.
How Carv records your skiing sessions
Carv is managed through the smartphone app. Unlike Garmin, once you’re connected, you leave the sensors on your boots gathering data – you just have to hit the start button in the app and everything is captured.
As you ski the data is analysed and synced to the app, giving you a breakdown of every turn that you make. The edging angle, your balance, and how your skis are angled in relation to each other through each phase of the turn is recorded. Your phone is also supplying the speed and altitude change data through GPS.
If you’re wearing headphones, you can opt for feedback after every turn, or you can get that feedback when you stop for a rest – as well as a bit of spoken feedback once you’re on the lift. The app presents each run with plenty of detail, so you can see exactly what you did.
How you can use Carv to improve your training
Unlike Garmin which focuses on general fitness, Carv is only interested in improving your technique on the slopes. As the name suggests, it’s about guiding the user to better carving. The comparisons with Garmin end with the GPS data it gathers: your speed, the distance traveled, time spent skiing and the number of runs are about the only things these two have in common – and the results are compared below.
Instead, Carv gives you access to instructional videos in the app, while guiding you toward small changes that will change your style overall. As you ski, you’re awarded a score (your Ski IQ), with these scores gamified. The real-time feedback can help you focus on a particular skill, with spoken instructions about what you’re trying to achieve.
Carv doesn’t gather heart rate data, it has no idea how hard you’re physically working, and when I asked Carv founder Jamie Grant about heart rate, he told me that there currently wasn’t a plan to integrate heart rate data. You can sync with Apple Health, but there’s no compatibility with other fitness apps.
How did my skiing sessions compare between Garmin and Carv?
With all that data recorded, there are some metrics that can be compared, but the way that these results are measured and recorded seems to be quite different. There’s only one absolute measure that’s defined by physics that we can compare – and that’s maximum speed. Both results are within ±2kpm, which is a minor difference.
Distance too is close, but it’s worth considering that it only takes a few meters at the end of each run that’s not recorded by one system or the other to throw these out. Again, the figures are close – but it’s impossible to determine which is the more accurate.
| Header Cell – Column 0 | Runs | Distance (km) | Max Speed (kph) | Descent (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 – Garmin | 15 | 24.14 | 83.6 | 4060 |
| Day 1 – Carv | 41 | 20 | 82.4 | 3877 |
| Day 2 – Garmin | 10 | 29.94 | 79.9 | 3531 |
| Day 2 – Carv | 36 | 18.70 | 77.9 | 4244 |
That also applies to descent – while both numbers are in a similar region, there are hundreds of meters between them – and from the two days of data I collected, one sees Garmin giving the greater figure for descent, and one sees Carv giving the greater descent.
That suggests that these metrics – apart from speed – aren’t comparable between these two devices. That’s worth remembering if you’re skiing with friends!
Who should buy Carv?
Who should buy Garmin?
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nndYNAy48bT27gzsfEi3Ki-1200-80.jpg
Source link
