Gas Escape Valves

[Curt941]

Why does Rolex include them in modern watches?

How many people are going to take their new Tudor or their $11k DSSD down in a diving bell in a trimix environment where they would pick up helium inside their watch?

Is it just the cool factor?

[esm]

why not? better to include than not - just incase someone actually use what it was intended for

same goes for the diver's extension, glidelock, etc...

[GradyPhilpott]

Because, unlike some watch companies, Rolex doesn't build wannabe watches.

If Rolex wants to market a watch that looks like a big super-diver, they will build and market a watch that is a big super-diver.

Who would accept less from Rolex?

If you want a big diver that looks like it could dive to 4000 meters and costs about $300, look to Invicta and some others.

There's nothing wrong with that method, but that's not what Rolex does.

[Curt941]

I just see it as an extra point of failure.

[nyjohnchan]

I think its for show purposes more than practical use. No diver will go deeper than 300 ft anyway.

[paracord]

Why would Rolex build an ultra-deep divers watch that did not have the features needed to go ultra-deep?

First and foremost it is a serious tool designed to do a serious job.

Wearing these things for fashion is fine and has become in style. But that's not what Rolex intended for the watch.

That's like asking why the Corvette ZR1 has such expensive carbon fiber brakes or 638 HP. Yeah people buy them to go get groceries in. But that's not what it was designed for!

[karmatp]

Originally Posted by Curt941

I just see it as an extra point of failure.

It protects the watch from failure.

You can't design a watch capable of withstanding those depths then not include a mechanism that will keep the crystal from popping off. That would be a complete design failure.

[NYC6]

Originally Posted by nyjohnchan

I think its for show purposes more than practical use. No diver will go deeper than 300 ft anyway.

We have saturation divers right here on this forum. One in fact, started a thread while he was in a chamber and had an issue with his Deepsea and was looking for help. You're correct though, most DS owners will never even see a scuba tank let alone mixed gas sat diving but there are some who "walk the walk".

_______________________________

XLVI Super Bowl Champs NY Giants

[gwalker]

Originally Posted by NYC6

We have saturation divers right here on this forum. One in fact, started a thread while he was in a chamber and had an issue with his Deepsea and was looking for help. You're correct though, most DS owners will never even see a scuba tank let alone mixed gas sat diving but there are some who "walk the walk".

_______________________________

XLVI Super Bowl Champs NY Giants

Bingo!!! You are correct. While many rec and tec divers don't use a watch anymore commercial divers still use a watch when they have to be at pressure for weeks at a time. I have taken my DSSD on a very few tec dives because I need the real estate for computers and bottom timers. Commercial sat divers don't need those.

[stockae92]

speaking of useless feature, i think government needs to limit the hp on all personal vehicles cause honestly, who's going to need +100hp when you can only legally do 65mph lon the freeway

[paracord]

Originally Posted by stockae92

speaking of useless feature, i think government needs to limit the hp on all personal vehicles cause honestly, who's going to need +100hp when you can only legally do 65mph lon the freeway

Hey it may be coming with this guy in the WH.

[Curt941]

Originally Posted by karmatp

It protects the watch from failure.

You can't design a watch capable of withstanding those depths then not include a mechanism that will keep the crystal from popping off. That would be a complete design failure.

Yes you can, because the Helium release valve is only needed when in a diving bell or other fully surrounded pressurized cabin.

If you free dove to 10k feet (not going to happen) and the watch was exposed to sea-water the whole time it wouldn't get helium inside it that would then later need to escape.

So technically you could design a watch for 10k feet and not include a helium release valve.

[sierra11b]

The watch you want is the SBDX001. Mono-case with special "L" gaskets that allow gas to bleed-off

Unfortunately, If you strip the threads (crown threads are notoriously small -- one of the arguably potential faults of the watch) you'll have to get a new mono-piece case for $$$ or send it to Seiko Japan so they can add a new crown tube with their special welder for $$.

Bottom line is given the nature, design (it is flush with the case as opposed to other brands with HRVs that protrude from the case), and physics of the HRV, I doubt you will ever run into problems.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by stockae92

speaking of useless feature, i think government needs to limit the hp on all personal vehicles cause honestly, who's going to need +100hp when you can only legally do 65mph lon the freeway

Here in New Mexico the top legal limit is 75 and there is a tolerance above that.

In some states, there are highways that have even higher limits or, I'm told, no limits at all (Nevada).

Anyway, the issue you're concerned about is more complicated than horsepower, but a computer chip can limit top speed on any engine regardless of horsepower, as mine does.

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by Curt941

Yes you can, because the Helium release valve is only needed when in a diving bell or other fully surrounded pressurized cabin.

If you free dove to 10k feet (not going to happen) and the watch was exposed to sea-water the whole time it wouldn't get helium inside it that would then later need to escape.

So technically you could design a watch for 10k feet and not include a helium release valve.

It's not possible to go to the depth required for a HEV to be useful if you're not doing saturation diving. Your logic doesn't work.

[Cabaiguan]

Originally Posted by paracord

Why would Rolex build an ultra-deep divers watch that did not have the features needed to go ultra-deep?

First and foremost it is a serious tool designed to do a serious job.

Wearing these things for fashion is fine and has become in style. But that's not what Rolex intended for the watch.

That's like asking why the Corvette ZR1 has such expensive carbon fiber brakes or 638 HP. Yeah people buy them to go get groceries in. But that's not what it was designed for!

Excellent analogy.

[xxthe_remedyxx]

Originally Posted by Curt941

Yes you can, because the Helium release valve is only needed when in a diving bell or other fully surrounded pressurized cabin.

If you free dove to 10k feet (not going to happen) and the watch was exposed to sea-water the whole time it wouldn't get helium inside it that would then later need to escape.

So technically you could design a watch for 10k feet and not include a helium release valve.

What would be the point if the diver is dead?

[JustABreathAway]

Originally Posted by stockae92

speaking of useless feature, i think government needs to limit the hp on all personal vehicles cause honestly, who's going to need +100hp when you can only legally do 65mph lon the freeway

Them's fightin' words. You're gonna have to take my 500 hp cars from my Cold. Dead. Hands!!!

[liuk3]

Originally Posted by nyjohnchan

I think its for show purposes more than practical use. No diver will go deeper than 300 ft anyway.

FWIW, in my local community, there are lots of recreational divers doing dives to 300ft. However, to the point of the thread, it's true that we don't need helium escape valves on our watches. We also don't need a watch that is capable of going to 12,800 ft, but it's a fun piece of engineering to have.

[azguy]

My Omega has the release valve too

[GradyPhilpott]

Actually no watch really needs more than one hand, but you don't find many one hand watches in the world today.

[subkrawler]

Originally Posted by nyjohnchan

I think its for show purposes more than practical use. No diver will go deeper than 300 ft anyway.

You really don't have a clue do you? Many commercial saturation dives aren't deep, but last for several days. These guys live and decompress in a dry, helium enriched environment, so they would have use for the valve.

Technical divers go to 300 feet and beyond all the time. The duration of their dives are hours, not days, so they decompress in a wet environment, thus no need for the valve.

[nyjohnchan]

no disrespect to all those tech and commercial divers out there. As matter of fact, I respect them greatly. Its very dangerous what they do. Well, what do I know, I only do recreational dives. I have a DSSD that will never see the depth pass 100 ft. :)

[liuk3]

Originally Posted by nyjohnchan

no disrespect to all those tech and commercial divers out there. As matter of fact, I respect them greatly. Its very dangerous what they do. Well, what do I know, I only do recreational dives. I have a DSSD that will never see the depth pass 100 ft. :)

Nah, no worries, man. It's all good. Your point is well taken that the vast majority of us don't need such an overengineered time piece, but we have it because we can.

[SeamasterGMT]

Rolex aren't the only watch manufacturer to include a gas escape valve. Girard-Perregaux, Panerai, Omega, Breitling...

Also, If you're not going down to 4000m, and I assume you're not, then you won't need a 5mm domed crystal or a nitrogen alloyed ringlock system or a titanium case-back.

I think the OP is missing the point. If Rolex had designed this watch ONLY for sat divers, they wouldn't have spent 2 years on R&D - it would have been too expensive to produce the watch to sell to such a small market.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Curt941

I just see it as an extra point of failure.

It can, but then again there is a functional reason for it being there.