Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

955 vs 955 solar - is battery life noticeably longer

Sergey_Kessel
over 2 years ago

Hi there. 

I am considering changing my 935 (had 3 of those) to 955, mainly to get new bells and whistles. 

Cannot decide is solar is worth it. I normally run mornings and in summer it may be sunny, but still around 2-3 hours after sunrise. 

Will I get considerably longer battery life with solar (say 2-3 days) or not in this scenario.

Outside of training life is mainly an office life, so we speak of 1.5-2 hours running/ day. 

Is there any downside of solar version (like worse viewability of screen or anything like that). 

Thanks! 

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to derek87

    Thanks Derek. was just busy reading that comprehensive comparison!

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to S.M.R.

    I didn't think about non-solar when I got a good deal on solar and so today is my 3rd day with 955 solar. I was sitting next to my sunny window taking calls and in about 3 hours 955 solar upped the battery percentage from 69 to 71 this morning, that's about it! Fyi, direct sunlight but behind a glass window! Also I read some people complained about display brightness of solar model, I couldn't compare as I have only solar model but am happy with brightness or display quality of solar model.

    I personally like solar ring around the bezel which adds nice touch and style to this model! But is $150 dollar extra worth it for just solar tech? No, I won't pay for it alone! But if you like or get a nice deal just go for it. I honestly thought Garmin should have added at least a bigger battery like +100 mAmp or so than non-solar to justify that $150 extra! I like that little extra tech in there as a nerd lol! 

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to derek87

    Derek thanks, very useful link. 

    From pictures it is obvious that contrast is visibly higher on non-solar, so it is a tradeoff of 2 days vs visibility. 

    Looks I need to check that in shop and compare to 935

    Tx

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to Miky

    I dunno- that might be an 'up' side.  the solar ring is kinda' reflective looking.  aesthetics are subjective of course, but the black ring of the basic model is just a simpler looking face.  I prefer it.

    Miky said:
    The downside of NON solar is a huge black bezel instead of solar panel
  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to morey000

    I agree, but on the same note I liked FR 255's simpler black bezel, well suited for its size and labels. 

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    I got both 955 to compare and chose the non solar. The screen is better.

    The solar screen is more reflexive and also has some chroma reflex (like a rainbow). 

    The solar screen has tiny red dots between pixels. 

    Solar screen has a more reddish background vs a more black in the non solar screen. So better contrast for the regular screen.

    Finally, the solar ring looks fancy and modern but is no good to have it reflecting the sun in your eyes when you are trying to read screen info. 

    When I'm paddling or running it's already hard to read small text in the watch while moving, so I want the better and crispier screen I can get. Longer battery is welcome, but not at the cost of worse usability. 

    Oh, and some say about more touch delay in solar version, maybe due to extra layer. Or maybe due to extra function processing making the watch slower. I did notice some of that, but not really sure if it was a real thing. 

    And ah, the non solar is 1g lighter weight. Huge difference lol! Rofl

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    My battery life on my Forerunner 955 Solar has been really great the past few days for some reason.  I'm only using about 6% battery per day over the past 3 days with a 5 mile run each of those days (GPS set to auto), full-time activity tracking enabled and pulse oximeter enabled during sleep.  I did power off my watch completely and leave it off for a bit for the first time in a long while prior to those 3 days.  I noticed my sleep tracking and my runs both used about half the battery that they usually do during that spell (each run used about 2% and sleep about 1% per night).  Maybe this watch benefits from a reboot every few days like many cell phones do.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to partyman66

    interesting data point.

    overall, as long as my phone is near my watch when i sleep, i have found my battery consumption very reliable overall with about 6.5%/day use for Big and Easy which has 1 hz seconds which turn off while sleeping (this is similar to Coros Apex Like). this is dropped down to the 5%/day range when i have days with significant sun. using All Satellites, i seem to burn consistently 3%/day using All Satellites.

    so for a typical week where i use about 5 hours of GPS running, i am about 40% after 7 days. so i am consistently in the 11.5-12 days of endurance for my usage pattern (although i usually charge when i get down to around 20%)

    which watch face are you using?

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to derek87

    I'm using Big Easy watch face without seconds enabled and my data fields are battery percentage, solar intensity, floors climbed, steps and next sunrise or sunset time.

    I find that if I use heartbeat it has a noticeable impact on my battery life. 

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to partyman66

    makes good sense. i really like the Big Easy watch face but happy to take the small battery hit to get the always on seconds and HR. 6.5%/day is good enough for me.