Home› General Training Discussions

Trisports store credit to spend: Garmin 935 vs. Fenix 5

Larry PetersLarry Peters
in General Training Discussions
Hi,

For better or worse, I ended up with a ~$670 credit with the new trisports (This is basically due to the closing of the old trisports, them not accepting a return of some extra stuff I bought before they announced closure & new management giving me a generous credit for it).

My 1 year old Suunto Ambit 2S will barely read the ANT+ data from my new P1 powertap pedals, and my Suunto Ambit will only pair with one power meter at a time (so if I want to do a brick this summer w/ my powertap pedals and then a Stryd PM, I'll have to unpair the pedals & pair the stryd before taking off, kills transition time). I contacted Suunto and they didn't offer much help. So I'm planning to use the credit to upgrade my GPS (I was probably going to upgrade regardless, but this gives me money to use).

One triathlete I talked to and this video both seem to recommend the 935 OVER the fenix because it has a lower profile and is much lighter. This is a surprise to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBkMMPWxpmE

However, the 935 has a lower water depth rating (50 M vs. 100 M), and is made of plastic instead of metal, so presumably is less durable (with that much of a credit, I could get the sapphire glass w/ wifi to eliminate that 935 advantage and increase durability).

DC rainmaker doesn't seem to have a side-by-side comparison, but says this about the 935: "If you’re looking for a great little triathlon watch that has all the features of the Fenix 5 without the price tag of it – then the FR935 is a very solid option."

Any thoughts?

I do like the idea of a lighter, more comfortable watch (and don't mind saving $100+, that I'm sure I could find another good use for on trisports.com), but I definitely want long-term durability and I have had water resistance fail (in fact, I'm starting to see a bit of condensation form on the inside of my Suunto screen on cold runs, and it is only 14 months old).

Thanks!
Tagged:

Comments

  • John WithrowJohn Withrow
    I have the 935 and have no complaints.  I can't imagine why you would pay extra for a heavier watch with the exact same features.  

    The 935 is the first gps watch I actually wear during the day to work as a "normal" watch.
  • Larry PetersLarry Peters
    Awesome, thanks @John Withrow , that is what I"m thinking! (Unless the durability/waterproof concerns are real. I'm interested to hear if anyone on the team has had issues with other garmins breaking down earlier than expected, and they feel the metal/sapphire would have prevented it.)

    Some suggest that certain people may choose the fenix for improved aesthetics, but that is definitely not an issue for me.
  • Al TruscottAl Truscott
    I don't have either of *these* watches, but I have been using the Fenix series for over three years now, so I was motivated by this post to look at the features of these two side-by-side. They seem to have the exact same software/firmware and sensors. So it is true your choice should come down to weight and price. As to durability, my experience over the past two decades is, sports watches today are like computers were ten or more years ago and cares were 20 or more years ago - changing so fast that gettin a new one every 2-3 years is something many people seem to want to do. I would NOT expect that the watch you buy today, you will still be using five years from now. Three years is the probable life span, not in terms of durability - I can still use the funky Garmin I bought eleven years ago for running,  but would never dream of it, and my wife still uses my eight year old Garmin as her bike computer, etc. - but in terms of features. Who knows what will be integrated next into the wrist computer? Direct Zwift control? Transmission of data to your sunglasses for real HUD?

    If I were to replace my current Fenix 3 today, I would get the 935. And I say this as one who has been wearing a Fenix all day every day now since 2014, after wearing the same cheap replaceable Casio calculator watch for decades (not the same watch, but a series of $20 throwaways when the strap broke or the screen fuzzed out.)

    I will say switching bands, even as easily as that video demonstrates, is not something I would integrate into my life. I will also say that I have a small suspicion that the rotator cuff discomfort I have in my left shoulder when swimming  might be from the mass on my wrist I have to swing around every stroke - it's only three ounces, but...1.5 ounces might be less to haul up and around each stroke?

    I have the sapphire glass on my current F3, having had the normal glass on the 2 and 3 I had before. On none of those watches did I notice any issues either with scratching or condensation, so I doubt it's worth the extra $$, which is significant.

    As to HR while swimming - that's another issue. I've got two negative thoughts. One, I did have a watch/HR strap combo from Polar back in the early '00s which showed me HR while swimming in fresh and salt water. But in the pool, it would only be useful if I wore a suit with a top; every time I did a flip turn, the strap dislodged. When I did use it in OWS and races, I did not find it useful at all. But then, swimming competitively since I was 11, I may have a well ingrained sense of just how hard I am working and that, plus a good stopwatch or wall clock, is all I need for training, and during a race, what am I gonna do different By knowing my HR, which is a stroke disrupter to begin with. And I've already got two HR straps which give me cadence, ground contact, vertical oscillation, etc, as well as a Stryd.

    Conclusion - if I had $670 to throw @ tri-goodies, and I didn't already have a Fenix 3 and a Stryd, I'd buy a 935 and the Stryd footpad. Power while running will soon be superior to and overlap significantly with HR data.
  • Jeff HornJeff Horn
    As a Fenix5 owner, I have to say that I am a bit dissapointed in the product.  Came from using a 920xt which worked fine.  I thought that the Fenix5 would free me from the chest strap for HR.  I had read DCR's reviews that the Fenix5 was much better than the F3 in terms of consistency and accuracy compared to chest HRM.  Sure outdoor cycling was a bit inconsistent, but running seemed ok in his review.  Well I've had mine since August and the HR is so screwy that I tend to disable it more often than not, and am now back to chest based HR.  I've done the tricks to try to resolve the issue, but every time I run HR spikes about 10-12 minutes in to about 169, when I know that I'm running no harder than 140.  It resolves after 10-15 minutes and return to where it should but always skews my data.  It also doesn't pair very well to my quark PM on the bike.  Never had this issue with prior watches.  Is this Garmin's way of getting me to buy their own pedal based PM?  Seems like it lol.  Every time I get on the trainer I have to manually pair the PM to the watch.  So annoying.  Anyway will all this said, I think that it is way overpriced for how it performs day to day.  So I guess my vote would be for 935.  
  • Larry PetersLarry Peters
    Wow, ok, @Jeff Horn and @Al Truscott , that is very helpful! Thanks a million!

    I think the 935 with a HR strap is the way to go then! :)

    I don't want to rely on the wrist-based HR, based on so many complaints about it.

    Good to know that the sapphire didn't appear to provide any additional durability. And, I agree, for better (technology advances) or worse (waste of resources), I don't think these things are intended to be used for many years, @Al Truscott .

  • Satish PunnaSatish Punna
    I have the 935- its nice and light and perfect for racing (although the round screen is n't as perfect as the old square form factor of the 920xt).

    During IMAZ my HR strap battery died and I didn't even notice it until I checked the files later.  The wrist based HR of the 935 took over seamlessly. 

    I only wear the watch when training and racing.  It is nice enough to wear all the time but If it were my everyday watch I would probably choose the looks of the Fenix. 
  • Marc TanguayMarc Tanguay
    I briefly had the Fenix 5 and wore it for about a week.  Great outdoor fitness watch and it looks like a real, everyday, rugged, fashion piece.

    However, it just felt substantially big and bulky compared to prior Forerunner’s (920XT & 735XT).  I just could not imagine trying to fit it under the wetsuit, and I noticed its hefty weight during the couple of runs that I used it for.

    Long story short...I returned it for the 935, and am extremely happy with the reduced weight and profile.  True - the 935 does feel more “plastic” than the Fenix 5 — and its it not going to be mistaken for a expensive everyday watch.  But for a Triathlon training and racing device — its unbeatable.  Does everything that the Fenix5 does - and includes WiFi.  Has enough battery for a Full IM distance versus the 735XT.  I wear it everyday, and its actually been surprisingly quite resistant to scratching or signs of wear.
  • Larry PetersLarry Peters
    Awesome, thanks @Marc Tanguay and @Satish Punna !
  • Gary LewisGary Lewis
    Fenix 5 has the running power metrics built into it.  It should give you the same info as stryd if you use the right chest strap.
  • Bill BejinBill Bejin
    Saw the Garmin rep. on Tuesday.  We had a conversation about these two devices and the wrist based HR.  He seemed to think that the lighter FR935 would have better accuracy on the HR because of the weight.  Otherwise, they were basically the same.  Running situation, not triathlon.
  • Larry PetersLarry Peters
    Sweet, thanks @Gary Lewis and @William Bejin !

    Yeah, that was my impression, but I bought a Stryd already, @Gary Lewis Thanks!

  • Brian HaganBrian Hagan
    Glad I found this forum as I would like to get a new watch.  I think I am sold on the 935, but have 3 questions:

    1) Does the battery last a long time.  My 920 went ran out after 5 hours yesterday (running) and it has never lasted a full IM.  I like to have it as a backup for the bike and of course the primary for the run.

    2) I assume it will pair with the Stryd for power metrics.  Correct?

    3) Is it good in the pool?  Any accuracy issues?

    Thanks!
  • Derrek SanksDerrek Sanks
    I just listened to DC Rainmaker say he would choose the 935 because it's lighter. Said otherwise the watches are the same, same firmware, same HR, etc. 
  • tim cronktim cronk


    @Brian Hagan Something is not right with your 920xt ... Mine lasts upwards of 15hrs in GPS mode... Having said that I am upgrading soon and the 935 is top of my list for no other reason than battery life.... Cut and paste from a review...I will plan on using it on the R2R2R and 100miler... 

    Epic Battery Life

    For the potential ultramarathoner, the 935’s battery life is really attractive. According to Garmin, the Forerunner 935 can last up to 24 hours with GPS and heart-rate tracking, and  up to 60 hours with the less-accurate UltraTrac mode. These features are key to looking to jam-pack a weekend full of sports activities. I used the watch for almost an entire week of heavy use (1-2 hours per day) without worrying about it running out of battery.

  • Brian HaganBrian Hagan
    @tim cronk awesome! I suspect my Stryd pm uses a bit of battery.  I have a gift card for REI, so I am going to get one this week.  
  • Larry PetersLarry Peters
    I got the 935 & really like it @Brian Hagan . I'm still exploring many functions. It seems to track yards in the pool pretty well.

    The optical HR has been surprisingly good, I think. I still use the chest strap for workouts (unless I forget it). But I really like having HR data across my whole day & night (to see how low it gets while I'm resting, for example). With one click, it shows you a graph of the last 4 hours of HR, and that is cool.

    It pairs with my P1 pedals really well. I haven't gotten my Stryd up and running yet.
  • Larry PetersLarry Peters
    I've been running my Suunto Ambit 2S & Garmin 935 side-by-side for about 2 weeks. I have NOT set up my Garmin connect account yet. But so far, my Suunto DOES find satellites a lot faster than the Garmin. It could be because I've been using the Suunto in this geographical area for over a year, so it is more accustomed to locating the satellites here? Or maybe there is an optimization that occurs once I set up Garmin Connect? I hope the Garmin does get faster, because I do really like it overall. But it is disappointing how much longer it takes to find GPS coordinates before starting a workout. @Brian Hagan
  • Al TruscottAl Truscott
    Larry Peters said:
    ... my Suunto DOES find satellites a lot faster than the Garmin...it is disappointing how much longer it takes to find GPS coordinates before starting a workout...
    Do you have the Garmin option to use GLONOSS turned to ON? (Using Russian satellites in addition to US GPS)
  • Larry PetersLarry Peters
    Outstanding @Al Truscott ! The GLONOSS was turned off. That must be the default state. Thanks a million! I just turned it on for run & bike. There is so much functionality and so many settings to explore with this thing. It is awesome. I look forward to less work in the summer & I can plan around more with this.

    I look forward to seeing if it locates GPS signal a lot faster now.

    @Brian Hagan , when you get yours, here is the link for turning on GLONOSS in a 935 :) . Also, @Brian Hagan
    , I find the battery life to be outstanding on my 935 so far. And it recharges very quickly.

    https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/forerunner935/EN-US/GUID-768E7F89-0A67-4137-9864-6FF50BF4DACA.html
Sign In or Register to comment.