Battery consumption: initial observations?

So not an idle scenario, but I have done an ultra trail on saturday where I used all satelites+multiband (had the track loaded, but didn't use the map at all so that won't have an impact except for turn alerts) but that used a liiiitle less then 4%/hr (3.8- to 3.9%/hr). This with about 9 hours of recording and with quite a bit of sun but certainly not full time (luckily).

That would mean 25-26 hrs of all+multiband, which is properly above spec, great imo and I think a case where solar really adds (though even without solar it would easily last of course).

thanks for the update FlipStone. hope it was a good race. this is encouraging information. i've only used Multiband once, but with my All Satellites usage, i'm consistently seeing 3% ticked off for 55-70minute runs such that i think i can confidently say i burn about 3%/hr with All Satellites, without even diving into DCR's tool. that too is above spec and aided by a little (but not significant) sun during my usual run around sunrise time. 

I used few time GC (Android) for making some settings at my FR955 Solar - for example: new data screens or changing GNSS mode at activities. After that I experienced some battery drain: about 2-3% in half hour. Anybody experienced the same?

i have not encountered this with the iOS version of GC.

I continue to experience battery drain with my 955 Solar, even after the 11.12 update. Last night it went down by ~ 20% during sleep, even with the phone disconnected from the watch. 

An update on the post activity drain, apparently connectiq fields keep on running even after the activity is finished and you're in the main  watchface again. This explains the drain with connectiq fields keeping a connection to an external sensor (auxhr, stryd) but can also cause drain in other specific fields actively doing things in te background.

https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-955-series/301550/bug-connectiq-field-keeps-running-in-background-after-finishing-activity

good follow-up FlipStone.

a slight shift in topic: i know these battery readings are not perfect and subject to "smart calibration" but i continue to encounter little oddities including one yesterday: i charged it up fully to 100% at 11am, it dropped to 99% at 2pm, i went outside for about 15 minutes but didn't get much solar according to the glance. but then an hour later, it went back to 100% and stayed there until almost 9pm. this morning, at 8am, it's sitting at 98%.

overall, i still find a consistent burn of 5-7%/day (5-6% for a couple watch faces, and 6-7% for another) and 3%/hr for All Satellite mode GPS activities.

yet, i occasionally encounter some brief fast drops in battery life but they always seem to re-stabilize. this "uptick" was a first for me (except for the case when i rebooted my watch and it came back up with a higher percentage). i would have thought that after nearly 7 weeks, the battery calibration would be pretty stable.

i find that other than the bug where you gotta restart (iq fields still running) the idle battery is just not great compared to my 935. my numbers are similar to yours, which means it needs charging approx. weekly, with the same usage (granted, with less satellites, slower UI, no touch, no solar) i could charge the 935 every 2 weeks

i tried to wear both without any activity for about a month after the 955 had all metrics calibrated, same face and effectively the 955 died after 1.9 week and the 935 after 3.1 week. note that this is close to spec for the 955 but its interesting, im not sure why the 935 lasts much longer. i didnt get the 945 for the same reason, its really nice not to have to worry about charging when you're not doing daily activities

great info, kangsterizer. i too had a 935. for that watch, when injured, i was able to get 16-17 days out of it in smart watch mode using a watch face that showed 1hz HR and seconds. it used up about 5%/hr for GPS activities. i can only speculate that you were using a more efficient watch face than i was to get 3+ weeks, but i think it's totally believable.

i bought the 945LTE last year thinking it would, in spite of its smaller size, and maybe smaller battery, deliver similar performance to my 935 given the same 2 week smartwatch mode spec. it didn't -- for that same watch face (JBlack) i could only get about 11 days if i extrapolated without any activities (never did that, but i'm pretty confident in the nearly 9%/day burn rate for smartwatch mode).  even with the default watch face showing seconds and hr, there is no way that watch could achieve 2 weeks of smartwatch mode. for activities, it burned GPS at 3%/hr. so it did match that spec.

my guess is there are some other hardware calls being made that make the 945LTE and 955 less efficient than the 935. what makes me wonder is who is behind testing and publishing the specs for these watches.

i'm totally pleased with my 955 battery after 1.5 months. except for the couple oddities, i've mentioned, it is legitimately living up to spec, which is all i had hoped for. for me, it is outperforming the battery endurance of my 935 for my use case (5-6 hrs GPS activities) due to the more efficient GPS, even with me using All Satellites. Solar, in the rare cases (vacation/traveling) when i'm outside, gives me another boost.