- Posts
- 10,401
- Likes
- 13,755
Jim Dollares
·Nah the Seiko looks a lot better than a submariner. So does the Pelagos lite
Other Watches / Other Brands
- Posts
- 620
- Likes
- 949
TonyStark
·A couple of day 1 shots while it’s still shiny
- Posts
- 11,973
- Likes
- 39,480
abrod520
·Static pressure and pressure under movement are very different. A 200m watch is fine at 200m, provided the water is perfectly still and you don't move your arm, which is why you need a watch rated much higher than the depth you are diving too.
For example, hitting the water hard or at speed, which is typical when windsurfing, kitesurfing or high diving will easily get water into a 50m watch, despite only being a meter or two down.
Typically 50m is regarded as good for washing your hands, showering, sitting in the hot tub, swimming. 100m for watersports, 200m or higher for diving.
This is a common myth and isn't true. Someone did the math and you'd have to be moving at supersonic speeds for any meaningful pressure difference.
50m is good for 50 meters and with good seals (again this is the most important determinant of actual WR) will be just fine for snorkeling, recreational diving and the like.
100m will suffice for all but the most truly dedicated, highly-trained divers. 200m would be getting into sat diving range.
As for 500m WR, it's not possible for a human to dive that deep. The Guinness world record for a dive is 332m.
- Posts
- 5,367
- Likes
- 24,828
YY77
·This is a common myth and isn't true. Someone did the math and you'd have to be moving at supersonic speeds for any meaningful pressure difference.
https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/sigh-myth-busting-again.610734/
- Posts
- 11,973
- Likes
- 39,480
abrod520
·
Thanks! I'd just gotten out of bed and didn't feel like finding the receipts lol
- Posts
- 6,099
- Likes
- 7,372
- Posts
- 6,099
- Likes
- 7,372
imagwai
·This is a common myth and isn't true. Someone did the math and you'd have to be moving at supersonic speeds for any meaningful pressure difference.
- Posts
- 22,736
- Likes
- 32,423
Aquagraph
·I'm sure this guy is way smarter than me (insert your own hilarious comment here) but, it would be interesting to know whether TAG would take responsibility if say you went diving in 5M of water with your Monaco and it leaked (and you had it tested in the previous 12 months).
- Posts
- 6,099
- Likes
- 7,372
imagwai
·I'm sure this guy is way smarter than me (insert your own hilarious comment here) but, it would be interesting to know whether TAG would take responsibility if say you went diving in 5M of water with your Monaco and it leaked (and you had it tested in the previous 12 months).
- Posts
- 22,736
- Likes
- 32,423
Aquagraph
·Sounds suitably vague. I wonder how often you to have your watch pressure tested for them to honour the warranty?
- Posts
- 22,736
- Likes
- 32,423
Aquagraph
·https://www.mrporter.com/en-gb/journal/watches/dive-watches-water-resistant-explained-1327000
Rather long, but seems to say that Dive Watches rated to 100M are fine for 100M, non dive watches rated to 100M not so much.
Despite the authoritative, numbered ratings you find on many watches, there is no universal standard for measuring water-resistance. This is why watches marked 10m, 30m or 50m are often seen as misleading. The numbering convention derives from its use on dive watches, but it absolutely does not mean you can submerge your watch to these depths, or anything close.
Dive watches are tested to their stated water-resistance plus 25 per cent to be certain their performance will live up to the manufacturer’s claims. So a 300m watch has been subjected to 375m (or, more accurately, 3.75ATM of pressure) in testing. In direct contrast to watches marked 10m, 30m or 50m, a dive watch marked with 100m of water-resistance or more is absolutely capable of being submerged in the stated depth of water. This, we agree, does not help with the confusion and is what leads a lot of people to assume that a 100m watch is perhaps only just good enough for swimming. Where there is a slight grey area is the existence of 100m-rated watches that are not explicitly dive watches, ie, they haven’t met the ISO standard (usually for other reasons, such as they lack the rotating bezel). These would be fine for swimming, snorkelling, etc, and would almost certainly survive a scuba dive, but for other reasons, they may not be watches you would want to take diving. Plenty of chronographs, for example, carry 100m water-resistant labelling, but don’t have screw-down pushers. You don’t really want to swim with a leather strap, either.
Rather long, but seems to say that Dive Watches rated to 100M are fine for 100M, non dive watches rated to 100M not so much.
Despite the authoritative, numbered ratings you find on many watches, there is no universal standard for measuring water-resistance. This is why watches marked 10m, 30m or 50m are often seen as misleading. The numbering convention derives from its use on dive watches, but it absolutely does not mean you can submerge your watch to these depths, or anything close.
Dive watches are tested to their stated water-resistance plus 25 per cent to be certain their performance will live up to the manufacturer’s claims. So a 300m watch has been subjected to 375m (or, more accurately, 3.75ATM of pressure) in testing. In direct contrast to watches marked 10m, 30m or 50m, a dive watch marked with 100m of water-resistance or more is absolutely capable of being submerged in the stated depth of water. This, we agree, does not help with the confusion and is what leads a lot of people to assume that a 100m watch is perhaps only just good enough for swimming. Where there is a slight grey area is the existence of 100m-rated watches that are not explicitly dive watches, ie, they haven’t met the ISO standard (usually for other reasons, such as they lack the rotating bezel). These would be fine for swimming, snorkelling, etc, and would almost certainly survive a scuba dive, but for other reasons, they may not be watches you would want to take diving. Plenty of chronographs, for example, carry 100m water-resistant labelling, but don’t have screw-down pushers. You don’t really want to swim with a leather strap, either.
- Posts
- 6,099
- Likes
- 7,372
- Posts
- 6,099
- Likes
- 7,372
imagwai
·Or, from the TAG website...
A watch’s water resistance cannot be permanently guaranteed. It may be affected by the ageing of gaskets or by an accidental shock to one of the components assuring the water resistance such as crown, pushers and crystal. Make sure to have your watch checked every two years by an authorized service centre if you regularly expose it to water. Please follow our recommendations when using your watch in water: always make sure that the crown is safely closed, do not swim with a leather strap, rinse the watch with clear water after salt water exposure, do not press the pushers under water, and avoid taking showers with your watch (thermal shocks, soaps, steam and pressured water are not recommended).
- Posts
- 6,099
- Likes
- 7,372
imagwai
·So even 300m watches are not safe in the shower then! 😁
- Posts
- 10,401
- Likes
- 13,755
Jim Dollares
·So even 300m watches are not safe in the shower then! 😁
- Posts
- 22,736
- Likes
- 32,423
Aquagraph
·This is the idea that because watches are tested in controlled environments, without moving around, they are subject only to static pressure and, so the argument goes, they are not as water-resistant as they say they are when taken out into the real world where the water moves around – dynamic pressure. This is, we have to insist in the strongest terms, not a real argument.
Watches rated to less than 50m/5ATM may well be more susceptible to water ingress if vigorously sloshed around in the water, but it is a moot point because these watches shouldn’t be immersed in water at all.
Even the most powerful Olympic swimmer would not have the strength to move their arm through the water with enough force to exert significantly more atmospheric pressure on the watch’s water-resistant seals. Others have done the maths on this one. Moving a watch underwater at 10m/second – ie, pretty damn fast – results in the equivalent of 0.5ATM additional pressure. In other words, a difference of 5m depth. Given that even the most seasoned scuba divers rarely go deeper than about 30m, the effect of movement in the water on a 100m-rated watch is clearly irrelevant.
The argument also fails on a common-sense level. If you think swimming causes enough extra pressure to break into a dive watch, we would have seen hundreds of divers’ watches fail over the years. Instead, the world’s top dive watch brands have built a reputation for reliability that spans half a century. Moving around underwater is what they were built for and it’s what they’re good at.
Reading further it starts to get silly. Watches rated at 50m shouldn't be immersed in water at all. Presumably this is what they mean by dive watches are okay but non dive watches are not, so basically anything less than a 100m dive watch (which meets the required dive watch standard) should be treated as not resistant at all?
Watches rated to less than 50m/5ATM may well be more susceptible to water ingress if vigorously sloshed around in the water, but it is a moot point because these watches shouldn’t be immersed in water at all.
Even the most powerful Olympic swimmer would not have the strength to move their arm through the water with enough force to exert significantly more atmospheric pressure on the watch’s water-resistant seals. Others have done the maths on this one. Moving a watch underwater at 10m/second – ie, pretty damn fast – results in the equivalent of 0.5ATM additional pressure. In other words, a difference of 5m depth. Given that even the most seasoned scuba divers rarely go deeper than about 30m, the effect of movement in the water on a 100m-rated watch is clearly irrelevant.
The argument also fails on a common-sense level. If you think swimming causes enough extra pressure to break into a dive watch, we would have seen hundreds of divers’ watches fail over the years. Instead, the world’s top dive watch brands have built a reputation for reliability that spans half a century. Moving around underwater is what they were built for and it’s what they’re good at.
Reading further it starts to get silly. Watches rated at 50m shouldn't be immersed in water at all. Presumably this is what they mean by dive watches are okay but non dive watches are not, so basically anything less than a 100m dive watch (which meets the required dive watch standard) should be treated as not resistant at all?
- Posts
- 6,099
- Likes
- 7,372
imagwai
·I guess it depends on which sources of information you trust. I suspect there is an element of the manufacturer's trying to cover themselves since water has a way of easily breaching any minor weaknesses.
Personally speaking, none of this matters much to me. I don't take my watches into the water very often at all - I am more concerned with it drying and leaving marks/residue/scale on the watch (I live in a very hard water area, and salt water is, well... salty). As long as they can survive the odd splash or rainshower I'm good. And for the beach or swimming pool, then I just take my Squale 50 atmos which I know will be good (and not as expensive as my other watches just in case something went wrong).
Personally speaking, none of this matters much to me. I don't take my watches into the water very often at all - I am more concerned with it drying and leaving marks/residue/scale on the watch (I live in a very hard water area, and salt water is, well... salty). As long as they can survive the odd splash or rainshower I'm good. And for the beach or swimming pool, then I just take my Squale 50 atmos which I know will be good (and not as expensive as my other watches just in case something went wrong).
- Posts
- 22,736
- Likes
- 32,423
Aquagraph
·So even 300m watches are not safe in the shower then! 😁
At least they quote a two year 'authorised test centre' as the requirement, so now we know. But then they give themselves an out in the same sentence...
Pfff what utter nonsense is this, I will not stop enjoying the sensational pleasure of soaking me and my watches in hot steamy water and soapy bubbles
Presumably steam can get in where water can't...
- Posts
- 10,401
- Likes
- 13,755
Jim Dollares
·Presumably steam can get in where water can't...
- Posts
- 10,401
- Likes
- 13,755
Jim Dollares
·Oh yeah, salt water, soap, pools, hot waterr, snow.. and watches [insert zucchini emoji]
#wetwatches #getwet #ilikeitwetbaby
#wetwatches #getwet #ilikeitwetbaby
