Okay, so you just paid mega-bucks for a Chronograph!! What next??

[JIM-]

Best way to redesign to Daytona would be get rid of the chrono hand, make the functions a date, day, and month now your talking a useful Daytona.

JJ, I do remember a whlie back when you bought that chrono I thought it was Bret though, could be wrong. I remember you bought the deal not the watch and I think you sold it straight away.

[dardeca]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Sorry, guys......please don't flame me, but here's a very simple question:

In this day and age of high speed electronic laser-edged technology where races and finishes are timed to as low as 1/1000th of a second, what good is a mechanical chronograph movement?

It's pretty bloody useless to time any kind of race......gosh, even a toddler's crawling race over 20 feet ......and it's useless to time any of the fast races where split timing is required to as low as 3 decimal places. The inaccuracy of a mechanically timed Chrono would be simply staggering!!

Right.....so that brings me back to the original question: What the hell do you use a mechanical Chronograph for when it's so damn inaccurate and useless??

JJ

The same can be said for your Submariner. Do you really need the depth protection of 1000 ft? I'd say no...unless you are a serious diver. So you just overpaid for a function that you do not need and therefore is useless (at least to you).

[emagni]

Originally Posted by JIM

Best way to redesign to Daytona would be get rid of the chrono hand, make the functions a date, day, and month now your talking a useful Daytona.

JJ, I do remember a whlie back when you bought that chrono I thought it was Bret though, could be wrong. I remember you bought the deal not the watch and I think you sold it straight away.

They will not call it a Daytona anymore and rename it to SS At-A-Glance Calendar. Also, if those changes were implemented, what will we do with those pushers? And don't we already have the Day-Date for that?

[JIM-]

Simple the pushers would be used to set the day and month and the crown would change the date. The day/date is a dress model. My point was to make the Daytona an actual functional watch that would be used and serve a better purpose and have all these functions in a sport watch.

[Wildwing]

It is a fair question after all, but the extension of it really is why would anyone want a grand complication watch for a few hundred thousand dollars, when all it does more than yours is automatic counting of leap year days and other things that you already know.

I guess the answer is pride of ownership, rather than need.

[Atomant]

Quartz watches might be accurate over a short period of time over a few months to a year. But over a period of a longer time say 5 years, a well 'pre-tuned' mechanical time piece would be more accurate through external-regulation (i.e. crown up, crown down).

[Cato]

That's why I own a DateJust (no chronos)!

[Solo118]

I like my chrono! Even though I never use it :) :)

[Andad]

Originally Posted by JIM

Best way to redesign to Daytona would be get rid of the chrono hand, make the functions a date, day, and month now your talking a useful Daytona.

JJ, I do remember a whlie back when you bought that chrono I thought it was Bret though, could be wrong. I remember you bought the deal not the watch and I think you sold it straight away.

Hmm, I sometimes have to think about the date for a split second but if I didn't know the day or the month then owning a Daytona would be the least of my problems.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by dardeca

The same can be said for your Submariner. Do you really need the depth protection of 1000 ft? I'd say no...unless you are a serious diver. So you just overpaid for a function that you do not need and therefore is useless (at least to you).

Your comparison makes no sense at all, buddy.

All Rolex watches are waterproof - that's what they are reknowned for. I bought my Rolex watches for their beauty, time keeping ability and the date function. That's all.

I have no use for a Chrono function and comparing that with a watch which is waterproof to 1000 feet is a pointless analogy.

The waterproofing feature comes automatically with each and every Rolex Oyster - end of story. It's not exactly an added feature - it's a standard (and may I add, very necessary) specification of the brand.

In fact, the word OYSTER and WATERPROOF are synonymous!!

JJ

[diablojota]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Your comparison makes no sense at all, buddy.

All Rolex watches are waterproof - that's what they are reknowned for. I bought my Rolex watches for their beauty, time keeping ability and the date function. That's all.

I have no use for a Chrono function and comparing that with a watch which is waterproof to 1000 feet is a pointless analogy.

The waterproofing feature comes automatically with each and every Rolex Oyster - end of story. It's not exactly an added feature - it's a standard (and may I add, very necessary) specification of the brand.

In fact, the word OYSTER and WATERPROOF are synonymous!!

JJ

x2!

[jimbo1mcm]

I bought my Rolex because of the money I can save by not changing batteries!!!( at least that is what I told my wife!!)

[scottschoe]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Sorry, guys......please don't flame me, but here's a very simple question:

In this day and age of high speed electronic laser-edged technology where races and finishes are timed to as low as 1/1000th of a second, what good is a mechanical chronograph movement?

It's pretty bloody useless to time any kind of race......gosh, even a toddler's crawling race over 20 feet ......and it's useless to time any of the fast races where split timing is required to as low as 3 decimal places. The inaccuracy of a mechanically timed Chrono would be simply staggering!!

Right.....so that brings me back to the original question: What the hell do you use a mechanical Chronograph for when it's so damn inaccurate and useless??

JJ

I buy it because I can. Computers have rendered our watches useless for the most part - there's no real rhyme or reason for people like us since our watches are all inherently inaccurate and we still buy them to tell time. FWIW, I use mine time boiling eggs.

[AJF]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Your comparison makes no sense at all, buddy.

All Rolex watches are waterproof - that's what they are reknowned for.

I have no use for a Chrono function and comparing that with a watch which is waterproof to 1000 feet is a pointless analogy.

The waterproofing feature comes automatically with each and every Rolex Oyster - end of story. It's not exactly an added feature - it's a standard (and may I add, very necessary) specification of the brand.

JJ

The oyster line are waterproof to 100m (330ft). Specialist dive watches are then proofed further. if you have no use for a chrono function when do you have use for a 1,000ft depth rating function?

AJF

[rolex_addict]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Sorry, guys......please don't flame me, but here's a very simple question:

In this day and age of high speed electronic laser-edged technology where races and finishes are timed to as low as 1/1000th of a second, what good is a mechanical chronograph movement?

It's pretty bloody useless to time any kind of race......gosh, even a toddler's crawling race over 20 feet ......and it's useless to time any of the fast races where split timing is required to as low as 3 decimal places. The inaccuracy of a mechanically timed Chrono would be simply staggering!!

Right.....so that brings me back to the original question: What the hell do you use a mechanical Chronograph for when it's so damn inaccurate and useless??

JJ

"Okay, so you just paid mega-bucks for a Chronograph!! What next???"
buy more chronographs

[Gaffel]

IMHO the most useless complication for a Rolex would have to be the second timezone for the GMT (IIc). Quick math should get the time in any given timezone pretty quick. Add and subtract, it`s as easy as that. The chrono on the Daytona is used for timing any event you wish to time except 110m hurdles, nuclear reactions and so on.... events you need highly specialized equipment to time. I paid big bucks for my SS Daytona because it`s the most sturdy and beautiful mechanical chronograph out there! And I can time my eggs with it....

[Mosco]

Originally Posted by rolex_addict

"Okay, so you just paid mega-bucks for a Chronograph!! What next???"
buy more chronographs

X20000000

[Jimbits76]

Originally Posted by Jimbits76

I aint got no chrono!

All donations to

Bitsy the troll
Beneath the first bridge on the right
East Anglia
United Kingdom
NOB 1

I'm still waiting for that first donation.....

J

[Mosco]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Your comparison makes no sense at all, buddy.

All Rolex watches are waterproof - that's what they are reknowned for. I bought my Rolex watches for their beauty, time keeping ability and the date function. That's all.

I have no use for a Chrono function and comparing that with a watch which is waterproof to 1000 feet is a pointless analogy.

The waterproofing feature comes automatically with each and every Rolex Oyster - end of story. It's not exactly an added feature - it's a standard (and may I add, very necessary) specification of the brand.

In fact, the word OYSTER and WATERPROOF are synonymous!!

JJ

JJ, buddy, I am convinced that you wrote that one out while wincing - as typically your arguments are very sound, but this one does not hold water (no pun). Of course, it is necessary for the watch to be waterproof - getting caught in the rain, not having to take off your watch while taking a shower/washing your hands... What he is saying is that the excessive depths are not necessary to an average Rolex wearer, but nice to have a piece engineered to that degree. In fact, very few complications on a watch are a NECESSITY. When you really think about it - the most simple complication is a second hand - do we really need it? Do we need to know at any given point that it is 2:35:17? No, I think we're good if we know that it is 25 til 3. So, the question is:

"you spent mega-bucks on a watch with a second hand, what next??"

Still love ya buddy, just can't agree with this one!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by AJF

The oyster line are waterproof to 100m (330ft). Specialist dive watches are then proofed further. if you have no use for a chrono function when do you have use for a 1,000ft depth rating function?

AJF

Why are you confusing waterproofing with a complication?

Rolex Oyster and Waterproof are synonymous - irrespective whether the watch is waterproof to 100m, 300m, 1220m or even a ridiculous 3900m!!

I'm referring to an added function - the Chrono - which I find quite useless. The waterproof function is ESSENTIAL - how deep it goes who bloody cares!! NOT IMPORTANT!!!

Even the lowest of lowest base model Rolex Oyster is waterproof to 100 m.....so how many of us here will go anywhere even close to that depth? I assure you 99.99% of us WON'T!!

So let's get this in perspective - I was referring to an added COMPLICATION - the Chrono - which I think is useless. Comparing that with the waterproofness of the watch, which is absolutely essential, is redundant.

And let's end this here and now - you guys could argue this point till you turn BLUE in the face - but you will NEVER convince me that I'm wrong.

JJ

[Launch Mini]

Just slam everyone for buying a watch with a complication you don't need.
Why not pick on TT watches. Why add the extra function of yellow gold?
Or the HEV, Or a rotating bezel??

[valentine]

timing tattoos! but i dont own a chrono...my paul newman is still a few grand away. haha

[Brunotheboxer]

Aw JJ, I can't believe you've done this.

[AJF]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Why are you confusing waterproofing with a complication?

I'm referring to an added function - the Chrono - which I find quite useless. The waterproof function is ESSENTIAL - how deep it goes who bloody cares!! NOT IMPORTANT!!!

So let's get this in perspective - I was referring to an added COMPLICATION -the Chrono - which I think is useless.

JJ

At no point in the original OP are you referring to the Daytona's complication. Your argument is based on added function only.

So what is a Sub's added function over a standard Oyster Perpetual if it is not to tell accurate time at great depth. Remind me when it was last that you went scuba diving with the watch? Or are you another one of those 'Desk Diving' pretenders?

AJF

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by AJF

At no point in the original OP are you referring to the Daytona's complication. Your argument is based on added function only.

So what is a Sub's added function over a standard Oyster Perpetual if it is not to tell accurate time at great depth. Remind me when it was last that you went scuba diving with the watch? Or are you another one of those 'Desk Diving' pretenders?

AJF

You obviously still don't get the difference between a MANDATORY feature (which is waterproofing in Rolex's case) and an added complication, so I'm not going to argue this any further!!

JJ

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Launch Mini

Just slam everyone for buying a watch with a complication you don't need.
Why not pick on TT watches. Why add the extra function of yellow gold?
Or the HEV, Or a rotating bezel??

Gold is for bling and for those who love gold - it's NOT a complication.

He valve is a useful device for the pros only.

Rotating bezel can be used by divers and virtually anybody.

I was merely trying to point out the inaccuracies of a mechanical chrono function. However, if you want to use it to time boiled eggs, then that's fine!!

JJ

[ijen0311]

shrug, I use mine quite a lot, to time cooking, facials, trips, etc.

I'll use it much more than I'll use the depth function on my SD 4000

[AJF]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

You obviously still don't get the difference between a MANDATORY feature (which is waterproofing in Rolex's case) and an added complication, so I'm not going to argue this any further!!

JJ

If it is 'MANDATORY FEATURE' then why are all OP's not made waterproof to 1,000 ft with the added triple lock crown like the Sub's?

GMTDaytonaYM

AJF

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by AJF

If it is 'MANDATORY FEATURE' then why are all OP's not made waterproof to 1,000 ft with the added triple lock crown like the Sub's?

GMTDaytonaYM

AJF

So you get a few extra meters with the Subs.....so what? Big deal......and, like I said, who the hell is even going anywhere near the minimum depth rating of 100 m? I assure you, virtually those you could count on the fingers of one hand!!

JJ

[dardeca]

Originally Posted by AJF

The oyster line are waterproof to 100m (330ft). Specialist dive watches are then proofed further. if you have no use for a chrono function when do you have use for a 1,000ft depth rating function?

AJF

My point exactly!