Jump to content
Peter

Garmin 945

Recommended Posts

Considering the price (even at wholesale), I'll stick to my 935 thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crowies crushed nuts said:

What does the 935 do that the 735 doesn't? 

Battery life is the big one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Crowies crushed nuts said:

Never had an issue with the battery on my 735?? 

How much battery life?  Think the issue is that a 735 won't do over a 10hr IM..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Crowies crushed nuts said:

Never had an issue with the battery on my 735?? 

I think it's mainly for long course and people worried about the cutoffs! It's advertised as being up to 24 hours whereas the 735 is up to 16 hours (so if you take a realistic 20% off those for non-laboratory conditions then the 735 will only last for somebody going sub 13.

There ain't much in it. I was happy with my 920 until Rebel did the deal and I got it mainly for the wrist based HR (which has no real use in training, it just pleases my data nerd to know my RHR etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Crowies crushed nuts said:

If you are going over 13 hours in an ironman there's no way you need your watch towards the end because you're most likely walking 

Yeah well some would say it's not the Garmin that's failing if you're over 13hrs...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Crowies crushed nuts said:

If you are going over 13 hours in an ironman there's no way you need your watch towards the end because you're most likely walking 

The further past 16 hours you go, the more you would need it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Crowies crushed nuts said:

If you are going over 13 hours in an ironman there's no way you need your watch towards the end because you're most likely walking 

My 920XT died at 96km into a 100km Ultra run. This meant that it did not upload to Strava! If it is not on Strava it did not happen.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the fact the 935 can charge on the go, and keep recording. Unlike the others. 

My next event could take up to 28 hrs ( if I make the start line and the cutoffs). 

Sometimes stuff is just bigger than an IM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ironnerd said:

My 920XT died at 96km into a 100km Ultra run. This meant that it did not upload to Strava! If it is not on Strava it did not happen.

You should try to run a little faster :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Released, and price is out!  $949 watch only, $1149 performer bundle.

Pretty sure I paid 500 for my 310xt (with hrm) at initial release.  Triathlon's expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/04/2019 at 1:27 PM, Turts said:

I like the fact the 935 can charge on the go, and keep recording. Unlike the others. 

My next event could take up to 28 hrs ( if I make the start line and the cutoffs). 

Sometimes stuff is just bigger than an IM. 

Yeah but this a Triathlon pitched watch being talked about on a Triathlon website so probably fair enough relating it's battery life to the length of an Ironman Triathlon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nealo said:

Yeah but this a Triathlon pitched watch being talked about on a Triathlon website so probably fair enough relating it's battery life to the length of an Ironman Triathlon.

Yes, but IM has a  time limit of 17 hrs mostly. Some triathlons are even longer, like Norseman.  There is more to triathlon than Ironman. 

The 735 with a battery life of 16 less some, as quoted above, still won't cut it. 

So my comment is fair. 

If you were doing norseman and wanted  your watch to last the distance, charging on the fly would be useful. 

Some stuff is bigger than IM. And it can still be a triathlon able to be talked about on a triathlon site. 

But you are correct. Irrelevant for the trannies approved 13hr IM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dcr says it has 36hr battery without music playback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Turts said:

Yes, but IM has a  time limit of 17 hrs mostly. Some triathlons are even longer, like Norseman.  There is more to triathlon than Ironman. 

The 735 with a battery life of 16 less some, as quoted above, still won't cut it. 

So my comment is fair. 

If you were doing norseman and wanted  your watch to last the distance, charging on the fly would be useful. 

Some stuff is bigger than IM. And it can still be a triathlon able to be talked about on a triathlon site. 

But you are correct. Irrelevant for the trannies approved 13hr IM. 

I think I get what you are saying... is it some things are bigger than IM..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Turts said:

Yes, but IM has a  time limit of 17 hrs mostly. Some triathlons are even longer, like Norseman. 

If you were doing norseman and wanted  your watch to last the distance, charging on the fly would be useful. 

So this watch (the garmin 945) would be perfect for Norseman and not even need charging on the fly?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, goughy said:

Released, and price is out!  $949 watch only, $1149 performer bundle.

Pretty sure I paid 500 for my 310xt (with hrm) at initial release.  Triathlon's expensive.

I paid $999 for my Fenix 3HR when it was released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, pieman said:

I think I get what you are saying... is it some things are bigger than IM..

 

 

Don't be ridiculous 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nealo said:

So this watch (the garmin 945) would be perfect for Norseman and not even need charging on the fly?

Dunno. What's the battery life quoted? I haven't seen it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Turts said:

Dunno. What's the battery life quoted? I haven't seen it. 

Look up about 5 posts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, nealo said:

So this watch (the garmin 945) would be perfect for Norseman and not even need charging on the fly?

 

25 minutes ago, Turts said:

Dunno. What's the battery life quoted? I haven't seen it. 

 

24 minutes ago, pieman said:

Look up about 5 posts...

Ah got it, sorry, missed that. 

Yep, that would do u for Norseman. 

Get on it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here is doing Norseman?

But I guess it's good to know it will last the distance of a Sprint, Olympic, 70.3, Ironman and a Norseman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, nealo said:

I don't think anyone here is doing Norseman?

But I guess it's good to know it will last the distance of a Sprint, Olympic, 70.3, Ironman and a Norseman.

Stop it, you will get blocked. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bored@work said:

I paid $999 for my Fenix 3HR when it was released.

The Fenix are a dearer more premium model than the forerunner series.

Happy so far with my VA3.  Will keep my F3 for tri's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its been a while since some people did a race on this site but you know what?  They actually officially time you now.  Have done for a while.

When you cross the finish line some races even have the time overhead.

About the only time you really need a watch is for pacing of the run. So needing a watch for 17 hours or longer is BS.

It's all about putting it on strava and if you are taking 16:40 to do an Ironman, I don't think bragging about it on strava is a good look.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Peter said:

.... if you are taking 16:40 to do an Ironman....

I resemble that remark.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Peter said:

I know its been a while since some people did a race on this site but you know what?  They actually officially time you now.  Have done for a while.

When you cross the finish line some races even have the time overhead.

About the only time you really need a watch is for pacing of the run. So needing a watch for 17 hours or longer is BS.

It's all about putting it on strava and if you are taking 16:40 to do an Ironman, I don't think bragging about it on strava is a good look.

If I'm chasing a certain times, especially in a 70.3, I want to know what my splits are.  Also it's good for analyzing your race data in Garmin Connect if it comes up as a multisport. 

Edited by zed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Katz said:

I resemble that remark.......

ditto :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

You may have to prove you didn't cut the course. :)

Especially us WA folk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

That is where I was going. ;)

Hahahaha, we are a bit slow over here.

Which is clearly why we need to cut the course and have devices which have a battery life of longer than 17 hours.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zed said:

If I'm chasing a certain times, especially in a 70.3, I want to know what my splits are.  Also it's good for analyzing your race data in Garmin Connect if it comes up as a multisport. 

You are confirming my point. You are doing your 70.3 under 7hrs.  No watch will go flat in that time.

But if you took triple that, you aren't needing the watch for splits.  You just want it to brag on strava or really for company. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter said:

You are confirming my point. You are doing your 70.3 under 7hrs.  No watch will go flat in that time.

But if you took triple that, you aren't needing the watch for splits.  You just want it to brag on strava or really for company. ;) 

Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter said:

I know its been a while since some people did a race on this site but you know what?  They actually officially time you now.  Have done for a while.

When you cross the finish line some races even have the time overhead.

About the only time you really need a watch is for pacing of the run. So needing a watch for 17 hours or longer is BS.

It's all about putting it on strava and if you are taking 16:40 to do an Ironman, I don't think bragging about it on strava is a good look.

I did one race this year without a watch.  My timing band was not picked up by the timing mats, so I have a finish time but no splits.

More relevant, almost no races have exact distances. Even the same race varies slightly from year to year. So I need the distance recorded on my GPS watch to compare how fast I actually went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rob said:

I did one race this year without a watch.  My timing band was not picked up by the timing mats, so I have a finish time but no splits.

And yet you are still alive.  

You still finished the race.

You still got a medal

You can still brag about finishing it.

Does anyone go back to a race they did 7 years ago to go over their splits? And if so, whats the point.  You are older.  Maybe trained harder or not. The weather is different. It means absolutely nothing.

I get you need it for pacing as I have said above. But you don't need it swimming 3.8k or for that matter riding 180k. You can just use a bike computer for that given looking directly at it will be better than taking your eyes off the road and looking at your wrist.

When you aren't going to win or be in a place to win, your watch really isn't going to make you faster.  Its all the training you did. And for those sessions you had your all important watch.

Fark i sound like Brett Sutton.

Just do YOUR race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter said:

I know its been a while since some people did a race on this site but you know what?  They actually officially time you now.  Have done for a while.

When you cross the finish line some races even have the time overhead.

About the only time you really need a watch is for pacing of the run. So needing a watch for 17 hours or longer is BS.

It's all about putting it on strava and if you are taking 16:40 to do an Ironman, I don't think bragging about it on strava is a good look.

Agree for sprint and possibly OD but after that when nutrition and boredom start coming into play it gives me something to do; when to eat, this lap vs the last lap time-wise etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter said:

And yet you are still alive.  

You still finished the race.

You still got a medal

You can still brag about finishing it.

Does anyone go back to a race they did 7 years ago to go over their splits? And if so, whats the point.  You are older.  Maybe trained harder or not. The weather is different. It means absolutely nothing.

I get you need it for pacing as I have said above. But you don't need it swimming 3.8k or for that matter riding 180k. You can just use a bike computer for that given looking directly at it will be better than taking your eyes off the road and looking at your wrist.

When you aren't going to win or be in a place to win, your watch really isn't going to make you faster.  Its all the training you did. And for those sessions you had your all important watch.

Fark i sound like Brett Sutton.

Just do YOUR race.

Image result for in my day meme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My watch gives me data. This makes me happy and increases my enjoyment of the sport. I like my watch and shall be getting a 945 as soon as I can slip it past the boss ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, truck said:

Agree for sprint and possibly OD but after that when nutrition and boredom start coming into play it gives me something to do; when to eat, this lap vs the last lap time-wise etc etc

But you aren't taking 16:40 to do an Ironman so the whole battery life doesn't apply to you.

13 minutes ago, monkie said:

My watch gives me data. This makes me happy and increases my enjoyment of the sport. I like my watch and shall be getting a 945 as soon as I can slip it past the boss ;)

I used to like looking at your data too.  Then I get depressed at the pace you run

Edited by Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter said:

Does anyone go back to a race they did 7 years ago to go over their splits? And if so, whats the point.  You are older.  Maybe trained harder or not. The weather is different. It means absolutely nothing.

I might not go back 7 years, but I definitely go back over my race data.

Everyone's different, but for me, if I'm not learning from my races, why am I doing it.  Why did I run slower this race, was my bike wattage too high, or maybe my power wasn't constant enough. Maybe a different cadence had an affect.  Did I run the first kilometre too fast (or maybe too slow).  The more race data I have, the more I learn how to improve.

During the bike and run I glance at my Garmin from time to time to confirm it matches how I feel. It is after the race that I spend the most time going through the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow people can be interested in looking at their data post race too.  Looking at their numbers compared to their training, analysing where things went right and wrong. 

I rarely look at my watch during the race, except as reminders for nutrition and maybe fact check how I feel I am running (or not) as the race progresses. 

My IM's were done with a basic stopwatch (2006), graduating to a 910 and then 920XT. It did not go flat.

Since my last IM in 2015 I have had a Fenix 3 and now the 935 as 24/7 (including training and racing) watches. 

I'm interested in the music addition for the 945, but that would be a limited training and at work, feature to use.  It wouldn't be worth the extra $$ to upgrade now for me. 

I do like the longer battery life, but that would be a relevant thing to talk about on the offroad silo, where we talk about ultras. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter said:

I know its been a while since some people did a race on this site but you know what?  They actually officially time you now.  Have done for a while.

When you cross the finish line some races even have the time overhead.

About the only time you really need a watch is for pacing of the run. So needing a watch for 17 hours or longer is BS.

It's all about putting it on strava and if you are taking 16:40 to do an Ironman, I don't think bragging about it on strava is a good look.

A lot of people would benefit a shit load more by looking at the data on their bathroom scales. The race is done & dusted. A good coach will crunch the numbers & start looking for areas to improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watches are for training.

Race pace question: Will I get to the finish line before throwing up? Yes (run harder), No (run harder you might make it), Unsure (on the pace).

Perkometer (c) 1989.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...