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

Is the Forerunner 955 Solar worth it, or should I consider another model or brand? Update: 955 Solar purchased! Battery life impressions inside! :D

tiku
over 2 years ago

Hello everyone. I'm looking for a replacement for my old Forerunner 645 Music, and I'm looking for the Forerunner with the most autonomy that best suits my watch uses, both for daily use and for 2-3 hours of GPS with music per week.

And I have a candidate, the 955 Solar.

But I have doubts about the autonomy, and I would like to ask you.

I want to ask you two basic questions:

  1. I would like the battery in smartwatch mode to last about 20 days. This would mean a consumption of 5% per day.

    I don't want notifications or similar. Just clock, steps, and HR. That's enough for me.

    I have seen around here, in the "Battery consumption: initial observations?" thread, thanks to the contributions of mates like @derek87 or @FlipStone (thanks so much, dudes!), that there are even people who have only a drain of 3-4% per day. Or at least it was like that.

    Are there still people with that consumption? Do they really exist?

  2. The Battery Saver mode would help me a lot to not be aware of the battery for many more days, but in battery saver mode, are steps, FR, and sleep tracked?

    Because one option would be to leave the watch always in battery saver mode and, if this mode counts the metrics I want, remove it only for my 2-3 hours of weekly GPS.

  3. This more than a question is something I have almost decided. I think I will go for the 955 Solar since I live in a VERY sunny place, and as soon as there is a sale on the model I will surely appreciate the small battery boosts. And more so because my GPS runs are with music, which consumes more, and I would somehow try to balance that fact.

As you can see, my main concern is to see if there are people, as I have read here (but with other older firmwares), that, with a simple configuration of the 955, have a battery consumption of only 3-4% per day.

If so, because that's what I'm most interested in, I'll start looking for the watch soon.

But many times reading the forum, with all the battery problems, it's scary to invest so much money if it will not last long. And, furthermore, the 255 Music is another good option (although the GPS mode with music falls almost 4 hours compared with the 955)...

Many, MANY thanks to all in advance :)

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 6125703

    i'm guessing that maybe the older firmware has to do with it. i find it hard to believe that it would have double the battery life of the 955 in full battery saver mode.

    interestingly Tiku's estimates suggest the estimates on the 955 are conservative. i get 30 days (96% charged right now) with everything off as my estimate (don't know how to disable activity tracking and if that makes a huge difference since i didn't see anything change when i fiddled with the wellness settings). Tiku is getting that sort of esimtate with HR on. (with HR on, i get 24 days estimate)

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    For what it's worth in this conversation:

    My full charged have offered about 21-23 days with activities in total.... But never has the watch, at 100%, shown me that estimate.

    It may be a battery calibration or history issue, but personally, I don't pay much attention to the value it shows xD

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to derek87

    Tiku's estimates probably include solar charging so that makes it tough to compare. The 955 can charge about 0.5% per hour according to specs in watch mode (double that in perfect bright not too hot conditions with charge > 10% < 90%).

    Ray got clearly double the battery life for 255 and I cannot imagine that's just the firmware. The only explanation I can think of is that the 255 has a different (slower) CPU that's more efficient in standby. In GPS mode though the 955 lasts longer since that leverages the GPS chipset instead.

    Also note that Garmin does spec the battery saver for the Fenix series and those are bit longer (7 likely has a bigger battery with an older chipset):

    • Fenix 7: Battery Saver Watch Mode: Up to 57 days
    • Fenix 7s: Battery Saver Watch Mode: Up to 38 days

    I did notice in comparisons that the 955 is quicker to load and display large tracks. So likely it has a newer more performant chipset but possibly higher standby consumption. At least in theory but don't really know.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to derek87

    The 955 battery saver estimate of 31 days seems accurate. I mentioned before that my 955 lasted 21 days, starting at ~75%, with battery saver enabled all day and sleep mode at night (battery saver + HR). So I'd guess continuous battery saver definitely will last 31 days. But again full battery saver is rarely useful, since the watch basically becomes a $10 casio.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to Luc

    Actually, I barely went out home when sun was still out.

    Besides, it's also winter here, so my runs were with sunset light or, directly, at night.

    Sure I had some nice experience with the solar charge but, for now, they have been only a few.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 6125703

    This will be my last comment here, as I realize this is going far off topic for the FR955 forum... maybe I'll start a new thread in the FR255 forum after I collect more observations with mine.

    I started the FR255 experiment yesterday of a lowest power mode that is not battery saver mode. This basically turns the watch into a fitness tracker for "steps" and "floors climbed". Heart rate is disabled and I'm avoiding starting a GPS-based activity. I also have bluetooth disabled on the watch, backlight set to 10% brightness, no gesture light, and a watchface that does not display seconds.  I let it continue to do its sleep mode based on my configured sleep and wake times. Since the heart rate sensor is disabled, it did not do HRV or sleep phase analysis last night, and had a pretty boring morning report.

    At full charge the Garmin prediction is 23d/30d depending on battery saver toggle. After 18 hours, it is still showing 99% and the same estimates, so I think they're just capped now in the firmware. But the Battery Graph app is projecting a 77d battery life at the current rate.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 6125703

    That's really great!

    Your set ups is very similar to the one I use. The "only" differences are HR always ON and BT ON. I like those stats, but I thinik we are using a very similar config :)

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 6125703

    grateful for you insights and experiences and will hop onto the 255 forum every now and then to see if you have some reflections posted.

    i'd love to test it out on the 955, but i wouldn't want to give up my HR data, let alone seeing all the other metrics on my watch face at fast glance.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 6125703

    I said I was done, but have one more comment!  The Garmin prediction continues to be stuck at 23d/30d about 27 hrs after starting this discharge cycle. The battery level stayed at 99% until about 22 hrs and then dropped to 98%.

    The Battery Graph widget seems like it must calculate its forecast with whole percent figures. It was forecasting 89d the last time I looked while the watch reported 99%.  The first time I looked after it dropped to 98%, the widget's forecast dropped to 51d. Now it is 55d and I imagine it will keep rising until the jump from 98 to 97%. I don't know if that's a Connect IQ limit on battery level precision or just a choice in this widget.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to 6125703

    It's a connectiq limitation (or a general system limitation), battery percentage is only reported in whole percentages.