[Sea-Dweller]

I'm going to throw out a couple questions. As I said in a previous post, I'm definitely not the physics guy...so maybe you folks can help me out with this. First of all, before I get to my MAIN question, just as a sidebar, if you have a watch, for example, the Sea-Dweller, which says it's good to 4,000 feet, does it literally mean 4,000 feet beneath the surface? Or is that 4,000 feet of pressure? Or is it the same thing?? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, lets say you're underwater 20 feet below the surface, and you're stationary. Then you start swimming. Once you start, does your motion, because of the resistance of the water, thereby exert MORE pressure on the watch, even though you're still at the same depth of 20 feet? You folks see what I'm getting at? Just kinda wondered exactly how that worked. As far as the main question thought...I was curious...why do we need the new Deep Sea to be rated at almost 13,000 feet? And I ask because, and maybe I'm wrong here, someone please correct me if necessary, but since no one will ever be going down that deep unless you're in a pressurized submersible, then technically, it wouldn't matter what the depth rating is, because the submersible is pressurized, isn't that true? That would mean that, in a pressurized submersible, at 10,000 feet below, a day date is as good as a GMT-Master is as good as a Deep Sea. Or is there something that I am seriously overlooking here?? I'm not here to do any bashing, you folks know that I do love my rolexes, and I appreciate the impressive statistics of the new Deep Sea...I'm just trying to figure out some physics here...any one have any thoughts on this????

 

[Scott D]

So that's definitely not an easy answer, and why I despise the way most manufactures rate the water resistancy of their watches. They say it's water resistant to 100m, but then say you shouldn't scuba dive with it, only submerge the watch (like swimming). IMO they should all rate the watch for the rating a normal person will exert on the watch at that depth. Like you said, someone thrashing about at 50' puts more pressure on a watch than if it was attached to a fishing pole & just 'dropped' to that depth with no movement, which is how most manufactures rate the watch. It's ridiculous because I don't know of 1 person who doesn't move their arms once they're in the water. Granted it's not an exact number, but they can certainly come up with a better, more accurate rating. However, were they to do that their 'resistancy' on the dial would be less & the watch would be perceived as less of a diver. So, they've developed a model that shows the maximum number for marketing, when in fact it's not accurate.

Now, that all said, the Rolex manual states the watch is waterproof to the depth rated on the watch. And each Rolex is tested in 2 separate tests (one dry & one wet) to 90% of it's rated depth rating. So I'd have no problem taking a 300m Rolex to 250 m (not that I'd ever go that deep) where I certainly wouldn't do that with many of my others.

Regarding the why 12,00 ft. rating is needed for the DS, I can't answer that one...

 

[Mike295855]

I cannot answer your questions as far as the motion in the water and the depth rating since my understanding of such things is limited. Nevertheless, why do we need a watch that is rated to go that deep even though the majority of the people that purchase, if not all, will never use it for that since I highly doubt the deep sea diver is able to afford such a watch under the condition that it is used as a tool? Well, I would say because 1. it is a testament to Rolex’s engineering and, 2. it is truly a work of art that not only suits one to be able to talk about it, but rather appreciate it in their own terms.

 

[Scott D]

I could be wrong, but aren't there divers that work in pressure suits (I don't know what they're called - but the space suit for deep water) at great depths? Either oil rigs, scientific, whatever? They're not 'exposed' like a 'regular' diver would be but they're not in a submersible either. I'd imagine they wear the watch on the outside of their suit, so the depth rating would be a necessity for people in this line of work.

granted, it's still a fraction of a percent of the customers who'll use it that way, but it is a tool watch designed for those type environments. We 'regular joes' just like the professional tools (just look at most of our tools in our garage & I'll bet you see a bunch of overkill there too :biggrin: :thumbup1: ).. This is the Tim Taylor Binford Dive Watch.. Why do you need 12,000+ ft?? JUST BECAUSE!! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :thumbup1:

 

[pauleypaul]

2000 feet seems to be the limit so far for saturation diving according to a bit of internet research, so the current SD is over-engineered by a factor of 2, making the new DS-SD over-over-engineered!
:lol:

 

[dfndr90]

Check out the Comex website, current world record is -710 meters. Rolex made some special edition Comex Sea Dwellers, and if I am not mistaken originally work with Comex to develop the gas relief valve.

http://www.comex.fr/suite/ceh/histo/histo anglais.html

 

[Sea-Dweller]

What Mike said about being able to talk about the watch, and appreciate it in your own terms, that makes alot of sense. It's sort of a "think outside the box as far as why you'd need this watch", because someone like me, who is overanalyzing, is saying "No one would ever practically NEED a watch to go to 13K feet". But the catch is...exactly...you don't need it. It's a testament to fantastic engineering. I think that, in it's own way, that's the explanation to the question. Not that someone else might not have another scientific take on this, but I think in this case, for the buyer, it's not so much the "why?" as the "why not?". And reflecting back, that was part of my attraction to the Sea-Dweller, and still is. I love to swim and snorkel, and I'd like to get into diving, althought I haven't had the time yet. I'll never use the Sea-Dweller to it's full capacity, but I certainly appreciate what goes into the making of that watch!!

 

[chili555]

Hmmm. My car is faster than your car. My cigar is more expensive than your cigar. My depth rating is deeper than your depth rating. My everything is bigger, better and faster than your anything.

Since 99.9% of us, I'd wager, will never dive lower than 200 feet, then any competent dive watch will suffice.

The rising discussions of depth ratings here and elsewhere on WTF and WUS are a bit silly, in my opinion. I must admit, however, a 4,000 ft. rating will lighten your bank balance better than most watches; I'll give you that.

 

[bullandvodka]

To attempt to answer Sea-Dweller and bolster ScottD's frustration......

Yes, watch companies are not standardized in how they rate their product's water resistance. First of all, none of them actually place the watches in a crate and lower them into the ocean to their rated depth. Its all simulated in a high pressure machine. So right off the bat, its not 100% realistic. This frustrates people like Scott and myself. Mathematically recreating the textbook pressure conditions at 3900m is not the same as being at 3900m as depending on the test machine it doesn't take temperature, motion, and other factors into account.

And to Sea-Dweller's assertion that movement at a given depth can create additional pressure on the watch, you are correct! Were I swimming at 3900m and moving my arms back and forth, there would be eddies of current around the watch that create points of pressure that would be greater than the latent pressure at 3900m at the leading edge of my swim motion. Likewise, there would be points on the watch where there would actually be less than 3900m of typical pressure. The effect is similar to that of a wing on a plane whereby a pressure differential is created unequally to achieve lift. Having both areas of higher pressure and lower pressure on the same watch is more stressful to the watch. (Imagine play-doh in your hand and clinch a fist ... portions under greater pressure compress and the portions under lesser pressure such as between your fingers squirt out). This is the mechanical stress the watch being used for work under water would be subject to and it is more and less at the same time.

Most manufactures rate the watch to the depth the testing machine claims. Some manufacturers such as Seiko produce watches that handle far more than the claimed rating to take actual movement (and its additional stress into account). Thus I have no doubt a Seiko MarineMaster rated to 300m can actually handle 450m at rest. This is their safety margin and better reflects the watch's useful "working" depth.

We aren't sure what criteria Rolex uses for the DeaSea. Possibly this is why they made it so extreme. Rolls Royce never quotes the horsepower of their auto engines. They just claim power is adequate. INHO, the DeapSea may or may not hold up to work at 3900m, but it certainly is adequate.

 

[RickS]

Here's an interesting possibility, the Titanic sits 12,460 feet below the surface of the Atlantic. A dive there would almost certainly require the new Sea Dweller DeepSea to be on the safe side! Betcha didn't know the Titanic wreck was so deep did ya?

 

[mike]

Some interesting information posted on another forum regarding the DSSD,

CREDIT PHILLIP,

As Roger mentioned it recently in a post, Rolex is still delivering watches to COMEX.
In fact the collaboration in between these 2 companies never stopped unlike what has been written
here and there.
The new Deep-Sea is certified 3 900 meters but in fact most of the tests took place at 4 500 meters
in collaboration with COMEX in a chamber specially designed by COMEX for the watch.
The watch has also been tested in water and not only the hyperbaric way. It is is said that the watch reached once 5000 meters.
This success is partly due to the ring lock system that is made with a mix of 904L steel boosted with azote, I dont know yet the name given
by Rolex for this new registered steell.
The watch is scheduled for august 2008 in your AD's and the price (I'm giving the official Swiss price
so anyone can translate in his own money) will be 9 700 CHF.

 

[JBHII]

Mike - thanks for passing this information along here! :thumbup:

 

[Mike295855]

Some interesting information posted on another forum regarding the DSSD,

CREDIT PHILLIP,

As Roger mentioned it recently in a post, Rolex is still delivering watches to COMEX.
In fact the collaboration in between these 2 companies never stopped unlike what has been written
here and there.
The new Deep-Sea is certified 3 900 meters but in fact most of the tests took place at 4 500 meters
in collaboration with COMEX in a chamber specially designed by COMEX for the watch.
The watch has also been tested in water and not only the hyperbaric way. It is is said that the watch reached once 5000 meters.
This success is partly due to the ring lock system that is made with a mix of 904L steel boosted with azote, I dont know yet the name given
by Rolex for this new registered steell.
The watch is scheduled for august 2008 in your AD's and the price (I'm giving the official Swiss price
so anyone can translate in his own money) will be 9 700 CHF.

If you translate that amount to US dollars I have: $9,641.19. However, this may not be accurate considering that prices are difference by country based on taxes and other factors.

I am really impressed with this rating. I think we can conclude, based on what Mike has provided us with, that this is more than just a marketting gimmick by Rolex and in fact it is a real tool tested beyond what is being advertised.