Discussion: Suunto Arrow 5L: a good choice for those who still like shooting an azimuth?

I am in the USA and recently got into o-courses after years of being a hiker. After starting out on a couple of orange courses, I'm doing well on green courses now. I walk a lot, though, because I've never been a good runner. I have been using a Suunto M3 baseplate compass. But I made a wrist leash on it instead of wearing it on a neck lanyard, so don't hate on me my friends!

I think I understand the advantages of a thumb compass, but I still want to be able to dial in an azimuth to follow in low visibility or flat terrain (I know, I know, just let me have my foibles). I am trying to always thumb the map and it is a hassle to hold a baseplate compass and the map in the same hand while thumbing. Maybe there's a better way the champs handle a baseplate compass.

I have been looking at the Suunto Arrow 5L with its rotatable housing. It looks like I could join points A and B on the map (even if only roughly), rotate the housing to line up with the gridlines, then put Fred in the shed and follow the arrow when I want to. No need for a numeric azimuth. Someday I want to get into rogaining so I don't want to go fully o-course specific in all my landnav gear and techniques. I believe that when I have to go back to 24k maps and don't have the luxury of highly detailed, accurate o-maps that following an azimuth will still be viable.

Does my notion of using the 5L as a "thumb compass and then some" seem reasonable? Other ideas?

There are thumb compasses with a housing that looks like this:



that might suit your needs quite well. Gale seems to sell them, Moscow being the brand with the most choice there, I believe.

Most people who use a baseplate compass hold it in the opposite hand from the map, but most compasses (baseplate or thumb) allow you to set a bearing if that's what you want to do. Some folks (at all skill levels levels) set bearings with either kind of compass, some use either kind without setting bearings. Use whetever you're comfortable holding, and use it however it works for you.

I had a Moscow compass, lost it, then I bought a Suunto Arrow as replacement, I used the Arrow for a while but then I bought another Moscow and demoted my Arrow to backup status because I like the Moscow so much better. I think the quality is higher and my eye can read read the direction of the thinner, longer needle on the Moscow much faster than the thicker, shorter needle on the Arrow. I never use the degree gradient, but it is there if I ever need it. I bought it from Gale. Model 3XL.

Yeah, people use all kinds of different compasses and techniques successfully but I think a thumb compass tends to reinforce better map technique... Keeping the compass on the map all the time... Keeping the map oriented all the time... Refolding the map along the line of travel... Keeping your thumb on your position... I think all of these things are easier with a compass bonded to your map-holding thumb.

jjcote: "Most people who use a baseplate compass hold it in the opposite hand from the map"

LOL, shows how much I know! Duh. That's what you get when you pick up a new sport on your own and wing it. Thanks for the info.

For reference, when I used to use a baseplate compass, I carried it in the same hand as my map, so it was like using a thumb compass anyway. I did a survey of US Team members a number of years ago, and one of the interesting cases was PG, who uses a baseplate and never turns the bezel, he just knows from looking at the map that he needs to be going, e.g., slightly to the left of south, and just looks at the needle. It certainly works well for him, but there are various reasons to believe that his brain works differently from the rest of us, and the techniques he uses may not transfer well.

I used a baseplate for years as a Junior, and then when I started coaching on tours I realised I was holding it on the map and using it like a thumb anyway. So I switched, and I haven't taken a bearing since, going at in more PG style.

I thoroughly believe that there are a million ways to use a compass and that it's cool to try some different ones, so I would give the thumb plus bearing combo a go.

I also find it crazy that I have orienteered for 20 years (heck, and yes, first solo course was at age 8) but until this week I had never ever heard the term azimuth. Now I have heard it twice this week. Insane.

never even heard the term azimuth

I heard it many years ago in Canada for the first time - my understanding then (it being in Quebec) - was that this was the common French word for bearing. I don´t think I´ve heard it since...

Looking up the definition made things more complicated, but I guess it could be loosely used the way we regularly use 'bearing'. The scientific explanations involved too much mumbo-jumbo to be easily deciphered ;)

I can confirm that it is French for bearing :)

tout comme cap et visée...

quite what the distinction is I never understood. I used visée...
Azimut I left to military types and Cap was a monkey down in StE ;)

Let's say you at first learn to navigate without compass. Then you add compass technique there, just to be faster and more accurate at vague and low visibility areas. So what would be the simplest way to do it without changing much of anything? You already look at the map pretty often and you see there your current location and the place you are going, and you imagine running line in between. And there is those north lines in the map. You see always some sort of angle between your running line and north lines, pretty easy to visualize and memorize. If you learn to see and do that, all you then need to do is to look at the compass needle time to time (when you are not looking at map) and compare it to your running line. That angle should be the same as the angle you saw on the map. If you were supposed to run "slightly left from east", your needle should be pointing like that. Pretty intuitive and easy after all, and the actual map reading technique would remain the same as you had when running without compass. In addition, you usually already know where the north is when you look at the map, makes it easy to keep the map oriented - no need to look both compass and map simultaneously, it is not easy and you may have to slow down to do it. Also note - to get "the angle" for the compass you need to look at the map and and see where you are and where you are going next, that kind of reduces the risk of just shooting a azimuth without having any plan at all.

I guess that's about what PG is doing. If not, well, at least that's how I use compass.

I'm a typical thumb compass guy, I just hold the compass on the map, and keep the map oriented such that the north lines point the same direction as the needle. If I want to run in the direction between two points on the map, it will be the same direction on the ground, so I turn my body such that it's dead ahead on the map.

Interesting. I do what J-J does, which is what I thought everyone else did who doesn't take bearings. The fact that other people do it differently (considering their actual cardinal direction) explains some of the post-race discussions I've had with other people.

I never think about cardinal directions whilst out there. Mainly because I only know what West is by looking at a mental map of the UK in my head and knowing the Lake District is in the west. That's more than I need to think about out there.

I don't think about cardinal directions either, I just think about the angle between running direction and needle. But I may use cardinal directions when I later talk about the race - and say east when I actually mean west and so on.

I used to use base plate, but taking bearings was the deal breaker, too big task to do so I ended up navigating about as I described. I also tried to use thumb compass for a while in the standard way, but there was a deal breaker too. To do the simple I really need in low visibility forests around here I - check direction - I had to first look at compass, rotate map right and then find my location and my target from the map and look the direction. I couldn't do all that with one short look, short enough to be done at full speed without slowing down. But I could look just map quite well while running, and just compass too. So I ended up doing the same thing as with base plate but now with thumb compass. having them in same hand but usually not looking both of them at the same time unless I am lost.

As Becks wire, there is millions ways to do it and there is no right one. Almost anything can be right, the key is mastering it perfectly.

I researched the Moscow units and talked with Gale for a while on the phone. The 6L has supplanted the 5L from Suunto. He says the Moscows have been doing better for the last few years but some still develop bubbles. I went ahead and ordered the 6L along with a few other goodies. If it doesn't work out I can always sell it online.

I switched to the thumb compass (Nor Compass was the original) before it even made it to North America. I remember my father taking a hack saw to my base plate so I could use it as a thumb compass after we read about it in a Norwegian O magazine.

When it came time to introduce the thumb compass to my daughter she already knew how to use it. Why? because she learned to use a compass playing catching features a few years earlier. ;-)

I find it difficult to hold a good bearing (I've never used the word "azimuth" either) with a thumb compass.

My first was a Silva Type 5 with no turning bezel, and what always seemed to happen was that I'd set up the map against the compass and take off, and the map would slide around. So it wasn't difficult to find the bearing, it was difficult to maintain it as you ran and the map slipped around. Usually you don't need a really precise bearing, but when I did, it was a problem.

The other problem with running a bearing with a thumb compass is the short visual "straight ahead' reference compared to even a small-sized baseplate. The XL and XR Moscow (thumb) baseplates are especially short. I love them for sprints, but not for longer stuff.

I use the L baseplate: It has a few cm long "straight ahead" reference, about the same as the 6L. I find when I'm in fight or just can't see far, that setting the bezel and just being careful is almost as good as a baseplate. I don't really feel the need to set the bezel, I just do it to take out the chance for error. If I knew ahead of time that the course was thick and knew that I needed to hold straight lines over long distances, I'd use a baseplate compass. Luckily, most courses aren't set that way.

A few years ago I tried to switch back to a baseplate, because I wanted to be able to thumb more accurately. I've always held the folded map in my left hand and the (baseplate) compass in my right. I found that I made a lot more mistakes. I was used to taking one quick look and seeing the map and the (thumb) compass---I could detect errors very quickly that way---I could see the needle and the north lines and it was very quick and very natural. With the baseplate, I had to take two glances, once for the map alignment and once for the compass, and it wasn't as accurate as I liked. I just found I couldn't see the "whole picture" at once.

I'd like to hear a little more from people who use a baseplate and prefer it---there are obviously some techniques that work. J-J's posts kinda blow my mind. I used to finish courses with absolutely no knowledge of the cardinal directions I'd taken. But I heard people saying things like, "I went NW to the road junction," and I realized that using rough bearings of N, NE, E, etc was faster than slowing down to set the bezel, and often that was all you needed to do.

"I'd like to hear a little more from people who use a baseplate and prefer it"

Me too, that would be enlightening.

My father uses a base plate. He tried thumb compass late 80s at age of 50+. He told me back then the main reason for not switching over was vision. To read map he needed to stop. With base plate he could read long ahead, and then use just base plate - he still could see that while running. With thumb compass he had to stop way too often just to check if the direction is right. And that made him slow. And to be faster he would have to skip reading map/bearing and that resulted mistakes.

I think he used to read map often just twice per leg (active map readings as Spike says) if leg is not long or complicated. First reading the way to the attack point to the memory and then navigating trough the memorized area by memory and bearing. Or alternatively he just picks a prominent place before circle and hits that with compass. Then second look to map to spike the control, often without bearing just using mostly map I guess. I believe this technique is quite common in age classes among most successful runners, like my father. Maybe they don't "whole leg" but reading quite long sections to memory is what they do.

The caveat base plate is in having a habit for just taking bearing without reading anything to memory. Like this you start fast but ended up guessing where you are resulting parallel mistakes. I think base plates bad reputation is based on that. So, if you read well ahead the base plate works just fine.

The caveat thumb compass (as I can see) is having habit to not read far ahead, but instead just navigating primary by comparing map and objects you see around. That slows you down and also causes slight zigzagging. I believe that lots of mediocre thumb compass users are doing that and they could improve a lot by learning to read map more ahead. It can also be those who prefer base plate may think running with thumb compass is like that and prefer that's one reason for them to use base plate instead.

Here is two ex elite orienteers and some photos of them:

Ari Anjala
Photos
http://antin.1g.fi/kuvat/2007VIP/?type=searchtags&...

Timo Karpinen
Photos http://antin.1g.fi/kuvat/2007VIP/karp7175828.JPG

What is going on here? They both have "handy" type of compass and map in opposite hand. They both are still really fast and especially Timo is famous for not making any mistakes, ever. How do they do it? I am guessing here, but I believe they may navigate a lot like Pasi Ikonen who runs without compass, but in addition they use compass for orienting the map and keeping the running direction right by using some sort of memorized angle bearing technique. I know one top runner used to have narrow tape over capsule, just to see the angle better. Might have been was Kari Sallinen, can't recall for sure.

Personally I am a horrible hybrid compass orienteer. I use a base plate/thumb compass hybrid. In night O I still take sometimes bearings, and it's good to feel those "straight ahead edges" of the compass. At daytime I often make active readings with two hands, passive readings with one hand. And near control I have map under the compass pretty regular thumb compass way, but earlier the leg I may have it in left hand if I feel it's better keep and look that way, doesn't matter with the "the read far ahead and use memorized angle bearing" technique, quite similar to regular base plate technique. I guess I am slowly going back closer to the base plate style in future as I believe my vision will not be this good forever. I hope and believe transition will go smoothly with my current technique and gear.

I use a base plate/thumb compass hybrid.

Looks like a thumb compass to me...

Ouch, I am running with a thumb compass but holding map in the opposite hand half of the time. Hybrid would have made it sound so much better.

Anyway, I tried to give some thoughts why some may prefer baseplate and why I still don't fully buy thumb compass idea as it is. I hope someone got something out of it.

Very good info Jagge, thank you!

What is a thumb compass, anyway? As far as I'm concerned, it's a compass with a strap that goes around your thumb so that it stays in place on your hand without needing to hold onto it. And a baseplate compass is one that has a capsule that rotates, allowing you to set an angle between magnetic north and the desired direction of travel. Which means that there are baseplate compasses, thumb compasses, compasses which are both (most modern thumb compasses are in this category) and compasses which are neither. The compass that PG uses is effectively neither, since he never turns the capsule and says that if you were to glue it down, he would not notice.

As a reference, here is ways I use compass.

- while running, set map at level and turn current leg on map (ring-line-ring) pointing to the direction you thing is right. You keep it there ~ two seconds (no need to look at it) to let needle settle. then you take a peek and see if the needle is parallel with map's north lines. If not, you turn about that much and do it again. Everything is done while running, no need to see any tiny map details. if you need to run slightly left or right, you just aim that much "wrong". Disadvantages: difficult if direction differs a lot from going straight. And if leg is very long yo may not be able to find the line between controls so easily.

- Same as above, but you use your thumb (placed on your current location), control ring and imaginary line in between. Allows you to approach control from any direction, but thumb may be difficult to keep placed accurately, that causes some deviation. Also you don't always aim to the control ring, so you may need to use thumb and a target seen on map. To do it you need to see the map detail, that is difficult in full speed and may force you to slow down especially if your vision isn't perfect.

- "memorized angle" technique. While looking at map I also look and memorize the angle between my planned running line and north lines. Two variations to use it. 1) I set compass to level and keep it there about two seconds to let it settle. Then I look first at the horizon to the direction I think is the right, move my eyes straight down to the capsule and compare the angle between the line my eyes moved and the needle. it should look the same as the memorized angle. If not, I correct accordingly and do it again. Advantages: no need to see map, no need to aim with compass (rotate compass body), and as a bonus you end up looking far ahead. Disadvantages: need getting used to and you may get distracted with any lines in your compass/capsule, so best if there is no markings in capsule, just transparent capsule and needle. 2) I set compass to level and point with it to the direction I think is right. I often use edges of the compass to aim the compass body right without looking at it (this is why i use the kind of compass I use). The I take a peek at the compass to see the angle between needle and compass edges (=lines on sides/lines at bottom of capsule). it should look same as the memorized angle. if not, I make correction and do it again. I keep capsule rotated to north all the time to not get distracted by the lines at the bottom of the capsule. Disadvantages: you need to have base plate or custom compass to feel the edges. And you need to rotate the compass body.

- then there is regular "take bearing and shoot" I sometimes use for night orienteering or if brain is so exhausted it isn't able memorize or understand anything.

- and then there is the thumb compass style, I rotate with map and to get it aligned right, look where I am and Where I am going to (details on map), that points the direction I should go to. I use this if I am lost or a bit unsure, need to relocate and carry on to correct direction for sure. Or while approaching carefully tricky looking control. Slow, but if you need to look at the map carefully anyway it doesn't cause any additional slowing down.

Last time I replaced my compass, I looked at the Suunto Arrow-5, I think. I took it out for a test drive though, and as much as I wanted to get a Suunto product, I felt like the needle was unstable. It wobbled quite a bit when I ran in certain directions. (North-South had different stability than East-West). I got another Moscow compass instead. Hopefully the Arrow 6 is more stable.

May I ask what is a Suunto Arrow 5-L, cant find it on the Suunto website. Perhaps another of their models that are unavailable for half the world?

6 is the latest version of the 5.