Water Resistance and Divers Standard

[Rollieo]

For the technical folks out there, I’ve read that there’s two ISO standards for testing. One for water resistance and diving.

First question: why is 30m of water resistance only good enough for washing hands? They say not to shower with it or go swimming (at the surface), and at 30m I assume obviously means that it can be subjected to pressures up to 30m of depth of water. If a watch can stand 30m of depth, even when accounting for movement of water at shower pressures or during swimming, it should be able to handle it.

Second question: which Rolex watches are subjected to both ISO standards for both standard WR and diving? I assume the sub and deepsea get both and the rest no?

Lastly, 100m of water resistance needed for snorkeling seems crazy. But it looks like that’s what most people recommend.

[kieselguhr]

The meters refers to the pressure at that depth. At 30m the pressure is roughly equivalent to 45psi. For your reference, the average water faucet in the US runs ~60psi while the pressure at 100m is 145psi.

Rolex (most luxury watch brands) does not adhere to ISO standards. They have their own standards.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Rollieo

For the technical folks out there, I’ve read that there’s two ISO standards for testing. One for water resistance and diving.

. . .

There is an ISO for watch water resistance and ratings for watches used on a daily basis.

There is also an ISO for watches to be met if the watch is intended for Diving before it can be called a "Dive Watch".

They are two different standards for completely different things.

[Rollieo]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

The meters refers to the pressure at that depth. At 30m the pressure is roughly equivalent to 45psi. For your reference, the average water faucet in the US runs ~60psi while the pressure at 100m is 145psi.

Rolex (most luxury watch brands) does not adhere to ISO standards. They have their own standards.

The pressure in the pipes are 60 psi, but once the water leaves the faucet it’s no longer at that pressure. I’m not sure what the equivalent pressure of water hitting your wrist coming out of your faucet is, but I’d guess less than 10psi.

Too bad they don’t adhere to ISO standards. Feels like they should at least meet it and then feel free to do more.

[Rollieo]

Originally Posted by Tools

There is an ISO for watch water resistance and ratings for watches used on a daily basis.

There is also an ISO for watches to be met if the watch is intended for Diving before it can be called a "Dive Watch".

They are two different standards for completely different things.

Do you know if it’s true Rolex doesn’t adhere to any ISO standards? If they do, do any watches meet the dive watch iso?

[77T]

Rolex does their own pressure testing and rating. They’ve been doing that since before ISO issued standards.

ISO 22810 covers watches intended only for daily use and for swimming.

ISO 6425 covers watches that can be used for diving - usually scuba diving but would be applicable for free diving/snorkeling.

Old news, but since you asked, more at: https://www.iso.org/news/2010/11/Ref1367.html#


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by Rollieo

Too bad they don’t adhere to ISO standards. Feels like they should at least meet it and then feel free to do more.

I’m sure the Rolex standards are at the very least equivalent to ISO counterparts.

[Dirt]

Rolex makes 1 reference that is fully compliant to the ISO standard for Dive watches. It is the Deepsea Challenge.
If one takes out bezel graduations and the absence of a lume plot, the Rolex divers were compliant before the standard was updated a few years ago.
There is no compulsion for any manufacturer to be compliant to the standard although the basic requirement is met with the test/compliance depth being 25% greater than that which is shown on the dial and a unidirectional rotating bezel.

As to references to industry standards of depth ratings. It is a legacy of older well established industry practices and well understood throughout the industry how pressure test methodology relates to real world practicalities.
With very little variation, 30 is barely good enough for hand washing with 50 being ok for swimming, 100-150 being ok for water sports including snorkelling and from 200 or greater being suitable for diving however one chooses to go about it.
It's that simple and not worth trying to read anything more into it except to say that those ratings are applicable to relatively new watches that are well maintained and have been freshly pressure tested.
With a number of age factors coming into play the water resistance of an assembly inevitably diminishes, hense the conservative depth ratings which are losely given to any assembly by the manufacturer

[Calatrava r]

The ratings are misleading. It is best to look up the recommended practices for each rating. Generally, safe surface swimming is 100m minimum and shallow diving 200m minimum. Some people are okay swimming with a 50M watch if it has a screw down crown. I would not. A 30m watch should not be submerged in water. The ratings are static water pressure. Any water current or watch motion underwater significantly increases the water pressure.

[diracpoint]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Rolex makes 1 reference that is fully compliant to the ISO standard for Dive watches. It is the Deepsea Challenge.
If one takes out bezel graduations and the absence of a lume plot, the Rolex divers were compliant before the standard was updated a few years ago.
There is no compulsion for any manufacturer to be compliant to the standard although the basic requirement is met with the test/compliance depth being 25% greater than that which is shown on the dial and a unidirectional rotating bezel.

+1

Found a draft of ISO 6425 online, from 2018. I'm assuming this is the most recent one, although I could be wrong.

About the bezel ...



It seems this makes the Subs non-compliant.

About the dial ...



Presence of date on SDs and DSSDs make them non-compliant, it seems ...

Apart from this, there is a lot of other tests. Not sure if Rolex does all of those ...

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

Any water current or watch motion underwater significantly increases the water pressure.

There is some conjecture around this with some claiming to have done the calls and established that motion and velocity aren't big factors.
However, some real world experience does suggest otherwise with many unforseen variables potentially coming into play

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by diracpoint

+1

Found a draft of ISO 6425 online, from 2018. I'm assuming this is the most recent one, although I could be wrong.

About the bezel ...



It seems this makes the Subs non-compliant.

About the dial ...



Presence of date on SDs and DSSDs make them non-compliant, it seems ...

Apart from this, there is a lot of other tests. Not sure if Rolex does all of those ...

If only Rolex had opted to keep the 3135 movement and squeezed in a lume plot outboard of the date window then Rolex would have been right on the money across the board
Now Rolex are more miss than hit. Technically speaking
And they chose to not follow the 5517 format

[George58]

once about a time 100m were good for diving like the Rolex sub........why can.t you dive now with a 100m watch

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by George58

once about a time 100m were good for diving like the Rolex sub........why can.t you dive now with a 100m watch

Silliness. Someone even said that one should not dive with a 200m Tudor, yet Rolex divers used to be at 100m once AND Dr. Sylvia Earle, National Geographic’s explorer-in-residence, regularly dives with her Rolex DateJust (in gold, and rated for 50m).

Don’t get me started on the old wive’s tale of ‘dynamic water pressure’ that ‘significantly increases’ when someone is swimming. There have been tests done that prove one would have to swim faster than a bluefin tuna (or Aquaman) to have any real effect on ‘dynamic water pressure.’

All professional Rolex can go underwater deeper than (almost all) humans can dive. Most people don’t dive beyond 10m. Divers require mixed gas at around 60m. At 100m oxygen toxicity can develop. Yet someone will wonder if a 200m Tudor is ‘good enough,’ or if they should upgrade from their Submariner to a SD43 because a Sub ‘only’ gets to 300m.

Most divers would never make it to 300m …they’d be dead before they go to 100m.

The only issue is with vintage divers …always make sure your Rolex is tested for WR before any real water activity. This is true for modern references, but especially true for vintage (personally I wouldn’t dive with vintage, but Dr Earle dives with her gold vintage 50m DJ just fine …but I am sure she has it checked regularly to ensure the seals are ok).

So, you’re 100% correct. It is quite confusing why people think 100m today is no longer ‘good enough.’ Especially from a brand like Rolex.

[BLNR Nairobi]

HODINKEE article on Dr Sylvia Earle and her gold DateJust rated for 50m.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/di...spatches-rolex

Someone should tell her to panic or something …

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Rolex makes 1 reference that is fully compliant to the ISO standard for Dive watches. It is the Deepsea Challenge.
If one takes out bezel graduations and the absence of a lume plot, the Rolex divers were compliant before the standard was updated a few years ago.
There is no compulsion for any manufacturer to be compliant to the standard although the basic requirement is met with the test/compliance depth being 25% greater than that which is shown on the dial and a unidirectional rotating bezel.

As to references to industry standards of depth ratings. It is a legacy of older well established industry practices and well understood throughout the industry how pressure test methodology relates to real world practicalities.
With very little variation, 30 is barely good enough for hand washing with 50 being ok for swimming, 100-150 being ok for water sports including snorkelling and from 200 or greater being suitable for diving however one chooses to go about it.
It's that simple and not worth trying to read anything more into it except to say that those ratings are applicable to relatively new watches that are well maintained and have been freshly pressure tested.
With a number of age factors coming into play the water resistance of an assembly inevitably diminishes, hense the conservative depth ratings which are losely given to any assembly by the manufacturer

Why the Deepsea challenge?

Both it, the Deepsea and the SD43 have the same (half arsed) attempt at a fully graduated bezel?

Just because its got a lume plot at 3 doesn't address the lack of minute graduations on the bezel.

[George58]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

HODINKEE article on Dr Sylvia Earle and her gold DateJust rated for 50m.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/di...spatches-rolex

Someone should tell her to panic or something …

it's a newer model so it's 100m ....

[George58]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

HODINKEE article on Dr Sylvia Earle and her gold DateJust rated for 50m.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/di...spatches-rolex

Someone should tell her to panic or something …

it's a newer model so it's 100m ....

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Why the Deepsea challenge?

Both it, the Deepsea and the SD43 have the same (half arsed) attempt at a fully graduated bezel?

Just because its got a lume plot at 3 doesn't address the lack of minute graduations on the bezel.

I don't know what you mean by half assed?
How do propose they should have marked the grads on the bezel and integrated numerals in an easily readable format that any competent professional could operate as required.
As I said, the Challenge is the only Rolex diver offering that is fully compliant with the standard. Whether one values it or not is another matter entirely.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by George58

it's a newer model so it's 100m ....

This

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I don't know what you mean by half assed?
How do propose they should have marked the grads on the bezel and integrated numerals in an easily readable format that any competent professional could operate as required.
As I said, the Challenge is the only Rolex diver offering that is fully compliant with the standard. Whether one values it or not is another matter entirely.

By half assed I mean not fully graduated/compliant with the standard.

None of the Rolex divers have a bezel with a graduated bezel with a resolution of 1 minute or more. To meet the standard a bezel has to have at least 60 minute markers.

The DSC, as an example, has only 46.

By comparison, a Grand Seiko SLGA015G has 60. Omega can do it too as can Citizen.

I get its totally pedantic and largely irrelevant, but to say Rolex has a watch that meets the standard is just wrong

[ERH]

My concern is what is the proper ratings for desktop diving? The environment is rough, and under huge pressures at times, what with my wife looking over my shoulder. I've resorted to wearing my Sub Date at the desk, leaving my Exp II for outside garden watering. I do confess to having washed my hands more than once with my TT Datejust while attending a CPA conference. If my Datejust is thus compromised, is it a tax deductible casualty loss?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Devildog

By half assed I mean not fully graduated/compliant with the standard.

None of the Rolex divers have a bezel with a graduated bezel with a resolution of 1 minute or more. To meet the standard a bezel has to have at least 60 minute markers.

The DSC, as an example, has only 46.

By comparison, a Grand Seiko SLGA015G has 60. Omega can do it too as can Citizen.

I get its totally pedantic and largely irrelevant, but to say Rolex has a watch that meets the standard is just wrong

Point taken
Yes, by the letter of the law Rolex do not make a fully compliant watch and I withdraw my earlier statements.
I always assumed it was a good balance of functionality and the middle of the numerals were more than sufficient as a point of reference for a competent user.
A prime example of the types of compromises that are made in watch design.
By my count just looking at mine, the markers on the bezel of the DSSD and SD43 which you mention number a total of 55, so surely that's a little bit better and maybe acceptable for all intents and purposes?

[diracpoint]

On the topic of ISO 6425 (2018 ed.), here's an interesting article from Fratello.

Specifically on the topic of "diving time indicator" it writes ...

"ISO 6425 states, “This device shall allow the reading of the diving time with a resolution of 1 minute or better over at least 60 minutes.”

There is, however, some discrepancy in interpretation. Many well-known dive bezels do not have 60 one-minute markings. Many have minute markings for the first 15 or 20 minutes but thereafter rely on five-minute markings. Some say that the bezel should have these one-minute markings all around the bezel to meet the ISO requirements. Others say that the bezel should have at least 60 clicks in order to position the luminescent dot on the bezel at every minute. What’s your opinion? You can tell us in the comments below. Anyway, watches with both types of bezels apparently comply with the ISO 6425 requirements, such as the Tissot Seastar 2000 Professional you see below."

So, technically, no-date divers from Rolex seem to be compliant, at least from a design point of view. Although, there are many other tests, and maybe none of these watches are actually tested to that extent ... 🤷