Probably for the exact same reasons you mentioned.

Increased battery life is a huge bonus.

I can't believe I'm saying it but the stretchy band on the 935. It's awesome.

It may have been just my 735, but it would often not pick up my power meter when I was in Triathlon mode and starting the bike leg. I use my 520 during the bike leg anyway, so not a really big deal, but it was annoying to end up with a ride file with no power data. The 935 doesn't have this problem; neither did the 920 for that matter.

The 935 has a number of nice "ergonomic" touches as well. For example, scrolling between the different actvity modes doesn't involve an initial up arrow followed by down arrows. And the first option in bike mode if you have a power meter attached is to calibrate the power meter - functions that take a number of button pushes on the 735 (and even the Edge 520).

I'm a fan.

Ian

I've had the same problem with my 735 not picking up the power meter in the bike leg - I thought it was just me, but perhaps not. My 910xt worked fine.

Regards

Stuart

---

===
iSMARTtrain - Mac training software for Garmin, SRM, PowerTap & Polar
http://www.ismarttrain.com

The battery life and the true 24/7 HR monitoring is really nice and the main reasons I got the 935. I do ultras and no more worry about the watch dying on me.

I have both....and thought the 735 was the best Garmin watch I had so far. I have the 935 and it is great. It is a little more bulky which I think makes it look better...but it is heavier than the 735. The battery life is great so far. The back light is slightly better. If you are debating between the two, and battery life is not an issue (ie. using it for all 3 legs in a 140.6) then get the 735. It is a great watch at a great price right now. There is not much operationally better about the 935 IMO. I don't use my watch during races on the swim or bike, and will be using my 735 for the run portions of the races I do.

Couple of questions for you, since your have both.
The 735 is noticeably heavier than the 935?

do you notice a difference on the width/bulge of the optical heart rate sensor between the devices? Does the 735 sensor dig into your wrist when the watch is tight?

Thank you

I do not notice the weight difference....the 935 doesn't feel heavy...I think we are talking about 20 gram difference.

Yes on the HR sensor....you don't feel it at all, but when you remove the watch (i wore it 24x7) there was an indentation on your wrist. That doesn't exist with the 935. Again, it is not noticeable when wearing the 735 (you cannot feel it).

I have the Fenix 5 and haven't noticed a difference in size, weight between that and the 920. I think the Fenix 5x may be getting a bit too big though?

Why buy a Tri watch if you only use it for running? A 235 is cheaper

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

You didn't ask me but I'll answer the question. I came from a 235 to a 935. I "upgraded" primarily for battery life as the 235 isn't enough for some 50 milers and any 100k or above.

Thank you mike. Would you say the software on the 935 is an upgrade vs the 735? Or is it identical? Thank you

There appears to be a few more options...and it measures temperature (inaccurately) and has an altimeter (again...if you are using this for a bike AND run device...this would be nice to have).....but there is nothing on the 935 that "works better" than the 735.

Accuracy on runs is identical and all the fields I used on the 735 are the same on the 935.

There is also a training status (which supposedly measures fatigue).....but I do not use that. 1) I use Training Peaks 2) I don't use the watch for cycling, so I don't think the accuracy of the fatigue would be correct.

A great resource. Thank you mike

The temperature is accurate, it's just that it's on your wrist so it's getting body heat. Remove is and you'll get an accurate reading.

---

https://markmcdermott.substack.com

I've had enough sending back 910's and 920's due to faulty barometers, which basically incapacitate any elevation tracking on the bike and run. (I swim a bunch, pool/river, which is the issue.)

I just got a (non-barometer) 735xt, and am hoping for good results!

---

________________________________________________
Proud member of FISHTWITCH: beating you to T1 for over a decade, and working on beating you to T2...

To follow up on your email, the 935 would be worth it if its accuracy was improved compared to the 735 but it's not apparently.
Garmin has been adding tons of features, but you still get relatively poor GPS data on very cloudy days, trails runs, etc. unless you add the footpod.
I still get days with over 10% distance error. And of course, none of these devices do a good job with instant pace.

Garmin: less email, facebook etc connectivity and better data instead, ok? :)

I've been getting very good GPS data with my 935 even on cloudy days. I've only done a handful of trail runs with it so far but I haven't noticed anything unusual about them. I've got a trail half in a few weeks that's typically very accurate. It will be interesting to see how my watch companies. I don't have a foot pod.

I'm sure you can find units that work well, repeatedly. However, overall there are still many issues.
For the record, it was not obvious that mine was messing up. A couple of runs I thought I was moving a bit faster than the GPS had suggested, so I mapped the courses and it was off by 30secs per mile.