WR thingy

[crownpuller]

I did what now

You broke it.

[Henry Krinkle]

I'm not the only one! I'm not the only one!

Attachment 91254
https://www.jswatch.com/water-resistance-guide

I still don't see much rationale behind it but at least I have company.

I've always found WR ratings quite baffling.

For example:
My neighbour is an enthusiastic scuba diver; he tells me he rarely ventures beyond 40m on a dive, and his deepest dive was 52m....
So why do 'they' tell me I need at least a rating of 100m WR just to go swimming ?.... or indeed 200m to go scuba diving ?

My criteria for most of my watches is: Do I need to take it off when I take the kids to the pool ?.... If the answer is yes, I'll change it for one that I can keep on.

If ‘they’ is a watch company, it’s probably due to product liability concerns.

The ISO standard (ISO 22810:2010) is presumably the most definitive -


Attachment 91261

This.
There are two ISO standards for WR with watches. This one relies on a small sampling of the watches to be pressure tested. These are often not tested in water and once again, those tested only cover a small sampling of that model. So, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

The other standard is for dive watches. Every single watch made is tested, in still water to a depth that exceeds the rating by 25%. Not all watches that are dive tested say Dive 200, for example, but if a watch has Dive 200 on the dial that very watch did not flood when tested in water at an equivalent pressure of 250 metres depth. Can't remember what the ISO standard is and can't be bothered to look it up, but there you go.

[Seriously]

The other standard is for dive watches. Every single watch made is tested, in still water to a depth that exceeds the rating by 25%. Not all watches that are dive tested say Dive 200, for example, but if a watch has Dive 200 on the dial that very watch did not flood when tested in water at an equivalent pressure of 250 metres depth. Can't remember what the ISO standard is and can't be bothered to look it up, but there you go.

ISO 6425

[rodia77]

Back on this -- how do we interpret a 'water resistant' on the caseback without any rating given?

[tribe125]

Back on this -- how do we interpret a 'water resistant' on the caseback without any rating given?

I’d say it was pretty meaningless.

[crownpuller]

Back on this -- how do we interpret a 'water resistant' on the caseback without any rating given?

I'd interpret that as 'splashproof'; and I'd be wary of heavy rain.

[is that my watch]

I'd interpret that as 'splashproof'; and I'd be wary of heavy rain.

so hmt like

[rodia77]

OK, in this particular case I just didn't have a good look at the caseback (great idea to put the rating apart from the 'water resistant' text), and it's, hello Longines, 3bar:

[WWII70]

Let's fix it once and for all

Attachment 91257

Rated and laboratory tested @15,000m and actually used in real life @ 10,928m.

and then there’s the Rolex DeepSea Challenge at 51mm in diameter, and 28.5mm thick. My friend has one of the three that were made and I tried it on at the end of January.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/li...camerons-rolex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iyonk]

I'm fine with 30-50m WR, and prefer 100m and above for sports watch..

like i always said... my most complain with Water Resistant is -- its me that is lack of water resistance..